Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Mommb]

I think they should change the check box to ask if this is a rental or intended to be a rental

The issue is that "renting" is not what is forbidden. The forbidden activity isn't the exchange of money, it's the engaging in a commercial enterprise to get money in exchange for DVC points.

If I book a trip, am unable to go on the trip, and have a colleague who offers to pay me 50% of what they would have spent on a hotel to use my points, that's technically renting, but is clearly within the rules for personal use.

If I go to Disney with some relatives and offer to use my points to get rooms for each family if each family chips in a few hundred dollars, that's technically renting, but is clearly within the rules for personal use.

I agree that it would help members who don't frequent boards such as this one for DVC to say explicitly "If you let a friend or relative use your membership occasionally, it's still personal use even if they pay you." I would hope that if someone in one of the scenarios above is questioned when changing or making a reservation, they could explain the situation and be told "Yes, that is personal use."

I haven't heard of anyone who was genuinely making a reservation for friends or family and was not permitted to do so because they couldn't attest to personal use. I can believe there are people in the last few weeks who have been reluctant to make such a reservation online because of the wording.

 

[Girlstar30]

I really think this is DVC trying to look tough on commercial renting with no intention whatsoever of doing anything about it.

They have probably had the same debate we have. There are aware of the early POS terms that allow renting. They’re also I’m sure made aware by their lawyers the high hurdle to change that. So they’re gonna lean into half truths and subtle intimidation to give the impression they’re doing something about it.

I agree with this completely. Renting is allowed period so not worried and I have no idea what their policy really is other than if I have more than 20 rentals I can be flagged so until its clear I dont care.

To be perfectly honest if it wasnt for this board I wouldn't even know commerical renting wasnt allowed, maybe i would assume that with the new checkmark, and I can bet most people dont read everything.

Im sure a warning will be given to people before any real action is taken IF they even intend on taking action truly and until then unfortunately people will probably continue breaking the rule. This subject is beating a dead horse. Makes me want to rent out of pure irritation

 

[Mouseforward]

The issue is that "renting" is not what is forbidden. The forbidden activity isn't the exchange of money, it's the engaging in a commercial enterprise to get money in exchange for DVC points.

If I book a trip, am unable to go on the trip, and have a colleague who offers to pay me 50% of what they would have spent on a hotel to use my points, that's technically renting, but is clearly within the rules for personal use.

If I go to Disney with some relatives and offer to use my points to get rooms for each family if each family chips in a few hundred dollars, that's technically renting, but is clearly within the rules for personal use.

I agree that it would help members who don't frequent boards such as this one for DVC to say explicitly "If you let a friend or relative use your membership occasionally, it's still personal use even if they pay you." I would hope that if someone in one of the scenarios above is questioned when changing or making a reservation, they could explain the situation and be told "Yes, that is personal use."

I haven't heard of anyone who was genuinely making a reservation for friends or family and was not permitted to do so because they couldn't attest to personal use. I can believe there are people in the last few weeks who have been reluctant to make such a reservation online because of the wording.

But if they ask you if you are renting, and you say no, and the person who checks in says they rented it on the board sponsor. At that point, the owner has violated the TOS and they have all the evidence they need because the owner failed to notify them of a rental and fraudulently misidentified the reservation. Both failure to notify and fraud are grounds to cancel the reservation in the TOS.

That is why the checkbox should be changed to something that’s very unambiguous.

 

[zavandor]

Well this does not clear up confusion. It seems the word rent was intentionally avoided in the first paragraph. The 2nd part makes it even more confusing since the first paragraph makes it sound as if renting is not allowed only friends and family use is allowed.

The opposite, they even make seem like personal use meand strictly personal and gifting a reservation to friends and family is an exception that is barely permitted.

I still am baffled that they haven't yet cracked down on LLCs. Just communicate them that proof of ownership or employment is requested at checkin.
Simple and clearly allowed by the POS.

 

[Mouseforward]

gifting a reservation to friends and family is an exception that is barely permitted

The way they worded it, all the grandmas that bought contracts to send their children and grandkids to Disney every year are in violation. They’re about to send almost all of Key West to Disney jail.

 

[mkatsy]

If they ask me if I rented, imma tell them “I received a non-valuable object that serves as a medium of exchange. While it represents value, it has little to no intrinsic value of its own.”

 

[Girlstar30]

If they ask me i will say it didnt meet my definition of commercial renting, isn't that what they wanted us to do, define it on our own?

 

[Sandisw]

But if they ask you if you are renting, and you say no, and the person who checks in says they rented it on the board sponsor. At that point, the owner has violated the TOS and they have all the evidence they need because the owner failed to notify them of a rental and fraudulently misidentified the reservation. Both failure to notify and fraud are grounds to cancel the reservation in the TOS.

That is why the checkbox should be changed to something that’s very unambiguous.

I agree they could have chosen a way to represent things as guest vs renter for anyone who isn’t the owner.

I am just not convinced they want to make it that specific and that still want to be able to decide what does and does not get to commercial.

Right now, they have the 20 reservations rule and have all the power to excuse things based on what they determine.

They can be as strict or lenient as they want and I think they want it that way

I think the response I got today about all the different terms that can be used surrounding commercial renting…the first lines… was a round about way to neither confirm nor deny what I was told by MS regarding renting for amount of dues.

So, what we know right now is DVC has not officially changed the 2011 commercial policy rules and when updating the T and C, they did not update any booking or modification language, only the general terms that related to personal use.

We know through reports that MS CMs appear to been told to downplay renting when asked and remind owners it’s personal use, with a focus on family and friends.

Which, really, puts the interpretation of it all in the hands of the owner…which does mesh with what I was told last year.

 

[Sykes]

It's entirely possible that they want to imply that the only permissible form of renting is renting to friends and family. I doubt that such a position could withstand much actual scrutiny, but it's worth acknowledging that IS a framework where both a) renting is allowed, and b) they consider that use by the owner, friends, and family is the only permissible kind of personal use. I have rented to friends and family on several different occasions.

 

[Girlstar30]

It's entirely possible that they want to imply that the only permissible form of renting is renting to friends and family. I doubt that such a position could withstand much actual scrutiny, but it's worth acknowledging that IS a framework where both a) renting is allowed, and b) they consider that use by the owner, friends, and family is the only permissible kind of personal use. I have rented to friends and family on several different occasions.

Is that legal for them to do tho to only allow renting to family and friends?

 

[Sykes]

Is that legal for them to do tho to only allow renting to family and friends?

Probably not? It would hinge on what constitutes "personal use" (which is the only kind of use allowed) and drusba has made pretty convincing arguments that renting to strangers can constitute personal use. It's possible that Disney's lawyers disagree, or it's possible that they want to make people nervous about renting to strangers even if they can't actually enforce such a strict definition of personal use (or it's possible that they're just flubbing up their communication on the topic or doing something else entirely).

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Well, they basically confirmed that the official policy is the 2011 policy, that the updated T & Cs explain it all, and that different terms can be used from time to time to describe commerical renting.....

What I do find interesting is that they did update the T & C for the personal use language, but choose to leave things status quo for booking and modifications.

While changes are always possible, it certainly seems odd to me that if they are planning new rules, they would not have just done it all at the same time....because any future changes will require this document to be updated again.

At DLR today, so not going to get into the weeds, but I wanted to throw out there that changing the RULES is different than changing policy and documents. I think DVC is taking the position that no changes are necessary to policies or other governing documents to start cracking down on commercial activity, so we could see new rules that don’t require a member vote.

I am not sure they will crackdown as much as I would like (and certainly not as fast), but based on this language, I am still pretty confident a lot of people reassuring themselves they aren’t ever going to be stopped (or the kind or renters Disney cares about) are in for a rude awakening.

 

[Sandisw]

At DLR today, so not going to get into the weeds, but I wanted to throw out there that changing the RULES is different than changing policy and documents. I think DVC is taking the position that no changes are necessary to policies or other governing documents to start cracking down on commercial activity, so we could see new rules that don’t require a member vote.

I am not sure they will crackdown as much as I would like (and certainly not as fast), but based on this language, I am still pretty confident a lot of people reassuring themselves they aren’t ever going to be stopped (or the kind or renters Disney cares about) are in for a rude awakening.

I wasn’t talking about rule changes that require a vote.

But, as of today, the offical policy for commercial renting is the 2011 one…and if that is what DVC is providing owners as to the rules and enforcement, then owners have something to follow.

Obviously, they can update that policy and that doesn’t require a vote of owners unless they attempt to do something that would be seen under that FL 718.111 law as further limiting then it would.

Booking and modification rules fall under the HRR and those can be determined by DVC and can be updated at any time. No vote needed for those.

But, those changes do need to actually be conveyed to owners in updated written T and C and HRR.

However, they did choose to release an updated T and Cs on June 1st with that newer language for personal use but did not update any of the booking or modifications rules in that document.

If more changes are coming, it means that this newest T and C would need to be updated again as well as the HRR document.

So, that’s what peoole should monitor if they believe further changes will be coming.

They do not need to officially update the commercial renting policy from 2011 because some things, like the renting to offset dues, for example. can work in conjunction with the 20 reservations rule policy.

Everyone can evaluate things however they decide but officially, DVC has, to date, made no official moves to change rules.

 

[xdan0920]

I wasn’t talking about rule changes that require a vote.

But, as of today, the offical policy for commercial renting is the 2011 one…and if that is what DVC is providing owners as to the rules and enforcement, then owners have something to follow.

Obviously, they can update that policy and that doesn’t require a vote of owners unless they attempt to do something that would be seen under that FL 718.111 law as further limiting then it would.

Booking and modification rules fall under the HRR and those can be determined by DVC and can be updated at any time. No vote needed for those.

But, those changes do need to actually be conveyed to owners in updated written T and C and HRR.

However, they did choose to release an updated T and Cs on June 1st with that newer language for personal use June but did not update any of the booking or modifications rules in that document.

If more changes are coming, it means that this newest T and C would need to be updated again as well as the HRR document.

So, that’s what peoole should monitor to they believe further changes will be coming.

They do not need to officially update the commercial renting policy from 2011 because some things, like the renting to offset dues, for example. can work in conjunction with the 20 reservations rule policy.

Everyone can evaluate things however they decide but officially, DVC has, to date, made no official moves to change rules.

I’m going to try and pin you down here.

It’s your position that DVC, at this particular moment in time, can only move against owners who are exceeding the 20 reservation rule.

If an owner, LLC or individual, stays under 20 reservations in a 12 month period, they are free to rent any and all of their points for whatever profit they can get.

Is that right?

 

[Sandisw]

I’m going to try and pin you down here.

It’s your position that DVC, at this particular moment in time, can only move against owners who are exceeding the 20 reservation rule.

If an owner, LLC or individual, stays under 20 reservations in a 12 month period, they are free to rent any and all of their points for whatever profit they can get.

Is that right?

If any owner has more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period, and can’t establish to DVCs satisfaction that the ones within the first 20 are themselves, family and friends, then DVC can indeed cancel everything above 20 as the document says they will presume they are using for commercial purpose.

In the past, the way DVC interpreted and applied the rule for 20 and lower was to do nothing.

Those 20 could be a mix of owner, family and friends or renters. So, yes, all 20 could be in the names of others and DVC allowed them to stay.

Opinions to follow, since you asked..

One thing that makes me believe they will take a different approach this time when evaluating memberships that hit that 20 is the info I got about rental income and dues.

That leads me to believe that they may not simply let all 20 stand like in the past to be all rentals.

They also updated the transfer rules which now say DVC can cancel or fail to confirm reservations with transferred points if they feel it’s for commercial reasons.

Thst was a big thing those doing it as a business would do.

It says DVC can interpret the policy and I could seem them interpreting it differently than last time on what to do within 20.

I know others disagree with me on this point, but I believe that DVC can’t actually cancel until someone gets to 20…or stop someone from making less than 20 because of the wording…but that doesn’t mean they can’t put someone on notice before hand thst they are seeing a pattern that could be seen so owner should change tactics.

The caveat to this is that DVC still gets to decide if an owner has satisfied to them that the reservations within 20 are acceptable and if they say they did, then DVC can let them stand.

If questioned, DVC can say that they are enforcing the rules and that anyone with more than 20 has meet the threshold for not being commercial to their satisfaction.

For LLCs, DVC actually doesn’t even have to use this policy because corporations are limited to who can use their memberships already…only employees, board members, etc.

So, to stop LLCs, they simply can lock an account if they see too many names and make the LLC prove those are allowable guests.

Do I see them doing that? Unfortunately I don’t.

Who knows how they will enforce under 20, but right now, owners are free to book up to 20 reservations in a rolling 12 month period across all their memberships they own and are associated with.

For owners who are in this for commercial reasons, my guess is that it’s going to be pretty easy to hit that 20 because it’s reservations and not points.

Some of what we see out there are a lot of one and two night reservations being offered and that’s going to add up really fast.

DVC could certainly decide to allow 20 rentals to stand for an owner, like they have in the past, but they could also decide to evaluate 20 and below differently.

One thing I am pretty confident about is that we won’t ever really know.

What I am walking away with is that owners should feel comfortable holding up to 20 reservations in a 12 month period but be aware that DVC may use metrics tied to dues or unusual number of lead guest changes to determine who might have too many reservations within those 20 in the names of others that make them say its a pattern of rentals that appears commercial purpose.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Which, really, puts the interpretation of it all in the hands of the owner…which does mesh with what I was told last year.

That could basically mean that some owners would refrain from renting as they believe it would be commercial. Other owners would believe that they could rent all their points because they are not a business and therefore not commercial.

I foresee that the enforcement will either give DVC extra much work or none at all - depending on how/if they enforce. As long as owners can or should make their own interpretation of the rules there’s a big risk of a cluster…. Up

 

[Sandisw]

That could basically mean that some owners would refrain from renting as they believe it would be commercial. Other owners would believe that they could rent all their points because they are not a business and therefore not commercial.

I foresee that the enforcement will either give DVC extra much work or none at all - depending on how/if they enforce. As long as owners can or should make their own interpretation of the rules there’s a big risk of a cluster…. Up

It could be but honestly, I think the bulk of the owners who are not in it for a commercial purpose won’t even tip the needle for DVC.

I think they are counting on owners naturally changing behaviors because they think twice about renting.

 

[Cyberc1978]

It could be but honestly, I think the bulk of the owners who are not in it for a commercial purpose won’t even tip the needle for DVC.

I think they are counting on owners naturally changing behaviors because they think twice about renting.

For LLC’s their behavior won’t change until they face enforcement

 

[achinforsomebacon]

A few CM's, and MS supervisors, shared that owners whose rental activitiy appears to be to offset the cost of yearly dues...all dues, and not just the ones that are rented, that DVC would consider that a "no profit" situation but if you rent for more than dues, its not allowed...

This is the part I have an issue with. Say you never rent your points but life happens and one year you need to rent out your 100 VGF points and that's all you own. This implies that the most you could rent them for would be the cost of dues, which is $7.93 pp. That seems a little ridiculous.

Or are they saying if someone has a pattern of renting points year over year to cover dues, it wouldn't be allowed?

I still think this one would be hard to enforce since it's not in writing and doesn't fit what they've defined as commercial renting.

 

[Brianstl]

People keep using the terms “commercial renting” and “commercial enterprise”, but the term used in what Sandi got today was “commercial use” which isn’t exactly the same thing. “Commercial use” would be any renting for a profit. Doesn’t matter if it is a business, a small contract owner or how often you do it. They used that term because if they finally take action, that is what they are going to take action on.