Disney letting the owners rent out thier points

[ShellyLynn3630]

Has Disney ever considered taking away the owners rights to rent out thier points? Does anyone know if this has ever been an issue? And why if so. Would if ever benefit them to stop letting the owners do this? I guess I'm just bored, should'nt be though I've got a house that needs to be cleaned!

 

[oakmanner]

They tell you when you purchase that you are allowed to rent occaisionaly. However if they see multiple reservations not in your name the may consider you in violation of the contract.

Dennis-

 

[disneynutz]

Disney could change the policy at anytime.

 

[ShellyLynn3630]

They tell you when you purchase that you are allowed to rent occaisionaly. However if they see multiple reservations not in your name the may consider you in violation of the contract.

Dennis-

Oh, so you can't just rent them out every year. Well I do guess most would'nt do that anyway since they bought them to use them. But that is interesting.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

Oh, so you can't just rent them out every year. Well I do guess most would'nt do that anyway since they bought them to use them. But that is interesting.

Actually, they are much more allowing than that. Most don't. Some do. End of story.

 

[JasonDVC]

I called last week to check availablity for a potential renter and CS told me "this is a recorded line. It is a violation of your lease to rent points". What gives?

 

[DebbieB]

Disney could change the policy at anytime.

I believe it's allowed in the contract (as long as it is not considered "commercial purposes", which DVC has defined). It would be difficult for DVC to change it because they rent the points they own.

 

[Sammie]

I called last week to check availablity for a potential renter and CS told me "this is a recorded line. It is a violation of your lease to rent points". What gives?

I would say that they are tracking which members are renting.

 

[dclfun]

I'm certain they are tracking members who rent points. When I purchased my membership it was clear that it was not to be used to rent for commercial purposes. I don't think they care if people occasionally rent points to avoid losing them, but members who ONLY rent or mostly rent are another story. Policies at DVC have changed over time and I wouldn't doubt some change in the future to prevent people from renting more than occasionally- how much would be allowed though is up to speculation.---Kathy

 

[nunzia]

I don't know how they would know you are renting..if I make a reservation for my niece, she has a different last name, so would they think I was renting? Or if I give a reservation to a freind. I just don't see how they could track what is renting or what is gifting. I guess if names on the reservations are never yours then it would be easy to guess, but otherwise, how would they know?

 

[Dean]

Renting is specifically and legally allowed. DVC cannot remove this option. They can potentially control it in any one of a number of ways. One way is there is also a vague clause in the POS about "commercial renting". The currently definition is currently tied to 20 reservations per year to trigger a review. They certainly could make it difficult if they wanted but it require effort and cost on their part.

 

[disneynutz]

I really don't know why they would care. Their job is to sell points and to make additional revenue from people who vacation at Disney.

A member renting their points doesn't change that. They still bought points and the renters are at Disney spending their money.

Historically, they only time Disney goes after someone is when they are taking money out of the Mouses pockets.

 

[Lynne M]

Has Disney ever considered taking away the owners rights to rent out thier points? Does anyone know if this has ever been an issue? And why if so. Would if ever benefit them to stop letting the owners do this? I guess I'm just bored, should'nt be though I've got a house that needs to be cleaned!

Even if they wanted to do it, it's not workable.

How could they distinguish between renting to a stranger, and booking a reservation for a friend or family member? Do they say 'no money can change hands'? There's no way to enforce that, short of checking your bank account.

Do they say, you can only make reservations for yourself and your family members? Well, what about a member's daughter, who's married and has a different name than the member? They're not going to get into the business of researching your family connections.

If they wanted to shut down renting, they'd have to shut down use of DVC by anyone but the member, unless the member was also present. No more making reservations for your nephew as a wedding gift, no more letting your best friend's family or your brother's family use your points if you can't go this year. There'd be an open revolt among the members.

It won't happen.

 

[drusba]

They will not and cannot take away the right to rent but they can, if set out in official documents you receive at time of purchase, put some reasonable limitations on that right. Your official documents prohibit you from renting for a commercial purpose, a vague term that basically means you cannot be in the business of renting. They have defined the suspect class for that as someone who makes 20 or more reservations per year (and making a ressie and adding days to it counts as only 1). You are not actually prohibited from making more than 20 ressies a year, only that if you do so you are reviewed for suspicion of being a commercial renter.

There are other stated limitations in the official documents, often not followed by owners:

1. You cannot "transfer" points for value. Thus an express agreement to transfer points for a dollar amount per point is itself prohibited. The reason for this is that your "points" are deemed to have no monetary value in the official documents. They simply represent your real estate ownership interest in the property, which can be rented and does have value. To a certain extent this is just a matter of how you word the rental in any contract to do so.

2. You are supposed to rent only confirmed reservations, i.e., you are supposed to get a confirmed reservation for the renter when you do the transaction. If enforced, this rule could technically eliminate any rental that involves only the transfer of points rather than your making a reservation for the renter using your points and putting the reservation in the renter's name.

3. You are required to inform MS that a reservation you are making is a rental (thus this is the answer to the inquiry above as to how MS could know your reservation is rental: many obviously fail to follow this requirement).

 

[Dean]

2. You are supposed to rent only confirmed reservations, i.e., you are supposed to get a confirmed reservation for the renter when you do the transaction. If enforced, this rule could technically eliminate any rental that involves only the transfer of points rather than your making a reservation for the renter using your points and putting the reservation in the renter's name.

This is not so much a restriction as a reality check. No way to rent anything other than a reservation.

 

[drusba]

This is not so much a restriction as a reality check. No way to rent anything other than a reservation.

Agree in concept though a mere transfer of points does not actually involve making a reservation. From a practical standpoint, Disney would appear to have only two motives to restrict renting: (a) prevent competition, which I do not consider much of a motive because I cannot perceive a business model that would entice a lot of owners to go into the business of renting and thus there is little or no threat to Disney; (b) prevent predatory reservations where commercial renters seize on reserving prime times exactly 11 months out significantly hampering owners' ability to get those times, and even that should not be an issue unless there are a lot doing it. A third reason, which is imbedded in the "commercial purpose" restriction, is to protect its own ____. Someone actually in the "business" of renting is required to collect and pay the state and county rental taxes; that is inapplicable to the owner who just rents on occasion and still has as his primary purpose his own use of the timeshare. One can likely assume that an owner who is truly a commercial renter is not collecting and paying that tax. Disney, as the ultimate owner and operator of the site, avoids any claim that it should pay the tax if that kind of owner does not because it expressly prohibits owners from being in the business of renting.

 

[Dean]

Agree in concept though a mere transfer of points does not actually involve making a reservation. From a practical standpoint, Disney would appear to have only two motives to restrict renting: (a) prevent competition, which I do not consider much of a motive because I cannot perceive a business model that would entice a lot of owners to go into the business of renting and thus there is little or no threat to Disney; (b) prevent predatory reservations where commercial renters seize on reserving prime times exactly 11 months out significantly hampering owners' ability to get those times, and even that should not be an issue unless there are a lot doing it. A third reason, which is imbedded in the "commercial purpose" restriction, is to protect its own ____. Someone actually in the "business" of renting is required to collect and pay the state and county rental taxes; that is inapplicable to the owner who just rents on occasion and still has as his primary purpose his own use of the timeshare. One can likely assume that an owner who is truly a commercial renter is not collecting and paying that tax. Disney, as the ultimate owner and operator of the site, avoids any claim that it should pay the tax if that kind of owner does not because it expressly prohibits owners from being in the business of renting.

To me the real issue is how would they do it. They are not going to get involved in motive or looking at each reservation to see if it's OK. They need a very simple criteria to determine which reservations fall on one side or the othr of what ever line they draw. They also want to draw that line to avoid a legal challenge or to make it very easy to defend if one does challenge it. IMO, the 20 a year meets that test.

 

[drusba]

And that I definitely agree with as long as they do not state the 20 ressie rule as one not subject to any exception such as the owners' ability to explain that he is not just doing rentals.

 

[Muushka]

Has anyone heard what Wyndham is doing? I am not sure of all of the particulars, but if an owner rents out their points, there is an additional charge added to the reservation, which the owner pays and I guess ultimately passes it on to the renter. I am not sure of the price, but I think it was around $95.

What if DVC decided to tack on a fee for every reservation that members made for people other than themselves? Wyndham did that, can DVC do it also? Would that be a good thing?

 

[disneynutz]

How is paying Disney $95 more dollars a good thing?