MVC is blocking single night reservations... What Restrictions have you found?

[Bill4728]

I've heard that NCV requires 7 days at times. Several of the HHI also do the same. All of those added VIP benefits for Chairman's Club on down are tenuous at best and could be changed or eliminated at any point. Canyon Villas restricts lock offs at times and I suspect other do as well.

I made a 1 night reservation at NCV just last week for mid Jan 2024. So NO, NCV does not require a 7 night stay.

 

[dioxide45]

I made a 1 night reservation at NCV just last week for mid Jan 2024. So NO, NCV does not require a 7 night stay.

But mid January isn't peak time at Newport Coast. The restriction isn't across the board. It is only for select dates at a resort.

 

[DanCali]

I made a 1 night reservation at NCV just last week for mid Jan 2024. So NO, NCV does not require a 7 night stay.

As @dioxide45 said, this is for specific weeks - holidays, and other peak times.

It's not a problem to make a 3-night reservation at NCV next November, except during Thanksgiving week which is likely genuinely (mostly) all booked up. But checking in on Nov 28 (Thanksgiving day) magically opens up if you have 2900 points to book 7 nights. However, if you have just 900 points and want to book 3 nights, checking out Sunday Oct 1, you're blocked.

I had a similar issue trying to get Crystal Shores for next Thanksgiving with points at 13 months out - with about 3500 available points I was short a few hundred points for 7 nights GF view and had just enough for 7 nights GS view. I would have preferred 6 nights in GF, but all 6-night (or less) reservations were blocked for that week. You're faced with the choice of electing another week to borrow points, or book 7 nights in a room that's not your first choice even though you have enough points to book 5-6 nights in your first choice room (which is available, but blocked for a 6-night stay).

Some owners have paid tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade "status" so they can book 1+ nights at 13 months out. The disclosure of "we can block whatever we want, whenever we want" downplays how much of this is going on. IN some ways, this is basically a backdoor to turn a flexible points system back into a weeks system.

 

[ljmiii]

Full transparency would certainly be very welcome.

While I understand the desire there is no way I would trust whatever mechanism MVC chose to show the current list of restrictions of dates and/or lengths of stays over simply trying to book what I want. The booking engine has always been a little wonky around the edges and I've made reservations that theoretically weren't allowed on the time and/or date I made them.

And if that mechanism was anything like the Hub, half of it would be correct, a quarter so nebulous to be worthless, and a quarter simply wrong. Why would you trust a blanket statement that X resort doesn't allow 1 night weekend stays in July more than the actual booking engine that can give you the reservation?

 

[bizaro86]

While I understand the desire there is no way I would trust whatever mechanism MVC chose to show the current list of restrictions of dates and/or lengths of stays over simply trying to book what I want. The booking engine has always been a little wonky around the edges and I've made reservations that theoretically weren't allowed on the time and/or date I made them.

And if that mechanism was anything like the Hub, half of it would be correct, a quarter so nebulous to be worthless, and a quarter simply wrong. Why would you trust a blanket statement that X resort doesn't allow 1 night weekend stays in July more than the actual booking engine that can give you the reservation?

The reason to have that is twofold:

1) it's telling the truth. Right now they're lying by omission.

2) it shows owners their options. After you've paid $50k to get 1 night stay, and you try and book a 1 night stay and the reservation system shows you no availability, the vast majority of people will assume there's no availability. They might be willing to book the longer stay if they knew that was required.

Of course - they'd likely complain to sales about it at their next update, which is why there's no list.

 

[kiko412]

Sometimes it's not the number of nights per se, but it's which nights too. At NCV I noticed that sometimes they will block a reservation if it just includes "cheap nights". You may not be able to book Sunday to Friday (even if the dates are available for a 7-night search), but you may be able to book Tuesday to Sunday or Friday to Wednesday.

 

[kiko412]

Yes sir, I noticed that also on booking for some Hawaii resorts...particularly Ko'Olina.

 

[Dean]

Even if not perfect, anything would be better than where we are right now. At least if there are notifications and one is trying to make a reservation but getting no availability, there would be clues as to the situation. I'm sure it would not be completely and consistently up to date.

 

[Hindsite]

Surely if they can code the limitation into the reservation system, then can also code a note relating to it? I get that putting info on the Hub would be unreliable.

 

[normab]

That's because you had the points to book the 7 nights to begin with. But what if you only had points remaining to book 4,5 or 6 nights (and you wanted just 4 nights to begin with)? Would you have a problem with it then?

That was my point. Yes. I noticed several years ago that when I’m looking at Frenchman’s Cove they require seven nights minimum. But I don’t look in low season either.

 

[Steve Fatula]

That was my point. Yes. I noticed several years ago that when I’m looking at Frenchman’s Cove they require seven nights minimum. But I don’t look in low season either.

I reserved 2 years ago < 7 nights there. Don't recall which season.

 

[Dean]

As an absolute minimum, they could put a disclaimer in the booking module for applicable resorts, or as a minimum on all resorts, that there are sometimes minimum stay requirements. At least that would alert members to the possibility. IMO it's not enough but it'd be better than where we are now in this regard. I do agree that if they can code it into the reservation system, they can code it in for notification.

 

[ljmiii]

As an absolute minimum, they could put a disclaimer in the booking module for applicable resorts, or as a minimum on all resorts, that there are sometimes minimum stay requirements. At least that would alert members to the possibility. IMO it's not enough but it'd be better than where we are now in this regard. I do agree that if they can code it into the reservation system, they can code it in for notification.

Certainly next to the 10 other explanatory notes at the bottom of the "Benefits at a Glance" MVC owner sheet they should add one for "Reservation Windows" that says "Minimum stay requirements at some resorts may apply" (or some such). And MVC should add a similar statement somewhere on the bottom of the 'Greeting page' next to all the legalese you get when you login. Like California's Prop 65 Cancer warnings, everyone will ignore it but at least it would be there so people can't say, "But you never told me."

Also, right now MVC implements the minimum stay requirement in two different ways. When you try to book the RCC St. Thomas all available dates appear on the calendar and it is only after you select a stay does the minimum stay requirement message appear. All the others (to my knowledge) black out the dates applicable to the number of nights you've chosen and you have to choose different numbers of nights to see what the minimum stay requirement actually is. I would love for MVC to apply the RCC St Thomas minimum stay mechanism to all resorts with a minimum stay requirement.

 

[ljmiii]

And to add to this thread's informational aspect, I note that Fairway VIllas is currently imposing a 3 night stay minimum for any reservation in October 2024 that contains a Saturday night. Dates closer in (e.g. December 2023) do not have this requirement.

 

[vacation dreaming]

What happens if you make a reservation for more nights, then call owner services to reduce the number to below the “minimum” - does owner services ever refuse? I realize this only works if you have more than enough points, but I would like to know what they are telling people.

 

[kiko412]

This was my scenario about a year ago. Had a reservation for 7 nights but ended up needing 6 due to my spouse's work schedule change. Check-in date was more than 61 days out. Spoke with with agent thru online chat describing what I needed. They obliged and edited the reservation and the 1 night's points went back to my account. End chat. Checked my account a few hours later, the 1 night's points that went back into my account but was placed into a 60 day holding account. Immediately called MVC and inquired what my situation was. Agent explained that changing (shortening, in my situation) a reservation after a certain "cut-off" date will cause points to go into holding. I wasn't happy with that answer due to the fact it was more than 61 days to check-in to begin with. Agent had to escalate to upper management because I wasn't satisfied with their answer (and after a lot of back and forth). End result, management ended up removing the hold and gave me one year to use those affected points. Fortunately, I had another trip that I could re-allocate those points into so I was satisfied-without telling them I was. In short, in my haste to edit my reservation, I took for granted what I thought I was expecting without verifying the true details (my mistake). It was only by checking my account later that I discovered what had actually happened. From that point on, if I have to edit another reservation (which I don't normally do), I would cancel first and then re-book the same (assuming there is inventory). Otherwise, I would have to speak to a live agent, ask what would happen to the points if I continued and then verify details afterward with them on the line. That was my scenario.

 

[ljmiii]

What happens if you make a reservation for more nights, then call owner services to reduce the number to below the “minimum” - does owner services ever refuse?

Yes. And sometimes (as @kiko412 wrote), sometimes they are willing to do so but only if the returned points are put in holding. And sometimes they just do it.

 

[kiko412]

Yes. And sometimes (as @kiko412 wrote), sometimes they are willing to do so but only if the returned points are put in holding. And sometimes they just do it.

Seems like I'm guessing it depends on which agent/management person you are interacting with (having a good day or not)

 

[Red elephant]

Certainly next to the 10 other explanatory notes at the bottom of the "Benefits at a Glance" MVC owner sheet they should add one for "Reservation Windows" that says "Minimum stay requirements at some resorts may apply" (or some such). And MVC should add a similar statement somewhere on the bottom of the 'Greeting page' next to all the legalese you get when you login. Like California's Prop 65 Cancer warnings, everyone will ignore it but at least it would be there so people can't say, "But you never told me."

Also, right now MVC implements the minimum stay requirement in two different ways. When you try to book the RCC St. Thomas all available dates appear on the calendar and it is only after you select a stay does the minimum stay requirement message appear. All the others (to my knowledge) black out the dates applicable to the number of nights you've chosen and you have to choose different numbers of nights to see what the minimum stay requirement actually is. I would love for MVC to apply the RCC St Thomas minimum stay mechanism to all resorts with a minimum stay requirement.

Would’nt this contradict what they are selling at certain owner levels? Who would buy if you have minimum stays? The selling point is you can book 1 night at 13 months. They are selling flexibility with the point system.

 

[dioxide45]

This was my scenario about a year ago. Had a reservation for 7 nights but ended up needing 6 due to my spouse's work schedule change. Check-in date was more than 61 days out. Spoke with with agent thru online chat describing what I needed. They obliged and edited the reservation and the 1 night's points went back to my account. End chat. Checked my account a few hours later, the 1 night's points that went back into my account but was placed into a 60 day holding account. Immediately called MVC and inquired what my situation was. Agent explained that changing (shortening, in my situation) a reservation after a certain "cut-off" date will cause points to go into holding. I wasn't happy with that answer due to the fact it was more than 61 days to check-in to begin with. Agent had to escalate to upper management because I wasn't satisfied with their answer (and after a lot of back and forth). End result, management ended up removing the hold and gave me one year to use those affected points. Fortunately, I had another trip that I could re-allocate those points into so I was satisfied-without telling them I was. In short, in my haste to edit my reservation, I took for granted what I thought I was expecting without verifying the true details (my mistake). It was only by checking my account later that I discovered what had actually happened. From that point on, if I have to edit another reservation (which I don't normally do), I would cancel first and then re-book the same (assuming there is inventory). Otherwise, I would have to speak to a live agent, ask what would happen to the points if I continued and then verify details afterward with them on the line. That was my scenario.

Are you Executive level or higher?

 

[kiko412]

Are you Executive level or higher?

I was not when I booked the original reservation. I became Executive a few weeks before I wanted to edit the reservation. So I'm sure that played into the scenario. They probably looked at my level when I first booked. Only when I mentioned to the "management" individual that I was now Executive did they agree to take the points affected out of holding.

 

[dioxide45]

I was not when I booked the original reservation. I became Executive a few weeks before I wanted to edit the reservation. So I'm sure that played into the scenario. They probably looked at my level when I first booked. Only when I mentioned to the "management" individual that I was now Executive did they agree to take the points affected out of holding.

I suspect that was it. Per the exchange company rules, if you weren't eligible at the time of making the reservation, then points will be returned to a Holding Account.

 

[ljmiii]

Wouldn't this contradict what they are selling at certain owner levels? Who would buy if you have minimum stays? The selling point is you can book 1 night at 13 months. They are selling flexibility with the point system.

In this sense it's just like buying a condo or co-op. The developer and/or real estate agents are free to make general claims about the units and building they are selling, but you (or more accurately and ideally) a lawyer need to read the actual underlying documents to find out the nitty gritty of what you are buying.

And I was happy to buy additional points even though I knew that some resorts implemented minimum stay requirements at some times of the year (though it must be admitted that these purchases were either to enroll weeks I had purchased after 2010 or as part of a 'good' hybrid package). Then again, I have no problem with resorts implementing minimum stay requirements to reduce breakage and maximize utilization. Obviously, others feel differently.

 

[Dean]

What happens if you make a reservation for more nights, then call owner services to reduce the number to below the “minimum” - does owner services ever refuse? I realize this only works if you have more than enough points, but I would like to know what they are telling people.

When I was discussing the issue of minimum LOS with corporate, this came up. I was told it would be case by case. That said, I can also see significant variability in enforcement. I had a 2 night stay at Beachplace reserved due to the minimum requirements but only needed one. I was allowed to have one night dropped.

 

[DRH90277]

Excepting reservation extension nights, can we agree that resorts should not allow 1 night stays? Should resorts incur the refurbishment costs associated with 1 night stays?