Benefits of 2020 Point Charts???

[Madame]

I think Disney could make a good case that because all members can book any room category regardless of which (small percentage of) Unit they own, it's implicit that the units within the resort are pooled. Reallocations therefore are in keeping with the spirit of the contract.

Then why have units in the first place?

 

[zavandor]

I think Disney could make a good case that because all members can book any room category regardless of which (small percentage of) Unit they own, it's implicit that the units within the resort are pooled. Reallocations therefore are in keeping with the spirit of the contract.

It's not a matter of interpeting the spirit of the contract on something not specified.
The POS clearly says they cannot do it.

 

[Dean]

Balancing the points required by different room sizes is currently against the POS. As incredible it can be that DVCMC violates their own rules, the wording clearly only allows to balance each vacation home or the year, but not increase one vacation home and decrease another. So increasing studios and decreasing 1BR is against the POS; they could change the POS to allow it, but they haven't yet.

If you're referring to changes by unit vs by resort then I'm not sure that's an absolute. Certainly Disney doesn't see it as such and we've had quite a number of reallocations over the years where this was brought up including the 2 year version for 2010/11. Even with the by unit interpretation it doesn't necessarily lock on the points for a given room size.

 

[zavandor]

If you're referring to changes by unit vs by resort then I'm not sure that's an absolute. Certainly Disney doesn't see it as such and we've had quite a number of reallocations over the years where this was brought up including the 2 year version for 2010/11. Even with the by unit interpretation it doesn't necessarily lock on the points for a given room size.

This is the actual POS wording:

"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"

So the POS binds DVC to reallocations only within the same vacation home, which is defined also as a studio or a 1BR.
Have you found a different section of the POS that contradicts and supersede this sentence?

If your theory is that if Disney did it they are probably right, then you're giving too much credit to a company that has been condemned to pay millions to early Aulani buyers (over the life of their contracts) for illegally setting dues too low in order to boost sales.

 

[Dean]

This is the actual POS wording:

"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"

So the POS binds DVC to reallocations only within the same vacation home, which is defined also as a studio or a 1BR.
Have you found a different section of the POS that contradicts and supersede this sentence?

If your theory is that if Disney did it they are probably right, then you're giving too much credit to a company that has been condemned to pay millions to early Aulani buyers (over the life of their contracts) for illegally setting dues too low in order to boost sales.

I don't read it that way though I can see that interpretation. As I read the quote it says they can simply change it unilaterally. I think the by "unit" argument holds more weight though. In addition the POS has to be taken as a whole and where there are conflicts between the sections some trump others.

 

[zavandor]

I don't read it that way though I can see that interpretation. As I read the quote it says they can simply change it unilaterally. I think the by "unit" argument holds more weight though.

The sentence says: "In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand", this gives a scope for the reallocation, balance demand only across different use days, not across different vacation home types
This is confirmed by: "of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year"
And also, limits the changes: within a given Vacation Home

Honestly I cannot see how you could interpret it so they can do whatever they want.

Also…

In addition the POS has to be taken as a whole and where there are conflicts between the sections some trump others.

if you found other sections of the POS that contradict and supersede this part, can you please quote them? This would save us all a lot of time. If you don't know any and only suppose there could be, then see my above comment about having too much faith in a timeshare developer.

 

[Dean]

As I said, I don't read it as restrictive, only as allowing change. The components that they will hang their hat on center around the fact reallocation is allowed without input and to even out demand. It doesn't have to contradict the thought, only be more broad.

 

[zavandor]

As I said, I don't read it as restrictive, only as allowing change. The components that they will hang their hat on center around the fact reallocation is allowed without input and to even out demand. It doesn't have to contradict the thought, only be more broad.

You are one of those people on this board whom posts I always read because you're very knowledgeable of the timeshare world and often offer a lot of useful insight. But with all due respect, I think you're wrong on this.
I can see that you take the "in its sole discretion" as something giving DVCMC full reign over the reallocation, but you're ignoring the rest of the sentence, where clear boundaries and scope are given.

 

[Dean]

You are one of those people on this board whom posts I always read because you're very knowledgeable of the timeshare world and often offer a lot of useful insight. But with all due respect, I think you're wrong on this.
I can see that you take the "in its sole discretion" as something giving DVCMC full reign over the reallocation, but you're ignoring the rest of the sentence, where clear boundaries and scope are given.

Not ignoring, just not reading it as restrictive as you are. And given Disney Lawyers and their aversion to legal action, this is an uphill battle at best. These arguments were made with the 2010/2011 reallocation as well.

 

[zavandor]

Not ignoring, just not reading it as restrictive as you are. And given Disney Lawyers and their aversion to legal action, this is an uphill battle at best. These arguments were made with the 2010/2011 reallocation as well.

To quote yourself:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/2020-point-charts.3725229/page-17#post-60065929

We went through the issue of unit vs resort with the 2010/2011 reallocation. But ultimately it has to be legally challenged to matter.

This post convinced me to look for other people willing to pursue legal action. I'm going to legally challenge their right to do whatever they want with the points charts.

 

[Dean]

To quote yourself:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/2020-point-charts.3725229/page-17#post-60065929


This post convinced me to look for other people willing to pursue legal action. I'm going to legally challenge their right to do whatever they want with the points charts.

Why don't you talk to DVC legal about this interpretation and the reallocation in general. Why not schedule a trip to sit down with them. All much easier and cheaper than a law suit even if you hire a lawyer to go with you? Then if you still feel there recourse, you can always do the full legal action route.

 

[Madame]

Why don't you talk to DVC legal about this interpretation and the reallocation in general. Why not schedule a trip to sit down with them. All much easier and cheaper than a law suit even if you hire a lawyer to go with you? Then if you still feel there recourse, you can always do the full legal action route.

Because PP is in the UK I believe.

 

[Dean]

Because PP is in the UK I believe.

Still cheaper than legal action.

 

[Madame]

Still cheaper than legal action.

True, but I think everyone views legal action as a last resort. We need someone local & knowledgeable (who knows all the right questions to ask), open-minded & unbiased to meet with DVC.

 

[Dean]

True, but I think everyone views legal action as a last resort. We need someone local & knowledgeable (who knows all the right questions to ask), open-minded & unbiased to meet with DVC.

It's likely they have a trip planned in the not too distant future, just a lot some time. It needs to be someone who's passionate about the issue, why not zavador?

 

[zavandor]

Why don't you talk to DVC legal about this interpretation and the reallocation in general. Why not schedule a trip to sit down with them. All much easier and cheaper than a law suit even if you hire a lawyer to go with you? Then if you still feel there recourse, you can always do the full legal action route.

My first reaction has been to send an email to MS. It was a few days ago and I had only asked about the lockoff premium as I hadn't yet read the POS and found the contradictions in it. I received a call from a very polite CM who didn't know what the lockoff premium was and just read from a script saying the reallocation was to balance demand across seasons. At the end of the call the CM whispered "I don't think there's anything you can do, this change is going to be done".

Then I asked for a copy of the updated POS, as I have an older one without the THV. They replied to ask to my broker.

I also asked in another email specifically about the paragraph in the POS we've been discussing in this POS, which prevents them to reallocate points across different vacation homes and they've yet to reply.

It seems to me that as a single owner they're just ignoring me.

I am not going to do a legal action as the next move. That is the last resort. I'm gathering support in order to go back to DVC and say: "I'm representing a group of X owners, can we get some answers?".
I hope someone will volunteer to help and take an appointment in person, otherwise I'll ask for a conference call and failing that I'll go Orlando in 2019 and willing to sacrifice part of my vacation to meet them.

Everything else failing, we'll do a legal action.

 

[RRB]

Some posts in other threads have said that the number of available points actually increased because of the re-allocation. Can that be right? If so, what happens to those points? Will DVC sell them?

 

[zavandor]

Some posts in other threads have said that the number of available points actually increased because of the re-allocation. Can that be right? If so, what happens to those points? Will DVC sell them?

What happened is that the lockoff premium (the difference between booking a lockoff as a 2BR or separately as a studio+1BR) has increased everywhere. If all 2BR lockoff are booked as 2BR, then the points remained the same. But if members book them as studios + 1BR, the number of points required has gone up. In some cases the lockoff premium has nearly trebled.
Those extra points will cause more rooms to go into breakage, which ultimately will mean more cash for Disney.

Disney thinks this is legal, some of us think it's unethical and perhaps even illegal.

 

[Dean]

My first reaction has been to send an email to MS. It was a few days ago and I had only asked about the lockoff premium as I hadn't yet read the POS and found the contradictions in it. I received a call from a very polite CM who didn't know what the lockoff premium was and just read from a script saying the reallocation was to balance demand across seasons. At the end of the call the CM whispered "I don't think there's anything you can do, this change is going to be done".

Then I asked for a copy of the updated POS, as I have an older one without the THV. They replied to ask to my broker.

I also asked in another email specifically about the paragraph in the POS we've been discussing in this POS, which prevents them to reallocate points across different vacation homes and they've yet to reply.

It seems to me that as a single owner they're just ignoring me.

I am not going to do a legal action as the next move. That is the last resort. I'm gathering support in order to go back to DVC and say: "I'm representing a group of X owners, can we get some answers?".
I hope someone will volunteer to help and take an appointment in person, otherwise I'll ask for a conference call and failing that I'll go Orlando in 2019 and willing to sacrifice part of my vacation to meet them.

Everything else failing, we'll do a legal action.

Reasonable first baby steps but talking to legal and sitting down in person are the steps that are going to get you where you need to go, possibly as one single larger step.

 

[RRB]

Sorry to not understand but how would this mean more cash for Disney?