2017 Points Charts Out

[Dean]

Let me add that as I read the POS they would easily be able to make these changes. I'll add 2 additional pieces of info. One is that they have the right to amend the POS unilaterally as long as the change would not "prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of any Owner or any Mortgagee or record". IMO this change would fall within those parameters. The other component is that for the POS's I have, the reallocation charts are only in the multisite POS which gives significantly less protection to owners and even more latitude to DVC/DVD than the direct POS. I assume those taking the other side of this equation would feel this does impair the rights of an owner there and I can see that side of the argument as well.

 

[Anal Annie]

Creating booking categories without changing points applicable like was done at OKW is not a fundamental change like the one being done with SSR. All that occurred with OKW was a resevation change in that a non-guaranteed request became a guaranteed request. The usual dispute at resorts over room classifications is that there are rooms that are misclassified within the classifications originally created, e.g., Poly has standard and lake view as decalared in the POD's but as Disney has done before, such as at BLT with theme park view, it put rooms in a higher existing classification which had no business being in that higher classification.

Exactly!! This move is entirely different!!!

 

[carlbarry]

I presume this was a booking category reservation and not a request. The reality is the NO reservation can ever be completely guaranteed. There have been reports of people being upgraded for such issues as well as reports of people having no room and being shuttled to a different resort. I recall one situation for BCV where apparently they overbooked or some similar situation where at least one person was shuttled to OKW being told that was their option since it was their home resort and another same timeframe being put in I think it was BWI with concierge or meal plan IIRC.

I had "reserved" Near Hospitality House 11 months out. When I arrived, they just gave me a different area, actually not so far. When I raised the question, they searched and searched on their computer. Then said nothing was available. I could have a 2 BR near HH, but they'd charge me extra points. No thanks. Or I could have 1 night in the unit, and move the next day.
In the over all scope of things, it wasn't a big deal, except for 11 months you look forward to a certain thing, and then arrive and don't get it.

 

[Dean]

Exactly!! This move is entirely different!!!

It is different but the questions are whether it's reasonable and a separate question is whether it's legally allowed under the POS and laws of the state of FL. I would content it is for both tests.

I had "reserved" Near Hospitality House 11 months out. When I arrived, they just gave me a different area, actually not so far. When I raised the question, they searched and searched on their computer. Then said nothing was available. I could have a 2 BR near HH, but they'd charge me extra points. No thanks. Or I could have 1 night in the unit, and move the next day.
In the over all scope of things, it wasn't a big deal, except for 11 months you look forward to a certain thing, and then arrive and don't get it.

Thanks for the additional info, it's a risk with any reservation and there are larger issues than this where it occurs.

 

[Snookies]

Let me add that as I read the POS they would easily be able to make these changes. I'll add 2 additional pieces of info. One is that they have the right to amend the POS unilaterally as long as the change would not "prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of any Owner or any Mortgagee or record". IMO this change would fall within those parameters. The other component is that for the POS's I have, the reallocation charts are only in the multisite POS which gives significantly less protection to owners and even more latitude to DVC/DVD than the direct POS. I assume those taking the other side of this equation would feel this does impair the rights of an owner there and I can see that side of the argument as well.

It is different but the questions are whether it's reasonable and a separate question is whether it's legally allowed under the POS and laws of the state of FL. I would content it is for both tests.

Thanks for the additional info, it's a risk with any reservation and there are larger issues than this where it occurs.

This discussion is most interesting and I appreciate the insight of all who've posted. From the perspective of a SSR points owner, I am thinking it would be difficult to demonstrate these changes materially impair rights as an owner. I would also be surprised if these changes had not been vetted with DVD/DVC legal counsel prior to release (although one could think this may have happened at least once before, i.e., with the Aulani stop/start direct sales issue that may have contributed to Jim Lewis' departure a few years ago).

When the points chart was released and there was an initial report that 3 sections (Congress Park, The Springs, and The Grandstand) are considered preferred, I was curious about how the reallocation would be point neutral since the increase for preferred seemed greater than the decrease for standard. Given a subsequent report that preferred sections are Congress Park and The Springs, it is easier to see how the reallocation can be point neutral.

Given all of this, I am thinking these changes are not only legally allowed, but can also be considered reasonable. I think it will be interesting to see if and how SSR reservation patterns change in 2017 and beyond given these changes. For example, if standard view SSR becomes problematic at 7 seven months, there could be implications for 7 month availability at other properties, given the differential between SSR standard and preferred views. I can imagine an scenario in which SSR owners book standard view prior to 7 months and then release the reservation when attempting to book somewhere else at 7 months, assuming they don't have enough points to hold both. This wouldn't necessarily affect availability, but it could affect how reservations are booked. As a result, I'm really curious about if these changes will affect the booking behavior of SSR owners and, if so, whether it affects availability at SSR or other properties. Given SSR's size, booking behavior could change without affecting SSR availability.

I'm also curious about whether this is a first for DVC, i.e., is the first time that new booking categories for existing properties have been introduced with different point structures for the booking categories?

 

[Brian Noble]

I just thought since this is a completely NEW thing for SSR they should have EXPLAINED it to the DVC members rather than just wave a magic wand and VOILA there's a new category.

That's just not how DVC, or for that matter TWDC, works. Disney takes a very paternalistic view on running its businesses, and when they make changes---removing attractions, etc.---they don't ask for input and rarely explain.

 

[drusba]

Let me add that as I read the POS they would easily be able to make these changes. I'll add 2 additional pieces of info. One is that they have the right to amend the POS unilaterally as long as the change would not "prejudice or impair to any material extent the rights of any Owner or any Mortgagee or record". IMO this change would fall within those parameters. The other component is that for the POS's I have, the reallocation charts are only in the multisite POS which gives significantly less protection to owners and even more latitude to DVC/DVD than the direct POS. I assume those taking the other side of this equation would feel this does impair the rights of an owner there and I can see that side of the argument as well.

The declaration's section you are referring to: (a) relates to DVD's ability to make amendments needed to conform to requirments of lending institutions, title insurance companies, or public bodies, or as required by law; courts, under a doctrine known as ejusdem generis, would not construe that clause to give DVD any absolute right to make changes of any kind for any reason, including because DVD has fiduciary obligations to members and because such clauses will be construed against DVD, (b) the SSR room re-classification that is going here does have a material impact on the rights of owners; there are now no rooms classified as previously classified, and the change has a major impact on the owners' right to use of the resort; and (c) DVD, the entity named in that clause has not done anything; it is DVCMC.


I am not sure what you are referring to as "reallocation charts" being only in the multisite POS. Personally, I do not think it would make a difference, Also, the limited right of DVCMC to increase or decrease points for a use day is in both the main POS and multisite. In fact, the multisite actually makes it clearer that DVCMC's right to make increases and decreases is limited only to addressing "fluctuations in Use Day Demand," not fluctuations in location of room demand and not to make room classification changes.

It is also noteworthy that the Product Understanding Acknowlegment that every new purchaser from DVD receives and signs states that the nightly point values in the charts you receive vary "depending upon season of use, location and size of the Vacation Home." It then states, "The Number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand." It goes on to say, "If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease in another night or nights." Thus, despite saying the nightly point values in the charts you orginally receive are based upon both season and location, it says nothing about being able to make changes based on location demand and limits itself to point chart modications due to "seasonal demand." In other words, in front of a court, an SSR owner can assert that DVD even required him to agree that the POS meant that changes could be made based upon seasonal demand not location demand.

 

[Daddio]

On the morning of December 24, 2015, we obtained the newly released 2017 point charts and while entering the data into our points calculator noticed the new categories added to Saratoga Springs. For clarification purpose, we telephoned Disney Vacation Club Member Services and were told (after lengthy research by the CM) that 3 areas were included in the preferred view.

Because of conflicting information being posted, I have just spoken with Member Services (who again didn't know anything of the change) and confirmed that only 2 areas, Springs and Congress Park are included as preferred locations. I was also told that if you pay the extra points, you are guaranteed to be in one of those two areas but not guaranteed to be in a requested area. You can certainly request a specific area but it will be subject to availability at check in.

~ David

 

[DieHardJoe]

Thank you David for the research. I checked the points calculator for a week in January, 2017 and it looks like 2 more points/night for a Studio, 4 more for a 1-BR and 7 more for a 2-BR. Forgetting for now all the posts regarding legality, etc, I would pay those extra points for the location. We like Disney Springs and the way it is shaping up, and we didn't feel like the walk from Congress to the main building/pool was that big of a deal.

 

[Brian Noble]

In other words, in front of a court, an SSR owner can assert that DVD even required him to agree that the POS meant that changes could be made based upon seasonal demand not location demand.

It will be interesting to see if any SSR owner decided to try it.

If so, my money would be on the Mouse winning. I can't see any ulterior motive for the reallocation that pads Disney's pockets in any particular way, and so there doesn't seem to be a reason to cut corners with the staff attorney who almost certainly reviewed the change and approved it. Remember: this is a company that convinced the Florida legislature to adopt a law drafted entirely by company lawyers granting them their own private government. This is a legal staff that knows what it is doing.

 

[Dean]

It will be interesting to see if any SSR owner decided to try it.

If so, my money would be on the Mouse winning. I can't see any ulterior motive for the reallocation that pads Disney's pockets in any particular way, and so there doesn't seem to be a reason to cut corners with the staff attorney who almost certainly reviewed the change and approved it. Remember: this is a company that convinced the Florida legislature to adopt a law drafted entirely by company lawyers granting them their own private government. This is a legal staff that knows what it is doing.

Exactly, since there is wording that would potentially allow this (reservations), there would have to be wording that prohibited it. Even if there were, it could be changed and in this situation, without additional owner input since I do not believe one can make the case that this materially affects owners there as a whole.

 

[Sammie]

I was told the same thing as Daddio by MS management. That due to member feedback and requests that Springs and Congress Park will now be bookable locations instead of just requested.

As to why DVC does things, why don't you call instead of guessing. I have never not been given explanations when I ask.

 

[Brian Noble]

In this case, it's not all that much of a surprise. There have been "I wish SSR had booking categories" threads for as long as the resort has been open. Not everyone has agreed, naturally, but the demand is surely there.

It will be interesting to see if the new point values balance demand, or if one turns out to be more popular than the other.

 

[TSMIII]

I have read that section to which you are referring many times and the fact that it says total points for all vacation homes cannot change does not mean everything else can change. The section goes on to state that due to "fluctuations in Use Day demand," not fluctuations in demand for different locations in the resort, DVCMC reserves the right "to increase or decrease the Home Resort Vacation Point requirements for reservation of a given Use Day within a given vacation home during the calendar year." "Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC's right to make this Home Resort point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease in another Use Day or Days." A vacation home is a room. In other words, DVCMC can raise points for a room in one use day as long as it lowers them in one or more other use days. That does not say DVCMC can make the same established room category have different point requirements during the same Use Day. Moreover, in line with the statement that total resort points need to stay the same, the section also says that "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" of points. A unit is usually a small number of contiguous rooms, meaning at SSR any building wil have more than one unit. If DVCMC raises the points applicable to that Unit, like it is doing by raising the points needed year round to reserve the rooms in that unit, it should not be allowed.

What any SSR owner would have going for him is that nothing was ever said in any of the documents that there could be standard and preferred booking categories with different point levels. And as to Disney's arguing that the section you are referring to gives it the right to create such categories, it will face the rule of construction followed by courts when dealing with documents created by the dominant party to the transaction and created by developers for condominiums and timeshares: all ambiguities in the section will be construed against Disney's position and in favor of the DVC member; if Disney's construction of the section is reasonable and the member's different construction of the section is also reasonable, the member wins.

I also believe the THV change was improper but if no one sues, Disney always wins.

drusba ~ You make some good points as does Dean.

I have no idea whether the changes would hold up under scrutiny should anyone sue, but with regard to what I've highlighted above we should remember that there is precedent for this to some degree - specifically with the creation in 2011 of the Standard View Grand Villas at Animal Kingdom Villas.

Prior to the 2011 point charts, and going back to the original POS, AKV Grand Villas came in only one flavor, all of which were considered to be, and marketed as, Savanna View.

Some may take the approach this split for AKV GVs was simply designating different views not location as with SSR. I'd say it was one and the same - location dictated view therefore the change in point requirements and the parallel with what has just occurred with SSR.

YMMV

 

[drusba]

drusba ~ You make some good points as does Dean.

I have no idea whether the changes would hold up under scrutiny should anyone sue, but with regard to what I've highlighted above we should remember that there is precedent for this to some degree - specifically with the creation in 2011 of the Standard View Grand Villas at Animal Kingdom Villas.

Prior to the 2011 point charts, and going back to the original POS, AKV Grand Villas came in only one flavor, all of which were considered to be, and marketed as, Savanna View.

Some may take the approach this split for AKV GVs was simply designating different views not location as with SSR. I'd say it was one and the same - location dictated view therefore the change in point requirements and the parallel with what has just occurred with SSR.

YMMV

No one challenged the AKV changes. The fact that a Disney entity does something does not automatically mean it is legally correct. Yes, Disney has lots of lawyers advising it but I spent many years in that world of big corporations with lots of lawyers advising the companies and there is most often a lot less purity to the advice given than many may suspect. For example, in the case of the changes to SSR, the kind of legal opinion justifying it that DVCMC most likely got says that a court may ultimately uphold DVCMC's position but there is a risk otherwise, but DVCMC can proceed with the change in good faith.

Also, AKV at least had savanna and standard view from the beginning. At this point, I think I am done arguing the issue because I knew when I started it that "points" (pun intended) could be made on the other side and that many would disagree, and I did not expect that the discussion would have gone on this much. However, it sometimes enjoyable to have friendly arguments, particularly with Dean who presents solid positions and is always a gentleman about it, doing so with no personal attacks. I think with AKV, members were mostly happy with the changes and thus they were never challenged. It is starting to sound like that may well be the case with the SSR changes, particularly if it turns out, as being reported lately, that the majority of the rooms are becoming standard rather than preferred. In that case, what we once again have is what we know has happened before. Disney is correcting a problem it should have known it was creating when it set up the original point structure for the resort. In SSR's case it is that SSR's points per night were really too high for its location in relation to OKW, providing no real incentive to stay there if you owned somewhere else and providing an incentive for many of its owners to move elsewhere at 7 months out.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

The reality is the NO reservation can ever be completely guaranteed. There have been reports of people being upgraded for such issues as well as reports of people having no room and being shuttled to a different resort. I recall one situation for BCV where apparently they overbooked or some similar situation where at least one person was shuttled to OKW being told that was their option since it was their home resort and another same timeframe being put in I think it was BWI with concierge or meal plan IIRC.

Although I doubt it is a standard policy, if one's reservation cannot be accommodated by the reserved resort, then one should be accommodated by the home resort. I would hope that a guest would not be randomly sent to an available resort.

There was a post on this board, not too long ago, from a member with a BWV boardwalk view reservation that could not be fulfilled. The member accepted a Disney Dining Package and PhotoPass. I remember several members taking issue with the DDP offering because last minute ADRs are challenging.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I had "reserved" Near Hospitality House 11 months out. When I arrived, they just gave me a different area, actually not so far. When I raised the question, they searched and searched on their computer. Then said nothing was available. I could have a 2 BR near HH, but they'd charge me extra points. No thanks. Or I could have 1 night in the unit, and move the next day.
In the over all scope of things, it wasn't a big deal, except for 11 months you look forward to a certain thing, and then arrive and don't get it.

I am surprised that you were not offered anything for the inconvenience.

 

[SpaceMountain77]

I can't see any ulterior motive for the reallocation that pads Disney's pockets in any particular way, and so there doesn't seem to be a reason to cut corners with the staff attorney who almost certainly reviewed the change and approved it.

Based on a recent conversation with member services, I suspect the aim of the new category and reallocation is to increase revenue for SSR. Supposedly, resorts are compensated for point use. If an AKV owner books a 141-point reservation at BLT, the point use is paid out to BLT, not AKV. If SSR owners are regularly reserving other resorts and non-SSR owners are not booking SSR reservations, then SSR takes a hit. Lowering the point requirement may make SSR more desirable to point conscious and/or time over location members. It seems that SSR needs to attract members and this is a no cost marketing strategy for DVD/DVC.

Dean or wdrl, does this sound right?

 

[JWG]

Based on a recent conversation with member services, I suspect the aim of the new category and reallocation is to increase revenue for SSR. Supposedly, resorts are compensated for point use. If an AKV owner books a 141-point reservation at BLT, the point use is paid out to BLT, not AKV. If SSR owners are regularly reserving other resorts and non-SSR owners are not booking SSR reservations, then SSR takes a hit. Lowering the point requirement may make SSR more desirable to point conscious and/or time over location members. It seems that SSR needs to attract members and this is a no cost marketing strategy for DVD/DVC.

Dean or wdrl, does this sound right?

Given the high occupancy rates at DVC, if SSR members are transferring out then I would expect other members are using those rooms due to later bookings. We book less than 7 months out more frequently than I thought we would and end up at OKW a lot. I would assume SSR gets non-home resort members the same way and gets their money. Or the rooms go to CRO.

 

[carlbarry]

I am surprised that you were not offered anything for the inconvenience.

I also got locked out of the room after bringing in one bag. The Magic Band stopped working. Later, the "runner" who was helping me brought me a gift basket of popcorn. But then there was a flood from the air conditioner, so she moved me to a 1 bedroom.