Are the Days of Walking a DVC Reservation Numbered?

[Sandisw]

Interesting, I haven't heard this argument before. So you are saying they have to specifically list what they can do as punishment for each section and each type of rule violation?

In my searches I have never seen that they say "we will cancel reservations if we think it is commercial activity" but they have indeed cancelled rooms they felt were being used in a commercial activity. Did I miss this wording in the rules somewhere? Serious question

Yes. The rules from 2017 states that if you were found to have more than 20 reservations booked on your membership and found to be in violation of the commercial clause, reservations about 20 would be cancelled.

As I just posted, we are not allowed to receive money for transfers. DVC seems to be looking the other way…but the contract states what happens if you are found in violation, including canceling reservations that were made with them. CMs won’t even process a transfer if it is stated in the call that money is exchanging hands.

That is because the rules expressly prohibit it. And, to just go back to the meetings.

The board did not admit that walking was against the rules…they only said it was an unintended consequence of the way the rules are written but agreed it goes against the spirit of the rule n

When something goes against the “spirit” it typically means that it’s not technically prohibited. That’s what a “technicality” is…

Do you think DVC would be able to apply the holding penalty if it didn’t include it in the rules?

 

[Sandisw]

But just like asking for a walking modification, they will let you transfer if you say nothing about the reason and just ask for it, even if the reason was technically against the rules (ie receiving money for the transfer)

Right but you are lying. When you call to walk a reservation, you don’t have to lie. Why? Because there is no rule against unlimited modification of dates.

And, I know you think someone is lying when they book a date they don’t plan to visit, but there is no requirement when we buy DVC, silly as it is, that we are prohibited from using our ownership to book rooms unless someone actually wants to use it.

Now, the rules do tell you that if you don’t show up, they can cancel the room…and points are forfeited. So, another example of penalties being included when they apply.

ETA: just trying to show that when penalties will apply, DVC has defined it clearly for owners.

 

[Tatebeck]

No not even close to the same. If you buy 100 points and rent out all 100 points every year that is not going to be labeled commercial use. 100 points is insignificant. If you buy thousands of points with your LLC you clearly know what you are doing and so does Disney.

It is very likely in that case that the intent was 100% for commercial use, and Disney will probably decide so as well. But only the member truly knows the intent when they bought/made a reservation

 

[Chili327]

Exaclty! If you call today with another owner to transfer points and tell them that you are getting paid, the CM will not process the transfer because you are not allowed to get paid.

Yes. Because that is against the rules, unlike walking.

Right but you are lying. When you call to walk a reservation, you don’t have to lie. Why? Because there is no rule against unlimited modification of dates.

And, I know you think someone is lying when they book a date they don’t plan to visit, but there is no requirement when we buy DVC, silly as it is, that we are prohibited from using our ownership to book rooms unless someone actually wants to use it.

Agree, definitely not against the rules, otherwise Disney wouldn't do it for you.

 

[Tatebeck]

Yes. The rules from 2017 states that if you were found to have more than 20 reservations booked on your membership and found to be in violation of the commercial clause, reservations about 20 would be cancelled.

As I just posted, we are not allowed to receive money for transfers. DVC seems to be looking the other way…but the contract states what happens if you are found in violation, including canceling reservations that were made with them. CMs won’t even process a transfer if it is stated in the call that money is exchanging hands.

That is because the rules expressly prohibit it. And, to just go back to the meetings.

The board did not admit that walking was against the rules…they only said it was an unintended consequence of the way the rules are written but agreed it goes against the spirit of the rule n

When something goes against the “spirit” it typically means that it’s not technically prohibited. That’s what a “technicality” is…

Do you think DVC would be able to apply the holding penalty if it didn’t include it in the rules?

I thought those rules were taken down and they haven't replaced that definition with any new one? Is there any current definition and list of consequences?

Right but you are lying. When you call to walk a reservation, you don’t have to lie. Why? Because there is no rule against unlimited modification of dates.

And, I know you think someone is lying when they book a date they don’t plan to visit, but there is no requirement when we buy DVC, silly as it is, that we are prohibited from using our ownership to book rooms unless someone actually wants to use it.

We will have to disagree. They are lying. And I believe the rules do prohibit you from booking in this situation. If you don't that is fine. Either way we will have to see what they do

 

[Leight19]

I thought those rules were taken down and they haven't replaced that definition with any new one? Is there any current definition and list of consequences?

We will have to disagree. They are lying. And I believe the rules do prohibit you from booking in this situation. If you don't that is fine. Either way we will have to see what they do

I get you don’t like walking but there is nothing subjective about this and it’s not a matter of opinion; there is no rule against walking. If you call up and ask is walking allowed they will say yes. If you call up and ask if they can walk a reservation for you they will say yes. If I call and tell them I want to book room today and I fully intend to walk it in 5 days they will say okay and book it for me to then call in 5 days from now and walk it.

 

[BeachClub2014]

If DVC is 100% okie dokie with walking, then they would have responded differently at the association meeting.

https://dvcfan.com/general-dvc/are-the-days-of-walking-a-dvc-reservation-numbered/

"Shannon Sakaske, Vice President Member Experiences and Club Management at Disney Vacation Club, addressed the elephant in the room by stating that Disney Vacation Club has been actively looking at the practice of walking and how it impacts the booking process for all Members. However, he emphasized that any potential changes need to be carefully considered to avoid unintended restrictions or consequences on how Members use their points.

Yvonne Chang followed up with a brief but intriguing “more to come” comment, leaving us to wonder what solutions might be in the works. Could we see changes that prevent walking altogether? Or perhaps new booking rules that strike a balance between fairness and flexibility? Only time will tell."

This indeed suggests, as was the theme of the article and the launch of this thread, that perhaps DVC is concerned with the practice.

EDIT: many here seem significantly more confident that walking falls within the rules than Shannon Sakaske and Yvonne Chang.

 

[Sandisw]

I thought those rules were taken down and they haven't replaced that definition with any new one? Is there any current definition and list of consequences?

We will have to disagree. They are lying. And I believe the rules do prohibit you from booking in this situation. If you don't that is fine. Either way we will have to see what they do

That specific language is gone but the current one has something similar. I will review RiV language to see if I can quote it directly.

Again, if you don’t need a reason to book a room, which we don’t per our contract, then you can’t be lying…because the answer •I wanted to” counts

 

[zavandor]

The move to check out to check in happened in 2007 or 2008.

I have been an owner since 2009. The 11 month plus 7 day check in was in place then.

Online system started on 2013? When the rule was book check out day, they had the opposite situation to waking.

It was never intended for owners to book day by day. But, what was happening to people who were waiting to book the whole trip from check out day, they were finding missing days because owners had decided to book day by day.

It was just like walking in reverse. Was not against the rules but it was not what was intended so they changed it.

Once it changed, again, they assumed it would be better since owners could book a whole trip at once, never thinking about the concept of walking.

Online system made it much easier to do and why it common practice now.

When people had to call, some might have felt “guilty” because they had to talk to a real person so not as many did it.

But, they definitely did…but back then, you didn’t have as many owners, as many smaller contracts, and as many resorts.

Basically, both ways of bookings had loopholes in them that owners exploited because you can’t enforce a rule that requires one to prove intent.

That’s why I believe that any changes…and I am not convinced we will see them…will not be done unless they don’t end up with a situation that the average owner sees as worse.

IMO, limits to changing a reservation has a high probability of being seen as a negative rather than a positive for owners who don’t know about the concept of walking and don’t understand why DVC would do it.

With the attention to commercial renting, I’d expect that will stay priority in 2025.

Initially you could only book a new reservation or cancel one online. They introduced the ability to modify a reservation quite a few years later, I don't remember when. That's when walking was made easier.

 

[Tatebeck]

I get you don’t like walking but there is nothing subjective about this and it’s not a matter of opinion; there is no rule against walking. If you call up and ask is walking allowed they will say yes. If you call up and ask if they can walk a reservation for you they will say yes. If I call and tell them I want to book room today and I fully intend to walk it in 5 days they will say okay and book it for me to then call in 5 days from now and walk it.

You aren't going to convince me with that argument, when in the same breath we have been saying that they will allow transfers when they know most of them are paid and that they have allowed so many commercial renters to go unchecked.

Them not enforcing a rule does not mean that it isn't still a rule

 

[Sandisw]

If DVC is 100% okie dokie with walking, then they would have responded differently at the association meeting.

https://dvcfan.com/general-dvc/are-the-days-of-walking-a-dvc-reservation-numbered/

"Shannon Sakaske, Vice President Member Experiences and Club Management at Disney Vacation Club, addressed the elephant in the room by stating that Disney Vacation Club has been actively looking at the practice of walking and how it impacts the booking process for all Members. However, he emphasized that any potential changes need to be carefully considered to avoid unintended restrictions or consequences on how Members use their points.

Yvonne Chang followed up with a brief but intriguing “more to come” comment, leaving us to wonder what solutions might be in the works. Could we see changes that prevent walking altogether? Or perhaps new booking rules that strike a balance between fairness and flexibility? Only time will tell."

This indeed suggests, as was the theme of the article and the launch of this thread, that perhaps DVC is concerned with the practice.

EDIT: many here seem significantly more confident that walking falls within the rules than Shannon Sakaske and Yvonne Chang.

I was at that meeting and they said it was not in the spirit of the rules. He also made it clear that they are open to consider changes but have to weigh them carefully.

But, the point is they did not say it was a violation of the rules…just that it has become an unintended consequence of the rule change from check out to check in plus 7, and they are open to changing the rules to address if they can while considering the impacts of any rule changes on the program.

Those statements actually support that they know it is technically allowed but maybe it’s time to revisit the rules and change them to prohibit it.

That is the whole point…you change rules when the ones you have allow things you no longer want to happen

No one, including me, have stated that they may decide they no longer want owners to be allowed to walk.

But it will take a rule change from them to stop it…and that was part of conversation that day as well.

 

[Sandisw]

Initially you could only book a new reservation or cancel one online. They introduced the ability to modify a reservation quite a few years later, I don't remember when. That's when walking was made easier.

I forgot about that part. Yeah, walking definitely is much easier with the moody online feature.

 

[BeachClub2014]

I was at that meeting and they said it was not in the spirit of the rules. He also made it clear that they are open to consider changes but have to weigh them carefully.

But, the point is they did not say it was a violation of the rules…just that it has become an unintended consequence of the rule change from check out to check in plus 7, and they are open to changing the rules to address if they can while considering the impacts of any rule changes on the program.

Those statements actually support that they know it is technically allowed but maybe it’s time to revisit the rules and change them to prohibit it.

That is the whole point…you change rules when the ones you have allow things you no longer want to happen

No one, including me, have stated that they may decide they no longer want owners to be allowed to walk.

But it will take a rule change from them to stop it…and that was part of conversation that day as well.

Spin it any way that you'd like. If DVC were good with it, and if it fell 100% within the rules, as many argue here, then they would have said so. My read on it is that they realize the practice is not consistent with the rules, spirit, or otherwise, and that the problem has continued to grow exponentially, and now they need to address it.

 

[Sandisw]

You aren't going to convince me with that argument, when in the same breath we have been saying that they will allow transfers when they know most of them are paid and that they have allowed so many commercial renters to go unchecked.

Them not enforcing a rule does not mean that it isn't still a rule

If you call DVC and ask them if I am allowed to get paid for a transfer they say no.

If they know you are getting paid, they refuse to transfer because it’s against the rules.

CMs will not say something is allowed if it is not If you call and ask a CM if walking a reservation is allowed, the answer is yes.

If it was prohibited, just like when you ask about a transfer for money, they would say no.

 

[Leight19]

You aren't going to convince me with that argument, when in the same breath we have been saying that they will allow transfers when they know most of them are paid and that they have allowed so many commercial renters to go unchecked.

Them not enforcing a rule does not mean that it isn't still a rule

Yeah I sorta give up at this point because it’s clear theres no way to convince some there’s no rule. I can’t prove a negative I can only point out there is no rule that bans walking and dvc will tell you it’s allowed and help you do it. But you don’t want it to be allowed so you imagined a nonexistent rule that forbids it.

 

[Sandisw]

Spin it any way that you'd like. If DVC were good with it, and if it fell 100% within the rules, as many argue here, then they would have said so. My read on it is that they realize the practice is not consistent with the rules, spirit, or otherwise, and that the problem has continued to grow exponentially, and now they need to address it.

All I will say is it isn’t spin as I had actual conversations with them…I was there during two different meetings.

They will consider changing the rules because this is a practice allowed under the current rules. that some members no longer want to see allowed.

If it was against the rules, they would have stated that, like they did for commercial renting. They did not.

They also said that they are monitoring it and it does not happen often. So there is that.

Even the article acknowledges that walking is still an option for owners.

 

[BeachClub2014]

All I will say is it isn’t spin as I had actual conversations with them…I was there during two different meetings.

They will consider changing the rules because this is a practice allowed under the current rules. that some members no longer want to see allowed.

If it was against the rules, they would have stated that, like they did for commercial renting. They did not.

Yes, we know you were there. I even complimented you for going, which is great!

Are the comments quoted in the article inaccurate or incomplete in any way? If not, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for walking or validation that the practice is within the rules or allowable.

 

[robinb]

I'm always amused by these discussions about walking. They are, inevitably, full of solutions in search of a problem. IMO, walking is perfectly OK as long as it is not used in conjunction commercial renting. It's the commercial renting that is the core of everything. Not members booking vacations for themselves.

 

[tx911]

I'm always amused by these discussions about walking. They are, inevitably, full of solutions in search of a problem. IMO, walking is perfectly OK as long as it is not used in conjunction commercial renting. It's the commercial renting that is the core of everything. Not members booking vacations for themselves.

I don't have to search very hard for a problem.
Walking takes rooms away from other non-walking owners by giving the person walking a booking advantage. I view that as a problem. It is a perversion of the booking system, and the argument that everyone can do it doesn't fly with me.

 

[robinb]

I don't have to search very hard for a problem.
Walking takes rooms away from other non-walking owners by giving the person walking a booking advantage. I view that as a problem. It is a perversion of the booking system, and the argument that everyone can do it doesn't fly with me.

The non-walker has the SAME opportunity to walk their reservation. There is no advantage.