Morritt's Grand utility charges

[Carolinian]

It's not ''vengeful''. See my post about the reasons for doing so. My point is not to let it spoil your whole vacation. Put it out of your mind until you have to deal with it at check-out. Then give them a 1 on your comment car for check-in/out for the unpleasantness that occured when you did have to deal with it.

This might be one of the reasons why many European resorts have low VEP's.

The resort I own at in Europe does NOT charge utility fees, and it has a good VEP (based on its award status and what it is able to pull). If the association were ever to propose any of these fees, I would speak out strongly against it.

Also, I am not against all fees. For example, I have done canalboat exchanges, and fuel for the boats is one of those extraordinary expense that one would not expect to be covered in maintenance fees.

Carolinian, would you feel this vengeful over a $100 US utility charge in Venice? That's what we just paid in June, and we didn't even have hot water, yet it was a great exchange and I'd do it again, and my comment card reflected my overall satisfaction, as it should have. As I said earlier, over half of our European exchanges have had utility charges. I'm not sure why you're singling Morritt's out, when this is such a common practice in so many countries. I'm sure many DAE exchangers regularly incur utility charges.

 

[Tia]

Agree it that RCI and II the exchange companies should list the information clearly before someone decides to exchange. Then it is your choice.

Each resort has it's costs and they vary by location. I don't believe myself it's completely fair to compare trading some Carribbean resorts where insurance is sky high as well as energy costs, sky rocketed also, to mainland US resorts. The Carribbean resorts we have have high maint. fees compared to many. So when you do trade maybe look at your $ output compared to mine and see it as an equalizer. You get less or you get more for the dollar depending on area and the costs, just my 2¢.

My one resort has discussed posting signs in units to conserve water and electric, and some owners don't want to conserve while others do, so even owners are not all going to agree.

Then too not all resorts have owners controlling costs instead they have managements with developers and owners have little say.

 

[johnmfaeth]

This thread is getting geriatric in length and age

 

[Rod in Louisiana]

This thread is getting geriatric in length and age

Well said, John. We've all stated our positions, and, given the passion that this topic seems to generate in us, it's highly unlikely that anyone will be swayed by opposing arguments. So, from my perspective, I'm going to agree to disagree with some of the other posters, and move on.

 

[Larry]

Morritts is NOT that difficult to exchange into. If you want difficult, try St. Johns!

As to going back, I have been to many Caribbean islands, and while Grand Cayman is indeed nice it is NOT at the top of my list to go back.

I concur with Carolinian completely. We own in Aruba and St. Martin and although we enjoyed Grand Cayman Island and Morritts Grand it is not at the top of my list. I liked it better than St. Martin but not as much as Aruba. I was there for 13 days and although the weather was nice for the first two weeks of December there were two full days when we could not go to the beach with rain most of the day as well as the worst wind I have ever experienced during that time of the year in the Caribbean ( and people say Aruba is windy).

Maybe it was just bad luck but the week before we got there it was so bad that swimming was almost impossible in the ocean and pool. In addition with the poor exchange rate .80 to US dollar I found Grand Cayman to be at least 20% higher than St. Martin or Aruba so to get hit with an additional $100 was a bit much. As an example we don't drink much and did have several meals at the resort. When we checked out my bill was something like $375 Cayman dollars which was about $460 US and although we didn't buy more than our usual amount of meals and drinks at the resort it was more than twice what we ever paid at checkout from a timeshare resort.

Just an aside when we bought at the Pelican in St. Martin during the fire sale the Royal resorts had imposed an additional $100 dollars for utilites and resort fee to both owners and exchangers. The following year they said the $100 caused so many negative responses to RCI and II it was eliminated and maintenance to owners was increased by $100.

I really believe these types of charges should be part of the maintenance fees since I am now paying twice. Once for the $100 included in my maintenance fee to the Pelican and since I exchanged my Pelican week for Morritts Grand I paid again when I checked out of Morritts. I just don't think that's fair at all

 

[Rod in Louisiana]

In addition with the poor exchange rate .80 to US dollar I found Grand Cayman to be at least 20% higher than St. Martin or Aruba so to get hit with an additional $100 was a bit much. As an example we don't drink much and did have several meals at the resort. When we checked out my bill was something like $375 Cayman dollars which was about $460 US and although we didn't buy more than our usual amount of meals and drinks at the resort it was more than twice what we ever paid at checkout from a timeshare resort.

I would never attempt to convince someone that Grand Cayman isn't an expensive place to visit. However, I must take issue with the statement about the "poor exchange rate." The exchange rate only affects prices if it fluctuates, as it does in the European countries. On 12/31/2001, the value of the Euro was $1.13 USD. Today, the value of the Euro is $.77 USD. That's a dollar devaluaton of 34% against the Euro. If retail prices in Europe had stayed the same for the last five years, the net effect of this dollar devaluation is a 34% price increase. The exchange rate between the Caymanian Dollar and the United States Dollar has been fixed for many years. On 12/31/2001, the value of the Caymanian Dollar (CI) was $.80 USD. Today, the value of the Caymanian Dollar is $.80 USD. So, if retail prices had stayed the same in the Cayman Islands for the last five yers, the net effect of this exchange rate is a 0% price increase. Now, nobody really expects prices to stay the same anywhere, but these same calculations apply, regardless of price increases. The fixed exchange rate has actually worked in our favor.

The real determination of the price of a Caymanian vacation isn't the exchange rate, which has little or nothing to do with the price of that vacation. Some of the determining factors are: the cost of land on a small island; the cost of getting materials, food and other things to an island that produces none of these things; the duties imposed by the Caymanian government on these imported items, such as the huge duty on liquor; the cost of wages for Caymanian employees on an island that has one of the highest standards of living in the Caribbean.

Has anyone noticed that there are no beggers or street vendors on Grand Cayman? In order to sell anything on Grand Cayman, you must, by law, have a storefront location. If you're stopped by the police (and you will be if you speed, or drink and drive), don't even think of offering them a bribe. Try it and you'll be taken straight to jail, and a charge of attmpted bribery will be lodged against you.

Sure, prices on Grand Cayman are expensive, for the above reasons and for other reasons, but I do tire of reading about the "poor exchange rate" year after year, when that has nothing to do with those prices.

 

[TomCayman]

The reality of this situation is that it boils down to supply and demand. Someone mentioned the Disney charge to exchangers, and that was one factor that influenced several resorts following suit and assessing charges on exchangers.

In my opinion, as long as the information is appropriately disclosed by the exchange company prior to confirmation of exchange, then the (potential) inward exchanger can make their own mind up.

I have to say that we had issues with II not informing people for a time, and some time ago we received numerous complaints from exchangers stating that they had NOT been informed by II so we highlighted this by giving exchangers a letter on check in informing them that they should have been informed by II and to complain to II if that was the case.

II received so many complaints about this that they made sure to inform everyone, and we have had very few exchangers in recent years make the complaint that they were not informed.

One more comment about supply and demand is that the exchange companies have consistently failed to give adequate weight to their top trading resorts. We have been promised several times that a level above II Five Star would be launched, but it has yet to happen.

Apart from (say) The Reef, how do you think owners at Four Season Aviara feel about II ? No matter what II gives them for their weeks, it is not fair value. I just rented a week to stay there next year and paid well over $3000 for that.... yup, just answered my own question... the exchange system fails owners at the top resorts, and those owners rent instead of exchange. In 2007 at The Reef we will go over $1m in payments to owners for rental proceeds, as at least twice as many owners rent through us as deposit their weeks through exchange.

The system is broken, but I don't know how they can fix it.

 

[cindi]

Cindi,
I sincerely apologize if my statement was misconstrued. It certainly was not my intention to imply that you are a liar. I'm sorry.

If you were NOT informed by the RCI VC of the fees, then you weren't.

You were informed of them in writing on-line prior to confirmation as shown in post 72 and the fees are also stated on the confirmation itself which is available on-line immediately and by post shortly thereafter.

I agree that there should be a note about the utility charges AND the Transient Taxes in the resort directory. That is not the fault of the resort but of the exchange company.

Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us.

No bad feelings now, Lawren. Thanks for your comments.

I have to accept part of the blame of not doing enough due dilligence on this exchange. I didn't have any idea the utility fees could potentially amount to such a high figure. But if I was concerned about it, I should have inquired further on my own.

 

[Caladezi]

Oh, there are lots of reasons to do it.

1) In an earlier thread, someone who owned at a resort on SXM posted that their home resort had abandoned its utility fee for exchangers because it had caused their RCI scores to go down. This is one proactive way, we can try to accomplish positive change on these unethical fees.

2) It reflects reality. Having to pay these unethical fees makes check-out unpleasant, so a 1 in the ''check-in/out'' category is highly appropriate. Similarly, these fees are inhospitalible in the extreme, so a 1 in the ''resort hospitality'' category is also highly appropriate. I don't bang them on things like resort maintenance or housekeeping for these fees, because I would agree that those categories would not be a proper response.

3) These fees facilitate freeloading by their members at our resorts, and they should not be able to get away with that.

To name just a few.

Actually, I do wish that there was a practical way for resorts to impose reciprocal fees ONLY for incoming exchangers from resorts with particular fees. That would be the best way to stamp out this unethical practice.

Why would you even consider changing into a resort that causes you so much pain. If you want to "bang" somebody, why would you bang the resort that YOU chose to exchange into, and not the EXCHANGE COMPANY that failed to inform you about the charges. Further, if you were informed and still choose to exchange into the resort, then the one you should "BANG" is yourself.

 

[gmarine]

The policy for charging seperately for utilities has only one purpose. That is to maintain an illusion that maintenance fees are lower than they actually are and to have exchangers subsidize the fees of owners at resorts that have these kinds of charges.

This is not an amentity that you can choose whether or not you want to take advantage of. This is a necessity.

Yes, you can certainly choose not to exchange in. That is what I choose to do.
It doesnt change the fact that it is a stupid policy. Policies of charging for necessities can only lead to more resorts thinking up ways to subsidize high maintenance fees.

What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? A surcharge for linens to be provided? Extra charges to use running water?
Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".

 

[Caladezi]

What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? A surcharge for linens to be provided? Extra charges to use running water?
Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".

Now yo're being silly!!!

 

[lawren2]

What's next ? Charging for furniture in the unit? A surcharge for linens to be provided? Extra charges to use running water?
Like Carolinion said, "oh you wanted a door , well thats extra".

Many resorts that do not have daily or midweek cleaning do just that; charge for additional linens.

Here is an example of a US resort that we have an exchange to:

Resort ID - 5034
Resort Name Kill Devil Hills, NC, USA


Unit Type
Max Occ/Privacy - 6 / 6
Kitchen - Full
Check-in Date - 06/23/2007

Directions
The nearest commercial airport to the resort is in Norfolk, about 90 miles away.Take Highway 64 to U.S. 168 at Great Bridge, then take U.S. 158 to the town of Kill Devil Hills on the U.S. 158 Bypass. After passing the Kill Devil Hills Police Department, go left on First Street and one block to the ocean. If coming from Raleigh, NC take Hwy 64 to Manteo, NC. Follow U.S. 158 Bypass to the town of Kill Devil Hills. Turn right on First Street and follow one block to the resort.

Additional Information
Units at The Golden Strand come equipped with all the comforts of home including 2 televisions with VCR and HBO, microwave oven, air-conditioning and private sundeckand wet bar. Requests for unit changes cannot be accommodated. 2BR units OCC: Max 6/Pri 6 have 2 baths, 1queen bed, 2 twin beds and 1 sleep sofa. 3BR units OCC: Max 8/Pri 6 have 2 baths with a whirlpool in the master bath, 1 queen bed, 4 twin beds and 1 sleep sofa. Not all 3BR units have a whirlpool tub. No pets are allowed. A car is necessary to fully enjoy the area. Due to the size of this resort, there is not 24 hour staffat the service desk. The resort does not provide a mid-week clean, but guests may obtain additional linens for a fee.

Urgent Information
AN OCEAN VIEW IS NOT GUARANTEED AND THE RESORT IS UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE REQUESTS FOR A UNIT CHANGE. THIS IS A SMALLER RESORT WITH LIMITED STAFF AND AS A RESULT THE RESORT DOES NOT OFFER 24 SERVICE DESK NOR DOES IT OFFER A MID-WEEK CLEANING. ADDITIONAL LINENS AVAILABLE FOR FEE.

 

[Carolinian]

The biggest reason to bang them is to be proactive to put pressure on these resorts to end these highly unethical fees. A previous poster has mentioned one resort he owns at where low scores from exchangers accomplished precisely that.

Why should anyone feel that they cannot exchange into a resort as a result of the resort cheating exchangers by imposed unethical fees? That just allows their owners to freeload into my resorts without paying utility charges anywhere. That is part of what needs to be brought to a screeching halt.

There may well be places that these fees would be a deal killer as far as my desire to exchange in, and others where I may grit my teeth and do it anyway. In the latter, I am not going to dwell on that subject my entire trip,
but the check-out will produce an unpleasant moment, and that unpleasantness will be returned when I fill out my comment card. Other than those two times, I will put the subject out of my mind.

What do you think of a reciprocal fee system to put an end to the freeloading? My resort doesn't charge exchangers for things like utilities, cleaning fees, taxes, etc. UNLESS the home resort of the inbound exchanger has those fees for their own exchange guests, and then we hit them will ALL of the very same fees. Such an approach would seem quite fair to me. Too bad we don't have the data to impliment such a system now.

Why would you even consider changing into a resort that causes you so much pain. If you want to "bang" somebody, why would you bang the resort that YOU chose to exchange into, and not the EXCHANGE COMPANY that failed to inform you about the charges. Further, if you were informed and still choose to exchange into the resort, then the one you should "BANG" is yourself.

 

[Dean]

I wasn't going to jump in on this topic again but I've decided to after all. First, I can see both sides of the issue and if a resort has inordinate charges in a certain area, I can see them passing A PORTION on to the exchanger but not the entire amount. I could also see taking the stand that the owners pay for the entire cost of running the resort then decide if they want to own or exchange out or not. The end result would be they would likely exchange out less, rent more and the resort would likely have an increase in defaults. That might put the overall resort structure in jeopardy and the resort might close. Actually that's OK with me as it forces the remaining resorts to toe the line more than the current system and the ones that did survive would be the ones that performed better than their peer's.

But from a practical side, the way to combat this issue is to vote with your feet. If enough people opt out, the resort will see the difference in exchange traffic and exchange power, if not, the fee is OK with enough people so who cares. IMO, accepting an exchange knowing exactly what you were getting then setting out to punish the resort due to the info you knew upfront is petty and dishonest. As far as I'm concerned, if you accept the exchange knowing the info, you said OK at that point. Marking the evaluation honestly is certainly fair but that's not what some have suggested.

 

[Laurie]

What's next ? A surcharge for linens to be provided?

Yes, actually some do this - 2 resorts I exchanged into in Italy - one in Sardinia, one in the Alps. Apparently some vacationers bring their own from home. To some extent I just view these as cultural differences - just as in Italy, many restaurants have a "cuperto charge" - for the table, place setting, tablecloth, napkins, bread, however you want to explain it. I know we'd find it odd to think we can eat in a restaurant without a table or place setting, but so it is.

 

[Cat]

One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in. We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.

The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.

Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?

I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.

Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon only the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.

We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics. Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?

 

[cindi]

One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in. We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.

The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.

Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?

I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.

Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon only the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.

We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics. Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?

Now THAT is scarey.

I was slowly wrapping my mind around the idea they were doing a utility charge for what I used, but if trying to be careful doesn't impact the charge at the end, then things are out of control.

I wish there was somewhere to complain about that issue, that might actually make some impact. That is just plain WRONG. :annoyed:

 

[Cat]

Cindi, that's exactly the point. If this were truly an "actual usage" matter, then they should have no problem proving it to those who want to verify.

Since they are unwilling to "open the books," we came away from there believing it's just one more way to gouge guests, both owners and exchangers, and give them no recourse. The whole thing stinks of 3-day old fish. Either be upfront and honest, with records open for all to see or just don't do it. They want carte blanche to levy charges, but don't want to have to show simple proof of the legitimacy to those who are being required to pay it. They want the money, but insist on keeping its claimed legitimacy shrouded in cloak-and-dagger tactics. Not exactly fair and definitely murky.

Kinda reminds you of RCI's "secret trade power algorithm," doesn't it?

 

[Larry]

One issue that no one has brought up is the abritrary nature of the power surcharge that we have experienced at Morritt's. We were there for two weeks. The first week we were in a 2 BR. There were two of us. We turned the thermostat up to the maximum everytime we went out, and set at 78 when we were in. We used the oven once each week. We were charged around $50.

The second week we were in a one BR unit that was exactly half the size of our first week (2 BR unit.) We did exactly the same as we did the first week. The charge was the same as our first week, right down to the dollar.

Now don't know about you, but that signals to me that something not exactly honest is going on here. How can the air conditioning charge for a unit double the size of the other, operated exactly the same, cost exactly the same? We asked how they arrived at what to charge. They said it was an exact reading. Since we were at the desk waiting for the reading to come in, we knew it had just been done (supposedly.) We politely showed our bill from the week before, and suggested that what they were telling us was a physical impossibility. Our concerns were shrugged off. We asked to see the meter. We were told no way would they allow us to view the meter. Why would that be the case, unless management had something to hide?

I guess it's not the actual usage that bothers me so much as it appears to be completely arbitrary. They charge what they want to charge without impunity. When they are supposedly charging you what the meter reads, they should include a quick, digital snap of the meter to prove their honesty.

Whenever you charge money for something that is supposed to be actual, you'd darned well better be prepared to prove it. Morritt's arrogantly refused to do so. So let me get this straight: You insist on charging me a fee based upon only the amount I use, but you have no way to show me what I used?? Doesn't that leave this open to abuse? Sure seems so to me.

We are not the only people to whom this happened. So if you want to levy a charge and insist that it's the real deal, then be prepared to be questioned when you present the guest with a physical impossibility such as this. I'm not trying to be difficult - I didn't invent the laws of physics. Because of what Morritt's did to us on this, how can a guest have a reasonable assurance that this "necessary charge" is being administered with documented honesty and no room for abuse?

Wow I really didn't ask to see the meter and was very suspicious that they charged me for my actual usage since we mostly used the ceiling fans and only put on the AC when it was really hot like when we came back for lunch to the unit mid day. I also settled up me bill the night before I checked out so was wondering about my electricity usage from 10:00 PM til 10:00 Am when we checked out of the room. Since I paid the night before did I get free usage for twelve hours or as I suspected they just hit me with an arbitrary charge for the week.

Your post now confirms my suspicions and I paid about twice what you paid for the 2BR unit for the week for supposed "usage". I now agree even more with Carolinian that they should be given a poor rating on hospitality and check out. Other than that I really liked Morritts Grand and gave it high ratings.

Too bad there isn't a catagory on resort ethics.

 

[Cat]

BTW, this happened a couple of years ago, which is why the bill was so low. I imagine now that they are much higher, but doubt that management is anymore cooperative now than they were then about allowing you to verify your charges. Has anyone recently asked to see the meter before checkout?

 

[Dean]

Cindi, that's exactly the point. If this were truly an "actual usage" matter, then they should have no problem proving it to those who want to verify.

Since they are unwilling to "open the books," we came away from there believing it's just one more way to gouge guests, both owners and exchangers, and give them no recourse. The whole thing stinks of 3-day old fish. Either be upfront and honest, with records open for all to see or just don't do it. They want carte blanche to levy charges, but don't want to have to show simple proof of the legitimacy to those who are being required to pay it. They want the money, but insist on keeping its claimed legitimacy shrouded in cloak-and-dagger tactics. Not exactly fair and definitely murky.

Kinda reminds you of RCI's "secret trade power algorithm," doesn't it?

Assuming the basic concept is reasonable to charge the end user for the utilities (maybe maybe not) I would NOT be willing to concede that it must be the actual amount for that week and that unit. Actually that would be unworkable I would think. The most reasonable would be if they took last years numbers and made a reasonable projection for the next year. And work out some way to know what the general consumption was for different size units and possibly for different times of the year. They work out a formula that returns she amount needed for the year and "fairly" distributes those costs over the number of units occupied for the year. Thus a 1 BR probably should be less than a 2 BR but likely not half even if exactly half the square footage. But ultimately in the end you'd have to take their word for it though the concept I mentioned above would be easy to represent to an owner or exchanger. Still they likely couldn't PROVE it and who's to say they don't add in an extra $50-100 just because they can. Ultimately you have the same decision when you look at the exchange, take it or leave it.

 

[Cat]

Assuming the basic concept is reasonable to charge the end user for the utilities (maybe maybe not) I would NOT be willing to concede that it must be the actual amount for that week and that unit. Actually that would be unworkable I would think. The most reasonable would be if they took last years numbers and made a reasonable projection for the next year. And work out some way to know what the general consumption was for different size units and possibly for different times of the year. They work out a formula that returns she amount needed for the year and "fairly" distributes those costs over the number of units occupied for the year. Thus a 1 BR probably should be less than a 2 BR but likely not half even if exactly half the square footage. But ultimately in the end you'd have to take their word for it though the concept I mentioned above would be easy to represent to an owner or exchanger. Still they likely couldn't PROVE it and who's to say they don't add in an extra $50-100 just because they can. Ultimately you have the same decision when you look at the exchange, take it or leave it.

Well, Dean, in theory I would agree with you, if that is how it is presented. But that's NOT how it's presented. They tell you that you are billed for your "actual usage." It's disingenuous to make a formula that can allow the same party in a 1 BR to be charged the same in a 2 BR. That formula allows a budget-minded traveler who does without air conditioning to lower fees to be charged the same as someone in that unit who is a wastrel. It shows that the management is not being honest about their "actual usage" claim. Still think it's a defensible stance?

The reason they tell this lie is presumably so that you will watch your usage and not waste. They are thereby implying clearly you that you will be rewarded for your conservation, when in effect, your charge has already been predetermined. How can you "take it or leave it" when you are willfully deceived? "Take or leave" exactly what, pray tell? As I see it, the only decision that can be made is to "leave it" since I don't like being lied to. Maybe you do?

 

[Cat]

Here is the line that Morritt's feeds potential exchangers: "1BD UNITS ARE US$40-60/WEEK AND 2BD UNITS ARE $90-$110 PER WEEK BASED ON USAGE."

Additionally, they told us to our face that they "read the meter" before checkout. Assuming your scenario is the actual situation, It that OK with you? Because it's not OK with me. I don't appreciate being fed a line. It's neither an acceptable nor ethical way to conduct business and fosters ill will.

 

[Dean]

Well, Dean, in theory I would agree with you, if that is how it is presented. But that's NOT how it's presented. They tell you that you are billed for your "actual usage." It's disingenuous to make a formula that can allow the same party in a 1 BR to be charged the same in a 2 BR. That formula allows a budget-minded traveler who does without air conditioning to lower fees to be charged the same as someone in that unit who is a wastrel. It shows that the management is not being honest about their "actual usage" claim. Still think it's a defensible stance?

The reason they tell this lie is presumably so that you will watch your usage and not waste. They are thereby implying clearly you that you will be rewarded for your conservation, when in effect, your charge has already been predetermined. How can you "take it or leave it" when you are willfully deceived? "Take or leave" exactly what, pray tell? As I see it, the only decision that can be made is to "leave it" since I don't like being lied to. Maybe you do?

If you know that up front you can decide whether to accept the exchange. If you get the wrong information and make the wrong choice, obviously that is different. As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would. While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year. I wonder in your case if they didn't just carry the larger charge over from the first week. Whether it was truly intentional or just someone at the desk who didn't know what they were doing would ultimately depend on whether it was truly dishonest or not in my book. And if they truly represent that they read the meter and they don't I would agree that too is dishonest, again we all know with timeshares that just because someone said it doesn't make it true. And it seems to me that there is far more inaccurate info thrown around by employees of timeshares and exchange companies than any other situation I am personally aware of though it happens across the board to a degree.

 

[Cat]

If you know that up front you can decide whether to accept the exchange. If you get the wrong information and make the wrong choice, obviously that is different. As for your quote "based on usage', you might read it more literally than I would. While I think one could interpret it that way you have I also think one could interpret it based on the usage over a longer timeframe even as much as a year. I wonder in your case if they didn't just carry the larger charge over from the first week. Whether it was truly intentional or just someone at the desk who didn't know what they were doing would ultimately depend on whether it was truly dishonest or not in my book. And if they truly represent that they read the meter and they don't I would agree that too is dishonest, again we all know with timeshares that just because someone said it doesn't make it true. And it seems to me that there is far more inaccurate info thrown around by employees of timeshares and exchange companies than any other situation I am personally aware of though it happens across the board to a degree.

All very true, Dean, and agreed. However, when it comes down to having to parse the meaning of the term "actual usage" which should be pretty self-evident, then something is not being done correctly. It's time for Morritt's and other resorts that levy extra utility charges come clean about how they arrive at a sum. If it's actual usage, then be prepared to demonstrate the legitimacy of how that figure was derived. In this country, if you were just charged a random fee every month for your electricity where the usage of others was factored in, it would not be well received, and you can bet the regulatory board would be down on them like white on rice. It should be the same here.

Very few would contest a necessary charge. It's the abuse thereof, hiding behind the guise of "high charges" that gets up people's hackles. If fees are not based on actual usage, the flat fees should be disclosed in advance, thus enabling guests to do their due diligence.