Aggressive anti-rental email response from MS

[Phatscott25]

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.

Exactly my previous point. The cure is worse than the disease for these types of things.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

Yeah, I don't see where disney has any authority to target David's, DVC Rental Store or any others and specifically threaten their business. Those organizations don't have a contract with Disney. Any punitive action taken would have to be applied to the points owner, whether it's Average Joe who rents points to pay dues or a big LLC flipping contracts.

They *might* be able to say "if we have evidence of you using a broker, we'll cancel the reservation." But DVC would have to set some sort of specific ground rules under which the member is expected to operate. (If they can't use a broker, can they rent on the DIS? Can they rent on Facebook? Can they rent to a friend?)

And if DVC goes so far as to start cancelling reservations, they d*mn well better be right. Every time. If someone hypothetically uses David's to rent a couple reservations, DVC better not accidentally cancel a booking made (outside of David's) for the owner's Uncle Bob.

 

[fumanchu2488]

Yeah, I don't see where disney has any authority to target David's, DVC Rental Store or any others and specifically threaten their business. Those organizations don't have a contract with Disney. Any punitive action taken would have to be applied to the points owner, whether it's Average Joe who rents points to pay dues or a big LLC flipping contracts.

They *might* be able to say "if we have evidence of you using a broker, we'll cancel the reservation." But DVC would have to set some sort of specific ground rules under which the member is expected to operate. (If they can't use a broker, can they rent on the DIS? Can they rent on Facebook? Can they rent to a friend?)

And if DVC goes so far as to start cancelling reservations, they d*mn well better be right. Every time. If someone hypothetically uses David's to rent a couple reservations, DVC better not accidentally cancel a booking made (outside of David's) for the owner's Uncle Bob.

There are good points here on how to manage this process. For me it comes down to limiting the number of stays you can use without the Owner being present. I would say more than one per year to me would be a pattern of 'commercial use', especially with the ability to bank and borrow. That would allow families to bring and rent multiple rooms for a stay since the Owner would be there with the reservation and would also allow Owners to rent points in case life happens and they need to do it once a year.

It would target the people that are renting 500+ points a year to various different people at different dates on a forum or by using a broker.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

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.

I guess we just disagree. I don’t think average dvc owners just trying to use their points should have to navigate spec bookings by people profiting off of their points.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Yeah, I don't see where disney has any authority to target David's, DVC Rental Store or any others and specifically threaten their business. Those organizations don't have a contract with Disney. Any punitive action taken would have to be applied to the points owner, whether it's Average Joe who rents points to pay dues or a big LLC flipping contracts.

They *might* be able to say "if we have evidence of you using a broker, we'll cancel the reservation." But DVC would have to set some sort of specific ground rules under which the member is expected to operate. (If they can't use a broker, can they rent on the DIS? Can they rent on Facebook? Can they rent to a friend?)

And if DVC goes so far as to start cancelling reservations, they d*mn well better be right. Every time. If someone hypothetically uses David's to rent a couple reservations, DVC better not accidentally cancel a booking made (outside of David's) for the owner's Uncle Bob.

I don't think they'll take legal action. I think they'll start cancelling reservations, and locking accounts. That's what Wyndham did. Also, I still think there is a big distinction between the pure rental agencies, and the combination rental agencies/brokers that are buying, stripping, renting, and selling. If Disney can figure out which LLC's/individuals are doing that, then yeah, I think they can cancel all reservations made by those accounts, prevent those accounts from making new reservations, and effectively force them to sell and stop doing what they are doing. Again, this is basically what Wyndham did with the megarenters.

 

[Sandisw]

There are good points here on how to manage this process. For me it comes down to limiting the number of stays you can use without the Owner being present. I would say more than one per year to me would be a pattern of 'commercial use', especially with the ability to bank and borrow. That would allow families to bring and rent multiple rooms for a stay since the Owner would be there with the reservation and would also allow Owners to rent points in case life happens and they need to do it once a year.

It would target the people that are renting 500+ points a year to various different people at different dates on a forum or by using a broker.

I book a few rooms every year for family and friends in which I am not there.

I do not charge them to use the rooms..but you are saying I should not be allowed to do that??

Sorry, but that would not be a good change to the system.

 

[Phatscott25]

I guess we just disagree. I don’t think average dvc owners just trying to use their points should have to navigate spec bookings by people profiting off of their points.

I agree with that sentiment but is it really that bad? Do you really think spec renters have that much of impact on the overall system?

 

[Phatscott25]

@Sandisw hit the nail on the head again. Any "fix" that limits what an owner can do with their points will cause worse harm to all members than what we're seeing now.

 

[tjkraz]

There are good points here on how to manage this process. For me it comes down to limiting the number of stays you can use without the Owner being present. I would say more than one per year to me would be a pattern of 'commercial use', especially with the ability to bank and borrow. That would allow families to bring and rent multiple rooms for a stay since the Owner would be there with the reservation and would also allow Owners to rent points in case life happens and they need to do it once a year.

It would target the people that are renting 500+ points a year to various different people at different dates on a forum or by using a broker.

I don't think that particular methodology would have much effect. Simplest response is for renters to mandate that the member stay on the reservation. You can either rent to a group under the max occupancy (max 4 people on Poly Studio reservation, along with the owner) or force families to leave one member off the reservation.

Yes there are some drawbacks to that and it could hurt the rental market to some degree. But as an enforcement method, I don't think it would be widely effective. The rental market has evolved in the past and it would evolve to deal with this.

Also DVC's current standard for falling under scrutiny is 20 rentals per year. I don't think there's any chance they impose such harsh restrictions of 1 transaction per year. I'm quite certain there are family units where the elders have control of points while making plenty of valid reservations in the names of children and other family members. You can advocate for such an aggressive restriction, but I don't think it would ever happen.

The obvious targets are the large companies renting points. Picking off this proverbial low-hanging fruit is much more productive than going after grandma and grandpa who make 3 reservations per year for their family or Joe Average who bought an extra 150 points to rent & cover annual dues.

DVC knows who the commercial dealers are. *I* know who some of these people are. Every point is registered thru Member Services and they can easily see the activity. If we accept that the commercial rental restrictions are valid and legally enforceable, the only real question is why DVC hasn't acted. Is it because Disney thinks they still benefit from this rental/contract flipping activity in some way? (I'm skeptical). It it because they're worried about the fallout from attacking these organizations? Are they simply ambivalent?

 

[crisi]

@Sandisw hit the nail on the head again. Any "fix" that limits what an owner can do with their points will cause worse harm to all members than what we're seeing now.

Not to me. It will benefit me, and many members like me who want to not walk, be able to get the reservation we are looking for with a single phone call, seldom rent our points and seldom give them to friends and relatives. When we travel with guests, we travel WITH guests. For people who bought to use their own points, I doubt any effort Disney makes will have much impact at all. I suspect you will still be able to change the lead guest, as long as you don't do it very often - more often than "stuff happens" would cover. And you'll be able to put someone else's name on a reservation using your points at booking, but not for any more than the minority of your reservations. It will be those that have whatever pattern Disney identifies as "likely commercial renters" who will see an effect. My suspicion is that that will involve a combination of walking, booking for high demand times, changing lead guest names, not traveling as the lead guest the majority of the time, with people who own a lot of points and anyone who owns via an llc or other corporate entity facing additional scrutiny. Your average DVC member who books a honeymoon trip for their kids (and trust me, Disney KNOWS your kids names) using their points, or needs to rent a reservation due to an emergency shouldn't worry.

Moreover, they really DON'T CARE about the membership. They care about their bottom line. If rentals are eating into their hotel income, they care. If rentals are keeping people from buying points, they care.

As to worrying about lawsuits, I think Disney is watching to see how this effort is playing out with other systems before they'll make any real move.

 

[RivShore]

If rentals are keeping people from buying points, they care.

One data point on this - we had always stayed at moderates but rented a DVC for a long weekend.
We were instantly hooked on deluxe rooms and bought our first points direct, soon after. I'm sure that is a pretty common occurrence, at least partially offsetting those that never buy.

 

[crisi]

One data point on this - we had always stayed at moderates but rented a DVC for a long weekend.
We were instantly hooked on deluxe rooms and bought our first points direct, soon after. I'm sure that is a pretty common occurrence, at least partially offsetting those that never buy.

And yet people don't buy because they hear you can't get the room you want at eleven months even if you own their without walking. Or they don't buy because "they can rent" and therefore be able to secure the reservation at any DVC resort, instead of the one they own at. Renters get a LOT of flexibility owners don't get - partly because right now there are a lot of spec rentals out there. Yes, your experience offsets some of that, but I suspect their data shows it isn't nearly enough to make up for the lost hotel revenue alone. And had you never rented, you would have been giving Disney hotels money, and possibly decided DVC was a good deal anyway when you saw the "savings."

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I agree with that sentiment but is it really that bad? Do you really think spec renters have that much of impact on the overall system?

I don’t have a problem with renters. But when there is large scale renting I do think it messes up the way the system is supposed to work. So I think Disney will just scale that back. Disney has to make sure the system works for average owners.

 

[crvetter]

Not to me. It will benefit me, and many members like me who want to not walk, be able to get the reservation we are looking for with a single phone call, seldom rent our points and seldom give them to friends and relatives. When we travel with guests, we travel WITH guests. For people who bought to use their own points, I doubt any effort Disney makes will have much impact at all. I suspect you will still be able to change the lead guest, as long as you don't do it very often - more often than "stuff happens" would cover. And you'll be able to put someone else's name on a reservation using your points at booking, but not for any more than the minority of your reservations. It will be those that have whatever pattern Disney identifies as "likely commercial renters" who will see an effect. My suspicion is that that will involve a combination of walking, booking for high demand times, changing lead guest names, not traveling as the lead guest the majority of the time, with people who own a lot of points and anyone who owns via an llc or other corporate entity facing additional scrutiny. Your average DVC member who books a honeymoon trip for their kids (and trust me, Disney KNOWS your kids names) using their points, or needs to rent a reservation due to an emergency shouldn't worry.

Moreover, they really DON'T CARE about the membership. They care about their bottom line. If rentals are eating into their hotel income, they care. If rentals are keeping people from buying points, they care.

As to worrying about lawsuits, I think Disney is watching to see how this effort is playing out with other systems before they'll make any real move.

A couple things:

1. Resorts are currently very full at Disney
2. Most money Disney makes is not from the Hotels per se but from having guests on property because it leads to a larger per guest spending (think dining and drinks and souvenirs being the big money makers)
3. Even if the hotels suddenly don't book full it is more advantageous for Disney to shutter a hotel and rather have those guests renting from DVC
   1. If this scenario even happens all the sudden renting isn't even a good path anymore because Disney would surely increase the discounts and you as a guest of Disney aren't subject to harsh renting rules that renting DVC requires
      1. This is important given this scenario happens in economic downturns so people are more likely to reject cancellation rules that are harsh with DVC rentals

Now some comments on restrictions

1. DVC is a deeded timeshare system not a leased timeshare system.
   1. This is important because DVCMC is bound to law on restricting access to personal enjoyment of deeded property.
   2. This personal enjoyment most states (because of HOAs) have pretty much already ruled applies to family, friends, etc. using the property when you are not present. This is why most state laws on AirBnB restrictions have exemptions to say family doesn't count
      1. This means your owner needs to be there rule just simply can't work because it can potentially restrict enjoyment.
   3. We already know DVC can't restrict you from enjoying your property. A few years ago a man was trespassed from all of Disney World except SSR because he was a DVC owner. Trust me that man if they could have would have been trespassed from there but they can't because he owns a deeded interest to the property.
2. You think not restricting the rentals hurts Disney, but I suspect restricting rentals would hurt them more. All the media would hear is that everyone is having their vacations cancelled by Disney, not that some person I rented from did it incorrectly. It is a PR nightmare to start cancelling reservations left and right.
   1. As suggested it is much better to simply go after the big whales and buy back their contracts to prevent them from doing it.
3. The real issue isn't the renters the handful of rentals that have the days you want to book in that high valued room with a small number of assets during those days. A majority of owners aren't renting out their points I bet. I would have to guess it is really just the issue that you are not the only person wanting a room at that time. So even if you find the renter with that 1 room at the time you want, well you aren't the only person I'm sure that wants that so you'll still be competing
   1. As the system currently stands everyone is on equal footing so you can compete the same perceived way you feel they are competing.

Really it is a small problem currently (outside of the stripping and flipping business we all know of, which they could try to stop but would be hard, again because its hard to restrict who an owner can sell too) and any fix would problematic that I've seen posed that puts owners at different playing fields when they are all the same playing field currently. It is the same argument a few years ago when walkers were blamed for low inventory now it is walking/renting combo to blame. No solution ever was posed then that didn't impact someone's ability to enjoy their property, but the current system doesn't impact your ability to enjoy just requires some level of work but the same work/opportunity is available to everyone so it is fair.

Edit: Also I suppose any fix could potentially tank the resale market which to be honest does market well for DVC in general.

 

[tjkraz]

And yet people don't buy because they hear you can't get the room you want at eleven months even if you own their without walking. Or they don't buy because "they can rent" and therefore be able to secure the reservation at any DVC resort, instead of the one they own at. Renters get a LOT of flexibility owners don't get - partly because right now there are a lot of spec rentals out there.

I'm sure this is the case--people choosing to be habitual renters rather than buyers. But I wonder how widespread they are. It's always struck me as rather short-term thinking.

If you're paying minimum $20 per point to rent, that's about $12 going to owner net dues. You could fund a resale purchase in 10 years or less, all the while holding an asset that could be re-sold at will. And if people are renting some of the more difficult dates or room types, they're probably paying even more than $20pp. I guess if people are really adamant about having 11 month access to multiple resorts, perhaps they find a way to justify it. (Personally, I stayed at VGC last year and have reservation for BCV later this year, both booked at 7 months with no walking. So... )

I was one who purchased DVC after renting twice. And I know others who have done the same, or stayed on the points of friends/family before buying. But admittedly most of that happened before this recent explosion of spec rentals which seemingly makes it easier for non-members to find something they wish to buy.

 

[dioxide45]

Two other systems took pretty hard lines with commercial rentals. Wyndham was noted previously, and I haven't read the entire thread to see if Bluegreen was also mentioned. They recently started locking owner accounts who they suspect have used a certain rental broker. These brokers take the owner login credentials and make reservations themselves to rent out the points as reservations. No one is sure how Bluegreen knows who used this broker and some owners claim they never did. Marriott has updated verbiage on their form when filling out a guest name change that commercial rentals are not permitted and if Marriott cancels a reservation because it was deemed to be a commercial rental that the owner absolves Marriott of any liability. So it seems to be more of a trend in the industry.

All said, these companies usually only take certain actions when the rental market hits the bottom line. Either it competes against their own rentals or owners are frustrated with a lack of viable inventory to make reservations because all the good stuff is hoovered up by owners renting out for a profit (or non profit). Frustrated owners don't usually buy more points.

Is it hard to make reservations in DVC at 7 months? Has the big rental brokers cause a situation of inelasticity in available inventory?

 

[mgarbowski]

Really it is a small problem currently (outside of the stripping and flipping business we all know of, which they could try to stop but would be hard, again because its hard to restrict who an owner can sell too) and any fix would problematic that I've seen posed that puts owners at different playing fields when they are all the same playing field currently. It is the same argument a few years ago when walkers were blamed for low inventory now it is walking/renting combo to blame. No solution ever was posed then that didn't impact someone's ability to enjoy their property, but the current system doesn't impact your ability to enjoy just requires some level of work but the same work/opportunity is available to everyone so it is fair.

I like your post but have a couple of questions/comments about this paragraph.

First, you say it's a small problem outside of the strip and flip model. Is this something we actually know? Not the small problem part but the the flip and strip stuff. Is it in some measurable way creating a bigger impact than rentals generally, or than prebooked rentals? I know people hate it, but it is measurably a real problem?

Second, I agree that most cures are likely to be worse than the problem, but I'm not sure it's fair/accurate to say everyone is on an equal footing. When a commercial entity pays someone to make and maybe also walk reservations daily, and maybe even automates some of the process, then the rest of us are at a disadvantage doing it for ourselves one reservation at a time. If a regular owner walks and I can't be bothered, then fair play to that owner. If a regular owner snags a reservation a split second before I do at the 11 or 7 month mark, same thing. But I shouldn't have to compete against pros when commercial activity is theoretically prohibited. I just don't know if there's a way to regulate that efficiently and equitably. Though as has been mentioned, Wyndham seems to have figured it out.

 

[jennypenny]

The proliferation of popular Disney vloggers touting DVC rentals has probably contributed to DVC's concern over renting. That, combined with slowing sales and the conversion of several Disney properties to DVC properties might have them taking another look at their policies and legal options.

I'm ok with them trying to shut down rental brokers tbh. Or looking into DVC whales who clearly aren't using their points themselves most of the time. It didn't seem like a big deal 20+ years ago but DVC is a completely different (and larger) animal now.

 

[EYL]

Honestly, @RoseGold's idea of charging to change the lead on a rental might be the easiest way to combat the issue (if an issue exists).

If anyone on the reservation can check into the room, can't the owner keep their name as the lead as long as they're renting out to a group who won't reach capacity? Like for a Poly Studio that sleeps 5... Leave the owners name on, and rent to a maximum of 4. Otherwise, that charge to change the lead guest will be the "5th person charge" that will be passed on to the renters.

 

[ehh]

DVC knows who the commercial dealers are. *I* know who some of these people are. Every point is registered thru Member Services and they can easily see the activity. If we accept that the commercial rental restrictions are valid and legally enforceable, the only real question is why DVC hasn't acted. Is it because Disney thinks they still benefit from this rental/contract flipping activity in some way? (I'm skeptical). It it because they're worried about the fallout from attacking these organizations? Are they simply ambivalent?

Another option: abuse/misuse prevention is not easy. Very high level, it requires hiring or developing employees with essentially fraud prevention expertise and developing systems and processes to identify and enforce. Some of these employees might be need to be very highly paid, or the Legal department might need expansion, etc.

All of that requires leadership buy-in that the investment is worth it, whatever that means (financial, reputation, owner experience, etc.). There's risks too, like an exec being deposed or having to testify in a lawsuit.

All this to say that there might be key individuals who have the power to do it and really want to do it, but every time they investigate bringing it to fruition, it's deemed not worth the effort, or maybe even too far out of their current expertise to be comfortable making the call to invest.

---

Anyway, my preferred (albeit aggressive) way to combat this is to cancel reservations 28 days prior to check-in. I like it because it attacks both the supply and the demand.

Only do it to reservations that they're absolutely sure are rentals. Considering the lack of enforcement currently, that's probably pretty easy to identify as renters haven't adapted to enforcement yet.

Wouldn't even need to cancel a lot, just enough to cause pandemonium online and break trust in the system, especially at the guest-renter level. Maybe 10% of a week's 'commercial' rentals to get started?

28 days out is enough time to fill 7-day waitlists and refill occupancy, but also late enough that the guest-renter and the owner-renter would be in a real bind.

As a prospective guest-renter, could you imagine if you knew you had even a slight chance of having your reservation for your Big Trip canceled on you essentially last second, leaving you to deal with the owner-renter/agency to recoup money and also find new lodging? I would totally steer clear as a guest-renter. And I strongly suspect guest-renters are very much Dis-Online and would hear about it from blogs/influencers/friends/etc. Word would spread and "renting's not safe" would be widely known.

And likewise with owner-renters, with having to lose out on future income and having a stay's worth of points in Holding.

After renter adaptation maybe that cancellation rate has to slip to 2-5% to make sure there's no false positives, but that's plenty to deter significant portions of both owner-renters and guest-renters from the market entirely.