Points / Stay Credit Eligibility for Third Party Bookings
Jul 30, 2012, 5:42 am
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 13
eligibility Query...
Thanks all but:
1. The alternative interpretation of the "Ineligible Rates" definition is not in my view, the right one. It is (and all other "explanations" so far given are) an interpretation that is arrived at working backwards; that is, one arrived at in trying to support Hyatt's refusal ("hmmm..let's see, how might Hyatt be getting to that view?").
I would bet that most -if not all - people who read the definition would interpret it as it reads; that is that an Ineligible Rate is a discounted rate and that the entire list that follows after "including but not limited to" is by way of example of what such a discount rate might be.
The T&C are clear on their face. It is only Hyatt's, in my view, unexplained refusal to credit me my lengthy stay based on their view of what they want them to say (that is, not what they say on their face) that "complicates" them.
2. I do of course, understand why Hyatt might want the result they are achieving with their refusal. However, that is not my deal. Whatever Hyatt do to sell their rooms is their deal. I am not a party to those arrangements.
In respect of the Gold Passport program, all that is relevant to me are the T&C that I accepted to become a member.
As I have said before, if Hyatt want to exclude all 3rd party bookings and leave no doubt/room for wiggle, the T&C could clearly say that. It is far easier to do that than to draw up overly complicated unnecessary terms to achieve that aim (which they do not in this case) which leave room for dispute.
Of course, if "wiggle room" is what this is all about, then the T&C are achieving their purpose...
3. I am not sure I understand your point todorovic. As I say, the rate I chose/paid was the same (both in description and amount) on Thomas Cook as it was on Hyatt.com; i.e. it was a hotel published room rate.
I can only repeat that there is nothing I can see in the T&C that makes a stay ineligible for credit based simply on how a stay is booked. Indeed, quite the opposite. The definition of "Eligible Rate" is clear - it is a hotel published room rate, wherever found.
So how do you see Hyatt to be justified refusing to credit me because of some underlying deal it has with a 3rd party to which I am not a party, have no knowledge of and is not in any event, relevant under the T&C?
4. And what about the question I raise about the previous 2 "credit mistakes" that Hyatt discovered when I raised this refusal (one for a stay booked in the same way at the same hotel within the previous 12 months) that Hyatt are making an allowance for while at the same refusing to treat this much longer stay in the same way? Before anyone raises it, I can understand why they might want to do that, but the why does not make it morally or otherwise right.
Hyatt made the "mistake". I relied on it (and my view of the T&C) when making this latest booking for which I am being refused credit. I only found out about Hyatt's "mistake" after the stay was completed. What's fair/right about making an allowance for the first two stays and not the third when all stays were booked/made in the same way when "I did not know any better"? In my view, it would be right/fair for them to make an allowance for all stays booked before their "mistake" came to light since they seem to have accepted by allowing the first two, that it is their "mistake" and it has contributed to this mess.
Does nobody agree this? Why is it fair/right to only partly remedy the situation?
As an aside, what is interesting and somewhat incomprehensible to me is that everyone who has commented so far seems so supportive/accepting of Hyatt's stance. The aim seems to be to find ways to justify it. Is there a reason why? Would everyone be quite so complacent if it were them losing out on considerable points/status without being able to understand precisely why?
And shouldn't we all be wanting to promote the honouring by businesses of T&C/acting fair, rather than sitting back and allowing stonewalling, ambiguity and unfairness to prevail?
I am not naive. This kind of business behaviour happens daily all around us with far more serious and devastating consequences. I will not be financially ruined by not getting my points/status and can walk away from this program with no further consequence. However, sitting back and letting it continue unchecked and/or supporting it for whatever reason is in my view, ultimately to nobody's benefit.
However, maybe I am alone in this thinking....
1. The alternative interpretation of the "Ineligible Rates" definition is not in my view, the right one. It is (and all other "explanations" so far given are) an interpretation that is arrived at working backwards; that is, one arrived at in trying to support Hyatt's refusal ("hmmm..let's see, how might Hyatt be getting to that view?").
I would bet that most -if not all - people who read the definition would interpret it as it reads; that is that an Ineligible Rate is a discounted rate and that the entire list that follows after "including but not limited to" is by way of example of what such a discount rate might be.
The T&C are clear on their face. It is only Hyatt's, in my view, unexplained refusal to credit me my lengthy stay based on their view of what they want them to say (that is, not what they say on their face) that "complicates" them.
2. I do of course, understand why Hyatt might want the result they are achieving with their refusal. However, that is not my deal. Whatever Hyatt do to sell their rooms is their deal. I am not a party to those arrangements.
In respect of the Gold Passport program, all that is relevant to me are the T&C that I accepted to become a member.
As I have said before, if Hyatt want to exclude all 3rd party bookings and leave no doubt/room for wiggle, the T&C could clearly say that. It is far easier to do that than to draw up overly complicated unnecessary terms to achieve that aim (which they do not in this case) which leave room for dispute.
Of course, if "wiggle room" is what this is all about, then the T&C are achieving their purpose...
3. I am not sure I understand your point todorovic. As I say, the rate I chose/paid was the same (both in description and amount) on Thomas Cook as it was on Hyatt.com; i.e. it was a hotel published room rate.
I can only repeat that there is nothing I can see in the T&C that makes a stay ineligible for credit based simply on how a stay is booked. Indeed, quite the opposite. The definition of "Eligible Rate" is clear - it is a hotel published room rate, wherever found.
So how do you see Hyatt to be justified refusing to credit me because of some underlying deal it has with a 3rd party to which I am not a party, have no knowledge of and is not in any event, relevant under the T&C?
4. And what about the question I raise about the previous 2 "credit mistakes" that Hyatt discovered when I raised this refusal (one for a stay booked in the same way at the same hotel within the previous 12 months) that Hyatt are making an allowance for while at the same refusing to treat this much longer stay in the same way? Before anyone raises it, I can understand why they might want to do that, but the why does not make it morally or otherwise right.
Hyatt made the "mistake". I relied on it (and my view of the T&C) when making this latest booking for which I am being refused credit. I only found out about Hyatt's "mistake" after the stay was completed. What's fair/right about making an allowance for the first two stays and not the third when all stays were booked/made in the same way when "I did not know any better"? In my view, it would be right/fair for them to make an allowance for all stays booked before their "mistake" came to light since they seem to have accepted by allowing the first two, that it is their "mistake" and it has contributed to this mess.
Does nobody agree this? Why is it fair/right to only partly remedy the situation?
As an aside, what is interesting and somewhat incomprehensible to me is that everyone who has commented so far seems so supportive/accepting of Hyatt's stance. The aim seems to be to find ways to justify it. Is there a reason why? Would everyone be quite so complacent if it were them losing out on considerable points/status without being able to understand precisely why?
And shouldn't we all be wanting to promote the honouring by businesses of T&C/acting fair, rather than sitting back and allowing stonewalling, ambiguity and unfairness to prevail?
I am not naive. This kind of business behaviour happens daily all around us with far more serious and devastating consequences. I will not be financially ruined by not getting my points/status and can walk away from this program with no further consequence. However, sitting back and letting it continue unchecked and/or supporting it for whatever reason is in my view, ultimately to nobody's benefit.
However, maybe I am alone in this thinking....
Jul 30, 2012, 7:35 am
#18
Moderator: GLBT Travelers & Hyatt Gold Passport
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: CVG
Posts: 15,300
perplexed, I understand your frustration. But you are asking a question in a place where many of us are long term Hyatt customers who know the program (and its quirks) well (sometimes better than some of the customer service agents of Hyatt themselves). Generally, the "rule" is that if the reservation is made with Hyatt directly you are eligible for points / stay credit. If the reservation is made with a third party, it becomes trickier - if you the customer pays the third party booking, it's generally ineligible - if the payment is made directly to the property by the customer, then it's generally eligible (these include FHR, I believe Virtuoso, and corporate rates where the corporate traveler is supposed to book through the corporate travel agency).
Can improvements be made to the T&Cs, yes of course but there is not a T&Cs anywhere that will cover all circumstances.
Can improvements be made to the T&Cs, yes of course but there is not a T&Cs anywhere that will cover all circumstances.
Jul 30, 2012, 9:29 am
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 13
Eligibility Query...
But this is not about what the T&C do not say. It is about what they do say and say clearly.
And it is precisely because of the fact that longstanding Hyatt members are involved in this forum that I joined to ask my question hoping they could answer it better than Hyatt's customer service people. Since there are so many ways now to make travel bookings, I really did not expect to find that nobody else had come across this situation and was not as angered by it as me. I really didn't expect to find everybody so accepting and/or supportive of a policy that they cannot explain to me with specific reference to the T&C, but only in general terms.
As I keep asking, where in the T&C does it say that I must pay Hyatt direct and if it is not in the T&C, why is that condition being implied into the T&C which say I must pay personally, which I did?
That said, what you seem to be saying is that the T&C are actually irrelevant. Rather, what are relevant are the generally accepted unwritten "rules" that I need to learn and accept if I want to be part of "the club" and eventually reap the rewards that are keeping everyone so unquestionably supportive/loyal.
Clearly Hyatt are doing something right to keep that supportiveness/loyalty which is no doubt why they are happy to take the stance they have taken with me. From these forums, they can see my "moans" will make no difference to them.
For my part though, based on my experiences to date - of both the program and the hotels - I'm struggling to see they could ever do enough to keep me so supportive and loyal. There are too many other just as good/better options out there that do not require me to suspend my disbelief and accept my lot to be part of their club.
So I remain perplexed...
And it is precisely because of the fact that longstanding Hyatt members are involved in this forum that I joined to ask my question hoping they could answer it better than Hyatt's customer service people. Since there are so many ways now to make travel bookings, I really did not expect to find that nobody else had come across this situation and was not as angered by it as me. I really didn't expect to find everybody so accepting and/or supportive of a policy that they cannot explain to me with specific reference to the T&C, but only in general terms.
As I keep asking, where in the T&C does it say that I must pay Hyatt direct and if it is not in the T&C, why is that condition being implied into the T&C which say I must pay personally, which I did?
That said, what you seem to be saying is that the T&C are actually irrelevant. Rather, what are relevant are the generally accepted unwritten "rules" that I need to learn and accept if I want to be part of "the club" and eventually reap the rewards that are keeping everyone so unquestionably supportive/loyal.
Clearly Hyatt are doing something right to keep that supportiveness/loyalty which is no doubt why they are happy to take the stance they have taken with me. From these forums, they can see my "moans" will make no difference to them.
For my part though, based on my experiences to date - of both the program and the hotels - I'm struggling to see they could ever do enough to keep me so supportive and loyal. There are too many other just as good/better options out there that do not require me to suspend my disbelief and accept my lot to be part of their club.
So I remain perplexed...
Jul 30, 2012, 5:07 pm
#21
Moderator: GLBT Travelers & Hyatt Gold Passport
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: CVG
Posts: 15,300
Hyatt in practice do not expire the points - even though their T&Cs say that they expire in a year, most people have not had their points taken away.