Aggressive anti-rental email response from MS

[kes601]

Adding a $20 (or $50, or $100) name change fee to a rental isn't going to disrupt the rental market one bit. It might force the renter to take a slightly lower profit. But rentals will still save money for the non-owner.

Meanwhile, it would be staggering penalty for any member who is forced to bow out of their trip late, forgets to list relatives as lead guest when initially making a reservations, etc.

I didn't say cancellations, modifications or not listing everybody on the reservation. I said changing the lead guest (the one thing that can't be done via self-service online..

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

The #1 reason I think any of this changes has less to do with the ambiguous contract wording than how rental business affects profits for DVC/DVD and to some degree WDW/DIS. A reaction most likely happens when commercial renting reduces their profit opportunities. Owner interests matter mostly due to brand protection and continued profitability.

If DVC felt commercial renting necessitates stronger clarification and restrictions, there’s room for them to take certain steps against it. Measures could be debated but I’m not sure their hands are legally tied. The bigger question is how close are we to DVC getting pushed into reaction. A long ways off, if ever? Or around the corner?

I think they are getting feedback from dvc members complaining about renters— and with how rigid the system has become. When everyone books everything up hoping to rent out their reservation and then drops the reservation at the end when it doesn’t rent, the system is broken. Many people were prevented from booking who would have booked. The rental commercialization clogs up the reservation system.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

but there is no exception to borrowing in the case of illness or work obligations, so why would there be an exception with primary name change? I don’t think primary name changes should be allowed.

I think you're focusing on name change needing to be because of rentals which is not the case. And there is literally no difference in who is in a room vs something like point usage.

 

[tjkraz]

I'm not sure "$20 (or $50, or $100)" rises to the level of "staggering", particularly if we're talking about someone who is "forced to bow out of their trip late". I mean, how often is that going to happen?

It would not go over well among well-intentioned members. Particularly long-time members who are not accustomed to having such a fee, and don't follow DVC closely enough in their everyday lives to realize the implications of such a policy change.

Use whatever adjective you think is appropriate.

 

[2Lunds]

I wonder if this new wording has anything to do with people buying contracts and handing them over to full-time brokers to make the rental arrangements? ie - they never use their own points, and don't participate in the rentals at all, but pay a percentage to these "property managers".

 

[tjkraz]

I didn't say cancellations, modifications or not listing everybody on the reservation. I said changing the lead guest (the one thing that can't be done via self-service online..

Understood.

Still, this would do nothing to disrupt rentals because they'd just build it into their cost of doing business. The non-member would pay the extra fee and never be the wiser.

If the group renting the room is under the maximum occupancy (e.g. family of 4 renting a studio that accommodates 5), the owner could just leave him/herself on the reservation and avoid the fee entirely.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I think they are getting feedback from dvc members complaining about renters— and with how rigid the system has become. When everyone books everything up hoping to rent out their reservation and then drops the reservation at the end when it doesn’t rent, the system is broken. Many people were prevented from booking who would have booked. The rental commercialization clogs up the reservation system.

Add to that the recent trend of rental sites pushing owners to make confirmed reservations, rather than simply renting points, and you have many more of those late drops that members may or may not be able to book (either because they have simply booked elsewhere, or are one of dozens on wait lists for the same rooms/dates).

Not saying confirmed reservations on rental sites are themselves bad, but they do tend to clog up the system with yet more dates that are inaccessible.

 

[Genie+]

I think they are getting feedback from dvc members complaining about renters— and with how rigid the system has become. When everyone books everything up hoping to rent out their reservation and then drops the reservation at the end when it doesn’t rent, the system is broken. Many people were prevented from booking who would have booked. The rental commercialization clogs up the reservation system.

Yes. I think this is one of the many ways commercial renting is much different than casual owner trends.

 

[Phatscott25]

It would not go over well among well-intentioned members. Particularly long-time members who are not accustomed to having such a fee, and don't follow DVC closely enough in their everyday lives to realize the implications of such a policy change.

Use whatever adjective you think is appropriate.

This. Just like anything else people on here talk of changing for the "greater good," such as the way we book rooms due walking, among others, will result in unintended consequences for all members. As always for these types of things, the cure will end up being worse then the disease.

As someone else mentioned, the rooms are designed to be occupied 100% of the time anyway. High demand times will be hard to book regardless if a member, a "tenant" from private transaction, a "tenant" from breakage, a "tenant from developer points, a friend of a member, etc., is the occupant.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I think you're focusing name change needing to be because of rentals which is not the case. And there is literally no difference in who is in a room vs something like point usage.

It does because we have not changed the primary name on ours once. Not ever. We have also never rented. I bet in 90% of name change cases, it is renters who change the primary name. And I suspect Disney has started to look at this and is finding that renters (not talking about occasional renters) book differently than owners. For example, they book at times they think they can get highest dollar hoping to find a renter. I’m sure they are noticing all types of patterns with people they have honed in on as “commercial” renters. Im sure these patterns clog up the entire system.

 

[Phatscott25]

Add to that the recent trend of rental sites pushing owners to make confirmed reservations, rather than simply renting points, and you have many more of those late drops that members may or may not be able to book (either because they have simply booked elsewhere, or are one of dozens on wait lists for the same rooms/dates).

Not saying confirmed reservations on rental sites are themselves bad, but they do tend to clog up the system with yet more dates that are inaccessible.

I understand what you mean here. But at the same time, I'm sure many members have a pleasant surprise when their waitlist gets filled due to the sudden availability. It definitely goes both ways.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

This. Just like anything else people on here talk of changing for the "greater good," such as the way we book rooms due walking, among others, will result in unintended consequences for all members. As always for these types of things, the cure will end up being worse then the disease.

As someone else mentioned, the rooms are designed to be occupied 100% of the time anyway. High demand times will be hard to book regardless if a member, a "tenant" from private transaction, a "tenant" from breakage, a "tenant from developer points, a friend of a member, etc., is the occupant.

Except if people are holding rooms in the hope of renting them and then pulling back their points last minute. If the room they were holding does not get booked last minutes, the system ends up with too many points.

 

[tjkraz]

It does because we have not changed the primary name on ours once. Not ever. We have also never rented. I bet in 90% of name change cases, it is renters who change the primary name. And I suspect Disney has started to look at this and is finding that renters (not talking about occasional renters) book differently than owners. For example, they book at times they think they can get highest dollar hoping to find a renter. I’m sure they are noticing all types of patterns with people they have honed in on as “commercial” renters. Im sure these patterns clog up the entire system.

I think you're absolutely correct with all of this. I've had to do a name change at least a couple times. Once I bowed-out of a trip while my wife and family still went. Another time I was reserving a second room for friends and in my haste, I just left myself as the lead guest with every intention of changing it later. Both of those circumstances are mostly avoidable if I'm forewarned of fees.

HOWEVER, I stand by what I've said at least 3x now. Adding some name change fee would have zero impact on the rental market. It would just become part of the cost of a rental. The only one to benefit would be DVC collecting all of those fees.

I am not defending rentals--especially spec rentals where people grab rooms months ahead of time. I'm open to any ideas that would improve the status quo. But I don't think name change fees would do a thing to help everyday owners.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I understand what you mean here. But at the same time, I'm sure many members have a pleasant surprise when their waitlist gets filled due to the sudden availability. It definitely goes both ways.

And what if the room wasn’t waitlisted? Then it just sits unoccupied and now there are extra points in the system that should have been used on that reservation.

And if it was waitlisted, the kind of people who can benefit from a last minute waitlist are people who live close and do not have jobs where they needed to put in for vacation. Those aren’t the “big spenders” Disney wants. Lol. The system isn’t just for vloggers and brokers.

 

[mgarbowski]

but there is no exception to borrowing in the case of illness or work obligations, so why would there be an exception with primary name change? I don’t think primary name changes should be allowed.

I'm guessing you referring to the restriction on returning borrowed points when canceling some reservations, because if you get sick or have a work emergency just before your planned DVC trip, it would not help to make borrowing points easier.

Regardless, I never suggested there be an exception for these hardship cases. Rather, I noted that renting can help alleviate those hardships and I think it is worth maintaining some flexibility so people who get caught unexpectedly can salvage something. That's not in any way suggesting a hardship exception. And, renting and allowing name changes helps anyone who borrowed points they could not return to the original use year just, as it helps people who are past the banking deadline or pushed into holding. It also imposes no burden on DVC staff. OTOH, enforcing and documenting a hardship exception would be a logistical quagmire.

Allowing rentals including name changes is not an exception. Currently it is universally applicable. I favor restricting the name change variant but not banning it because I do think it is good to have an outlet valve for the hardship cases. But honestly, I'm not sure it is that big of a deal and might not weep if name changes were banned entirely. I'm not sure how often (1) someone has to cancel for an unexpected obstacle, and (2) they find someone able to go on those exact dates. So honestly I don't feel that strongly about it either way, but the soft side of me likes keeping the option open if it can be done in a way that is efficient and reduces the much more prevalent non-hardship cases. But honestly I'm not sure that's possible. As others have noted, name changes can be necessary for things as simple as the lead guest needing to drop out while everyone else goes. I don't want to make that impossible.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

If I was a rental company I would be concerned about this, they might be getting some legal paperwork soon.

I don't even think it's the rental companies necessarily like Davids that are going to have a problem. (Because it's difficult for Disney to know exactly who is posting what with whom since Davids is only acting as a middleman). But an all in one outfit like the board sponsor that is acting as both a broker, and a rental agency, and is buying, stripping, renting, and selling contracts? Now that is something that would be easier for Disney to track. I suppose the spec rentals that are advertised as "confirmed reservations" could be targeted, since those are listed on public-facing websites and Disney could potentially figure out who is listing them.

 

[Genie+]

Good point. I would add that the technologic advances and changes in the past 30 years have a lot to do with it. I referenced language in the POS from my RIV contract, which I assume comes from the same standard language developed in 1992. I don't think anyone could have predicted how easy it has become to 'commercialize' the rental process with the use of the internet (amongst other things). 30 years later, I would say it is a good time to recorrect and consider a strict enforcement of a contract term that has been in place since day 1.

Absolutely. Huge shift over this last decade with ease, security, and options exponentially increasing, and a huge shift further more recently with confirmed resvtns. Booking trends continue to change at a fast pace.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Potentially, they have a membership or memberships in the names of LLC, etc.

But, the vast majority of the rentals being offered by them are private owners which means those don’t count against their own rentals meeting the limit.

DVC has access to our memberships and can only go after owners individually and not via a broker.

The business itself is not a violation as it simply puts an owner and renter together.

But, if they have their own rentals they offer those would be dealt with in the same way as you or I.

I would bet the way they have it set up keeps every membership that is owned by them under the offical rules.

I'm sure you're right, but Disney isn't stupid, and could potentially figure out which LLC's are actually the brokers/rental stores engaging in this conduct. I'm confident that the POS is vague enough about "commercial activity" to give Disney leeway to put a foot down on this if they want to.

Edit: To put a finer point on it, if setting up shell LLC's to purchase DVC contracts, strip the points, rent them, and then sell them at a profit is not "commercial activity," than what is?

Wyndham put their foot down on megarenters starting two years ago. I would not be surprised at all if DVC and other timeshare systems followed suit.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm not sure "$20 (or $50, or $100)" rises to the level of "staggering", particularly if we're talking about someone who is "forced to bow out of their trip late". I mean, how often is that going to happen?

I always book rooms for potential trips and have to change names when things are finalized, especially since some start out as solo trips

So, I would hate to see them change things that a name change is a charge. I think we would be creating a bigger problem than what exists.

 

[Phatscott25]

And what if the room wasn’t waitlisted? Then it just sits unoccupied and now there are extra points in the system that should have been used on that reservation.

And if it was waitlisted, the kind of people who can benefit from a last minute waitlist are people who live close and do not have jobs where they needed to put in for vacation. Those aren’t the “big spenders” Disney wants. Lol. The system isn’t just for vloggers and brokers.

We're talking about hard to get rooms here, right? So while possible they aren't getting waitlisted, I'd think we can both agree it's likely they are. It also doesn't have to be only locals to benefit. Example: I'm similar to the non-local you describe. I book at 11 months. Let's say I can't what I want at 11/7 months. My dates are set though so I book whatever I can and waitlist what I want. If the spec rental is released, my waitlist gets filled. I know it's not that simple but I'm sure you get where I'm going.