Buying Used vs Disney

[Tdisney]

I brought this subject matter up earlier maybe quite a bit earlier, I cant remember but I was telling you how a friend of mine purchased a condo during the real estate boom in order to flip it and make some money, which we all know how that turned out. However in this particular condo project there were several hundred units that were not sold and the developer was was still holding onto. When several of the private owners were attempting to unload their purchases the developer responded by trying to remove privileges to club house pool, spa, golfing etc. if you bought from a private owner and not the developer. After seven years in court the verdict has been in favor of the private owners not allowing the developer to discriminate. To me this seems like the same thing disney is trying to do by removing perks from points that are sold in the second hand market. To me this is like buyer discrimination. I have bought second hand and will continue to buy that way because it is significantly cheaper now that disney has taken away the other perks associated with DVC and we will never use our points to vacation in France. But for owners who are trying to sell, Disney has artificially reduce the value of their points by taking away perks that was originally associated with the points. Your thoughts ?

 

[Crazy4Disney06]

You can still use your points through RCI so actually you could vacation elsewhere on DVC points, however after March 20th, 2011 DVC resale owners are no longer be eligible to use points toward reservations in the Disney Collection, Concierge Collection or Adventurer Collection. Included in these collections are Disney Cruise Line bookings, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Polynesian Resort etc. Although RCI is not a "good" use of the points you still have that option as a resale owner.

 

[chalee94]

But for owners who are trying to sell, Disney has artificially reduce the value of their points by taking away perks that was originally associated with the points. Your thoughts ?

in the timeshare world, this is standard practice. it will probably get worse rather than go back to the way it was.

it is true that it is a more adversarial position and makes me less likely to recommend DVC to friends.

 

[LisaS]

Your title ("Buying used vs Disney") is misleading. It implies that if you purchase on the resale market you are getting a "used" unit and if you purchase from Disney you will get a "new" unit. Even if it's new construction (Aulani) or a resort not yet sold out (AKV) and the unit was just declared and you purchase the first contract tied to that unit, the rooms that make up that unit could have been occupied many (even hundreds) of times before you purchase. And you get the same expiration date on the contract whether you purchase an interest in resort XYZ from Disney or as a resale.

What you really are comparing is "Buying Resale vs Disney".

 

[Lynne M]

I'm not sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison. You expect a condo or single-family home to have resale value; I don't think the wise timeshare buyer expects any resale value at all. Most timeshares sell for a few bucks at resale.

 

[hakepb]

You might have a comparison if DVC resale owners at BCV could not use SAB because use of common areas may be in a contract.

 

[chalee94]

Your title ("Buying used vs Disney") is misleading. It implies that if you purchase on the resale market you are getting a "used" unit and if you purchase from Disney you will get a "new" unit.

true.

whether you buy BLT resale or direct, the rooms have still been "used" for several years now.

whether you buy BLT resale or direct, the contract still expires in 2060.

 

[drusba]

I brought this subject matter up earlier maybe quite a bit earlier, I cant remember but I was telling you how a friend of mine purchased a condo during the real estate boom in order to flip it and make some money, which we all know how that turned out. However in this particular condo project there were several hundred units that were not sold and the developer was was still holding onto. When several of the private owners were attempting to unload their purchases the developer responded by trying to remove privileges to club house pool, spa, golfing etc. if you bought from a private owner and not the developer. After seven years in court the verdict has been in favor of the private owners not allowing the developer to discriminate. To me this seems like the same thing disney is trying to do by removing perks from points that are sold in the second hand market. To me this is like buyer discrimination. I have bought second hand and will continue to buy that way because it is significantly cheaper now that disney has taken away the other perks associated with DVC and we will never use our points to vacation in France. But for owners who are trying to sell, Disney has artificially reduce the value of their points by taking away perks that was originally associated with the points. Your thoughts ?

One problem with your example is that things like the pool, spa, or a golf course on-site for a condominium development relate to common elements in which the owners have a real estate interest and are not purely "perks" (things offered by the developer purely as extras that can be withdrawn at any time). Those homeowners likely had a solid case because the owner cannot just take away rights included in the original real estate purchase or discriminate among owners in their use. It would be like Disney taking away use of the pool at a resort from resale purchasers. It has the right to close the pool for repairs and the right to close it completely and replace it with something else but as long as it is operational, Disney cannot prohibit resale purchasers from using it since it is part of the common elements in which they have an interest and to which any owner is designated as having a right to use.

Disney did not do away with any rights to use the timeshare property. It chose to do away with the Disney Collections, perks Disney could end for everybody at any time and in which the members have no ownership interest or guaranteed right to use.

 

[Tdisney]

"however after March 20th, 2011 DVC resale owners are no longer be eligible to use points toward reservations in the Disney Collection, Concierge Collection or Adventurer Collection. Included in these collections are Disney Cruise Line bookings, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Polynesian Resort etc. Although RCI is not a "good" use of the points you still have that option as a resale owner."

What I do not understand is how Disney can say that you get these perks if you buy from us but not if you buy from an individual owner who originally had these perks associated with their points. There for devaluating the points of the individual owner. If I ever want to sell my points they will be of lesser value then the ones disney sells for the exact same property and same contract expiration date because some how they can remove perks from my points but not theirs. If you want to remove certain perks from all points so be it, but to discriminate based on the seller seems totally unlawful. I can see if they said only new properties will have these perks, meaning if you buy BayLake Towers you get the perks but if you buy an older property that has already sold out you don't. Wether you buy points from disney or from an individual owner. But to say if you buy BCV from disney you get the perks but if you buy BCV from an individual you don't seems almost unconstitutional. And seems to violate some type of monopolization law.

It kind of reminds me of when car companies tried to say that the warranties were not transferable. Which was disputed in a court of law.

 

[Stbissell]

It's not unlawful and you're making a poor comparison from a legal standpoint. You cannot compare use of common areas of a condo to extended use of points of a timeshare. It's just not the same thing.

Laws surrounding condos are well settled and condo owners must be given access to "common areas" bc that's what they pay dues for.

The resale DVC properties are different. You are buying points for the corresponding Disney resorts. If Disney didn't have additional perks they would never sell their resales due to price.

Im not barred in Florida and haven't not don't quote me but I do not think there is a case here and it is surely not "unlawful." even though Disney prices are high they aren't committing a crime by preventing resales of traveling the world

 

[Stbissell]

Sorry for the confusion in the last paragraph. I can't see what I'm typing from the phone. I was trying to say "don't quote me". Don't know where "haven't not" came from. I don't know where autocorrect come up with words.

 

[Lynne M]

It's not unlawful, doesn't have anything to do with monopoly law, and there's no mention of timeshares in the constitution.

It's a matter of what's part of your ownership interest under the contract, and what isn't.

It states very clearly in your contract that DCL, Disney Collection, etc, are NOT part of your ownership interest, and that the use (or existence) of those exchange options is subject to change at any time. They're perks, given at the whim of the developer and/or third parties. There's nothing unlawful about Disney making changes to that program, when they state in the contract that we've all signed that they have the right to do that.

You may feel that it's not very nice of them to do it, but if they're abiding by the contract, it's perfectly legal.

As far as the lawfulness of offering perks to one group but not another, businesses do this all the time. The Swan and Dolphin offer discounts to teachers. WDW offers discounts on tickets to members of the armed forces. I get access to a special lounge in Epcot because I work for a company that sponsors an attraction.

 

[JimMIA]

What I do not understand is how Disney can say that you get these perks if you buy from us but not if you buy from an individual owner who originally had these perks associated with their points. There for devaluating the points of the individual owner. If I ever want to sell my points they will be of lesser value then the ones disney sells for the exact same property and same contract expiration date because some how they can remove perks from my points but not theirs.

Actually, they devalued the points of any owner who bought prior to Mar 20, regardless of how they purchased -- and for all future DIRECT purchasers. There was no devaluation for resale purchasers after 3/20.

If you want to remove certain perks from all points so be it, but to discriminate based on the seller seems totally unlawful.

But to say if you buy BCV from disney you get the perks but if you buy BCV from an individual you don't seems almost unconstitutional. And seems to violate some type of monopolization law.

Nope. Not illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, fattening, or anything else. In fact, it's common practice in many industries to grant preferential treatment to customers who pay more, fly more often, join your club, etc.

 

[Stbissell]

The 28th Amendment: On this 12th day of January 2012, The Walt Disney Company may not restrict the usage of points through the Disney Vacation Club.

OP let this one go. Disney has the rightful ability to put the screws to us in this instance.

 

[Sandisw]

"however after March 20th, 2011 DVC resale owners are no longer be eligible to use points toward reservations in the Disney Collection, Concierge Collection or Adventurer Collection. Included in these collections are Disney Cruise Line bookings, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Polynesian Resort etc. Although RCI is not a "good" use of the points you still have that option as a resale owner."

What I do not understand is how Disney can say that you get these perks if you buy from us but not if you buy from an individual owner who originally had these perks associated with their points. There for devaluating the points of the individual owner. If I ever want to sell my points they will be of lesser value then the ones disney sells for the exact same property and same contract expiration date because some how they can remove perks from my points but not theirs. If you want to remove certain perks from all points so be it, but to discriminate based on the seller seems totally unlawful. I can see if they said only new properties will have these perks, meaning if you buy BayLake Towers you get the perks but if you buy an older property that has already sold out you don't. Wether you buy points from disney or from an individual owner. But to say if you buy BCV from disney you get the perks but if you buy BCV from an individual you don't seems almost unconstitutional. And seems to violate some type of monopolization law.

It kind of reminds me of when car companies tried to say that the warranties were not transferable. Which was disputed in a court of law.

Think of it this way--your POS states that Disney has the right to remove or limit those perks at any time.

So, what Disney did is told all owners that effective March 20th, 2011, they would begin exercising that right and that once you no longer own that contract, those perks get removed--basically, making perks "non-transferable".

Even those that buy through Disney right now only get those perks as long as they continue to own that contract.