Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Cyberc1978]

Booking a reservation in someone else's name is not the same as notifying DVC that a reservation is a rental. DVC has no way of knowing whether you are receiving money for the reservation or not. I have booked rooms in the names of my son, my daughter, and my sister, none of which were rentals. DVC can investigate whether the name is of someone you have booked for or traveled with before and make a guess as to whether it is probably a rental, but simply booking a room is not notification.

I'm not sure putting a non-owner name on is the same as informing DVC that it is a rental. It could have been a gift. I think there needs to be an additional piece of information conveyed that the current web site does not capture.

That depends doesn't it?

If DVC considers any reservation not in the name of the owner a rental then DVC has been informed at the time the reservation was booked.

 

[Brian Noble]

If DVC considers any reservation not in the name of the owner a rental

From false premises, anything is possible.

I know you like to argue corner cases, but it's simply not true that non-owner reservations must all be rentals.

 

[mkatsy]

Another easy question to bring up is why they don’t enforce the rules against getting money for a transfer. We have a whole board dedicated to breaking that particular rule.

I absolutely will, but I do want to warn you not to set your expectations high, because this meeting is not a collaborative cooperative exchange of ideas. It’s members bringing up questions and concerns that are met with canned PR statements. It’s very low energy and feels obligatory … but nonetheless, I will make sure these concerns are heard, in person, with as much data as possible to support the claims.

 

[Cyberc1978]

From false premises, anything is possible.

I know you like to argue corner cases, but it's simply not true that non-owner reservations must all be rentals.

if you actually cared to read what I wrote then you would see that I wrote: If DVC considers........

I don't know what DVC considers a rental - they don't know if anyone of us is getting paid for making a rental or not. Therefore money can't be the determining factor. All DVC can see is one or more reservations in the name of others.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I absolutely will, but I do want to warn you not to set your expectations high, because this meeting is not a collaborative cooperative exchange of ideas. It’s members bringing up questions and concerns that are met with canned PR statements. It’s very low energy and feels obligatory … but nonetheless, I will make sure these concerns are heard, in person, with as much data as possible to support the claims.

I think thats a great idea.

Do we even know if members are allowed or even can ask questions during the quarterly meetings or if they only can ask during the annual meeting?

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, the system as currently implemented does let you change secondary guests yourself online and even the lead/primary guest if you contact member services.

And while you are correct that there is nothing in the rules that says that you can't change the names on a prebooked reservation, there is also nothing in the rules that says that you are allowed to either. (Note: Other than a small section I found in the areas dedicated to favorite weeks, because they book those for you and you do not get to choose the guests at the time the reservation is made).

So they technically could stop allowing you to modify guests on a reservation online at any time (Though IMO they most likely won't ever take that off the online system because there would be a backlash after having it in the booking system for so long and a major increase in labor for people contacting MS for any changes)

But (as I have said before) there are areas of the rules that specifically state that a reservation being used as a rental must be communicated to DVC at the time the reservation is made. Not once you find a renter for it, not once you are ready to modify it, etc. Right when you make the reservation. If you do not follow that rule, they do not have to allow you to make the changes for a rental, even if they have in the past.

There are also clauses that say DVCs approval of guest(s) using the room instead of the member(s) is not required once the reservation is made in the guest's name. Which means that they may decide that approval may be required if you are trying to change the lead guest on a reservation from the member to a different guest. So they could deny lead guest changes for possible rentals in that way as well if they wished.

All this to say that basically:
How the online system currently works or what they currently allow you to do via member services do not 100% mirror the actual rules for a variety of reasons. They may be lenient now/in the past, but they can also be more strict in some ways if they wanted to right now (or obviously create new rules and add them as well)

EX. The rules had always said that a member was allowed 1 transfer only. They were lenient and allowed members to do more than one transfer if it was between contracts that the same person was an owner on. Until they weren't lenient anymore and decided to enforce the letter of the rules (as well as thankfully adjusting the banking/borrowing the transfer rules to add some flexibility for members using their points and not stripping and flipping contracts)

This isn’t about what to could be, it’s about what it is.

DVC themselves currently interprets the contract to allow lead guest changes for rentals.

There is a lot of language that can support both sides…that is the point and when people can interpret things in more than one way, it is up to DVC to help owners understand it....and the way they act is one way for owners to know.

I said if they decide to interpret it differently and stop it, they can do that. I just contend they have to actually add those limitations and see the post below with contract language that implies they are required to do that...

But, if they don’t? Then it means they don’t see the contract the same way.

It’s why I think it’s important that the do define things as specifically as possible.

If people believe that DVC interpretation of the contract are incorrect, then that is what they should be contacting DVC about.

 

[Mouseforward]

The next sentence just clarifies that they may not get all the benefits that a family member/friend may get. AFTER making MS aware of the rental.

Which is the entire purpose of the clause 3b

And isn't the main member privilege the ability to make and use DVC reservations anyway?

No, I refer you back to 3A and section 14.2.1 "the right of the owners to lease or rent their unit or ownership interest is not subject to the approval of the association"

I can not see any right specified, or any benefit that exists that is provided to the guest or renter that exists. No Blue card benefits apply to either.

Another easy question to bring up is why they don’t enforce the rules against getting money for a transfer. We have a whole board dedicated to breaking that particular rule.

They do , if money is mentioned in a transfer MS deny's the transfer this has been reported many time on reddit and FB. I see posts that they are asking now, but I can't confirm for myself as it may just be the personal use question.

 

[mkatsy]

I think thats a great idea.

Do we even know if members are allowed or even can ask questions during the quarterly meetings or if they only can ask during the annual meeting?

Oh you absolutely can ask questions. There is very low attendance and the meeting is 45 minutes so you can have the floor for as long as you want. I own four resorts so that’s four sessions, 180 minutes that’s plenty

 

[xdan0920]

But, if they don’t? Then it means they don’t see the contract the same way.

I couldn’t disagree with this anymore. It’s not that they don’t see the contract the same way, some of this is VERY clear. It’s that they don’t want to bother dealing with it. Or are otherwise incapable of dealing with it.

 

[xdan0920]

They do , if money is mentioned in a transfer MS deny's the transfer this has been reported many time on reddit and FB. I see posts that they are asking now, but I can't confirm for myself an it may just be the personal use question.

Then where does the board come from, I wonder.

 

[xdan0920]

No, I refer you back to 3A and section 14.2.1 "the right of the owners to lease or rent their unit or ownership interest is not subject to the approval of the association"

This has nothing to do with what is being discussed. DVC doesn’t need to approve the rental, that doesn’t mean you don’t need to tell them it’s a rental. Two separate things.

 

[Brian Noble]

if you actually cared to read what I wrote then you would see that I wrote: If DVC considers........

I am perfectly capable of understanding English.

And, what you put there is a false premise. DVC is not about to do that, because words have meaning and "any stay without an owner is a rental" is wrong on its face. You are arguing something just to argue it, and unable to admit that your argument makes no sense.

In an epistemological sense, yes, DVC could do that. But they won't, and arguing from the assumption that they will is pointless.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Oh you absolutely can ask questions. There is very low attendance and the meeting is 45 minutes so you can have the floor for as long as you want. I own four resorts so that’s four sessions, 180 minutes that’s plenty

Well if you are gonna ask questions for 180 minutes then you could cover anything and everything
Maybe you should write down all the questions to ensure you remember everything

 

[Sandisw]

How on earth can that argument be made.

The rule says, you must inform DVC “at the time of booking”

So when you use your points to book a room you must inform DVC then and there. Not in 3 months when someone meets your asking price.

Here is why it can technically be correct. The whole notion of spec renting is that one is hoping to convert it into a rental, but since there is not a renter yet, the booking when made in an owners name is accurate.

If one never finds a renter, then that reservation never became a rental.....this is not to say that DVC can't decide to stop spec renting because they decide to change their own interpretation of the contract...

There is also a clause that says "no owner may use or rent a reservation until one is booked". Technically, that could be seen to support that renting confirmed is allowed....

But, to date, the way DVC interprets the contract is that the language people are relying on doesn't mean what they think it does....

Which is why interpretations are just that....we all have to view the contract the way we view it and go from there, until DVC comes out and clarifies that we are wrong.

Transfers is a great example....the rules are very clear....you can not accept money for transfers.....and when DVC knows it is happening, they will not process....but, if you don't tell, they don't ask...

But, when it comes to rentals, its simply not as clear to everyone and why they should make it that way if they want to ensure all owners have the same reading and understanding of the contract.

Here is something else that would seem to support that the reasons for cancelations and restrictions, such as not allowing lead guest changes, should appear in the HRR, which for me is why I think that the HRR have to include such language.

 

[Sandisw]

I think thats a great idea.

Do we even know if members are allowed or even can ask questions during the quarterly meetings or if they only can ask during the annual meeting?

The individaul owners meeting in December gave about 30 minutes for questions? I don't know if the same time is allotted for the other ones or not.

 

[Tatebeck]

This isn’t about what to could be, it’s about what it is.

DVC themselves currently interpret the contract to allow lead guest changes for rentals.

There are lots of language that can support both sides…that is the point.

So, all anyone has it what DVC does in terms of setting the rules.

I said if they decide to interpret it differently and stop it, they can do that.

But, if they don’t? Then it means they don’t see the contract the same way.

It’s why I think it’s important that the do define things as specifically as possible.

If people believe that DVC interpretation of the contract are incorrect, then that is what they should be contacting DVC about.

I agree with most of this, IE it being what it is unless DVC changes something, either by changing rules or enforcing current ones

But the bolded part specifically is incorrect. We definitely do not know exactly how DVC interprets the contracts, unless they gave you explicit wording in your correspondence saying "we explicitly interpret this part of the contract to mean x" (If they have then I would obviously change my stance)

Just because DVC has chosen not to enforce a rule or stop someone from doing something in their current booking system does not mean that it interprets the contracts in a way in which it can't enforce a rule if it wished to. They say in the contracts that they can specifically choose not to enforce parts of it if they wish.

For example, I highly doubt that DVC has interpreted their own rules in a way in which they cannot ever enforce the transfer for money rule now simply because they haven't enforced it in the past

IE how they interpret the contracts and what they currently choose to do are not always the same

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with most of this, IE it being what it is unless DVC changes something, either by changing rules or enforcing current ones

But the bolded part specifically is incorrect. We definitely do not know exactly how DVC interprets the contracts, unless they gave you explicit wording in your correspondence saying "we explicitly interpret this part of the contract to mean x" (If they have then I would obviously change my stance)

Just because DVC has chosen not to enforce a rule or stop someone from doing something in their current booking system does not mean that it interprets the contracts in a way in which it can't enforce a rule if it wished to. They say in the contracts that they can specifically choose not to enforce parts of it if they wish.

For example, I highly doubt that DVC has interpreted their own rules in a way in which they cannot ever enforce the transfer for money rule now simply because they haven't enforced it in the past

I can only share what I have been told and that is that lead guest changes are allowed for any reservation....whether it is a rental or a gift to family/friends.

You simply have to confirm that you agree to the T & C.....IMO, if DVC tells you something is allowed, then it means they don't currently see it as a contract violation.

DVC has never interpreted the transfer rules differently from what it says........no transfer for money and only one in or out....when they allowed owners to transfer more than once, they made an exception to the rule, but didn't change the rule....and that is how MS described it to owners...yes, the rule is one transfer in or out, but we allow owners who have multiple memberships to do it more than once....so, they acknowledged that it was an exception to the rule....

When transfers went through, it was because they didn't ask if money was changing hands, but when it came up, they did not allow it....sure, that is a don't ask, don't tell policy....but that is not the same as saying that DVC had a different interpretation of it.

ETA: Regardless of what their past actions state, if they want to be strict in enforcing things as written, they definitely can do that.....which again, is why having things as specific as possible leaves little doubt for owners of what they can and can not do with their membership

This goes back to why I am a firm believer, and the contract clause I posted is what supports my opinion that rules needs to be as specific as possible....

 

[DL1WDW2]

If I make a reservation I think I am required to provide my personal credit card information on file.
So if I change it to a rental wouldn’t that require their credit card information to be on record as responsible also ? That would be a transaction that can be tracked by DVC legally . Right? Since it requires permission from all parties to process.

 

[Cyberc1978]

If I make a reservation I think I am required to provide my personal credit card information on file.
So if I change it to a rental wouldn’t that require their credit card information to be on record as responsible also ? That would be a transaction that can be tracked by DVC legally . Right? Since it requires permission from all parties to process.

You don’t need to provide your CC information for making any reservation.

At checkin(online) for any reservation you need to provide a CC

 

[Mouseforward]

There is also a clause that says "no owner may use or rent a reservation until one is booked". Technically, that could be seen to support that renting confirmed is allowed....

( this is not directed at you Sandi -I know you are only using this to make a point)

But this is a great example of out of context use of a clause just as the example othes are relying upon is out of context. This comes from a paragraph about FCFS.