Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[DonkeyHoTay]

Wow.... this thread....

 

[VGCgroupie]

Wow.... this thread....

Would you say better or worse than the last?

 

[Sandisw]

Two things can be true at once-

1) Sandi owes nobody a thing. She did the legwork. She can post what she feels comfortable with. If anyone wants to see the whole thing, they are able to do the same legwork.

2) In the absence of the whole body of evidence, you cannot use bits and pieces of the documents as proof that you are right and everyone else is wrong in their interpretation. That is quite literally called "cherry picking".

and-

2a) I believe absolutely nothing, zero, zip that I do not see with my own eyes. That goes for everything in every aspect of my life, not just here.

Well, if the standard is that everyone needs to provide evidence, then no information out there can be used unless it comes from DVC management and the board…

Even the news article that we use here all the time as to what the board stated at the meetings would also be an example of “cherry picking”.

 

[Brianstl]

We also have to remember that we don’t know what they have done behind the scenes to those who they have identified as renting to the degree it’s commercial.

Just in this thread alone there is a vast majority of opinions on what that even looks like.

What we do know is that they have not made any changes, whether in updated language or practice to what defines commercial. The definition from 2011 is still the offical policy and it could very well be because they themselves feel that is a reasonable threshold to remain in place?

For all we know, they are going after owners who are violating it. I have mentioned that I am not sure that we will see it play out in the market in a big way. DVC won’t be telling us and owners won’t be advertising it.

And maybe DVC has decided not to impact innocent renters?

While changes can still be in the works that we will all notice, they definitely have had plenty of time to do other things.

All we can do now is wait but I would bet based on the way MS is doing things, and saying things that are simply not true, I bet there has been a change in owners behaviors.

If the point renting section of this board is any indication, they haven’t done anything about commercial renting. The number of points rented out by some posters over there can’t be described as anything but commercial renting year after year. Yet, they are on there right now renting out massive amount of points while claiming to be a private owner.

 

[Sandisw]

We have done very good about not making this thread personal…let’s not start or the other mods wil shut it down.

Right now, we are certainly in limbo in terms of new information.

On a side note, if we get any updates or changes that appear to be related to walking, we will start a new thread.

I continue to check the HRR weekly!

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

We have done very good about not making this thread personal…let’s not start or the other mods wil shut it down.

Right now, we are certainly in limbo in terms of new information.

On a side note, if we get any updates or changes that appear to be related to walking, we will start a new thread.

I continue to check the HRR weekly!

Thank you for all you’re doing to maintain this thread Sandi.

Is there a reason you are expecting to see changes relating to walking?

 

[Sandisw]

Thank you for all you’re doing to maintain this thread Sandi.

Is there a reason you are expecting to see changes relating to walking?

I personally am not but I know others are hoping DVC will tackle it.

It did come up last year and the board stated they’d be open to operational changes but only if they could find a better way and that a concern was unintended consequences.

 

[Mouseforward]

If the point renting section of this board is any indication, they haven’t done anything about commercial renting.

At a minimum, I think posting to sell transferred points could be banned as that is pretty cut and dry.

 

[lowlight]

Well, if the standard is that everyone needs to provide evidence, then no information out there can be used unless it comes from DVC management and the board…

Even the news article that we use here all the time as to what the board stated at the meetings would also be an example of “cherry picking”.

You've stated on several occasions that you've spoken to a few lawyers about it, attended board meetings about it, and that you are in possession of the sole document that determines DVC's right of enforcement. You are positioning yourself as uniquely qualified to give a perspective that is above a laypersons capability on this subject because of those facts, so yes, the standard or burden of proof is higher for you. The rest of us are talking out our rear ends, mostly, myself included. I don't have a moderator title. My responses don't comprise roughly 60% of all responses on this subject for the past 2 years. I have no information other than what I can read with my own eyes on public facing websites. I don't think it's unfair to expect more out of someone who is 1) repeatedly leading and steering the conversation 2) has stated they are privy to non-public/limited information and 3) is a moderator.

For what it's worth, I think you're an incredibly helpful and knowledgeable subject on all things DVC. I think almost all of us here owe you a debt of gratitude at one point or another for an answer to a question we had. Moderation is thankless work. That doesn't change the fact that every single person on this Earth is biased in some way and it is very hard to stay neutral in something that you are passionate or feel strongly about. I do understand your motivation behind defending the practice of renting even though you don't rent, on principle alone. I would normally be on your side, if I weren't impacted directly from it and saw it as a negative to the ownership value. I think standing up on principle is something most people don't do enough. I do think if you were in my shoes, that your feelings might be different. That's really what a lot of the walking and point renting debates come down to for me- the big points stepping on the small points without a care in the world, or those unaffected being indifferent to those who are affected. I don't think you've willfully stated anything incorrectly, and I've defended you several times, but I do think your interpretation of some things are wrong and I am allowed to call it out, the same as I would expect someone to do to me. Case in point, "not widespread" and "not a huge issue". I think those are one way to read what was said, but not the only way. Something can be 2% of a whole and still be a really huge issue. Rentals can be an inch wide, and a mile deep and not be a "widespread" issue, but still be impactful and detrimental to membership at large and need to be fixed. And while I understand not wanting a fix that affects more people than renting and walking do, sometime everyone has to suffer a little so some people don't suffer a lot.

 

[Mouseforward]

I don't think it's unfair to expect more out of someone who is 1) repeatedly leading and steering the conversation 2) has stated they are privy to non-public/limited information and 3) is a moderator.

for point 1 - Anyone can lead a conversation on the boards - just post a thread. She has no additional powers here to "lead" a conversation. Any additional deference we give to someone has to do with our personal opinions of the validity of the persons posts. There are posters (mods or not) that I feel have a deeper understanding of certain issues than I do so I tend not to argue with them ... that is not them abusing any power.

For point 2 - there is no information she presented that you can not get yourself with a letter or attending a board meeting.

For point 3 - I have had many disagreements with mods on the boards but I have yet to have them do anything but point out if a rule was broken in a post.

 

[Sandisw]

You've stated on several occasions that you've spoken to a few lawyers about it, attended board meetings about it, and that you are in possession of the sole document that determines DVC's right of enforcement. You are positioning yourself as uniquely qualified to give a perspective that is above a laypersons capability on this subject because of those facts, so yes, the standard or burden of proof is higher for you. The rest of us are talking out our rear ends, mostly, myself included. I don't have a moderator title. My responses don't comprise roughly 60% of all responses on this subject for the past 2 years. I have no information other than what I can read with my own eyes on public facing websites. I don't think it's unfair to expect more out of someone who is 1) repeatedly leading and steering the conversation 2) has stated they are privy to non-public/limited information and 3) is a moderator.

For what it's worth, I think you're an incredibly helpful and knowledgeable subject on all things DVC. I think almost all of us here owe you a debt of gratitude at one point or another for an answer to a question we had. Moderation is thankless work. That doesn't change the fact that every single person on this Earth is biased in some way and it is very hard to stay neutral in something that you are passionate or feel strongly about. I do understand your motivation behind defending the practice of renting even though you don't rent, on principle alone. I would normally be on your side, if I weren't impacted directly from it and saw it as a negative to the ownership value. I think standing up on principle is something most people don't do enough. I do think if you were in my shoes, that your feelings might be different. That's really what a lot of the walking and point renting debates come down to for me- the big points stepping on the small points without a care in the world, or those unaffected being indifferent to those who are affected. I don't think you've willfully stated anything incorrectly, and I've defended you several times, but I do think your interpretation of some things are wrong and I am allowed to call it out, the same as I would expect someone to do to me. Case in point, "not widespread" and "not a huge issue". I think those are one way to read what was said, but not the only way. Something can be 2% of a whole and still be a really huge issue. Rentals can be an inch wide, and a mile deep and not be a "widespread" issue, but still be impactful and detrimental to membership at large and need to be fixed. And while I understand not wanting a fix that affects more people than renting and walking do, sometime everyone has to suffer a little so some people don't suffer a lot.

To be transparent, I have chosen to share privately with a few so they can confirm the policy does exist.

I have explained several times why I am not comfortable sharing the official document in a public forum. But also why I had hoped others would get it on their own…


In terms of my statements from the meeting, I have tried to convey the context and the demeanor of the board, only because they are the ones who will be deciding things and it was obvious they wanted owners to walk away with a certain impression.

It’s not about principle. It’s about the intent and purpose of the original limitation to begin with and whether or not DVC is doing what it is required to do and that is determine that the patterns of rental activity they see by an indivual owner can reasonably be seen as a commercial enterprise, purpose or practice.

As long as DVC does what they are supposed to do and follows the contract and the law, and includes things in the policies they are supposed to include, then we all should be happy, even if we don’t like the decisions.

I’m never going to be okay with DVC enforcing rules that don’t exist or in a manner that is not consistent with what they give owners.

What we know so far when it comes to this topic is that we are almost 8 months from the meeting and DVC has made no changes to the rules, whether in writing or not, or procedural changes in what owners are or are not allowed to do.

It could mean more is coming or it could mean that DVC has decided to keep the threshold for what constitutes a pattern of rental activity where it has always been.

Right now, it seems pretty obvious to me that they want owners deciding on their own what level of renting is and is not okay as well as hope owners draw the wrong conclusions from the information MS is giving them.

 

[Sandisw]

At a minimum, I think posting to sell transferred points could be banned as that is pretty cut and dry.

I honestly don’t think DVC cares about that and the language in the contract about not getting money is because points , on their own, hold no value because they are a symbolic way to representing your ownership interest.

Plus, the updated transfer rules enhanced it and my speculation has been it was done as a way to get owners to move points amongst themselves instead of renting to non owners…

 

[VGCgroupie]

In the spirit of transparency I can say I have seen the document and this fight isn't really about the document being posted at all, this fight is about the interpretation of what is in the document. Everyone has had access to whats in the document all along. It's on these boards, it's on the internet. While not in official document form (possibly by design) all of it is the same verbiage. There is only 1 difference. They added a page with legalese pertaining to Hawaii, not due to commercial use in Hawaii just legal disclosures for Hawaii timeshares. So it's my opinion that the only reason there was a new document in 2011 was because that is when Aulani opened and they had to update it to add Hawaii legalese.

I am not a lawyer and my lawyer might not agree with your lawyer about what this 2008/2011 document actually means. Or maybe that is the point.. DVC holds all the cards and it can mean whatever they want it to mean. What I can say is seeing the same topic and discussion happen on these boards in 2008 and 2015 and Im sure many other times has me thinking maybe nothing will be done. Nobody knows.

My biggest take away is that I have seen the posts and article I am linking below before, more than once. And it never hit me that they defined personal use in this 2008/2011 document, but does that then apply to the POS as a whole when the words personal use are used? Maybe, my lawyer may say yes, yours may say no. I shouldn't need a lawyer to know what I can and cant do with my timeshare. And I appreciate Sandi asking the probing questions to DVC because to be perfectly honest I really don't want to.

The bottom line for me is I am pretty upset that there are so many various documents pertaining to membership/ownership. Each document seems as if it was written with a different take on the policy and maybe that is why so many cant agree on what the actual policy is. When you pair various documents with FAQS and top that with MS how is anyone supposed to know what they are allowed to do with their membership? This is a big a problem. I am a layman and layman use FAQS and the FAQS say yes I can rent, most members will just take that at face value and not realize there are multiple documents with legalese pertaining to the topic.

So you can all read once again see how you interpret it. Im not here to argue my interpretation vs yours, been there and done that. Again you can request the official document, but just know it is in fact the info posted below.

What is in the document regarding commercial use is in this post. While it's a bit hard to read due to the way the font is posted it's all the same.
https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

And then it is also reiterated here on this site and possibly others.
https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos

 

[xdan0920]

What is in the document regarding commercial use is in this post. While it's a bit hard to read due to the way the font is posted it's all the same.
https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

And then it is also reiterated here on this site and possibly others.
https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos

Thanks, this clears things up considerably.

 

[Chuck S]

As I posted in one of the other threads, if they wanted to stop commercial renting it could be done this morning - Step 1) Gather ownership records, (2) filter ownership records for LLC's and other corporate entities, (3) look at the number of reservations and the names on each. Different names month after month and year after year = commercial renter. Done!

I agree to a point. But if an LLC or large corporate entity owns points, and they use Disney trips as incentives and sales rewards for employees, every reservation WILL have a different name on it. For instance, I remember many years ago, my Cadillac salesmen was given a week in a one bedroom at OKW for being a sales leader. Things like that would need to be considered, too. Now, I don't know it it was on a points reservation, or was part of the Test Track sponsorship agreement, but we had a delightful conversation about his trip after he found out Mom and I owned at OKW.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

In the spirit of transparency I can say I have seen the document and this fight isn't really about the document being posted at all, this fight is about the interpretation of what is in the document. Everyone has had access to whats in the document all along. It's on these boards, it's on the internet. While not in official document form (possibly by design) all of it is the same verbiage. There is only 1 difference. They added a page with legalese pertaining to Hawaii, not due to commercial use in Hawaii just legal disclosures for Hawaii timeshares. So it's my opinion that the only reason there was a new document in 2011 was because that is when Aulani opened and they had to update it to add Hawaii legalese.

I am not a lawyer and my lawyer might not agree with your lawyer about what this 2008/2011 document actually means. Or maybe that is the point.. DVC holds all the cards and it can mean whatever they want it to mean. What I can say is seeing the same topic and discussion happen on these boards in 2008 and 2015 and Im sure many other times has me thinking maybe nothing will be done. Nobody knows.

My biggest take away is that I have seen the posts and article I am linking below before, more than once. And it never hit me that they defined personal use in this 2008/2011 document, but does that then apply to the POS as a whole when the words personal use are used? Maybe, my lawyer may say yes, yours may say no. I shouldn't need a lawyer to know what I can and cant do with my timeshare. And I appreciate Sandi asking the probing questions to DVC because to be perfectly honest I really don't want to.

The bottom line for me is I am pretty upset that there are so many various documents pertaining to membership/ownership. Each document seems as if it was written with a different take on the policy and maybe that is why so many cant agree on what the actual policy is. When you pair various documents with FAQS and top that with MS how is anyone supposed to know what they are allowed to do with their membership? This is a big a problem. I am a layman and layman use FAQS and the FAQS say yes I can rent, most members will just take that at face value and not realize there are multiple documents with legalese pertaining to the topic.

So you can all read once again see how you interpret it. Im not here to argue my interpretation vs yours, been there and done that. Again you can request the official document, but just know it is in fact the info posted below.

What is in the document regarding commercial use is in this post. While it's a bit hard to read due to the way the font is posted it's all the same.
https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

And then it is also reiterated here on this site and possibly others.
https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos

I think this is the very best summary of where we are today, and where we will be unless/until enforcement actually starts.

 

[VandVsmama]

UPDATE - July 28th - Most recent info I have gotten
https://www.disboards.com/threads/commerical-use-policy-update-new-thread.3969816/post-66277097

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....

View attachment 980256

I found this info to be helpful. Thanks for sharing it with all of us!

 

[Girlstar30]

To lighten things up, friendly reminder to bank your points tonight use year twin @VGCgroupie

 

[RivShore]

I agree to a point. But if an LLC or large corporate entity owns points, and they use Disney trips as incentives and sales rewards for employees, every reservation WILL have a different name on it. For instance, I remember many years ago, my Cadillac salesmen was given a week in a one bedroom at OKW for being a sales leader. Things like that would need to be considered, too. Now, I don't know it it was on a points reservation, or was part of the Test Track sponsorship agreement, but we had a delightful conversation about his trip after he found out Mom and I owned at OKW.

Agreed, that would be an exception. There would need to be communication between DVC and the owner before any action is taken.

 

[Mouseforward]

I agree to a point. But if an LLC or large corporate entity owns points, and they use Disney trips as incentives and sales rewards for employees, every reservation WILL have a different name on it. For instance, I remember many years ago, my Cadillac salesmen was given a week in a one bedroom at OKW for being a sales leader. Things like that would need to be considered, too. Now, I don't know it it was on a points reservation, or was part of the Test Track sponsorship agreement, but we had a delightful conversation about his trip after he found out Mom and I owned at OKW.

This is written into the regulations, LLC can have employees so they would be fine if asked for proof.

From the RIV POS

"Use by corporations or other business entities (other than DVD or any of the other of The TWDCCompanies) is strictly limited to recreational use by their directors, officers, principals, or employees"