Starwood Preferred Guest - "The property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate"

No, in this instance, the property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate. If the hotel is acting within their prescribed innkeeper law, then that policy overrides all others.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

The title says everything. This statement from our very much beloved Lurker stroke me. For those who did not read the Mauritian thread, the story is easy to tell in a nutshell: A Starwood hotel did no honor a reservation for very private reasons of the owner and the guest was to my impression left standing outside in the pouring rain....

I have no problem to deal with "local innskeeper laws" for all the issues that may become relevant during a stay in a different jurisdiction. If it comes to thefts, to problems with restaurants and other "minor" issues. These are all issues that can be solved.

Howver, I use the Starwood reservation platform to make sure that my reservation is honored the way it was made and I am not willing to deal with "local innskeeper laws" if it comes to the main obilgations and entitlements under my reservation. When booking with Starwood I have (have had in the past) the trust that I have a contract and this contract will be honored according to the language of the contract: Room, Rate, Availability.

If Starwood cannot/is not willing to guarantee this any longer, I will have to consider booking via a tour operator: They are bound by (in my case) German law and my complete stay would be under German law without any possibility to sneak out with a "local innskeeper laws" argument.

Using local innskeeper laws to not keep your promise is only a way to cover up your lie.

A quick question: If I book on spg.com, is my reservation contract with Starwood or with the actual hotel?

And if it is not with Starwood, then exactly how far does Starwood's responsibility go in ensuring a basic-level satisfactory stay as per what was booked.

The title says everything. This statement from our very much beloved Lurker stroke me. For those who did not read the Mauritian thread, the story is easy to tell in a nutshell: A Starwood hotel did no honor a reservation for very private reasons of the owner and the guest was to my impression left standing outside in the pouring rain....

I have no problem to deal with "local innskeeper laws" for all the issues that may become relevant during a stay in a different jurisdiction. If it comes to thefts, to problems with restaurants and other "minor" issues. These are all issues that can be solved.

Howver, I use the Starwood reservation platform to make sure that my reservation is honored the way it was made and I am not willing to deal with "local innskeeper laws" if it comes to the main obilgations and entitlements under my reservation. When booking with Starwood I have (have had in the past) the trust that I have a contract and this contract will be honored according to the language of the contract: Room, Rate, Availability.

If Starwood cannot/is not willing to guarantee this any longer, I will have to consider booking via a tour operator: They are bound by (in my case) German law and my complete stay would be under German law without any possibility to sneak out with a "local innskeeper laws" argument.

This is the mistake I made as well. Instead of booking on spg.com, if I had booked it through my UK Travel agent, I would have been protected by UK law and could have sued the TA on small claims court for the difference paid for a comparable property (which I am told is defined in rather wider latitude than just star rating) plus expenses and cost in case the reservation was not honoured.

To be on absolute safe side,my new MRU reservation is being handled by Amex UK rather than the MRU starwood reservations for two reasons:

1. Amex has got me 20% cheaper than the best rate the Starwood guys could get for the alternatives offered/ available
2. I don't trust MRU starwood any more-in case something happens with the new reservations at least I have some recourse if I book with Amex.

A quick question: If I book on spg.com, is my reservation contract with Starwood or with the actual hotel?

And if it is not with Starwood, then exactly how far does Starwood's responsibility go in ensuring a basic-level satisfactory stay as per what was booked.

Taken from their fineprint (and shortened to make it readable):

"In order to offer the services ...and fulfill reservations ... Starwood may use third party suppliers. You ... agree that, the ... hotels ... may be independent contractors, and not agents or employees of Starwood....

YOU AGREE THAT STARWOOD IS NOT LIABLE FOR ... SUCH THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS ... STARWOOD HAS NO LIABILITY AND WILL NOT MAKE REFUNDS FOR ANY DELAY, CANCELLATION, OVERBOOKING OR OTHER CAUSES BEYOND STARWOOD'S DIRECT CONTROL, AND STARWOOD HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENSES RESULTING THEREFROM."

Any further questions? The property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate. Fortunately this is not what is our daily experience with the Lurkers appears to be. However, from a legal point of view the reject all responsibility.

Taken from their fineprint

When I make a booking on the Starwood site, I do not expect problems, hence, I do not read the fineprint expecting future problems. I just have reasonable expectations......doesn't everyone else, or, am I just being naive?

I am a little shocked seeing these abridged terms which seem to state that we have no rights whatsoever! Is this true for most of the common websites that the majority of people use for booking hotels, travel, etc.?

Any further questions? The property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate. Fortunately this is not what is our daily experience with the Lurkers appears to be. However, from a legal point of view the reject all responsibility.

I think we've all expected and experienced no problems with reservations made on SPG.com and with SPG reservations agents until we saw the Mauritian fiasco unfold. Now it appears that the legal disclaimers disavow any responsibility for whatever happens, natural or manmade. Does anyone knows what are the innskeeper laws in Mauritius and do they cover this situation?

What is apparent from this incident is that the hotel can unilaterally cancel all reservations without recourse. That is what has all of us wondering just what can we expect when we make our reservations with Starwood hotels. Of course there is the distinction between SPG frequent guest program and Starwood, but what we want to know is if we make a reservation at a Starwood hotel, what can we expect? I know I cannot cancel a pre-paid reservation without forfeiting my money. But a hotel can cancel my reservation without any penalty to the hotel.

In my case, I make plans for my big vacation trips almost 1 year in advance (especially if I want to get business class award seats to Asia and Europe). I then research the hotels and make hotel reservations months in advance. The last thing I need is to be told that the hotel canceled my reservations and I'm SOL. This may not be a Starwood only problem, but a Starwood franchisee happens to be the one causing all the problems right now.

Of course there is the distinction between SPG frequent guest program and Starwood, but what we want to know is if we make a reservation at a Starwood hotel, what can we expect?
Bingo! We are not talking about "benefits" like upgrades / late checkout etc in terms of what to expect. I've often read here that bed type and smoking preferences are guaranteed on paid reservations. Forget that, it now seems that even the room itself as booked is not guaranteed!! With no recourse. :(

I am a little shocked seeing these abridged terms which seem to state that we have no rights whatsoever! Is this true for most of the common websites that the majority of people use for booking hotels, travel, etc.?

It is. Starwood is 'no worse than anybody else' is their quest for excellence.

Of course a denied room is the responsibility of the hotel, whether on site at 2AM or weeks in advance. Yes, I expect Starwood/Marriott/Hilton to have standards (and higher than Choice or Wyndham, by the way), and influence, but there are limits to compensation that can be demanded, and at some point the hotel will prefer remedies in the law.

It is. Starwood is 'no worse than anybody else' is their quest for excellence.

Of course a denied room is the responsibility of the hotel, whether on site at 2AM or weeks in advance. Yes, I expect Starwood/Marriott/Hilton to have standards (and higher than Choice or Wyndham, by the way), and influence, but there are limits to compensation that can be demanded, and at some point the hotel will prefer remedies in the law.

Well, if it is a TA's website (eg expedia.de) and they sell it as part of a tour package (eg hotel and car or similar) you are protected at least in the EU countries (I don't know about the US). However, the big chains obivously legally act as agents for the individual hotels and so do the website when selling rooms only. I always expected this from the "independent" websites, however, I have been a bit stroken by surprise to find language like this in Starwood's fineprint.

Howver, I use the Starwood reservation platform to make sure that my reservation is honored the way it was made and I am not willing to deal with "local innskeeper laws" if it comes to the main obilgations and entitlements under my reservation. When booking with Starwood I have (have had in the past) the trust that I have a contract and this contract will be honored according to the language of the contract: Room, Rate, Availability.



Flying Lawyer is to be congratulated for raising this issue which is of critical importance for those who lock into non-refundable travel arrangements.

Starwood has never canceled one of my reservations, and I have nothing but praise for the way in which Starwood handled the Tahiti, Moorea, and Bora Bora reservations when Hilton assumed management responsibilities for those properties.

I have however been dumped by Hilton on three occasions. One last year at Hilton Tobago and two the previous year for properties in Italy. Hilton never even told me of the change in management.

It might be worth while to document any other cases when reservations have been canceled by Starwood and maybe we can make a convincing case to Starwood that they should introduce a policy.

Any thought??

Flying Lawyer is to be congratulated for raising this issue which is of critical importance for those who lock into non-refundable travel arrangements.

Starwood has never canceled one of my reservations, and I have nothing but praise for the way in which Starwood handled the Tahiti, Moorea, and Bora Bora reservations when Hilton assumed management responsibilities for those properties.

I have however been dumped by Hilton on three occasions. One last year at Hilton Tobago and two the previous year for properties in Italy. Hilton never even told me of the change in management.

It might be worth while to document any other cases when reservations have been canceled by Starwood and maybe we can make a convincing case to Starwood that they should introduce a policy.

Any thought??

I would have thought that this whole incident is turning into a PR disaster for Starwood. Frankly given the amount of time which has passed since the original issue was raised in respect of the MRU properties it really seems to me that if Starwood were prepared to stand by their reservation process the OP's issue would have been satisfactorily resolved by now (we are I think over 2 weeks into the issue). The fact that Starwood have not resolved this issue or given a clear statement on their position speaks volumes. This issue doesn't only affect how I now view the MRU properties (where I have previous experience :p) it is beginning to strongly affect my view of Starwood.

This certainly makes me think that using SPG to make reservations for critical stays is really not to be relied upon adn that it is better to make such reservations via third party agents even if this does mean giving up some SPG points and benefits.

There is nothing more fundamental for a hotel chain to get right than to ensure that reservations are honoured. When unexpected events happen then the test of a good property (and chain) is how these issues are handled. For a well planned event to result in guests being denied their reservations is frankly unacceptable. From the Starwood T&C's it seems we are now expected to be well versed in the local hospitality laws of each country we visit since we may need to rely upon them for satisfaction should things go wrong. Isn't avoiding just this situation the reason why many of us book a chain property in the first place, foregoing perhaps more intimate and genuinely local properties in favour of reliability?

It sounds like the EU laws should be adjusted to expand to include hotels booked via Starwood reservation facilities.

It might be worth while to document any other cases when reservations have been canceled by Starwood and maybe we can make a convincing case to Starwood that they should introduce a policy.

Any thought??

Do you want to include or exclude reservations like those where the Starwood rates marketed and booked provided extraordinary value at the likes of the LeMeridien Khao Lak in Thailand and the Lanesborough in London?

I sympathize with the Lurkers, but Starwood management really shoots themselves in the foot with these sorts of things. It baffles me why they don't act more appropriately - the human time in dealing with calls as well as the negative perception surely account for more than the incremental cost of moving the guest to another hotel and eating the cost. This and the "Honey Money" episode show some serious lack of concern at the top in Starwood's management team.

The fact that Starwood have not resolved this issue or given a clear statement on their position speaks volumes.

Starwood has given clear statements:it's just that some people won't accept these statements and change their booking behavior (or expectations) accordingly.

The party with the broken confirmations has detailed (in extremis) his dialog with the property and customer service. Starwood management has let Customer Service do the talking (as is appropriate for customer service issues). Lurker has offered a statement (cited when FlyingLaywer started this tangential tread) outlining clearly limited scope for further corporate involvement. Starwood likely has enough compliance experts to know what they can and can't do on bookings made through Starwood-operated booking channels.

It's nice if the EU provides customer protection for 3rd party bookings. Apparently U.S. and Mauritian law do not.

INMO, the Lurkers referral to 'local innskeeper laws' is a convenient way for the business to get out inconvenient contractual obligations, but the attitude the comment displays does nothing for Starwood or its brands.

INMO, the Lurkers referral to 'local innskeeper laws' is a convenient way for the business to get out inconvenient contractual obligations, but the attitude the comment displays does nothing for Starwood or its brands.

Please do not think this is a comment looking at opening an argument with you - it really is not, as I do agree with the sentiment of your statement, however, what do we want from the Lurkers? Starwood, very graciously, allow them to patrol and contribute on these boards. They cannot be expected to comment on policy or give their own personal feelings on an issue - that's not what they are their for. They are their to help and answer questions as best they can on behalf of Starwood.

They were asked a question, and they answered it. Sure, some of us didn't like the answer, but that is not their fault. They stated a fact - that's not their fault, and in my opinion, criticism is not deserved.

I would have thought that this whole incident is turning into a PR disaster for Starwood.

I'm just wondering about this. Sure, it is a disaster as far as FT members, lurkers, long time lurkers and googlers looking for reviews go, but what about for anyone else? Are the majority of SPG elites on these boards looking up reviews? (......and just an aside thought, how many Plats are there in the SPG programme?) In my experience, most people do not go much further than Tripadvisor, which, again in my opinion, is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

At the Sheraton Grande Laguna Phuket, at New Years in 2007, the hotel was full. I was given a great upgrade and was told that there were only a handful of Plats staying.....so would many of the guests have trawled through the boards here?

I will not be staying at either of the Mauritius hotels mentioned due to LonLH's experience. I'm sure many of us here will avoid them, but will that have any effect on their business and revenue? I am keen to know what other members think.

It's nice if the EU provides customer protection for 3rd party bookings. Apparently U.S. and Mauritian law do not.

And what makes you think the hotel isn't breaking any Mauritian law? 5 minutes of google tells me this:

- Mauritian law is based on French Civil Laws with elements of English common laws

- Mauritius, for the longest time, was a French colony, then taken over by the UK in the 1830's, only got its independence in the late 1960's

- Most of the government, business and laws have been administered & following French or English model ever since the 19th century

- The official language of the country's government and education is English

Without making oneself a legal expert on Mauritian laws, given this brief historical background, it tells you the laws over there is largely based on French and English model and has been for a very long time. The UK did not renounce formal control of the islands until the late 1960's, which most likely means contract and commerical laws have been deteremined way before Mauritius is even a country.

Another option the OP can think of is filing a complaint with local consumer protection board or something like that. Let them determine whether any local laws have been broken or not since a lawsuit would seem too complicate or too costly for such a small case. Frankly, I seriously doubt the hotel is actually complying with local laws. Sometimes, companies would intentionally break laws knowing that the recovery process for those affected is either too cumbersome or too expensive that the company knows they can get away with.

Taken from their fineprint (and shortened to make it readable):



Any further questions? The property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate. Fortunately this is not what is our daily experience with the Lurkers appears to be. However, from a legal point of view the reject all responsibility.

When I make a booking on the Starwood site, I do not expect problems, hence, I do not read the fineprint expecting future problems. I just have reasonable expectations......doesn't everyone else, or, am I just being naive?
Apparently, you are. I have dropped Starwood as my primary hotel provider and gone back to Marriott specifically because of a similar response from Starwood Lurker that blamed me for not memorizing the Starwood TCs and failing to read a disclaimer that wasn't displayed on the Starwood website when I booked the reservation.

This is a real concern for me too. I am a leisure traveller and book months in advance and do tons of research on the best deals and I usually buy non-refundable discounted airline tickets. I couldn't afford to come up with an extra 1120 Euros on the spur of the moment because some innkeeper decided to have a wedding in his hotel.

When I book a name brand like Starwood, Hilton, even Intercontinental/Holiday Inn, I am expecting a higher standard of service than if I booked "Joe's Beach Bungalows".

In my case, I make plans for my big vacation trips almost 1 year in advance (especially if I want to get business class award seats to Asia and Europe). I then research the hotels and make hotel reservations months in advance. The last thing I need is to be told that the hotel canceled my reservations and I'm SOL. This may not be a Starwood only problem, but a Starwood franchisee happens to be the one causing all the problems right now. One of my gripes with SPG is the Franchisees have a lot more leeway with SPG then hilton or Marriott. Overall SPG hotels are nicer but the consistency is not the same..

Thank Flying Lawyer for reminding us of what is stated in the stupid fineprint.

However, I am just wondering if I make a reservation via Starwood channel by telephone rather than via Starwood website, shall I still be binded by the unreasonable terms in the fineprint?

Assume that it's my very first time to make a reservation with Starwood with no SPG account. When I call Starwood reservation Hotline, I just tell them my name, the name of the property, and the period of my preferred stay. "Guarantee" my reservation with credit card, and "complete" the reservation. How could Starwood presume that I have already read the fineprint? Shall Starwood require their staff on the phone to read ALOUDDDDD all the terms of the fineprint and then ask me whether I agree or not, so as to bind me with the terms stated in the fineprint? And of course, in this way, all the conversation should be recorded by Starwood as evidence. Otherwise, I don't understand why I should be presumably binded by the stupid terms.

Does Starwood have rights to presume everyone has the ability to work with internet and has already logged on their website and read the T&C?

Dear Flying Lawyer, what's your opinion on this if anyone makes the reservation via telephone and the Starwood agent on the phone does not mention the terms at all during the process of the reservation?

Dear Flying Lawyer, what's your opinion on this if anyone makes the reservation via telephone and the Starwood agent on the phone does not mention the terms at all during the process of the reservation?

Well, I refrain from giving US law advice, I don't want to be stoned by the experts. However, there are two issues: (a) How will you make evidence of what was said and not said during the call and (b) a court might rule that you are referred to the fineprint in the confirmation and this is sufficient because you are not bound by the T&C as long as you have a cancellable reservations.

The interesting issue is a non refundable reservation. To my experience the agents tell you "this is not refundable, you cannot change the dates and if you not turn up you will get not refund". However, I never experienced somebody telling:

- we are free to do whatever we want
- Starwood will not really care if worse comes to worse
- your relation with the hotel will be governed by Mauritian law.

However, I am not sure about the legal consequences. My common sense advice would be if you need full protection:

- Book your room with a tour operator (a real one not expedia or so)
- You enjoy in general by far better protection
- You are generally under the laws of the country the TO resides in.
- The TO is legally forced to do something and cannot refer to Mauritian law (unless based in Mauritius)

Apparently, you are. I have dropped Starwood as my primary hotel provider and gone back to Marriott specifically because of a similar response from Starwood Lurker that blamed me for not memorizing the Starwood TCs and failing to read a disclaimer that wasn't displayed on the Starwood website when I booked the reservation.

I do not think that in any situation we have the right to blame our members for not reading the T&Cs.

Our job is more likely to point them to the areas in which T&Cs of particular promotions or programs are applicable.

Secondly, I do not even remember every single detail of the T&Cs for each program or promotion. I doubt I would expect my members to memorize them.

If a member missed out on reading the T&Cs and/or disclaimer displayed clearly on our websites, I do not see any point in pushing the blame between the parties involved either though honestly, if it is another program that is being involved, I would not be able to picture the consequences.

In this situation, I do see the need for you to raise out your concerns to William or myself if you feel that the answers we have provided are not satisfactory.

Personally, I don't issue any queue numbers and I try to attend to your enquiries almost immediately and if there is something I do not know how to help, I ask for more help.

I am not writing this with the main aim of patronizing you back. More likely to prevent any similar miscommunication from happening again.

apguest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

Thyetus Lee | Online Forum Coordinator(AP)
Starwood Customer Contact Centre (AP) Pte Ltd

Shantanu, I don't mean any slight against either Lurker by my post. I recognise that they are representatives of their organisation and what they are able to publicly say is controlled by their employer: Just as what I am able to say to customers of my company is managed by my employer.

My point is that, the comment which Lurker 1 may or may not agree is with, is one that will not enhance the reputation of Starwood, or its brands.

Lurker 2's recent comment, on the other hand, would be viewed more positively by customers, imo.

Shantanu, I don't mean any slight against either Lurker by my post. I recognise that they are representatives of their organisation and what they are able to publicly say is controlled by their employer: Just as what I am able to say to customers of my company is managed by my employer.

Maybe not as much as you may think. ;)

My point is that, the comment which Lurker 1 may or may not agree is with, is one that will not enhance the reputation of Starwood, or its brands.

Lurker 2's recent comment, on the other hand, would be viewed more positively by customers, imo.

Thanks for your constructive criticism. I guess if I had ever dreamed that a single sentence taken out the context of a larger discussion on another thread was going to be made the focus of another discussion here at Flyertalk, I would have added this to it:

At a minimum, the property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate.

That sentence was not written to support the decision of the hotel to handle the larger issue the way they did. It was merely to point out that the hotel does have a minimum responsibility. I think that by now it is apparent that Consumer Affairs is on the case and I am willing to accept that they will attempt to mitigate whatever responsibility the hotel has abandoned above the minimum. Whether that meets with the satisfaction of the offended party or those who may have been a third-party offendee here at Flyertalk, I guess only time will tell.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

I do not think that in any situation we have the right to blame our members for not reading the T&Cs.

Our job is more likely to point them to the areas in which T&Cs of particular promotions or programs are applicable.

Secondly, I do not even remember every single detail of the T&Cs for each program or promotion. I doubt I would expect my members to memorize them.

If a member missed out on reading the T&Cs and/or disclaimer displayed clearly on our websites, I do not see any point in pushing the blame between the parties involved either though honestly, if it is another program that is being involved, I would not be able to picture the consequences.

In this situation, I do see the need for you to raise out your concerns to William or myself if you feel that the answers we have provided are not satisfactory.

Personally, I don't issue any queue numbers and I try to attend to your enquiries almost immediately and if there is something I do not know how to help, I ask for more help.

I am not writing this with the main aim of patronizing you back. More likely to prevent any similar miscommunication from happening again.

apguest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

Thyetus Lee | Online Forum Coordinator(AP)
Starwood Customer Contact Centre (AP) Pte Ltd
I've sent you a PM.

At a minimum, the property abides by whatever their local innskeeper laws say are appropriate.

I think the minimum should be proper treatment of Starwood guests, not minimal compliance with local laws. I do not understand why SPG/Starwood have a walk policy for SPG members but they don't have a policy that applies to advanced cancellations.

I think the minimum should be proper treatment of Starwood guests, not minimal compliance with local laws. I do not understand why SPG/Starwood have a walk policy for SPG members but they don't have a policy that applies to advanced cancellations.

I sometimes use a good TA through a corporate membership who will give 10% cash back for hotel booked through them, among other things such as airline tickets, car rentals and cruises. SPG earnings policy allows TA who book certain rates as eligible for starpoints, stay credit and benefits. If the stay is quick and simple (aka. a city hotel and for a day or two, it's still good to book through SPG.com if you can get the 500 points online booking bonus. If I am going to spend the amount of money like LonLH did on an expensive resort stay for several days or a week, I will now likely go through the TA instead - just make sure the rate is SPG eligible. This would be a sensible move in light of what we learned about the ease of seeing a guaranteed reservation suddenly "cancelled" with little recourse.

I think the minimum should be proper treatment of Starwood guests, not minimal compliance with local laws. I do not understand why SPG/Starwood have a walk policy for SPG members but they don't have a policy that applies to advanced cancellations.

Well, here is an idea that may not have occurred to some...how many times do you think something like this has happened in the past requiring that a rigid policy has to be developed where a more flexible one-off solution might be more appropriate? I can still count on one hand how many times this has happened where I have personal knowledge of the situation and I can assure you that each one was different, which makes it a little difficult to formulate a set policy for.

The turnaway policy that SPG developed has a very rigid set of circumstances that it addresses in attempt to prevent walk situations for its elite members. The situation we are now discussing is fairly unique, I think you would agree.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

The turnaway policy that SPG developed has a very rigid set of circumstances that it addresses in attempt to prevent walk situations for its elite members. The situation we are now discussing is fairly unique, I think you would agree.

I'm glad it's unique, but I don't see why SPG/Starwood don't consider this a turnaway.

Well, here is an idea that may not have occurred to some...how many times do you think something like this has happened in the past requiring that a rigid policy has to be developed where a more flexible one-off solution might be more appropriate? I can still count on one hand how many times this has happened where I have personal knowledge of the situation and I can assure you that each one was different, which makes it a little difficult to formulate a set policy for.

The turnaway policy that SPG developed has a very rigid set of circumstances that it addresses in attempt to prevent walk situations for its elite members. The situation we are now discussing is fairly unique, I think you would agree.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

Sorry William, I wasn't aware of the SPG.com fine print until pointed out by Flying Lawyer (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11421957-post5.html)

This kind of "fineprint" is most disturbing. Personally, I have never been walked or have a reservation cancelled weeks in advance by Starwood. That said, never say never. It is only prudent for guests to operate under the guidelines of your stated "fineprint" that you asked all your guests to read. Like I said, I will continue to book on SPG.com for short & sweet city hotels that last a day or two, maybe three. Plus, you can usually earn the 500 points online booking bonus, which is nice. I mean, if a reservation is cancelled for whatever reasons in say San Francisco or NYC, there is no shortage of alternatives. But precisely, it is a situation like LonLH where his confirmed reservation was cancelled in the middle of nowhere and he ended up paying like $1,800 more for the stay that is worrisome.

For example, I am contemplating about booking at week long vacation at W Maldives for example where even the lowest room type can easily run to $1,000 / night and that is still exclusive of taxes and service charges... Now, if you are going to spend $10,000 on a vacation and the same fiasco replayed - 4 weeks out, SPG.com booking got "cancelled" for, say the owner wants to host a wedding - where do you suppose I am going to find alternative hotels in 4 weeks when pretty much all the resorts are self-contained tiny islands, without costing a leg or arm? But if I were to book through a TA and ensured that the rate is negotiated with the hotel (I get all the discounts I need) and SPG eligible - then why should I book on SPG.com? You want to put that kind of fineprint in there to protect your behind? Fine by me, I and other guests will act accordingly to protect our interests as well. Fair is fair, no?

I'm glad it's unique...

I am not sure about that, nor should you assume it is that "unique".

I'm glad it's unique, but I don't see why SPG/Starwood don't consider this a turnaway.

We are not likely to find common ground on this issue, but I'll take one final stab at it. If you or anyone else disagree, that is fine, but it doesn't change the reality of the issue.

The turnaway policy for SPG does not apply because the guest was not turned away at check-in. If he had not been notified in advance and had been walked at that point in time, then the SPG turnaway policy would be in effect. <full stop; end of discussion RE: SPG turnaway policy>

If the hotel owner's local innskeeper laws permit the hotel to notify guests of a change in the status of their reservation within a certain time frame without penalty and they exercise that right and refuse to do anything other than what the locally-demanded minimum standards are, then Starwood's hands are pretty much tied when it comes to forcing the hotel to do something additional unless they are able to coax, cajole, threaten, etc. the owner into submission. Failing that, the only other thing that can be done in this instance is for Starwood to try and make the guest as whole as possible and in every case I am personally familiar with, Starwood has always attempted to do so. There is no stated Starwood will do this/give this/for this because each and every situation, not to mention guest is unique. <full stop; end of discussion RE: Starwood policy>

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

Starwood policies give lots of room for guys like these to wriggle out of their contractual obligations. A lot of things I took for granted were proved to be wrong in this instance, which was a shock to me.

1. I was under the impression that a property can not cancel a reservation without making acceptable arrangements. I was basically told that they can't honour my reservation because they have a wedding, and hey, if I want a comparable accommodation I have to pay more because it is peak season and prices are twice the normal level. And I discovered that the property can indeed do so and I have only Starwood's goodwill to fall back on- i.e. I do not have an enforceable contract with the property.

2. I was under the impression that I am entitled to stay credits and starpoints as per my bookings which were not honoured. After speaking to consumer affairs I was shocked to discover that it is not the case either- your guy was relieved that the hotel is willing to pay stay credits, star points etc. (as they are not obliged to do this) so that Starwood does not have to do it.

3. Adequate notice may not be the same at all times- during normal times, 4 weeks notice would be OK. But during peak season, especially in places like Mauritius, Maldives etc. one might not get anything during peak time. We struggled to find a comparable property during Easter holidays, where even the cheapest room (almost half the size of what we had booked on the spg property) cost EUR 500+ per day. I discovered that a property is within its rights to deny a reservation by giving "reasonable" notice without any compensation/alternatives and if you don't like what they offer you pay more.

And this "reasonable" notice could be days, not weeks, without it becoming a "walk".

Quite a shocking revelation indeed!!

confusion cleared; post deleted.

Is there a reason to publicly involve me in this?

William,
Just in case there is any lack of clarity from my end, I appreciate your responses re: walking, etc. because it is good to know what the official SPG/Starwood policies are.

In seeing the policies, I am troubled by the ability to avoid a "walk" by providing notice prior to guest arrival (taken to an extreme, the hotel could call me the morning of a reservation or the day before and notify me in advance of the inability to honor the reservation), however I do indeed appreciate your conveying that information and explaining the deciding factor per policy.

I also want to publicly say that the goodwill that you (and Thyetus) demonstrate on a continual basis are some of the reasons that I have some hope that Starwood would act honorably in such situations. Like LonLH, I do wish that I wouldn't have to rely entirely on goodwill in these cases. (And to defend LonLH's choice of 'your policies', I think he meant 'your' in the sense that you are a Starwood employee--'your' equals 'Starwood's'.)

I am not sure about that, nor should you assume it is that "unique".
I trust William not to mislead. He's earned that.

Seinfeld: I don't think you understand the meaning of a, "reservation."

Clerk: Yes, sir, we understand the meaning of, "reservation."

Seinfeld: I don't think you do. You see, you know how to take the reservation. What you don't know how to do is hold the reservation.

William,
Just in case there is any lack of clarity from my end, I appreciate your responses re: walking, etc. because it is good to know what the official SPG/Starwood policies are.

In seeing the policies, I am troubled by the ability to avoid a "walk" by providing notice prior to guest arrival (taken to an extreme, the hotel could call me the morning of a reservation or the day before and notify me in advance of the inability to honor the reservation), however I do indeed appreciate your conveying that information and explaining the deciding factor per policy.

I also want to publicly say that the goodwill that you (and Thyetus) demonstrate on a continual basis are some of the reasons that I have some hope that Starwood would act honorably in such situations. Like LonLH, I do wish that I wouldn't have to rely entirely on goodwill in these cases. (And to defend LonLH's choice of 'your policies', I think he meant 'your' in the sense that you are a Starwood employee--'your' equals 'Starwood's'.)


I trust William not to mislead. He's earned that.

Count me in on this. Ive disagreed with William but understood that at times his hands are tied and theres just so much that he is allowed to do or say. And he will take it to the line and at times beyond it, even when its really not his problem or field.

Just my 2 cents,as I posted up thread SPG needs to go thru the hoops and have its Legal dept find out exactly what if anything they can hold the Hotel to, so *W might have told the Hotel you must pay for equal if not better Hotels even if its 10x the rate you were getting. Then the Hotel sends the Laws for XYZ stating a Hotel only needs to inform the guests 24 hrs in advance and isnt liable for anything if thats done. *W cant then force the Hotel to pay for anything that it doesnt have to under the Law in XYZ or anything that isnt in their contract with *W , maybe after this *W will have a new clause in its contracts but that wont help the OP.

thusly in the end its up to *W either to tell the OP sorry we tried everything and legally the Hotel can do what it did and your SOL, or the Hotel can do what it did and *W will make it up to you since legally the Hotel according to the laws in XYZ need not. The Main pt is the OP shouldnt suffer because of this. If in the end the OP does suffer , then as many on here have said its time to either stay away from *W or at least not book via any means where we will not have something to fall back onto for compensation.

IMO this is a *W matter and has no bearing on William, its not William that will decide , my feeling is William probably has gone to bat for the OP the best he can and let *W know to make the guy whole even if they need not Legally.

William,
Just in case there is any lack of clarity from my end, I appreciate your responses re: walking, etc. because it is good to know what the official SPG/Starwood policies are.

In seeing the policies, I am troubled by the ability to avoid a "walk" by providing notice prior to guest arrival (taken to an extreme, the hotel could call me the morning of a reservation or the day before and notify me in advance of the inability to honor the reservation), however I do indeed appreciate your conveying that information and explaining the deciding factor per policy.

I also want to publicly say that the goodwill that you (and Thyetus) demonstrate on a continual basis are some of the reasons that I have some hope that Starwood would act honorably in such situations. Like LonLH, I do wish that I wouldn't have to rely entirely on goodwill in these cases. (And to defend LonLH's choice of 'your policies', I think he meant 'your' in the sense that you are a Starwood employee--'your' equals 'Starwood's'.)


I trust William not to mislead. He's earned that.

I always understood a WALK to be just as Willaim said you arrived only to be told "No Room For You". Sort of like an IDB from a Carrier youre at the counter or gate only to be told sorry we are oversold and dont have any more seats and no one was willing to Vol. If a Carrier cancels its flight before the time of departure or service to that city theres no IDB involved. If a Carrier is still flying the flight but CXed all passengers and is putting its employees on that flight its not an IDB if they call you and tell you sorry flight #X is no longer confirmed for you, then there are laws the carrier must follow. and if the Carrier by law can say youre on tommorrows flight and not want to FIM you to another carrier thats that. Thats why when things happen in Europe everyone says EU rules prevail as they are much dearer to the passenger then US law, it was the opposite then the Carriers would be saying well since this happened in Europe European law prevails. So it seems thats what the Hotel is insisting

Deleted

Thanks for your constructive criticism. I guess if I had ever dreamed that a single sentence taken out the context of a larger discussion on another thread was going to be made the focus of another discussion here at Flyertalk

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com



It's funny you would never dream that such a thing would happen because I'm sure you have experienced things about other things you have said on this forum.

It's funny you would never dream that such a thing would happen because I'm sure you have experienced things about other things you have said on this forum.

No, I have to say that in almost 10 years of doing this, I cannot remember anyone taking a single sentence out of the context of a larger discussion in another thread and make that the focus of another discussion in a separate thread.

But, I will remember going forward that it is a possibility.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

No, I have to say that in almost 10 years of doing this, I cannot remember anyone taking a single sentence out of the context of a larger discussion in another thread and make that the focus of another discussion in a separate thread.


Not just outside of Talkboard, Only Randy Petersen, OMNI, and sometimes Travel Safety & Security? :D

Not just outside of Only Randy Petersen, OMNI, and sometimes Travel Safety & Security? :D

Well, I pretty much stay out of all those places, other than OMNI perhaps, but I know I've never had an OMNI post parsed out of context and made into the subject of a separate thread. I certainly would have laid money on it happening there first though. ;)

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

I think what many people are worried about is the whole integrity of the booking reservation system. When we book a hotel on SPG.com, it's not just the hotel. We will have bought tickets, taken time off work and had a lot of related travel expenses. Many of us will have taken into account weather patterns to avoid hurricanes, cyclones, monsoons or whatever and barring any major disaster such as a war or unpredictable natural disaster like an earthquake, we expect a hotel to honour all reservations. I am pretty sure if the OP had said "I have to go to a wedding, I want to cancel my booking" he would not have gotten a refund and the hotel would have held him to his booking. This just really seems unfair, the hotel can cancel on a whim (better offer, personal agenda of the hotel owner) but we can't.

The hotel owner has been making choices, he chose to displace the OP and whomever else got booted. He could have chosen to house the wedding guests somewhere else and honour the reservations these people made in advance.

Local innskeepers laws in certain countries where "money talks" will be weighted in favour of a wealthy hotel owner who is probably buddy buddy with the ruling parties. We expect a highly respectable chain like Starwood to shield us from these possibilities, that's why we USE chain hotels, so we don't have to deal with individual innskeepers who can do as the please and never mind the customers.

I am just wondering how safe are ANY of our reservations?

Well, I pretty much stay out of all those places, other than OMNI perhaps, but I know I've never had an OMNI post parsed out of context and made into the subject of a separate thread. I certainly would have laid money on it happening there first though. ;)

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

I must say William that after reading this whole thread and the original one that I'm quite impressed at your PCness in your responses! Even the bad ones lashing out at members sound like honey! :D I think that's why I like you so much! Along with the ability to help us members out whether it's from simple resv snafus to large scale disasters as this one or the Honeymoney incident. I think it's fair to say that we all benefit from your presence on FT.

William and Thyetus, no one is blaming YOU TWO for this fiasco. It's more a case of customer service people are unfairly thrust into the line of fire because someone else in your company stuffed up. I used to get that all the time when I was customer service/accounts for a major courier company. I had people calling up and the first thing they would say is "You dumb #$%#$, you charged me $200 for 10kgs to Sydney, it should be $20" and I personally had nothing to do with billing, I was supposed to reconcile the accounts! Some of these people were so nasty and didn't seem to get that it was someone else had made the mistake and they yelled their heads off at ME! I was reduced to tears on a couple occasions, needless to say, I don't do this kind of work anymore!

Not that anyone is "yelling" at you here, but I guess we are hoping you can liase with the company and the OP for a resolution and also reassurance that everyone else's bookings are safe barring unforseeable disasters. Some of us have lost faith in the SPG.com booking system and customer service.

Well unfortunately this is not a SPG decision.

However SPG should let Starwood corporate know that the lack of "advance turn-away" policy is adversely impacting guest loyalty (mandate of SPG) and therefore a Starwood policy or SPG Elite policy should be considered. I'm 100% sure that the Starwood Master contract allows them to change terms of the SPG program and/or Starwood program to institute the policy OR if they cannot, since these cases are VERY unique, Starwood should compensate centrally by a stated policy. (e.g. "in the event an independent contractor fails to honor the reservation made through SPG.com, Starwood or its other agents, Starwood will 1) Arrange comparable lodgings")

Lurker I think the problem is Starwood has always created an expectation and impression that they will above and beyond the legally required treatment of guests and so it was a little shocking to members (I was shocked myself) to hear that Starwood's policy on non-honored reservations is that the legal minimum should be done.

To put anotehr way, it would be simliar to the reaction a guest would have if it was noted that "if you have a terrible hotel experience that's too bad since the independent contractor fully met the legal obligations stated in the room contract."

Again this isn't specifically a Lurker issue, this is Starwood having a hole in their otherwise comprehensive "way above the law treatment" policy.

...I guess we are hoping you can liase with the company and the OP for a resolution and also reassurance that everyone else's bookings are safe barring unforseeable disasters. Some of us have lost faith in the SPG.com booking system and customer service.

I think you are asking too much of us, frankly. Am I also to reassure you that you won't get hit by a bus next week? Or that if you have a bad stay that Starpoints are going to be automatically given to you on a pink pillow?

That isn't meant to be snarky at all, by the way, but it kind of reflects the impossibility of the mission you want to set us on. I really think that some folks need to get a grip on what Thyetus and I are able to do in situations like this. Frankly, I did everything in my power to see that LonLH got on Consumer Affairs' radar once I saw that regular customer service was faultering. And, I sleep pretty well at night about fulfilling my capabilities in that area. I can't guarantee anything after that, however.

Also, if you have lost faith in the booking system and customer service because of this single event, how in the world do you expect me to restore that? What could I possibly say to you that I could give as an ironclad guarantee that you could take to the bank? Do you really think this same kind of thing doesn't happen with other hotel chains?

I think it is time for me to excuse myself from participating in this discussion any longer. I would like to be helpful where I can be, but this was a one-off event the likes of which are so rarely repeated that I don't think it's ever come up here before. So, I think it's time to acknowledge that and continue on with life as normal. Otherwise, live in fear that it never will be again, but don't ask me to give assurances for things I have no personal control over.

Best regards,

William R. Sanders
Online Guest Feedback Coordinator
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

guest.forum@starwoodhotels.com

To be fair to William, let's move on and address any suggestions to Starwood Corporate, as this is outside of SPG's domain (Corporate policy superceeds SPG). And I wouldn't quote from William in the suggestions...

http://www.starwoodhotels.com/corporate/contact_us.html

To be fair to William, let's move on and address any suggestions to Starwood Corporate, as this is outside of SPG's domain (Corporate policy superceeds SPG). And I wouldn't quote from William in the suggestions...

http://www.starwoodhotels.com/corporate/contact_us.html

+1

I think what many people are worried about is the whole integrity of the booking reservation system. When we book a hotel on SPG.com, it's not just the hotel. We will have bought tickets, taken time off work and had a lot of related travel expenses. Many of us will have taken into account weather patterns to avoid hurricanes, cyclones, monsoons or whatever and barring any major disaster such as a war or unpredictable natural disaster like an earthquake, we expect a hotel to honour all reservations. I am pretty sure if the OP had said "I have to go to a wedding, I want to cancel my booking" he would not have gotten a refund and the hotel would have held him to his booking. This just really seems unfair, the hotel can cancel on a whim (better offer, personal agenda of the hotel owner) but we can't.

The hotel owner has been making choices, he chose to displace the OP and whomever else got booted. He could have chosen to house the wedding guests somewhere else and honour the reservations these people made in advance.

Local innskeepers laws in certain countries where "money talks" will be weighted in favour of a wealthy hotel owner who is probably buddy buddy with the ruling parties. We expect a highly respectable chain like Starwood to shield us from these possibilities, that's why we USE chain hotels, so we don't have to deal with individual innskeepers who can do as the please and never mind the customers.

I am just wondering how safe are ANY of our reservations?

^ Spot on

The problem for me is if this is really such a rare event why would it take so long to resolve it? Why not just a simple and swift *W led resolution since it is fairly plain the properties in question are not going to provide any practical assistance.

There would be no danger in "setting a precedent" since surely this a a "unique" occurence? The fact that the resolution has not been swift and satisfactory really goes to the heart of how "unique" this type of occurrence (rather than the specific issue of a property suddenly closed for an owners wedding). We have already seen mentioned a similar occurrence in the main thread so clearly it is not as unique as all that.

It would be very easy to reassure a relatively significant number of loyal customers here that they would be fully protected in the event that similar occurrences happen. The lack of that reassurance is a BIG issue for me. It will not change my behaviour when booking a night or 2 shortly before a stay but it will significantly change my booking processes for longer duration stays booked well in advance. Amex will be seeing a lot more business from me if I choose to stay at *W properties when making such trips in future.

^ Spot on

The problem for me is if this is really such a rare event why would it take so long to resolve it? Why not just a simple and swift *W led resolution since it is fairly plain the properties in question are not going to provide any practical assistance.

There would be no danger in "setting a precedent" since surely this a a "unique" occurence? The fact that the resolution has not been swift and satisfactory really goes to the heart of how "unique" this type of occurrence (rather than the specific issue of a property suddenly closed for an owners wedding). We have already seen mentioned a similar occurrence in the main thread so clearly it is not as unique as all that.

It would be very easy to reassure a relatively significant number of loyal customers here that they would be fully protected in the event that similar occurrences happen. The lack of that reassurance is a BIG issue for me. It will not change my behaviour when booking a night or 2 shortly before a stay but it will significantly change my booking processes for longer duration stays booked well in advance. Amex will be seeing a lot more business from me if I choose to stay at *W properties when making such trips in future.

Probably a lot more complicated than meets the eye. In addition, the bottleneck could've been with the property management, thus making this a drawn out process. I dunno.. just thinking out loud I guess.

This was very instructional reading.....My only comment is to remind everyone that the Starwood Lurkers help so much more then they perpetuate obstacles and that Starwood Central can not rule the world, nor is a good portion of the world anything like the US, EU or whatever large locality SPG members tend to be from.
On the flip side, if the OP can't resolve this one issue out of a whole lifetime, I hope it does not become a permanent scar......aren't health and sanity more important?

Apologies to William and Theytus if I misunderstood your role within the Starwood company. I will not involve you in anymore posts. I will address the larger issue at hand with Flyertalk members only.

I think the larger issue here is the behaviour of the Mauritius hotel owner becoming a precedent for OTHER Starwood hotel owners. Perhaps in the past, they might turn down weddings or special events if they have existing guests, or letting the pre-existing bookings remain and put wedding guests in unoccupied rooms and if they don't have enough unoccupied rooms, the burden of finding alternate accommodation is on the wedding guests who book late, not the pre-booked guests.

So now, if other Starwood hotel owners see this (especially resorts on islands with limited alternates), they are going to think "Hey, I'll just take this wedding and cancel everyone else's bookings. Starwood won't care or do anything bad to me and the customer can get stuffed."

So while I don't like to speak for other people, I am sure I am not the only Starwood SPG member who is worried about this sort of precedent being set for future bookings. I remember when the Tahiti properties moved to Hilton, Starwood honoured all the SPG bookings and they sorted it out with Hilton and the burden was not placed on the customer. We were all impressed with Starwood's customer service then.

This is sort of the same thing (in terms of customer inconvenience) only now the actions of ONE hotel owner could cause a bad precedent where other hotel owners feel they can do the same thing as this guy in Mauritius and get away with it. So if we see Starwood stepping in to make sure the OP LonLH in Mauritius gets satisfaction (accommodated in equivalent quality hotel at no extra cost and gets his Starpoints) so he is no worse off than if the hotel had honoured his booking, then we can relax and know that we won't be put in a similar situation because Starwood cares about it's customers.

I think the larger issue here is the behaviour of the Mauritius hotel owner becoming a precedent for OTHER Starwood hotel owners. Perhaps in the past, they might turn down weddings or special events if they have existing guests, or letting the pre-existing bookings remain and put wedding guests in unoccupied rooms and if they don't have enough unoccupied rooms, the burden of finding alternate accommodation is on the wedding guests who book late, not the pre-booked guests.

So now, if other Starwood hotel owners see this (especially resorts on islands with limited alternates), they are going to think "Hey, I'll just take this wedding and cancel everyone else's bookings. Starwood won't care or do anything bad to me and the customer can get stuffed."

So while I don't like to speak for other people, I am sure I am not the only Starwood SPG member who is worried about this sort of precedent being set for future bookings. I remember when the Tahiti properties moved to Hilton, Starwood honoured all the SPG bookings and they sorted it out with Hilton and the burden was not placed on the customer. We were all impressed with Starwood's customer service then.

This is sort of the same thing (in terms of customer inconvenience) only now the actions of ONE hotel owner could cause a bad precedent where other hotel owners feel they can do the same thing as this guy in Mauritius and get away with it. So if we see Starwood stepping in to make sure the OP LonLH in Mauritius gets satisfaction (accommodated in equivalent quality hotel at no extra cost and gets his Starpoints) so he is no worse off than if the hotel had honoured his booking, then we can relax and know that we won't be put in a similar situation because Starwood cares about it's customers.

What on earth makes you think this is something new and has never happened before and therefore a new precedent is being set? I can assure I had a very similar experience with the Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel. I had made a confirmed and guaranteed reservation in February 2004 for July 2004. Two weeks before my stay was to begin, the hotel sent me a certified letter CANCELING my reservation because the hotel was now overbooked. It certainly was NOT overbooked at the time I made my reservation! So why didn't they cancel reservations in the reverse order they were made? Because my rate was lower than more recent reservations! They offered my 2,500 Starpoints in compensation, which I rejected. I was able to settle the matter by threatening to sue the hotel, which caused them to up the offer to 20,000 Starpoints, which I accepted. Bottom line is the hotel can decide to cancel your reservation for any reason and you have no recourse - even in the USA.

What I have also discovered is that at least in this case (see my update on the other post) TAs and tour operators got wind of this early and rebooked their guests somewhere else. spg.com bookings were "under the radar" until early March when they woke up:mad::mad::mad:.

I have made my replacement bookings with Amex, and I asked the Centurion conceirge what would happen if we have a problem like this with the property. Her reply was that it won't be our problem, it will be Amex's problem to reaccommodate us to our satisfaction and then Amex will make sure that it is the property's problem to pick up the tab in doing so once we are taken care of.

I book all our leisure stays on spg.com because it is very convenient to change/ cancel/keep track of- now I think all of us should seriously consider if it is better to use a reliable intermediary rather than spg.com, especially when one can get the same rate as spg.com from Amex etc. in most cases.

Also, if you have lost faith in the booking system and customer service because of this single event, how in the world do you expect me to restore that? What could I possibly say to you that I could give as an ironclad guarantee that you could take to the bank? Do you really think this same kind of thing doesn't happen with other hotel chains?


I don't think that anyone has lost faith in the booking system and customer service because of this single event (unless they are paranoid), but rather this single event has exposed a weakness in the general SPG.com route to booking. As compared with, say, AMEX, a local travel agent, or another route.

It would be very easy for Starwood to give an ironclad guarantee that you could take to the bank, though - just as AMEX or a travel agent do. It would (seemingly) be even easier, since they (theoretically) have more visibility and control within their own brands.

What I would like to see following this case is a new "Guarantee" out there from SPG.com - if they can give a "Best Rate Guarantee", they could probably also give an "Availability Guarantee". ICHG gives an online booking guarantee - availability guaranteed, or your first night (elsewhere) is free.

Why should booking with Starwood be any riskier than a 3rd party? And if, indeed, this is so rare - it should cost Starwood very little to make some big promises. Because it'll never happen, right? Let this happen between Starwood and the pax (since the contract is between these two entities) and leave out the individual hotels. Let the pax go back to Starwood, in the same way that Amex and TA assisted people would. Let Starwood work it out according to a published promise - point of failure fixed!

I've been reading this thread since the beginning. I'm not a Starwood person (I peruse "new posts".) I am appalled that a hotel can/would do this. I can't imagine how irate I would be if I had booked an expensive vacation and then much later be told, "oh, sorry." While it certainly may be silly, I will think several times before booking a Starwood property. FT's audience may not be huge, but it is influential. I would certainly think that Starwood would go out of its way to correct this problem and insure that it does not happen again.

It would be very easy for Starwood to give an ironclad guarantee that you could take to the bank, though - just as AMEX or a travel agent do. It would (seemingly) be even easier, since they (theoretically) have more visibility and control within their own brands.


I could not agree more. For Starwood it would be really easy. Put some language in the franchise contracts like "for the unlikely event the owner fails to honor a reservation made through any Starwood reservation channels, the owner is obligated to reimburse Starwood for any expenses, compensation, payments, punitive damages whatsoever, Starwood might suffer"

Language similar to this will be found in the contracts every tour operator has with its hotels. From the tour operators' perspective this is required because the tour operator is under an obligation of its own vice versa the pax: The tour operator has to deliver the room or will be held liable.

Starwood Corporate (nothing against our two wonderful lurkers) does it differently: They say, "we do not take any obligation vice versa our customers (see the language in the T&C) and leave the problem in the relation between the hotel and the pax." This is nothing but leaving the customer out in the pouring rain.

Our two lurkers might wish to play the advocate for their employer, however, this is solving the problems to the detriment of the weakest part of the chain. This is not only poor customer service, this is an utterly wrong concept.

Starwood has given clear statements:it's just that some people won't accept these statements and change their booking behavior (or expectations) accordingly.

The party with the broken confirmations has detailed (in extremis) his dialog with the property and customer service. Starwood management has let Customer Service do the talking (as is appropriate for customer service issues). Lurker has offered a statement (cited when FlyingLaywer started this tangential tread) outlining clearly limited scope for further corporate involvement. Starwood likely has enough compliance experts to know what they can and can't do on bookings made through Starwood-operated booking channels.

It's nice if the EU provides customer protection for 3rd party bookings. Apparently U.S. and Mauritian law do not.

I do not see why EU consumer protection laws should not apply for the B2C case, when the customer resides in the EU and SPG is the agent, which has offices in the EU.

I could not agree more. For Starwood it would be really easy. Put some language in the franchise contracts like "for the unlikely event the owner fails to honor a reservation made through any Starwood reservation channels, the owner is obligated to reimburse Starwood for any expenses, compensation, payments, punitive damages whatsoever, Starwood might suffer"

Language similar to this will be found in the contracts every tour operator has with its hotels. From the tour operators' perspective this is required because the tour operator is under an obligation of its own vice versa the pax: The tour operator has to deliver the room or will be held liable.

Starwood Corporate (nothing against our two wonderful lurkers) does it differently: They say, "we do not take any obligation vice versa our customers (see the language in the T&C) and leave the problem in the relation between the hotel and the pax." This is nothing but leaving the customer out in the pouring rain.



I would call such clauses in T&Cs as surprising and therefore not binding for the customer. (Again based on German/European laws).

I do not see why EU consumer protection laws should not apply for the B2C case, when the customer resides in the EU and SPG is the agent, which has offices in the EU.

Starwood is acting as an agent and not as a tour operator, there is not doubt about this. Furthermore, they are certainly not selling packaged tours, so the EU travel rules (as they were transformed into national law) are not applicable even I would assume that they are doing business from Ireland.

I would call such clauses in T&Cs as surprising and therefore not binding for the customer. (Again based on German/European laws).

This could be. However, they will refer to their status as an agant. You are doing business with the hotel and the hotel is your conractual partner (you have no doubts that you pay the hotel, have you?)

I am in agreement with Lurker, they are not legally obliged (under the current regime) however, from a PR perspective they are doing so much harm to their own business and brand that I can't believe what the are acually doing (William: It can take 20 years to build a good brand and it can be destroyed on 20 minutes - Warren Buffet said this and he is right).

The goodwill Starwood destroyed by their reactions to this Mauritian hotel's wrongoing is enormous. Well, this forum is certainly not the world but Starwood can expect the news to be spread around the world. I do not understand them. :confused:

Starwood clearly believes that either:
A) A policy on advance turn-aways in not accretive (cost>revenue)
or
B) Not necessary (e.g. They will do more than local laws but do not feel necessary to put in writing)

I'd be shocked if it was A (cases are probably so rare that a few high value (e.g. Amby) members lost is > costs)

1| I agree they could have a clause that says they'll provide comparable lodgings but that might open up liability if:
A) You do not agree with Starwood on the definition of "Comparable" (perhaps solved by defining on a cost/night basis)
B) There are no comparable lodgings in a given area/time.

2| Alternatively they can guarantee a compensatory act such as Cash, SPG points, Vouchers.

A policy would create a minimum threshold (e.g. $200/night or local laws, whichever is higher) then Starwood could handle the situation on a case-by-case basis as warranted (e.g. We would be happy to get you a room at the Ritz and 20,000 SPG points or $200/night)

But either way, the Lurkers can't be expected to advocate for us in every way and they've done an amazing job in every SPG advocation. I think this one needs to be sent to Starwood Corporate directly.

It might be a simple as telling them or your Amby "While I trust that Starwood accomodates clients whose reservations are cancelled by a Starwood branded hotel, I noticed there is no written policy (other than Starwood will not break the law) so it would provide substantial comfort to me if Starwood would define a minimum threshold of accomodation (e.g. $200/displaced night) subject to a mutually agreed case-by-case alternative resolution. (if true -it's not for me - Without a policy I will need to reconsider my planned stays with Starwood)
Loyal CustomerX"

Starwood is acting as an agent and not as a tour operator, there is not doubt about this. Furthermore, they are certainly not selling packaged tours, so the EU travel rules (as they were transformed into national law) are not applicable even I would assume that they are doing business from Ireland.





German courts have ruled different in cases e.g.:
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/steuern/schimmel-und-dreck_aid_18406.html

and :"Das häufigste, aus § 651 a Abs 2 BGB folgende Mißverständnis ist die Annahme, damit sei jeder Vermittlerhinweis unwirksam oder verboten. Das Gegenteil ist richtig: Dieser Vermittlerhinweis ist vielmehr dringend notwendig und geboten ! Er muß klar verständlich, auffällig und deutlich lesbar sein. Unwirksam ist daher lediglich der Vermittlerhinweis allein, wenn die anderen Umstände für eine Veranstaltertätigkeit sprechen. " from http://www.rechtsanwalt-noll.de/fvwrr2.htm

What on earth makes you think this is something new and has never happened before and therefore a new precedent is being set? I can assure I had a very similar experience with the Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel. I had made a confirmed and guaranteed reservation in February 2004 for July 2004. Two weeks before my stay was to begin, the hotel sent me a certified letter CANCELING my reservation because the hotel was now overbooked. It certainly was NOT overbooked at the time I made my reservation! So why didn't they cancel reservations in the reverse order they were made? Because my rate was lower than more recent reservations! They offered my 2,500 Starpoints in compensation, which I rejected. I was able to settle the matter by threatening to sue the hotel, which caused them to up the offer to 20,000 Starpoints, which I accepted. Bottom line is the hotel can decide to cancel your reservation for any reason and you have no recourse - even in the USA.

Back about March of 2001, I was "pre-walked" by a Hilton in Southern California about a month in advance (for an April reservation) -- again, it was a matter of them being able to make more money by selling a block of rooms to someone else (in this case a NASCAR group or some such ;)). The resolution was that we got replacement reservations at a Starwood (!) property in the general vicinity (not really close, but close enough), for the same room rate, etc. So it worked out. Although somewhat annoying, the incident didn't scar me for life, and I have continued to patronize Hilton hotels since then. (In fact, I have even pursued status with Hilton HHonors every year since that time. ;) )

I do think that in these cases, hotels should always attempt to make reasonable efforts to re-accommodate guests at properties of the same or better quality for the same or cheaper rate. This happened in my situation and I would expect no less if it happened again.

(FWIW, I do NOT hold the Lurkers personally responsible for resolving these kinds of issues.)

German courts have ruled different in cases e.g.:
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/steuern/schimmel-und-dreck_aid_18406.html

Sorry to be very direct: German courts did not hold differently and you are wrong. The magic word is "packaged tour" (or in the article you posted: "wenn der inländische Reise-Vermittler ein Komplett-Paket geschnürt hat"). However, this does certainly not apply to booking a hotel room.

And neither German law nor any other law of any EU member state will be apply if you book on a US website. It could only become interesting if you book via the call center in Eire and (nor: or) you book a Starwood packaged tour (room and transfer could eg be considered as a packaged tour).

Sorry to be very direct: German courts did not hold differently and you are wrong. The magic word is "packaged tour" (or in the article you posted: "wenn der inländische Reise-Vermittler ein Komplett-Paket geschnürt hat"). However, this does certainly not apply to booking a hotel room.

And neither German law nor any other law of any EU member state will be apply if you book on a US website. It could only become interesting if you book via the call center in Eire and (nor: or) you book a Starwood packaged tour (room and transfer could eg be considered as a packaged tour).

In the "focus case" the company tried to claim that they are only the agent, but I found in another article that "Ferienhäuser" are considered package deals.

Apart from that you are correct.

One question wouldn't it be sufficient that *wood has a office here in Europe where a statement of case could be delivered to sue them here?

One question wouldn't it be sufficient that *wood has a office here in Europe where a statement of case could be delivered to sue them here?

You are now talking about two different issues: It might be possible to serve the court papers on them here in Europe (assuming that they have a presence in Europa). However, this does not result in the application of any local law on the case. But: You enter into a contract with a seller in the US (via a US website). The conflict of law rules of most countries will determine the law of the country of the seller as applicable law.

You are now talking about two different issues: It might be possible to serve the court papers on them here in Europe (assuming that they have a presence in Europa). However, this does not result in the application of any local law on the case. But: You enter into a contract with a seller in the US (via a US website). The conflict of law rules of most countries will determine the law of the country of the seller as applicable law.

And my memory tells me vague, that at in the B2C scenario the local court can be used?