Unless I am missing something I do believe that Sharon said exactly that. Read her last two sentences. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I don't see anywhere in Sharon's post where she makes the point that it is OK to fradulently use a reservation code. The point she is making is that of all the codes Marriott uses, the Gov't code may be one of least fradulently used specficially because it is checked for more often than others.

Personally, I agree with you that hotels, just like airlines, are for-profit organizations. And as such, they probably don't want to alienate their customers by yelling "thief, thief, thief" every time a percieved injustice has occured. They are probably better suited to wait, find out what really occured, try to better educate both themselves and their customers, and if after that, they still see a pattern of abuse, then deal with it more harshly.

so what if the OP only has a few points but the other guests have different amounts of points, then the penalties are not identical, the others didn't make the reservations, the others didn't check in (this I can not tell for sure from the OP) so your penalty is not even across the board. Furthermore the hotel has set a pattern where the OP has been given this rate all year, the hotel has set a pattern of allowing this. It would be the hotels job to indicate up front that she is no longer eligible. To do this after the fact is BS

To call this theft is such a ridiculous comment - I'd wonder what the poster is smoking as he/she made the comment

Chill pill requested

Well, I have hesitated to comment up to this point as I figured someone else would bring up the glaring gray area that seems apparent to me.

First, I see some assumptions being made by posters and since we can only go with what was observed by the OP one can only guess. When I first read this I ASSUMED from what I read that the person checking out was the one who made the original reservations; however from the posts I have read most others are ASSUMING that it is one of the reservation maker's guests who are not government employees that is checking out. I only bring this up as a precursor to discussing the gray area I see with regard to the policy touted by this hotel, not as a bone of contention as to what was intended by the original poster... I also assumed that the rates were government leisure rates, not government rates considering this is Orlando Sea World. This may be a bad assumption. If it was actual government rates then the discussion stops here. But for rhetorical purposes I will continue...

If the OP had instead booked 3 rooms at the government leisure rate which were booked and paid for by him would that be allowed? Does it make a difference if the other two rooms were occupied by his 4 children? Or how about if they were occupied by his Uncles and Aunts, or parents?

I have a similar situation, but while it does not involve government rates, it does involve membership rates. I am holding a family event at a Marriott in March for which I signed a contract, etc. Because we are only booking a half dozen rooms, they are not included in the contract and need to be booked separately. FYI: In order to negotiate room rates in conjunction with an event one must guarantee 10 or more rooms. So I booked 6 rooms at AAA rates since I am a AAA member. I am paying for the rooms, and they will be occupied by me, my Aunts and Uncles, and Cousins. Nowhere in the AAA rate rules does it say limit 1 room per customer. So a few questions... Is this legal? Is it ethical? FWIW, I didn't even consider either of these questions until reading this thread. And while I personally believe there is nothing wrong with my plans, I think this perspective sheds some light on a number of comments made in this thread. In either case if it isn't, what do you think Marriott would do for a Plat that dropping about $6000 at their hotel over a 2 day period?

Sharon, I would especially like to hear your opinion on this. All other are welcome to pipe in too!

I don't know what the rules are for the number of rooms that one could legitimately reserve under a favored, but restriced code. This would be a great topic for Chris, Socrates, the Marriott Guy et al to weigh in on.

If I was not eligible for a restricted rate, I would certainly not be surprised to be challenged. I would also expect that I would have to pay a higher rate. However, the challenge should take place at CHECK-IN, not when I was checking out.

Once a stay is complete, it's too late to change the rules retroactively. That appears to be bait-and-switch, or something similar.

I just double checked:

Maximum number of rooms per AAA ID is 2

Maximum number of rooms per Government ID is 1

I know this post will spur a heated debate, I dont feel this thread is the appropriate place - a new thread should be started if anyone wishes to continue the discussion

Might be a good idea for those Marriott lurkers here to suggest to their corporate IT angels to include the verbage Socrates refers to in the rate rules we're agreeing to online when making the reservation. Unpublished rules create contractual and detrimental reliance issues ;)

I have no issue with the rules as long as they're clearly published. Since I initial the rate and sign the registration slip, the hotel only gets the rate I agreed to pay at check-in. Any deviations are disputed with the credit card company. It's a fun game :)

Pat

As requested proceed to new thread, Max rooms allowed when using Gov, AAA, other rates.