2027 Points Charts Predictions

[Sandisw]

VGF fixed weeks are only for studios, correct?

Now that is is sold outs it all depends on what they have available

 

[Cfabar1]

But did they ever sell 1 BR or 2 BR FW at VGF?

 

[Sandisw]

But did they ever sell 1 BR or 2 BR FW at VGF?

Yea, if you wanted that you could get it. There was just a FW RIV deed sold for GV for like almost 1000 points.

The only rule was nore more than 35% of inventory could be sold for FW for a specific week in a specific room size and view.

 

[eticketplease]

But did they ever sell 1 BR or 2 BR FW at VGF?

The first resort to sell them is still selling them, AUL and then VGF did when it went on sale.

 

[Cfabar1]

The first resort to sell them is still selling them, AUL and then VGF did when it went on sale.

Got it! idk why, I thought RIV was the first one...

 

[zavandor]

The Florida statute might have changed since I looked in 2019 for point-charts-gate (or maybe I just missed it last time). The Florida statute is now very explicit about how the point charts can be changed:

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statute...tute&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.07.html

721.07(5)(e)4 states:

If ownership or use of the timeshare plan is based on a point system, a statement indicating the circumstances by which the point values may change, the extent of such changes, and the person or entity responsible for the changes.

It seems the rules stated in the POS control reallocations.

This is SSR:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each 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 Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

Emphasis is mine.
If I'm not mistaken, all the old POS until RIV excluded, state the reallocation can be done only across seasons. If a vacation unit is increased in a season, then a corresponding decrease must happen in another season.

RIV and perhaps VDH (probably, but I'm not sure), state that the reallocation can happen across different unit types.

Poly Tower has been added to the same association, which means the original POS stands, which mentions only reallocation across seasons.

CFW stands on its own, being in the trust, the reallocation can be done across different units belonging even to different resorts, if they belong to the same use plan.

The fact the multi site POS refers to reallocation across different unit type doesn't matter for older resorts, if they contradict each other, the single resort POS wins.

For this reasons, I think that:
- The current poly reallocation for declared units due to room reclassification is illegal
- The current reallocation between AKV value and concierge and other units is illegal
- The reallocation due to room reclassification at BLT and AKV happened years ago is illegal
- The reallocation between SSH treehouse villas and 2BR is illegal
- The reallocation due to the creation of standard and preferred at SSR is illegal
and they should all be rolled back. Maybe points refunded to the members who booked those nights that were increased in cost.

You owners at RIV, VDH and CFW are on your own, sorry.

Finally, even if the VGF POS states that the lockoff premium can be increase without limit, it doesn't mean they can actually do it. The DVCMC (the only one allowed to make this change) is a fiduciary of the membership. They can change the point charts only in the interest of the membership as a whole. I cannot see how increasing the lockoff premium would be advantageous for the whole membership, because it would decrease the booking power of their points. Hence, they cannot do it anyway (they probably realized this and never included it again in later resorts).

 

[Cfabar1]

I don’t disagree with the idea it is not permitted. However, I think so much of life is what can they get away with. They got away with many of those changes and I don’t see them going back and undoing them now short of a lawsuit.

I would be curious how DVC justified the lock off premium at all. I suspect it was created due to the extra housekeeping and staff expenditures that come from turning g one room into two rooms.

 

[Leight19]

The Florida statute might have changed since I looked in 2019 for point-charts-gate (or maybe I just missed it last time). The Florida statute is now very explicit about how the point charts can be changed:

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statute...tute&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.07.html

721.07(5)(e)4 states:

If ownership or use of the timeshare plan is based on a point system, a statement indicating the circumstances by which the point values may change, the extent of such changes, and the person or entity responsible for the changes.

It seems the rules stated in the POS control reallocations.

This is SSR:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each 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 Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

Emphasis is mine.
If I'm not mistaken, all the old POS until RIV excluded, state the reallocation can be done only across seasons. If a vacation unit is increased in a season, then a corresponding decrease must happen in another season.

RIV and perhaps VDH (probably, but I'm not sure), state that the reallocation can happen across different unit types.

Poly Tower has been added to the same association, which means the original POS stands, which mentions only reallocation across seasons.

CFW stands on its own, being in the trust, the reallocation can be done across different units belonging even to different resorts, if they belong to the same use plan.

The fact the multi site POS refers to reallocation across different unit type doesn't matter for older resorts, if they contradict each other, the single resort POS wins.

For this reasons, I think that:
- The current poly reallocation for declared units due to room reclassification is illegal
- The current reallocation between AKV value and concierge and other units is illegal
- The reallocation due to room reclassification at BLT and AKV happened years ago is illegal
- The reallocation between SSH treehouse villas and 2BR is illegal
- The reallocation due to the creation of standard and preferred at SSR is illegal
and they should all be rolled back. Maybe points refunded to the members who booked those nights that were increased in cost.

You owners at RIV, VDH and CFW are on your own, sorry.

Finally, even if the VGF states that the lockoff premium can be increase without limit, it doesn't mean they can actually do it. The DVCMC (the only one allowed to make this change) is a fiduciary of the membership. They can change the point charts only in the interest of the membership as a whole. I cannot see how increasing the lockoff premium would be advantageous for the whole membership, because it would decrease the booking power of their points. Hence, they cannot do it anyway (they probably realized this and never included it again in later resorts).

Thank you for this well written post, it more clearly describes what I was hoping to convey. The one caveat I’ll say is regarding view type. To strengthen my point I tried to go to my specific declared unit and balance the points. The number of points in my unit is based on two 2br at kidani but the total points does not equal 2 standard view, 2 savannah, or a combination. Now it’s possible they previously messed with the numbers and that’s why balance doenst close but the number feels to be an aggregate percent based on the total room views not two specific ones.

If that’s the case and they just declare 2br as points and introduce views later I’m not sure how to close that gap in terms of whether moves across views is legal or not. That said, the moves across room type does violate unit rules regardless of whether the view to view moves are unclear.

 

[TDK44]

The Florida statute might have changed since I looked in 2019 for point-charts-gate (or maybe I just missed it last time). The Florida statute is now very explicit about how the point charts can be changed:

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statute...tute&URL=0700-0799/0721/Sections/0721.07.html

721.07(5)(e)4 states:

If ownership or use of the timeshare plan is based on a point system, a statement indicating the circumstances by which the point values may change, the extent of such changes, and the person or entity responsible for the changes.

It seems the rules stated in the POS control reallocations.

This is SSR:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each 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 Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

Emphasis is mine.
If I'm not mistaken, all the old POS until RIV excluded, state the reallocation can be done only across seasons. If a vacation unit is increased in a season, then a corresponding decrease must happen in another season.

RIV and perhaps VDH (probably, but I'm not sure), state that the reallocation can happen across different unit types.

Poly Tower has been added to the same association, which means the original POS stands, which mentions only reallocation across seasons.

CFW stands on its own, being in the trust, the reallocation can be done across different units belonging even to different resorts, if they belong to the same use plan.

The fact the multi site POS refers to reallocation across different unit type doesn't matter for older resorts, if they contradict each other, the single resort POS wins.

For this reasons, I think that:
- The current poly reallocation for declared units due to room reclassification is illegal
- The current reallocation between AKV value and concierge and other units is illegal
- The reallocation due to room reclassification at BLT and AKV happened years ago is illegal
- The reallocation between SSH treehouse villas and 2BR is illegal
- The reallocation due to the creation of standard and preferred at SSR is illegal
and they should all be rolled back. Maybe points refunded to the members who booked those nights that were increased in cost.

You owners at RIV, VDH and CFW are on your own, sorry.

Finally, even if the VGF POS states that the lockoff premium can be increase without limit, it doesn't mean they can actually do it. The DVCMC (the only one allowed to make this change) is a fiduciary of the membership. They can change the point charts only in the interest of the membership as a whole. I cannot see how increasing the lockoff premium would be advantageous for the whole membership, because it would decrease the booking power of their points. Hence, they cannot do it anyway (they probably realized this and never included it again in later resorts).

Where did you see the language in the POS about only reallocating across seasons? With the part you highlighted above I think it all hinges on what the definition of “Use Day” is. My read is different than yours (I think).

 

[zavandor]

Where did you see the language in the POS about only reallocating across seasons? With the part you highlighted above I think it all hinges on what the definition of “Use Day” is. My read is different than yours (I think).

From the SSR POS:

Use Day means a 24 hours period (or such lesser period as may be designated by DVCMC in the membership agreement from time to time) in a Vacation home subject to use reservation by Owners.


Emphasis mine.
A vacation home is a studio, a 1BR, a 2BR etc. A Unit is a collection of vacation homes declared and sold as a group. So if the points needed to book one vacation home in one day increases, that increase much be balanced in a decrease in another day for that same vacation home.

What's your interpretation?

 

[Tatebeck]

If you notice how in the first part where they say they can change the point chart they specify that they are increasing/decreasing "within a given Vacation Home" aka a single room when talking about a single room. In the second part where they are talking about where the point charts will adjust for that change, they specifically do NOT say that they are referring to a single vacation home anymore.

So I don't think it locks them into putting onto the same exact room type or view type

 

[zavandor]

If you notice how in the first part where they say they can change the point chart they specify that they are increasing/decreasing "within a given Vacation Home" aka a single room when talking about a single room. In the second part where they are talking about where the point charts will adjust for that change, they specifically do NOT say that they are referring to a single vacation home anymore.

So I don't think it locks them into putting onto the same exact room type or view type

As you write, the paragraph is about reallocating within one vacation home.
The first sentence is:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand

The only reason they've given themselves to reallocate the point charts is to balance demand for different use days. Nowhere there is written they can rebalance demand between different vacation homes types.
Ah no it's written somewhere, in the Riviera POS. There it's explicitly written.

 

[Sandisw]

From the SSR POS:

Use Day means a 24 hours period (or such lesser period as may be designated by DVCMC in the membership agreement from time to time) in a Vacation home subject to use reservation by Owners.


Emphasis mine.
A vacation home is a studio, a 1BR, a 2BR etc. A Unit is a collection of vacation homes declared and sold as a group. So if the points needed to book one vacation home in one day increases, that increase much be balanced in a decrease in another day for that same vacation home.

What's your interpretation?

If the premise is that units must stay point neutral, then I think mixed units do have the ability to move points across vacation homes because the units are not declared by room, based on use day demand…if both studios and 2 bedrooms has a use day demand and it needs to be rebalanced and they exist in the same unit, especially in a lock off situation, then I don’t see how it’s not possible.

Example…if my unit has both GV and 2 bedrooms the initial points assigned was a random division…and if they want to balance demand for both then they can move the points to the 2 bedrooms since it’s the same unit.

Goven that each room type can be in units with vastly different makeups, I just don’t think it’s that simple.

Whatever was initially declared would go to each room type would then be locked in which is more than just a unit staying neutral, wouldn’t it?

I agree that they probably would increase a lock off without offsetting it but the point was it is in the POS and not something I knew was in any of them.

ETA: Now a case like PVB original that has no mixed units, then it’s a must better way to push and test the case that no cross declared units can happen. I really can’t wait to hear the response from the inquiries.

I hope someone at AK clarifies where those extra CL points can come from to see if I am understanding the POS there correctly!

 

[Tatebeck]

As you write, the paragraph is about reallocating within one vacation home.
The first sentence is:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand

The only reason they've given themselves to reallocate the point charts is to balance demand for different use days. Nowhere there is written they can rebalance demand between different vacation homes types.
Ah no it's written somewhere, in the Riviera POS. There it's explicitly written.

You didn't finish the sentence. “In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium" Aka the entire DVC resort.

If you read the sections cohesively and together instead of in tiny snippets you can see that they are saying that in order to balance the demand at the entire resort, they give themselves the rights to change the point cost of the individual rooms, without saying where they are required to move those point costs to, as long as they are moved somewhere

 

[Sandisw]

You didn't finish the sentence. “In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium" Aka the entire DVC resort.

If you read the sections cohesively and together instead of in tiny snippets you can see that they are saying that in order to balance the demand at the entire resort, they give themselves the rights to change the point cost of the individual rooms, without saying where they are required to move those point costs to, as long as they are moved somewhere

This is just another example of why I personally see that the language is very mixed and inconsistent which can be interpreted and applied both ways

It’s why I lean they can balance across resort but also need to stay close to even at the unit level but it doesn’t have to be perfect.

Other than the treehouses, and now maybe PVB original. I don’t think we have seen anything that suggests they are regularly, when reallocation is happening that they aren’t even staying point neutral at the declared unit level.

IMO, I think it would take a fight beyond DVC to get a clear answer unless we see DVC blink…and they did not with the treehouses.

 

[Brian Noble]

RIV and perhaps VDH (probably, but I'm not sure), state that the reallocation can happen across different unit types.

Where in the RIV POS does it say that? Because the RIV POS still includes (a) language that the Residential Unit remain constant and (b) Maximum Reallocation figures for each unit type by view. (I am not sure if any other resort breaks these out by view, and not just by vacation home size.) These appear on page 201 of the 2/28/2019 POS, and you can see a copy here: https://dvcfieldguide.com/public

I am not sure how that would ultimately be resolved in light of the cross-type language elsewhere. If you are right that the Resort POS governs in case of conflict with Multi-Site, then RIV also cannot allocate across unit types *or* views without balancing out in the Use Year for that size/view unit.

Edited: here are the relevant paragraphs from RIV

 

[TDK44]

What's your interpretation?

Everyone else has pretty much covered it. If a "Use Day" is a single room-type-day, you can reallocate from one Use Day to another all within the same unit and within the same season according to all of this language together (which makes sense and is certainly what they intended when they wrote it).

 

[Tatebeck]

Everyone else has pretty much covered it. If a "Use Day" is a single room-type-day, you can reallocate from one Use Day to another all within the same unit and within the same season according to all of this language together (which makes sense and is certainly what they intended when they wrote it).

When they say Use Year, that does not mean that it is only applying to 1 room or room type. It is just the 24 hour period (or less if checking in/out that day) that any room is in use for.

It is a unit of time, just like Calendar Day would be.

To determine if Use Day language means a single room or multiple specific rooms or the entire resort, it completely depends on what wording is around the usage of Use Day.

If I just say I made a reservation for Use Day of Dec 10th, it tells you nothing about what room I am in, just that I have some room booked for at least 4pm to 11am the next day

If context is unclear, I personally would even argue it is more likely to mean the period of time over the whole resort not just a single room

 

[zavandor]

Where in the RIV POS does it say that? Because the RIV POS still includes (a) language that the Residential Unit remain constant and (b) Maximum Reallocation figures for each unit type by view. (I am not sure if any other resort breaks these out by view, and not just by vacation home size.) These appear on page 201 of the 2/28/2019 POS, and you can see a copy here: https://dvcfieldguide.com/public

I am not sure how that would ultimately be resolved in light of the cross-type language elsewhere. If you are right that the Resort POS governs in case of conflict with Multi-Site, then RIV also cannot allocate across unit types *or* views without balancing out in the Use Year for that size/view unit.

Edited: here are the relevant paragraphs from RIV
View attachment 1030610

About RIV I just went by memory, I remembered it was discussed that the language about the reallocation across units was there, but this screenshot shows text exactly like SSR.

 

[zavandor]

You didn't finish the sentence. “In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium" Aka the entire DVC resort.

If you read the sections cohesively and together instead of in tiny snippets you can see that they are saying that in order to balance the demand at the entire resort, they give themselves the rights to change the point cost of the individual rooms, without saying where they are required to move those point costs to, as long as they are moved somewhere

You're adding "entire" to a sentence that doesn't have it.

Also:

the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation.