Sky Luxury Rentals

FACTSGuest Name: [redacted] Property booked: Coco Condo, StMaartenInquired date: December 2, 2016Agent/Salesrep: [redacted] Rental agreement date: December 2, Reservation dates: January 13-17, 2017Rental rate: $2, (guests, suites) We take all of our guest's feedback into serious consideration and make adjustments when necessary to ensure future guest satisfaction That said, Ms [redacted] accusations are factually inaccurate and grossly overstated SKY Companies believes she had ever intent to complain upon return in hopes to get a full, or partial refundCLAIM: DISHONEST BUSINESS PRACTICE 1) VRBO Rate IssueFirst, I need to point out it's customary to base rents on the number of suites needed, as the number of suites directly correlates to utility usage and cleaning costs, as well as have seasonal rate changes.Second, regarding our listing with VRBO, which has a flawed policy regarding the instant reply with quote it sends in our behalf I've brought this to their attention several times, explaining the confusion it causes prospects because it does not take into consideration our different rate factorsVrbo's instant rate quoted to prospects is based on our lowest nightly rental rate It does not consider the number of guest/suites needed by a particular group, whether it is during our peak or off peak season, or is the state of less than one week, which are all factors in our ratesThis causes confusion for clients like Ms [redacted] because they use this instant quote as there rate instead of reviewing our rate details and personal replied rate We understand how this may be confusing and continue to work with VRBO to remedy That said, Ms [redacted] questioned the rate early on in the booking process, and our agent, Mr [redacted] immediately explained how we handle rates in detail Ms [redacted] understood, and articulated to proceed, as well as clearly accepted the rental rate when she submitted her executed rental agreement(See attached rental agreement.)Conclusion: does not warrant refund.2) Occupancy issueMsAlford's signed & submitted her rental agreement, which clearly states two guests, two suites, and rental rate of $2,000.00.Her rental agreement does in fact state the condo's maximum occupancy is six guests, the rate SKY Companies (Mr [redacted] ) quoted Ms [redacted] was based on two guests and two suites Had she requested three guests and three suites from the beginning her rate would have been higher Conclusion: does not warrant refund.3) Sur-charge issueThe reason for our surcharge is due to the fact we have fixed costs associated with each rental regardless of number of nights stayed We calculate our rates considering a full week, as this is the norm However, we realize some do not want a full week, and while we will reduce their rate from our full weekly rate we do pass on the fixed costs onto their reduced rate This is how we end up at a rate slightly above the average nightly rate for MsAlford This needs to be economical for SKY Companies in order to make any business sense.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.4) Last minute nature issueRegarding the last minute nature of the additional rent due for the use of the additional suite, it is Ms [redacted] who waited last minute to inform us she needed the third suite She contacted us (24) hours prior to her arrival The last minute nature of the informed additional fee was entirely her own doing, and SKY Companies takes offense to MsAlford's placing blame on SKY Companies for her delinquent action Again, Me [redacted] explained the original rate was for two guests and two suites and if she needed a third suite she would be charged additional fee Ms [redacted] then stopped corresponding, as well as would not allow our Property Manager in the couple times she stopped by the property to cheon this group My assumption is Ms [redacted] did in fact have additional guests staying at the condo and did not pay any additional fee However, there is no proof as she did not allow our property manager into The property.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.5) Financial harm issueIt was Ms [redacted] choice to make and pay for her reservation at Coco Condo She was well informed of the rate, paid that rate, and proceeded on her own to add additional guests without being upfront and honest with SKY Companies regarding this fact She has caused herself her own financial harm, as well as SKY Companies, for that matter as negative comments posted against our company deter future business.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.6) Late departureAnd item that Mrsoffered would like to forget is the fact she departed the condo late causing us to hire additional cleaning staff to prepare the condo for the next arriving group that same dayMs [redacted] rental agreement also clearly states there will be a fine imposed for late departure's which are not pre-arranged This is because we generally have guests arriving the same day guests depart, and we need full-time to clean and prepare for the next arriving group.Ms [redacted] checked out after 11:AM, however, her full security deposit had been refundedThank you again for your time on this issue

The reason for the $security deposit back instead of the full $was due to she checked out hr 1/late

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Rejecting Sky's reply because:Sky previously emailed that it would return security deposit in FULL ($500) in account of multiple problems during 4-day rental (without water and toilets twice, construction on mornings)We stayed after checkout time with hopes that water would be available for showers, before our flights We had not been able to shower the last night or morning of checkout Sky has not addressed the previous issues sent, indicating misleading pricing in its VRBO adSky has falsely claimed construction started at 9am, but local date/time on attached photos confirms construction started after 7am Reminder that construction woke us on mornings of day vaca.Attachments support all of these points Thank you for your continued patience in a resolution
Regards,
*** ***

FACTSGuest Name:...

 [redacted]Property booked:  Coco Condo, St. MaartenInquired date:  December 2, 2016Agent/Salesrep:  [redacted]Rental agreement date: December 2, 2017  Reservation dates:  January 13-17, 2017Rental rate:  $2,000.00  (2 guests, 2 suites)  We take all of our guest's feedback into serious consideration and make adjustments when necessary to ensure future guest satisfaction.  That said, Ms. [redacted] accusations are factually inaccurate and grossly overstated.  SKY Companies believes she had ever intent to complain upon return in hopes to get a full, or partial refund. CLAIM:    DISHONEST BUSINESS PRACTICE  1)  VRBO Rate IssueFirst, I need to point out it's customary to base rents on the number of suites needed, as the number of suites directly correlates to utility usage and cleaning costs, as well as have seasonal rate changes.Second, regarding our listing with VRBO, which has a flawed policy regarding the instant reply with quote it sends in our behalf.   I've brought this to their attention several times, explaining the confusion it causes prospects because it does not take into consideration our different rate factors. Vrbo's instant rate quoted to prospects is based on our lowest nightly rental rate.  It does not consider the number of guest/suites needed by a particular group, whether it is during our peak or off peak season, or is the state of less than one week, which are all factors in our rates. This causes confusion for clients like Ms. [redacted] because they use this instant quote as there rate instead of reviewing our rate details and personal replied rate.  We understand how this may be  confusing and continue to work with VRBO to remedy.  That said, Ms. [redacted] questioned the rate early on in the booking process, and our agent, Mr. [redacted] immediately explained how we handle rates in detail.  Ms. [redacted] understood, and articulated to proceed, as well as clearly accepted the rental rate when she submitted her executed rental agreement. (See attached rental agreement.)Conclusion: does not warrant refund.2)  Occupancy issueMs. Alford's signed  & submitted  her rental agreement, which clearly states two guests, two suites, and rental rate of $2,000.00.Her rental agreement does in fact state the condo's maximum occupancy is six guests, the rate SKY Companies (Mr. [redacted]) quoted Ms. [redacted] was based on two guests and two suites.  Had she requested three guests and three suites from the beginning her rate would have been higher.  Conclusion: does not warrant refund.3) Sur-charge issueThe reason for our surcharge is due to the fact we have fixed costs associated with each rental regardless of number of nights stayed.  We calculate our rates considering a full week, as this is the norm.  However, we realize some do not want a full week, and while we will reduce their rate from our full weekly rate we do pass on the fixed costs onto their reduced rate.  This is how we end up at a rate slightly above the average nightly rate for Ms. Alford.  This needs to be economical for SKY Companies in order to make any business sense.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.4) Last minute nature issueRegarding the last minute nature of the additional rent due for the use of the additional suite, it is Ms. [redacted] who waited last minute to inform us she needed the third suite.  She contacted us (24) hours prior to her arrival.  The last minute nature of the informed additional fee was entirely her own doing, and SKY Companies takes offense to Ms. Alford's placing blame on SKY Companies for her delinquent action.   Again, Me [redacted] explained the original rate was for two guests and two suites and if she needed a third suite she would be charged additional fee.  Ms. [redacted] then stopped corresponding, as well as would not allow our Property Manager in the couple times she stopped by the property to check-up on this group.  My assumption is Ms. [redacted] did in fact have additional guests staying at the condo and did not pay any additional fee.  However, there is no proof as she did not allow our property manager into The property.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.5)   Financial harm issueIt was Ms. [redacted] choice to make and pay for her reservation at Coco Condo.  She was well informed of the rate, paid that rate, and proceeded on her own to add additional guests without being upfront and honest with SKY Companies regarding this fact.  She has caused herself her own financial harm, as well as SKY Companies, for that matter as negative comments posted against our company deter future business.Conclusion: does not warrant refund.6)  Late departureAnd item that Mrs. offered would like to forget is the fact she departed the condo late causing us to hire additional cleaning staff to prepare the condo for the next arriving group that same day. Ms. [redacted] rental agreement also clearly states there will be a fine imposed for late departure's which are not pre-arranged.  This is because we generally have guests arriving the same day guests depart, and we need full-time to clean and prepare for the next arriving group.Ms. [redacted] checked out after 11:30 AM, however, her full security deposit had been refunded. Thank you again for your time on this issue.

Hello, Thank you for looking into this problem.  Attached are screenshots, confirming a 3 bedroom vacation home sleeping up to 6 people for $429, with a minimum stay of 4 nights.  Please let me know if you would like any additional information.Sincerely,[redacted]