Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Sandisw]

I just be the Guinea Pig for the 20 rule…I counted last night, my My Dashboard has 29 reservations across all my (5) memberships…all but 4 are in my name as lead…the rest are for family or friends. I do mostly split stays and I book a night or 2 at DHHIR before and after my WDW stay to split the driving. I don’t charge family but my friends want to pay so I’m thinking something nominal ($7.) PP but if DVC has a problem with it, it’s free and they can reciprocate by getting me a nice chocolate sundae at Ghirardelli’s. All of the ‘not me’ reservations have a second reservation with me as the lead guest for the same time as my family.

Thanks for sharing. It will be interesting to see if owners like you get caught up in this enhanced enforcement.

It’s also possible that they have reviewed your membership and decided there are enough reservations in your own name vs guests names that they don’t believe your memberships are being used for commercial purposes.

 

[Ruttangel]

Sorry, this is absolute garbage, the real commercial renters are going to still exploit this, very disappointed

 

[JackosinDIS]

That’s not how the POS reads though. It says the board has adopted a policy and that you can request the policy.

The documents sent make clear this is the current policy. The fact it’s from 2011 doesn’t change that.

Obviously they can update this at any time and if they want to, it will be filed with the state and that new policy is what would need to be sent if requested.

When I request another copy in October, it will either be the same or different.

But, if there is another one and they didn’t send me the current one, then they’d have been out of compliance with what the POS says exists and can be reviewed.

Plus, I did not mention the $50 fee to them. Just the 10 day requirement.

This document has not been updated in the 6 months since the meeting because they didn’t think about it, or they don’t feel it needs to be updated, or updates are in the works.

Regardless of the reason, I legally requested the current policy and they indicated this was the offical policy.

So, its the offical policy. I’ll go a step further…if this policy was in the process of being updated, they could have sent it with that caveat. They did not so I have no reason or evidence it will be.

I just don’t get the notion that what DVC sent me is not really the policy.

100% agree.

We on the boards have spent a long time debating what we consider to be use for a commercial purpose. The one thing we all agreed on is that it doesn’t matter what we think, but what DVC’s policy is on a pattern of rental activity that constitutes a commercial enterprise or purpose.

The POS clearly states that the board has adopted a policy for what constitutes a commercial purpose.

Well, against all the odds, we now have that policy in black and white.

Until that policy is updated, it is the ONLY policy that governs how DVC can reasonably act in determining a pattern of rental activity that constitutes a commercial enterprise, which is what they must find in order to establish a breach of the personal use restriction.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Sorry, this is absolute garbage, the real commercial renters are going to still exploit this, very disappointed

If everything in this thread is accurate and complete, your disappointment may be warranted. Not to throw any shade, but this whole thread is just anecdotal. I think there's likely more that we don't know.

 

[mkatsy]

That’s not how the POS reads though. It says the board has adopted a policy and that you can request the policy.

The documents sent make clear this is the current policy. The fact it’s from 2011 doesn’t change that.

Obviously they can update this at any time and if they want to, it will be filed with the state and that new policy is what would need to be sent if requested.

When I request another copy in October, it will either be the same or different.

But, if there is another one and they didn’t send me the current one, then they’d have been out of compliance with what the POS says exists and can be reviewed.

Plus, I did not mention the $50 fee to them. Just the 10 day requirement.

This document has not been updated in the 6 months since the meeting because they didn’t think about it, or they don’t feel it needs to be updated, or updates are in the works.

Regardless of the reason, I legally requested the current policy and they indicated this was the offical policy.

So, its the offical policy. I’ll go a step further…if this policy was in the process of being updated, they could have sent it with that caveat. They did not so I have no reason or evidence it will be.

I just don’t get the notion that what DVC sent me is not really the policy.

I’ll bet my magic band that not a single cast member in that department is authorized to release details that have not been signed off by legal. That type of behavior will get you fired.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ll bet my magic band that not a single cast member in that department is authorized to release details that have not been signed off by legal. That type of behavior will get you fired.

And I bet you a pretty penny that my request was reviewed by legal because the initial responses I got certainly inferred that it would be.

It had to go through review before they could formalize my request. So yeah, it was a process.

What I requested was the current and offical policy on record …as I am entitled to and the response to me was this is the offical policy.

I am not sharing all the offical documents sent to me until I got written authorization that doing so publicly won’t put me into legal hot water.

People can certainly have an opinion they think this will be updated.

But when legally requested, this is what DVC compliance sent and therefore, the 2011 policy is the offical adopted policy of the board for all DVC resorts.

If people want their own copy, they need to request it..I included the the POS clause and the law requiring the 10 day response date in post #1.

 

[Sandisw]

If everything in this thread is accurate and complete, your disappointment may be warranted. Not to throw any shade, but this whole thread is just anecdotal. I think there's likely more that we don't know.

The 2011 policy being the offical policy in place is not anecdotal.

It was sent after a legal request and was confirmed to me by the department charged with handling legal requests as required by FL 721 to be the current and offical policy as adopted by the board to what defines commercial purpose.

The debate surrounding it and what it may mean certainly is but until the board decides to update their definition and policy…which they can do…the 2011 document is the offical one.

I linked to the 2008 policy which is pretty much the same except for the two things in mentioned in post #1.

 

[BeachClub2014]

The 2011 policy being the offical policy in place is not anecdotal.

It was sent after a legal request and was confirmed to me by the department charged with handling legal requests as required by FL 721 to be the current and offical policy as to what defines commercial purpose.

The debate surrounding it and what it may mean certainly is but until the board decides to update their definition and policy…which they can do…this is what is currently the policy owners are required to follow.

Right. I understand that you have seen the actual policy, but haven't shared it with the class, which is certainly your prerogative. That leaves us with your reading and understanding of the policy, which by definition is anecdotal. You may be 100% correct in your reading and understanding of the document, but I've written and litigated enough policy language over the years to know that there is often varying interpretations of the written words and their context.

Again, I am not throwing any shade, but I think people should do exactly what you've suggested and get the policy from dvc and read it for themselves.

 

[Sandisw]

Right. I understand that you have seen the actual policy, but haven't shared it with the class, which is certainly your prerogative. That leaves us with your reading and understanding of the policy, which by definition is anecdotal. You may be 100% correct in your reading and understanding of the document, but I've written and litigated enough policy language over the years to know that there is often varying interpretations of the written words and their context.

Again, I am not throwing any shade, but I think people should do exactly what you've suggested and get the policy from dvc and read it for themselves.

The 2008 policy is out there for everyone to read, has been linked and I shared the specific differences in post #1.

So, anything that I have quoted is accurate and if it’s my interpretation than I have said it’s my interpretation.

But, what is offical is that the 20 reservations rule is still in effect.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

We don’t rent, I don’t think we have ever had more than 20 reservations, and we don’t stay in studios so I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but there seems to be an incredibly obvious loophole here for commercial renters:

Book 20 single night reservations in January - under your name or names of friends and family (if you want to run out the clock faster), get reviewed (“see…it’s just me and my loved ones”) - and then you’re free to book all of the rentals you want for the rest of the year.

Shouldn’t the rule be that if you are booking more than 20 then NONE of your reservations (or pick some de minimums number) for the entire year can be rentals? Instead of just none of the first 20? Perhaps I’m not misinterpreting what Sandi is saying?

20 feels like an awfully high number to be the threshold to trigger a review (not saying that you can’t have 20 personal reservations, but probabilities suggest that people with 20 reservations are more likely than not to be renting), but that’s a separate issues.

 

[GoingSince1990]

I don't think DVC has really been enforcing even the 20 reservation rule in recent years, as if they had I would have expected to see at least a few threads along the lines of "Oops, I accidentally went over the 20 reservation limit and DVC emailed me!" and I haven't seen even one of these. Strictly enforcing this rule, along with applying it across all memberships as opposed to "per membership", should curtail commercial rentals significantly, especially if DVC also monitors spec rental ads, cross-references them to bookings in their database to identify the memberships, and uses this data to prove that commercial reservations were not, in fact, made for "personal use".

 

[Mouseforward]

I don't think DVC has really been enforcing even the 20 reservation rule in recent years, as if they had I would have expected to see at least a few threads along the lines of "Oops, I accidentally went over the 20 reservation limit and DVC emailed me!" and

Which is clearly a failure of member services since they are directed in section 5 to do so.

 

[tidefan]

Valiant Lady! July 9th 13th!

Ah! Have a great cruise! We will be on Resilient Lady!

 

[Sandisw]

Ah! Have a great cruise! We will be on Resilient Lady!

You too!!! They are a great cruise line!!!

 

[Sandisw]

Which is clearly a failure of member services since they are directed in section 5 to do so.

When online booking came in to play, flagging became automated and why people can easily exceed 20.

So, I think that is why it stopped being MS role because the system did it.

And, it was a different part of DVC that handled letters and enforcement.

 

[mkatsy]

We don’t rent, I don’t think we have ever had more than 20 reservations, and we don’t stay in studios so I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but there seems to be an incredibly obvious loophole here for commercial renters:

Book 20 single night reservations in January - under your name or names of friends and family (if you want to run out the clock faster), get reviewed (“see…it’s just me and my loved ones”) - and then you’re free to book all of the rentals you want for the rest of the year.

Shouldn’t the rule be that if you are booking more than 20 then NONE of your reservations (or pick some de minimums number) for the entire year can be rentals? Instead of just none of the first 20? Perhaps I’m not misinterpreting what Sandi is saying?

20 feels like an awfully high number to be the threshold to trigger a review (not saying that you can’t have 20 personal reservations, but probabilities suggest that people with 20 reservations are more likely than not to be renting), but that’s a separate issues.

20 is a lot if you fly here, but when you live here it really isn’t. Every year we do marathon weekend, July 3rd (we were at VGF yesterday), at least one night of wine & dine, the Halloween party, the Christmas party, Memorial Day, Mother’s Day, sometimes Labor Day, and now we may add Saratoga when we visit epic universe, plus Birthdays & our anniversary. If we have to book two studios or have extended family visiting we could easily hit 20. … I missed one, every year I have a mandatory work conference on I-drive and I stay at Saratoga because everyone goes to DS after for dinner and drinks.

 

[Sandisw]

We don’t rent, I don’t think we have ever had more than 20 reservations, and we don’t stay in studios so I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but there seems to be an incredibly obvious loophole here for commercial renters:

Book 20 single night reservations in January - under your name or names of friends and family (if you want to run out the clock faster), get reviewed (“see…it’s just me and my loved ones”) - and then you’re free to book all of the rentals you want for the rest of the year.

Shouldn’t the rule be that if you are booking more than 20 then NONE of your reservations (or pick some de minimums number) for the entire year can be rentals? Instead of just none of the first 20? Perhaps I’m not misinterpreting what Sandi is saying?

20 feels like an awfully high number to be the threshold to trigger a review (not saying that you can’t have 20 personal reservations, but probabilities suggest that people with 20 reservations are more likely than not to be renting), but that’s a separate issues.

It’s a rolling 12 month window not a calendar year so the system would pick it up anytime someone hit 20, assuming that DVCMC had actually been enforcing the rule as written.

If you want to hold more than 20, then you most prove none of the first 20 are rentals.

So, by written policy, if you go above it, DVC shall presume you are in violation and can cancel all above that threshold.

It’s what happens to the ones that you book when you book 20. In the past, DVC interpreted and enforced the policy in a way that left all 20 intact. Canceling only happened, when it did, above 20.

Now, that doesn’t mean they won’t do something this time around once you get to 20 for those within 20.

The 2011 policy does not prevent them from reviewing all memberships at any time, regardless of how many you have.

Nothing prevents them from alerting owners at any time they are watching

Nothing prevents them alerting an owner they are seeing things that appear could be going down the path of commercial.

So, the ball remains in their court on notifications for potential issues…

According to MS, what has changed is enhanced enforcement but not policy, which supports why I was given the 2011 policy.

So, if they have been lax in ignoring…which they can do as the contract says DVC can decide to do that..this appears to be attempt to do it.

Now, I will be surprised if enforcement hits a anyone who is above 20 who has all their reservations in their own name or very few in names of others.

IMO, I suspect that they will allow all owners to get to 20, even the commercial renters, before taking action against any of the reservations, unless we do indeed see an updated written policy.

 

[lowlight]

This is like when Geraldo opened the vault on TV.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I don't think DVC has really been enforcing even the 20 reservation rule in recent years, as if they had I would have expected to see at least a few threads along the lines of "Oops, I accidentally went over the 20 reservation limit and DVC emailed me!" and I haven't seen even one of these. Strictly enforcing this rule, along with applying it across all memberships as opposed to "per membership", should curtail commercial rentals significantly, especially if DVC also monitors spec rental ads, cross-references them to bookings in their database to identify the memberships, and uses this data to prove that commercial reservations were not, in fact, made for "personal use".

I honestly don’t think they cross reference any think and even if they did it would only catch a few.

Instead of doing an ad with xx resorts and dates you send a private message to an ISO post. No way for the system to catch that.

 

[Sandisw]

I honestly don’t think they cross reference any think and even if they did it would only catch a few.

Instead of doing an ad with xx resorts and dates you send a private message to an ISO post. No way for the system to catch that.

I agree and really not sure what reason DVC would have to spend additional money to search beyond the system when all the info on what an owner does is in their account.

Search, flag, review and decide if the owner has violated the commercial use policy as written, which right now is the 2011 one.