From TA "I had reserved a room with a specific rate and was charged almost DOUBLE at the end. Extremely poor customer service and I have been a member of Marriott for more than 10 years!"

OP is a member

Now OP stayed in February. OP did a chargeback. I assume the CC company sided with the hotel?

​​​​​​I am not sure if you are referring to me, but (a) I can assure you I have a significant understanding of law, (b) there was no contract for a four-night stay at issue so there's no contract here, and (c) a contract for slavery would of course be unlawful as prohibited by law; being charged the going rate after you have unilaterally changed a material term of a contract is not illegal, nor is it unconscionable.
comparing being charged a couple hundred dollars more for a hotel room after you changed your reservation to slavery is not the Trump card you think it is.

As for everyone talking about small claims court, I'm not sure why. Marriott reservations are subject to an arbitration agreement with a forum selection clause, as is Marriott "membership." I'm not sure what the OP agreed to at this specific property if they wanted to file a claim in Nevada small claims court but I have a pretty strong feeling Nevada law will be tilted towards a hotel....

Because rental car companies charge 5 to 7 days on a weekly rate versus below 5 days on a daily rate which is always much more expensive than a per day basis on a weekly rate. Most people who rent for leisure know that. Business people often dont have that long a rental but then business people usually have corporate rates / expense accounts for the rental so that is irrelevant to them.

Yeah, the OP knew exactly what he was doing. Probably done it numerous times in the past, and this is the first time he's been caught out.

I would say this thread has quite a few Europeans who aren't familiar with the (lack of) consumer protection laws in the US but comport themselves as experts.

For the avoidance of doubt, I did say clearly in my first post that I had no knowlege of the state of US customer protection laws.

but I did indeed have a hunch it wasn't going to be great...

To be fair, I think they arent any better in their knowledge of actual European consumer protection laws

Nope. Looking specifically for the section in the T&Cs or booking agreement that states BAR, as per :

Anyone ?

I don't know if that comment was directed at me, but I happen to have held my ground at SCC more than once and am yet to lose. I am 99% that the OP's issue would not even have gone to SCC should it have happened in the UK.

Hence my advice to seek advice from a consumer protection board, if you have such things in the US.

But I realize that this foreign piece of advice is not necessarily relevant and thus unwelcome. I also realize that this thread is rife on personal attacks on the OP's character (you did this on purpose and got caught yadda yadda...) as well as on any of us trying to formulate an opinion that remotely suggests the hotel's policy may have been illegal, and if not can best be described as shady.
And so, I'm out. Bye.

Looking for some advice here, please. I have booked the long-term rate for an 11-day stay at an Aloft property. I now need to shorten the stay to 7 days. The long-term rate kicks in at 4+ days. Still the daily rate has now increased by almost $40 since booking, so it's quite expensive to shorten the stay online. Should I call the hotel directly to try and see whether they let me off the hook or should I wait till check-in and tell them I have to leave early? I am a bit worried that the daily rate will rise even more, if I do the latter. There are still 7 weeks left before the trip.

I think this is an unfortunate story, but I am on the side of those who say it is clearly disclosed, as it is, and you can see it when making the reservation. With hindsight Kiki Karakatsani would have been better not checking out and just doing an online check-out. Unfortunately that is hindsight and an expensive lesson learned, but one that is probably more obvious to those of us with status and who stay in hotels a lot.

To those saying "This would be laughed out of court in Europe" I would politely disagree:
1. Airlines have used "Saturday night pricing for decades, to differentiate between business and leisure travellers. It is a similar concept
2. Those saying "well the hotel makes less money if you stay less time" should remember that an average guest will spend a percentage of their room rate on extras (room service etc.) that may be more profitable) and will cost less (i.e. a room cleaning service for a room that is continuing is going to be less than a guest checking out), so arguably the hotel will have lost some money (I am not claiming all) by the guest checking out earlier. This would be a case to be made in court

There is no moral in the story, just an unfortunate misunderstanding at check-out (that is "my word against yours") that left a bad taste but is pretty well disclosed in my own view and difficult to do much about. Particularly as the market is a tourist one with likely multiple instances like this every day, it is penal, but is unlikely to be illegal or against T&Cs. If the OP did manage to prove that then we could all book long term rates and take the benefits, and maybe the OP can - remember Lufthansa lost a court case around this (I think this one? https://simpleflying.com/lufthansa-i...r-skiplagging/), and hence now before every flight you need to tick you agree to take the flights in the order booked... so they don't have to "pay" that.

It has always been my understanding once you want to shorten a stay - it essentially cancels the stay and reprices at the now current rates unless the hotel takes mercy on you.

Does your email confirmation show that the rate is valid only on stays of 4+ days? If so then you have no reason to cancel and rebook. I wouldn't even tell the hotel you're checking out early until the day before or the day of. The charges for the previous nights will have already posted to the folio so it's harder for them to change it. However, if your email confirmation doesn't say anything about a 4+ day stay for your rate then you are completely at the mercy of the hotel.

I'm currently booked for a hotel next month that has a long term rate that clearly calls out 7+ days required. I'm fully aware of this so if I change my arrival or departure date then I would expect to pay more. This was clearly called out during booking but also is printed clearly in my email itinerary in the form of: "Your current rate may be available if your modified reservation still includes: A stay of 7 night(s) or more." You should have something similar if you are sure you're on a rate that requires 4+ nights and not 7+ or 10+.

-RM

The way Marriott IT and T&C work is that any change of dates and/or other details on a reservation is treated as a new booking and a cancellation of the previous reservation, and it is repriced according to the rates in force on the date the change happens.

Once I had a five-day award reservation and the hotel was fully booked for those dates. I just wanted to change one of the nights from free night certificate to regular points. Could not get that done for me and had to give up.

I started avoiding Hilton when they instituted this policy a couple decades ago. Assuming that there's not a minimum stay requirement (for the dates or the rate plan), it seems logical that one should be able to shorten a reservation before the cancellation deadline without losing the space or the rate. I'm also generally OK with a reasonable early checkout fee if it's made known at the time one makes the reservation, although when something is seriously wrong with the hotel, it should always be possible simply to leave without penalty.