Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Tatebeck]

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.

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....

Again, what is allowed currently does not always match what the rules explicitly say because they can choose not to enforce rules. If you don't like the transfer rule, then here is another, probably more bulletproof example.

The transfer limit has always been 1 per membership per year. Yet DVC was allowing some members to do more than 1 transfer per year under certain circumstances, which was explicitly against the rules as written. But they still allowed it.

These forums are also filled with reports of members getting lucky and MS depositing borrowed points back into another use year when the rules explicitly say that borrowing is a final transaction (unless you buy more direct points lol)

There are a ton of examples like these of DVC not enforcing certain explicit rules. So it of course makes sense that they won't always enforce some of the murkier ones too. But that still gives us 0 input on how they actually interpret what they can do with current rules.

Basically you can see what someone does, but you cannot see how they think...
And what they do will not always match what they actually think

 

[Sandisw]

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 only have to do that once you add it to MDE....its not part of making a DVC reservation...

 

[Tatebeck]

( 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.

Yes, this section is just there to let members know that points have no power by themselves, you have to make a reservation to stay at a resort. You can't just show up, say "I have 100 points, let me stay now please"

Also IMO even if it wasn't it doesn't change anything with that wording. It wouldn't matter if it was a standalone section

 

[Cyberc1978]

The transfer limit has always been 1 per membership per year. Yet DVC was allowing some members to do more than 1 transfer per year under certain circumstances, which was explicitly against the rules as written. But they still allowed it.

this is not entirely true.

Back when DVC was conceived owners were allowed to do transfers (no limits) but as we have seen with other things some members took advantage of it and eventually the limit was introduced as 1 transfer in or out.

Unfortunately I don’t know when the original transfer rule was changed to what we have now.

 

[Sandisw]

( 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.

Exactly and I am glad that you understood where I was going with this....things can be seen different ways depending on how one wants to view it and how important context matters....and to be fair, I actually understand what that was trying to say, but it goes to show how someone could see it differently.

Understanding and using our DVC should not rely on owners deciding on their own what it means to rent appropriately.....or whether or not one can change the name on a prebooked reservation because they can't use it anymore..

Now, the ability to change lead guests has been exploited by those who are in it for commerical purposes, and I could defintiely see DVC doing more, and updating the language of the HRR to specifically address it by giving themselves the authority to consider it a violation of the commerical purpose clause..

But, if that is what they want to do, I think owners are entitled to have that written there so there is no question. We all should expect that from DVC....even if what is added isn't something we want to see.

 

[mkatsy]

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.

Yes, they open the floor to question in every session. The attendance is very low … one session it was just me and the board I didn’t have any complaints, so we just talked about my experience as an owner.

 

[Sandisw]

this is not entirely true.

Back when DVC was conceived owners were allowed to do transfers (no limits) but as we have seen with other things some members took advantage of it and eventually the limit was introduced as 1 transfer in or out.

Unfortunately I don’t know when the original transfer rule was changed to what we have now.

It was changed in 2008 when DVC actually adopted the Commericaul Use Policy....it was also when they stopped people from becoming associates on more than 4 memberships.

Back then, there was only one major player in the rental market for owners to use and they would have owners add them to their memberships so they could make reservations on the owners behalf.

That is how all of this started....DVC didn't have a clear policy definition in place as to what constituted commerical purposes and they decided that they needed it in order to enforce that clause of the contract...thus, the 2008/2011 policy was created...

If the contract language was already sufficient enough to deal with it, there would really have been no need to actually adopt an official policy to use.

If one thing I am 100% sure of is that DVC doesn't put anything in the official documents unless they are positive that they withstand a legal challenge, and I also am 100% that they know what they need to have in documents in order to enforce things.

 

[Mouseforward]

Yes, this section is just there to let members know that points have no power by themselves, you have to make a reservation to stay at a resort. You can't just show up, say "I have 100 points, let me stay now please"

Also IMO even if it wasn't it doesn't change anything with that wording. It wouldn't matter if it was a standalone section

Yes, and noticed how you use the surrounding sentences in the clause and not just what the single sentence said.

Just the point I was making.

 

[Tatebeck]

this is not entirely true.

Back when DVC was conceived owners were allowed to do transfers (no limits) but as we have seen with other things some members took advantage of it and eventually the limit was introduced as 1 transfer in or out.

Unfortunately I don’t know when the original transfer rule was changed to what we have now.

I didn't think about what they had at first when they only had 1 DVC resort. They probably added transfer rules along the way once members could own at multiple resorts. I guess I should clarify they were always limited to 1 transfer once transferring rules were made or "as long as I can remember" lol

 

[Tatebeck]

Yes, and noticed how you use the surrounding sentences in the clause and not just what the single sentence said.

Just the point I was making.

And maybe you noticed that I said the surroundings didn't matter and wouldn't alter what that section said. So not sure why you are trying to make a gotcha moment when there isn't one to be found. It's a different story with the other clauses we were talking about earlier. You can use surrounding info to get more context, but you can't use to to completely change the meaning of another sentence in a surrounding section

 

[mkatsy]

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

I don’t think I can physically talk for that long, and you do have to take turns if there are other members there. But I will jot a couple things down incase I get distracted.

 

[Sandisw]

Again, what is allowed currently does not always match what the rules explicitly say because they can choose not to enforce rules. If you don't like the transfer rule, then here is another, probably more bulletproof example.

The transfer limit has always been 1 per membership per year. Yet DVC was allowing some members to do more than 1 transfer per year under certain circumstances, which was explicitly against the rules as written. But they still allowed it.

These forums are also filled with reports of members getting lucky and MS depositing borrowed points back into another use year when the rules explicitly say that borrowing is a final transaction (unless you buy more direct points lol)

There are a ton of examples like these of DVC not enforcing certain explicit rules. So it of course makes sense that they won't always enforce some of the murkier ones too. But that still gives us 0 input on how they actually interpret what they can do with current rules.

Basically you can see what someone does, but you cannot see how they think...
And what they do will not always match what they actually think

I agree with the exception that all we have into DVC's thinking is what they say and do.....

As I mentioined above, they have said that letting owners transfer more than once was an exception to the rule....they admitted they were making exceptions.

Even when we hear that some have gotten MS to put back borrowed points, MS makes it clear that they are doing it as an exception.

Making exceptions to written rules is not the same as saying something is a rule but DVC is ignoring it.....

If people really believe that the written rules are clear that changing the name on a confirmed reservation to a renter is expressly prohibited, then they should contact DVC, include the specific language and clause, and ask them to explain why DVC isn't enforcing it...

As I said, the answer when I asked for clarification, and referenced the HRR, was told that currently, they allow lead guest changes for any and all reservations, even if the new guest is a renter.. Doing so is not against any rule....IMO, that is not saying we are being given an exception, but rather that no rule exists to prevent it.

Of course, everything is subject to change, and we all know that, but until DVC actually changes things, whether in writing or practice, all we can do is follow their lead.

I always go by what DVC says and does....and if I see that it conflicts with something in the contract, I will seek clarification from them to make sure that I am well informed and understand things.

 

[Tatebeck]

I agree with the exception that all we have into DVC's thinking is what they say and do.....

As I mentioined above, they have said that letting owners transfer more than once was an exception to the rule....they admitted they were making exceptions.

Even when we hear that some have gotten MS to put back borrowed points, MS makes it clear that they are doing it as an exception.

Making exceptions to written rules is not the same as saying something is a rule but DVC is ignoring it.....

If people really believe that the written rules are clear that changing the name on a confirmed reservation to a renter is expressly prohibited, then they should contact DVC, include the specific language and clause, and ask them to explain why DVC isn't enforcing it...

As I said, the answer when I asked for clarification, and referenced the HRR, was told that currently, they allow lead guest changes for any and all reservations, even if the new guest is a renter.. Doing so is not against any rule....IMO, that is not saying we are being given an exception, but rather that no rule exists to prevent it.

Of course, everything is subject to change, and we all know that, but until DVC actually changes things, whether in writing or practice, all we can do is follow their lead.

I always go by what DVC says and does....and if I see that it conflicts with something in the contract, I will seek clarification from them to make sure that I am well informed and understand things.

Right they can make exceptions or ignore activity.

I used the transfers for money example first because that is more of the ignore side.

If nobody is telling DVC that their reservations are rentals (and DVC isn't inquiring about it) then they are just ignoring the rules (just like they do if you don't actually mention you are doing a paid transfer). There are public forums where people are posting transfers for money. DVC knows it is going on, they just most likely don't want the hassle of policing it. Could be something similar here

 

[Mouseforward]

And maybe you noticed that I said the surroundings didn't matter and wouldn't alter what that section said. So not sure why you are trying to make a gotcha moment when there isn't one to be found. It's a different story with the other clauses we were talking about earlier. You can use surrounding info to get more context, but you can't use to to completely change the meaning of another sentence in a surrounding section

"No Owner may directly rent, exchange, or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home at the Riviera Resort on a first come, first served basis. "

This is the compete sentence -it is, when taken out of context, unambiguous in its meaning that you need a reservation before you rent.


So yes I will take the win. It is only the context of the prior and post sentences that give the meaning of the clause. Just like in section 3b

 

[mkatsy]

There are public forums where people are posting transfers for money. DVC knows it is going on, they just most likely don't want the hassle of policing it. Could be something similar here

Much of what members are frustrated with is happening out in the open. It’s not like it’s some clandestine DVC underworld of point/contract transfer. That’s what makes it feel like they don’t care about the member experience. But … every day is a new opportunity for them to do or say something. Until then … we just wait.

 

[Tatebeck]

"No Owner may directly rent, exchange, or otherwise use his or her Ownership Interest without making a prior reservation of an available Vacation Home at the Riviera Resort on a first come, first served basis. "

This is the compete sentence -it is, when taken out of context, unambiguous in its meaning that you need a reservation before you rent.


So yes I will take the win. It is only the context of the prior and post sentences that give the meaning of the clause. Just like in section 3b

Huh? I still have no idea what you are trying to prove, but I think it's doing the opposite as it just makes me see I was still correct...

So that section means what it says it means no matter where it goes, but "If the guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the member to notify member services when making the reservation." doesn't?

Sure

 

[Mouseforward]

So that section means what it says it means no matter where it goes, but "If the guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the member to notify member services when making the reservation." doesn't?

Sure

No it means context matters to meaning, and you can not discard the context when evaluating the contract.

They are not intending to go after you for not making a reservation before you rent

nor are they intending to ban you from making reservations before you rent.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I don’t think I can physically talk for that long, and you do have to take turns if there are other members there. But I will jot a couple things down incase I get distracted.

Can you take me on FaceTime and will that count as a different person?

 

[Tatebeck]

No it means context matters to meaning, and you can not discard the context when evaluating the contract.

They are not intending to go after you for not making a reservation before you rent

nor are they intending to ban you from making reservation before you rent.

Sure context matters to meaning. And for both snippets and surrounding sections the meaning of the individual clause is not changed at all by the surrounding context.

There are no clauses surrounding them that provide exceptions to the statements that making a reservation is required to use points to stay at DVC resorts or that If the guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the member to notify member services when making the reservation.

Which is why I have said in both cases that the individual snippet is clear in what it says, regardless of the surrounding context.
The end. please

 

[Mouseforward]

There are no clauses surrounding them that provide exceptions to the statements that making a prior reservation is required to use OR RENT points to stay at DVC resorts or that If the guest is renting, it is the responsibility of the member to notify member services when making the reservation.

You misquoted and left out the word prior and renting

So you think the sentence stands and that you need a prior reservation to rent. Only spec renting is allowed

See how silly this is ? If DVC wants to ban something they will have the vote to do so. That is the real truth. if they don’t cherry-picking lines of a contract is meaningless.