Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Sandisw]

Since the other thread has gotten long, and this is the new information I have received, I thought we should start a new one!

As many know, I excerised my right as an owner to get a copy of the Commerical Use Policy from DVC as the POS of both my VGF and SSR contractes stated was a record of the association...and the policy adopted by the board.

Today, I received a written copy of the policy and it is the same policy that has been in existence since 2011....it is very similar to the 2008 policy (which some believed was no longer the policy) that many of us have seen but a few differences.

1. It is still the 20 reservations rule but it now states that it can be viewed across memberships of an owner, including ones in which someone is an associate.

2. It states that if a a member tries to make more than 20 reservations, then MS will not confirm it unless the owner can satisfy that all 20 are for themselves, family and friends. Any reservations above 20, will be considered in violation of the multiple reservations rule, defined as "using the membership for commerical purposes".

This response was sent to me via email so there was no correspondence included other than "Attached is our policy against commerical use of vacation points".

Since this policy was adopted prior to online booking, my guess is that the flagging of accounts for going over the 20 reservations will continue and that potentially, they will have added a metric for what might be renting for more than dues?

Given that DVC provided me with this today, this policy is still in effect. Where does the annual dues definition that I was told will be used fit? IMy guess is that will be an additional threshold, as it says that they are allowed to add as it says this policy is not exclusive and additional actions can be added.

I have sent a seperate email to them to see if they will address that (and included the date, time of the call) as well as having them to confirm that if this policy is to be updated, that an official amendement to the state would occur.

I did have the chance to speak to an MS supervisor again today to express some of my concern regarding what seems to be inconsistent messaging by frontline CMs...she said they have specific information they are required to share with owners who call...and basically that is to ask for owners to confirm it is for personal use and if one says yes, then it will be confirmed. No changes to booking rules or lead guest changes rules as long as someone agrees it falls under the T&C for personal use.

I also mentioned my concern that the implication is, when renting is mentioned, that it can only be for family and friends, and that doesn't match the T & C (or contract) and that I thought it was important that those frontline CM's are always using the word "commerical renting" is not allowed because its confusing...she made note of that and will forward my feedback.

As she said, this is not new policy, but enhaned enforcement. So, at this point, my personal experience has gotten me that the 2011 policy is in effect, and the renting to offset dues would not be seen as commerical.

Until I get something from DVC that contradicts all I have been told, and what I have now been given as the written policy, I am comfortable that I have a good idea of how DVC defines commerical purposes in the context of the contract.

My recommendation for anyone who would like a copy of the written policy for their own records, send a certified letter, return receipt, requesting it like I did and include the clause from your contract and this statute that helped me get it within the 10 working days as requred by law!

Per FL 718.301(4), #20, c (1.a) it says:
“ The association may adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying but may not require a member to demonstrate any purpose or state any reason for the inspection. The failure of an association to provide the records within 10 working days after receipt of a written request creates a rebuttable presumption that the association willfully failed to comply with this paragraph”

From SSR POS (similar in VGF)...not sure where it exists in other home resort POS's....

 

[Brianstl]

That was a fast reply from the confirmation they received your request.

 

[Disney Spaz]

Thank you Sandisw.

 

[Sandisw]

That was a fast reply from the confirmation they received your request.

I wasn't expecting it until next week, so I too was surprised.....but this also supports why MS is saying there is no new policy but enhanced enforcement going on....because this is still in place.....which I know that some have believed, because its not provided to owners that it no longer was used.....but it obviously is!!!

 

[Brianstl]

Since the other thread has gotten long, and this is the new information I have received, I thought we should start a new one!

As many know, I excerised my right as an owner to get a copy of the Commerical Use Policy from DVC as the POS of both my VGF and SSR contractes stated was a record of the association...and the policy adopted by the board.

Today, I received a written copy of the policy and it is the same policy that has been in existence since 2011....it is very similar to the 2008 policy (which some believed was no longer the policy) that many of us have seen but a few differences.

1. It is still the 20 reservations rule but it now states that it can be viewed across memberships of an owner, including ones in which someone is an associate.

2. It states that if a a member tries to make more than 20 reservations, then MS will not confirm it unless the owner can satisfy that all 20 are for themselves, family and friends. Any reservations above 20, will be considered in violation of the multiple reservations rule, defined as "using the membership for commerical purposes".

This response was sent to me via email so there was no correspondence included other than "Attached is our policy against commerical use of vacation points".

Since this policy was adopted prior to online booking, my guess is that the flagging of accounts for going over the 20 reservations will continue and that potentially, they will have added a metric for what might be renting for more than dues?

Given that DVC provided me with this today, this policy is still in effect. Where does the annual dues definition fit? I would say that it has been added as an additional threshold, as it says that they are allowed to add as it says this policy is not exclusive and additional actions can be added.

I have sent a seperate email to them to see if they will address that (and included the date, time of the call) as well as having them to confirm that if this policy is to be updated, that an official amendement to the state would occur.

I did have the chance to speak to an MS supervisor again today to express some of my concern regarding what seems to be inconsistent messaging by frontline CMs...she said they have specific information they are required to share with owners who call...and basically that is to ask for owners to confirm it is for personal use and if one says yes, then it will be confirmed. No changes to booking rules or lead guest changes rules as long as someone confirms

I also mentioned my concern that the implication is, when renting is mentioned, that it can only be for family and friends, and that doesn't match the T & C (or contract) and that I thought it was important that those frontline CM's are always using the word "commerical renting" is not allowed because its confusing...she made note of that and will forward my feedback.

As she said, this is not new policy, but enhaned enforcement. So, at this point, my personal experience has gotten me that the 2011 policy is in effect, and the renting to offset dues would not be seen as commerical.

Until I get something from DVC that contradicts all I have been told, and what I have now been given as the written policy, I am comfortable that I have a good idea of how DVC defines commerical purposes in the context of the contract.

My recommendation for anyone who would like a copy of the written policy for their own records, send a certified letter, return receipt, requesting it like I did and include the clause from your contract and this statute that helped me get it within the 10 working days as requred by law!

Per FL 718.301(4), #20, c (1.a) it says:
“ The association may adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying but may not require a member to demonstrate any purpose or state any reason for the inspection. The failure of an association to provide the records within 10 working days after receipt of a written request creates a rebuttable presumption that the association willfully failed to comply with this paragraph”

From SSR POS (similar in VGF)...not sure where it exists in other home resort POS's....

View attachment 980256

So they didn’t define “commercial purposes” in what they sent you? I didn’t really expect them to, but the clause in POS sure makes it seem like they have a definition and they need to provide it upon request.

 

[Sandisw]

So they didn’t define “commercial purposes” in what they sent you? I didn’t really expect them to, but the clause in POS sure makes it seem like they have a definition and they need to provide upon request.

It was defined. Bold is mine....

The policy is that all reservations in excess of 20 shall be presumed to be the use of vacation accomodations for commerical purposes in violation of the Declaration and Membership Agreement, and is referred to in the rest of the document as the "Multiple Reservations Rule".

So, if you have more than 20 reservations, across any membership you are associated with, then you are in violation of the commercial purposes clause....and you will be prevented from making any more...unless you can prove to DVC that all of the initial 20 are for yourself, family and friends.....

Reservations canceled due to being in violation of the Multiple Reservations Rule (over 20) will be considered a cancellation by the owner based on the rules of the HRR.

So, owners are free to make as many reservations as they want but once they hit 20, they can't make more unless they prove to DVC none of the 20 are rentals....

However, what the new information I got about the annual dues cap supports that it adds a layer to this that for those below 20, if it looks like there are too many rentals that could give rental income would exceed dues, then DVC can take action.

Speculation here.. they see that there are more than 20 reservations connected to an owner, owner is flagged and its sent to the business affairs division for review....when those reservations are reviwed, if it appears there are too many potential rentals, within 20 that would exceed dues, then they might find an owner in violation....reservations above 20 would be canceled, unless the owner proves to DVC's satisfaction that they have no rentals, and only gifts to family and friends.

 

[Brianstl]

It was defined. Bold is mine....

The policy is that all reservations in excess of 20 shall be presumed to be the use of vacation accomodations for commerical purposes in violation of the Declaration and Membership Agreement, and is referred to in the rest of the document as the "Multiple Reservations Rule".

So, if you have more than 20 reservations, across any membership you are associated with, then you are in violation of the commercial purposes clause....and you will be prevented from making any more...unless you can prove to DVC that all of the initial 20 are for yourself, family and friends.....

Reservations canceled due to being in violation of the Multiple Reservations Rule (over 20) will be considered a cancellation by the owner based on the rules of the HRR.

So if that is there only definition of commercial purposes, that is the only thing they can enforce it on. They can’t enforce it on getting more than your dues from point renting.

 

[Sandisw]

So if that is there only definition of commercial purposes, that is the only thing they can enforce it on. They can’t enforce it on getting more than your dues from point renting.

I added to my post above....they can use the annual dues information as an added piece to enforcement...meaning, once you are flagged as going over 20, for any and all memberships you are connected to, then they can decide you have too many what looks like rentals within the 20 that could be exceeding dues.

Basically, step one is the 20 reservations threshold....can't go over 20 unless none of the 20 are rentals.....step two is that the ones within 20 can be viewed against the dues critieria and decisions from there.

But, it certainly does appear that owners are still allowed to have up to 20 reservations for themselves, guests, and renters....just not per memberhip any longer, but all of them...that will make a big difference in who gets flagged.

Personally, I can have as many as 16 to 18 in any one year because of split stays and how much I travel but 90% of those are in my own name.

Here is how I intergrate the two for my own personal interpretation.....make as many as you want up to 20 in a 12 month period for yourself, family and friends, and renters, but be careful that the number within 20 that are potential renters doesn't appear to be activity that would give you rental income above dues.....

Want more than 20 reservations at any one time in a 12 month period? Then you can't have any renters at all....

But, this does lead me to believe that owners who don't even come close to that 20 in that 12 month period across all memberships they are associated with wont even be flagged by DVC because that 20 threshold policy does still exist.....

ETA: They have the right to add to the commercipal purpose definition and that using the 20 threshold rule is not exhaustive, but it does still exist and will be used as part of enforcement.

However, I find it pretty interesting that they have not actually updated this policy to include more....because, while DVC gave themselves the right to add things....like the annual dues cap...it makes one wonder why this wasn't changed?

Going out on a limb here but maybe because they had no idea you'd have an owner like me who would actually request a copy of the definition that was on record and no one thought to update the actual policy? Or, that update is still in the works?

 

[xdan0920]

I’m scratching my head.

If you have to exceed 20 reservations, then the whole thing is one big pointless mess.

just continue along the same path.

 

[lowlight]

Thanks for doing the legwork. I thought for a second that DVC might be playing 4d chess, but now I’m back to thinking it’s checkers.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m scratching my head.

If you have to exceed 20 reservations, then the whole thing is one big pointless mess.

just continue along the same path.

Well, I think the good news, IMO, is that the information that I got about the annual dues piece will go a long way in enforcing this policy in a way it did not.

We now know that they can apply this across memberships...including if you are an associate. The 2008 policy that many of us have referred to did not have that updated language...it was added in 2011....

DVC's has renewed interest in this, and MS has said that they are now providing enhanced enforcement. So, if it has been lax over the years, it doesn't seem it will continue to be lax.

And, those in it for commerical purposes, who did know about this rule, who may have stayed at the 20 mark, may find themselves reviwed more closely.

What the annual cap information does is allow DVC to look at memberships that hit 20 and if they think too many are rentals, they can still find someone in violation....but, I do personally think that those owners who have reservations on all their memberships well below 20, with some being for personal use, will not find themselves the target of this enhanced enforcement.

Where this 20 reservations rule will really hit hard is for those owners with a ton of points...because its pretty hard to stay under 20 reservations for rentals when you have 8000 points you are tied to in some way....and still show that your rental income doesn't appear to exceed dues.

Example....let's say that 8000 point owner can rent 4000 points to stay at dues... but to stay under 20 reservations, across all memberships, they have to rent on average 200 point reservations....no more one or two night reservations that they use bots to grab at BWV or AKV cheap rooms.

I truly believe the potential for those who bought a ton of DVC to make money will be curtailed, even with this still being the policy and with the added information tnat DVC may see rental income above dues as an added element of commerical activity.

 

[Mouseforward]

I think it would be a mistake to consider this 2011 policy DVC only tool to enforce. I would not be surprised if we asked for the policy again in let’s say three months that there would be a new policy.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I have maintained since the beginning of this thread that Disney can keep 20+ as a threshold but also add other criteria for what would include commercial renting (e.g. collecting more than the total of your dues)—in legal reasoning, we would say 20+ reservations is “sufficient but not necessary” for Disney to consider you a commercial renter.

I personally think the “20+ reservations means you can’t have a single rental” policy is terrible, because (without more) it would mean someone can rent out 100% of their points at the most profitable categories but someone can else who actually visits WDW or DLR 2x a month (or less than once a month with split stays!) can’t rent even a single room. It creates an additional disadvantage for those of us owners with multiple UY, because we may have multiple consecutive reservations for the same room. Having said that, it’s Disney’s vacation club and I guess I’ll just need to be careful to visit a little less often if I’m approaching 20 in a year I might rent.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I think it would be a mistake to consider this 2011 policy DVC only tool to enforce. I would not be surprised if we asked for the policy again in let’s say three months that there would be a new policy.

I don’t think they even need a new policy, even for the older resorts, Disney has always had the express ability to prevent any reasonable definition of commercial enterprise (that is beyond personal use)— we’re now hearing through Sandi’s call with high level supervisor that Disney has decided that renting in excess of the value of all dues is considered a commercial enterprise. Hard to imagine it would be worth it to any non-commercial enterprise to challenge such a definition after Disney shuts them out of the ability to make reservations—and I don’t think even meemaw and her year after year of renting more than half her points to pay for her cows’ college tuition is going to be considered personal use.

 

[xdan0920]

Well, I think the good news, IMO, is that the information that I got about the annual dues piece will go a long way in enforcing this policy in a way it did not.

We now know that they can apply this across memberships...including if you are an associate. The 2008 policy that many of us have referred to did not have that updated language...it was added in 2011....

Since DVC's has renewed interest in this, and MS has said that they are now providing enhanced enforcement. So, if it has been lax over the years, it doesn't seem it will continue to be lax.

And, those in it for commerical purposes, who did know about this rule, who may have stayed at the 20 mark, may find themselves reviwed more closely.

What the annual cap information does is allow DVC to look at memberships that hit 20 and if they think too many are rentals, they can still find someone in violation....but, I do personally think that those owners who have reservations on all their memberships well below 20, with some being for personal use, will not find themselves the target of this enhanced enforcement.

Where this 20 reservations rule will really hit hard is for those owners with a ton of points...because its pretty hard to stay under 20 reservations for rentals when you have 8000 points you are tied to in some way....and still show that your rental income doesn't appear to exceed dues.

Example....let's say that 8000 point owner can rent 4000 points to stay at dues... but to stay under 20 reservations, across all memberships, they have to rent on average 200 point reservations....no more one or two night reservations that they use bots to grab at BWV or AKV cheap rooms.

I truly believe the potential for those who bought a ton of DVC to make money will be curtailed, even with this still being the policy and with the added information tnat DVC may see rental income above dues as an added element of commerical activity.

It’s irrelevant. If they are keeping the 20 rules as the primary policy, then nothing changes. We’ll still have our “experienced renters” renting out all 1400 points they own as long as they stay under 20 rentals it’s all good.

This is incredibly disappointing and I’ll be writing to member services expressing my disgust.

 

[Mouseforward]

It’s irrelevant. If they are keeping the 20 rules as the primary policy, then nothing changes. We’ll still have our “experienced renters” renting out all 1400 points they own as long as they stay under 20 rentals it’s all good.

This is incredibly disappointing and I’ll be writing to member services expressing my disgust.

So you don’t consider the possibility that 20 reservations is one of, but not the sole indicator that they will be using?

You can have 21 reservations and not be commercial, you just better have the documentation to back it up.

You can also have five reservations and be commercial, so you don’t consider that they’re simply going to add other criteria for reviewing commercial versus non-commercial renting?

The policy is from 2011, it’s not updated with what was announced at the prior to last HOA meeting six months ago.

 

[xdan0920]

So you don’t consider the possibility that 20 reservations is one of, but not the sole indicator that they will be using?

You can have 21 reservations and not be commercial, you just better have the documentation to back it up.

You can also have five reservations and be commercial, so you don’t consider that they’re simply going to add other criteria for reviewing commercial versus non-commercial renting?

The policy is from 2011, it’s not updated with what was announced at the prior to last HOA meeting six months ago.

Assuming @Sandisw is correct in her reading of the policy, then yes. It sounds like you need to hit 20 to trigger a review

 

[Mouseforward]

Assuming @Sandisw is correct in her reading of the policy, then yes. It sounds like you need to hit 20 to trigger a review

In 2011, that was the policy- you don’t think it’s been updated since they told us that they’re addressing the problem six months ago?

To me, it looks like they realize their 2011 policy was inadequate, and dedicated a team to address it. I’m gonna take them at their word and wait for an update.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Assuming @Sandisw is correct in her reading of the policy, then yes. It sounds like you need to hit 20 to trigger a review

I didn’t think that is what Sandi is saying, and I think it’s pretty clear it isn’t what MS is doing—they wouldn’t be flagging/reporting name changes that look like a rental if the minimum threshold was 20 reservations, and they wouldn’t have told Sandi that your dues need to be greater than your rental income—they would have mentioned the 20 or less rule.

Editing to add: the 20 res rule is clearly not what MS referred to recently because at 20 reservations you have to prove there are ZERO rentals of your first 20 reservations. This is a separate kind of scrutiny balancing total dues against rental income, which wouldn’t make sense for the zero tolerance at 20 reservation rule—in which case income and dues are both irrelevant.

 

[Brianstl]

I don’t think they even need a new policy, even for the older resorts, Disney has always had the express ability to prevent any reasonable definition of commercial enterprise (that is beyond personal use)— we’re now hearing through Sandi’s call with high level supervisor that Disney has decided that renting in excess of the value of all dues is considered a commercial enterprise. Hard to imagine it would be worth it to any non-commercial enterprise to challenge such a definition after Disney shuts them out of the ability to make reservations—and I don’t think even meemaw and her year after year of renting more than half her points to pay for her cows’ college tuition is going to be considered personal use.

They supposedly have a definition of commercial enterprise according to the POS