DLR AP Monthly Payments Update

[glendalais]

OC Register: Non-Southern Californians not eligible for Disney Pass payment plan

As you might know, earlier this year, the Disneyland Resort introduced a Monthly Payments programme under which residents of Southern California living in ZIP Codes 90000-93599 were allowed to purchase Disneyland Resort Annual Passports, paying for them in 12 monthly installments.

Through a human error, several Guests from outside Southern California were allowed to sign up for the programme, despite not living here.

The Disneyland Resort is reaffirming that Annual Passport Monthly Payments are only available to residents of Southern California resident within ZIP Codes 90000-93599. Unfortunately, Guests from elsewhere, including Northern California and Baja California in Mexico, are NOT eligible for this programme.

Guests who have purchased Annual Passports under this programme despite not living here will be receiving letters from the Resort shortly. The Disneyland Resort will cease to collect payments and will terminate their Agreements effective 1 May 2009.

As a courtesy, the Disneyland Resort will continue to honour their Annual Passports until the Expiration Date listed on the Passport itself. At that time, Guests are invited to renew their Passports using the standard, one-time payment option available to non-Southern Californian Guests.

 

[Laura22]

Silly question, but what type of proof do they need that you are a Southern California resident? I have kind of a weird situation. We are moving to California in July, but our house is under construction and won't be built until August or September. While we wait for our house to be constructed we will be living in an Extended Stay America hotel (lol). Since we will be living in a hotel, we won't have any utility bills. I was hoping to purchase annual passes in July when we get there, but I wanted to do the monthly payment plan. Are they going to let us do this if we can prove that our house that is under construction is in Southern California even though we will live in the hotel?

 

[glendalais]

Silly question, but what type of proof do they need that you are a Southern California resident? I have kind of a weird situation. We are moving to California in July, but our house is under construction and won't be built until August or September. While we wait for our house to be constructed we will be living in an Extended Stay America hotel (lol). Since we will be living in a hotel, we won't have any utility bills. I was hoping to purchase annual passes in July when we get there, but I wanted to do the monthly payment plan. Are they going to let us do this if we can prove that our house that is under construction is in Southern California even though we will live in the hotel?

Perhaps the deed to the land your house is on??

If you visit any Disneyland Resort Ticket Booth, a Vacation Planning Host or Hostess will be more than happy to assist you.

 

[Brady's Mom]

Changing your cell phone bill to electronic payments, but putting your new house address on it, too? Changing your banking info and using that? I know someone at one time (maybe last year) said they used their cell phone bill to prove residency. Good luck!

 

[glendalais]

In addition, you can obtain a new California Driver's License with your local address on it, perhaps?

 

[pixiewings71]

You know, as a Nor Cal resident this is so unfair of Disney!!! I am a CA resident, I am an AP holder, why do I not get the same treatment as So Cal residents. Just really bugs me, one Californian should be treated the same as another Californian.

 

[Disney Dreams]

You know, as a Nor Cal resident this is so unfair of Disney!!! I am a CA resident, I am an AP holder, why do I not get the same treatment as So Cal residents. Just really bugs me, one Californian should be treated the same as another Californian.

pixiewings, I completely understand your viewpoint on this. I know that Disney has always had So. Cal specials. My guess would be that it is based on some sort of statistics that show return visit frequency, and therefore subsequent additional profit from So Cal residents.

 

[pixiewings71]

I hear what you're saying Dreams and I understand why they do it, it just doesn't seem quite right to the rest of us up here. You know, in the Great White North. LOL It's just frustrating because I'd like to get some of those deals too.

 

[pycees312]

so this mean those who still owed on thier payments will now not need to pay the remaining balance and get a discounted AP?

 

[DangerMouse]

I hear what you're saying Dreams and I understand why they do it, it just doesn't seem quite right to the rest of us up here. You know, in the Great White North. LOL It's just frustrating because I'd like to get some of those deals too.

As would the AZ residents who are equally as close, if not closer to DLR.

 

[DangerMouse]

so does this mean those who still owed on thier payments will now not need to pay the remaining balance and get a discounted AP?

yep.

 

[bumbershoot]

I saw this topic on micechat the other day and wondered when it would come over here.

I've always just figured that so cal residents have some of their taxes diverted towards something involving DLR while no cal residents don't, and that's why they get different discounts. I'm probably totally wrong, but I know I'd be hanging onto that idea HEAVILY if I still lived in northern CA.

 

[DisneyMomma81]

I think anyone who chooses to upgrade or purchase an AP reguardless of where they live should be able to participate in the payment plan ~ if they can purchase the AP why can't they be on the payment plan

 

[JadeDarkstar]

id go more then once. I could see them making it for every one would be,worth it in this economic situation. I am sorry for those of you this now messed up *hugs*

 

[MAH4546]

The reason payment plans do not extend outside of California is legal. It is called in rem jurisdiction, which makes it difficult and cost prohibitive for Disney to go after defaulting payment plan holders outside of the state. In rem jurisdiction allows Disney to automatically go after defaulters in California court as long as they own property within California. Other defaulters could also be brought into California court, but if they choose not to consent, it could lead to a costly and lengthy legal battle to prove significant connections to the state of California. By the time that battle is over, the legal costs have already exceeded the payment plan recovery amount. For that same reason, anybody who can prove property ownership in SoCal - utility bill, cable bill, etc. - can get SoCal deals regardless of their actual state residency.

The reason it is limited to SoCal is to reduce the allocation of risk associated with the program.

It might not seem fair, but in reality it is fair. It reduces risk and helps keeps cost low for everybody else in the long run.

 

[blackjackdelta]

The reason payment plans do not extend outside of California is legal. It is called in rem jurisdiction, which makes it difficult and cost prohibitive for Disney to go after defaulting payment plan holders outside of the state. In rem jurisdiction allows Disney to automatically go after defaulters in California court as long as they own property within California. Other defaulters could also be brought into California court, but if they choose not to consent, it could lead to a costly and lengthy legal battle to prove significant connections to the state of California. By the time that battle is over, the legal costs have already exceeded the payment plan recovery amount. For that same reason, anybody who can prove property ownership in SoCal - utility bill, cable bill, etc. - can get SoCal deals regardless of their actual state residency.

The reason it is limited to SoCal is to reduce the allocation of risk associated with the program.

It might not seem fair, but in reality it is fair. It reduces risk and helps keeps cost low for everybody else in the long run.

In a nut shell:
Rem is Latin for 'thing.' When a court exercises in rem jurisdiction, it exercises authority over a thing, rather than a person. For example, if a divorcing couple asks a court to supervise the sale of their family home, the court exercises in rem jurisdiction over the house. Usually, the property must be located in the same county as the court for it to have in rem jurisdiction. By doing this this allow only a certain enforable area thus cutting collection/litigation costs for enforcement.

California is very good at making sure they can control disputed property.

Jack

 

[pixiewings71]

so this mean those who still owed on thier payments will now not need to pay the remaining balance and get a discounted AP?

yep.

Wait, so what you are saying is if we bought our APs using monthly payments with this new rule we would still have active APs thru Jan but we wouldn't have to pay anymore on them? How is that fair???

The reason payment plans do not extend outside of California is legal. It is called in rem jurisdiction, which makes it difficult and cost prohibitive for Disney to go after defaulting payment plan holders outside of the state. In rem jurisdiction allows Disney to automatically go after defaulters in California court as long as they own property within California. Other defaulters could also be brought into California court, but if they choose not to consent, it could lead to a costly and lengthy legal battle to prove significant connections to the state of California. By the time that battle is over, the legal costs have already exceeded the payment plan recovery amount. For that same reason, anybody who can prove property ownership in SoCal - utility bill, cable bill, etc. - can get SoCal deals regardless of their actual state residency.

The reason it is limited to SoCal is to reduce the allocation of risk associated with the program.

It might not seem fair, but in reality it is fair. It reduces risk and helps keeps cost low for everybody else in the long run.

How does it keep cost fair? Why should I as a CA resident have to purchase a more expensive AP then someone who lives in So Cal? If this is a CALIFORNIA thing then everyone who lives in CA should qualify for the cheaper So Cal APs. It really is not cost prohibitive for companies to pursue defaulters outside of the state. I know because we deal with people all over the world where I work and we go after them for non payment of debt, it's generally not harder or more $$$ for us to go out of state then it is to stay in state.

I saw this topic on micechat the other day and wondered when it would come over here.

I've always just figured that so cal residents have some of their taxes diverted towards something involving DLR while no cal residents don't, and that's why they get different discounts. I'm probably totally wrong, but I know I'd be hanging onto that idea HEAVILY if I still lived in northern CA.

Molly, all state taxes are sent to the capitol which is Sacramento, they are dispersed from there. I'm pretty sure that they get pretty much the same amount from every country but I don't know for sure. Maybe I'll just convince myself you're right tho....LOL

In a nut shell:
Rem is Latin for 'thing.' When a court exercises in rem jurisdiction, it exercises authority over a thing, rather than a person. For example, if a divorcing couple asks a court to supervise the sale of their family home, the court exercises in rem jurisdiction over the house. Usually, the property must be located in the same county as the court for it to have in rem jurisdiction. By doing this this allow only a certain enforable area thus cutting collection/litigation costs for enforcement.

California is very good at making sure they can control disputed property.

Jack

CA is good at trying to control everything.....lol

 

[bumbershoot]

Wait, so what you are saying is if we bought our APs using monthly payments with this new rule we would still have active APs thru Jan but we wouldn't have to pay anymore on them? How is that fair???

Well, it would be more fair overall to just eliminate the APs for the NCal residents that were using the payment plan, right? But that would end up being a nightmare. How would they determine if a refund was needed? What would the cost basis for days you have already spent there be determined? Can you imagine the lawsuits from those with canceled APs? Yuckorama.

So by being KIND to those who had signed up b/c some kind Leads (per the thread on micechat, normal CMs were not able to override the system but Leads could) misunderstood the program, it becomes unfair to those who didn't sign up.

But really, the program only ever stated that it was for southern CA residents, so IMO they are being ridiculously nice by letting the ones that slipped through keep their APs.


Thinking about taxes...taking my local zoo as a possible example...I'm sure it gets funds from taxes all over the state, but it also takes a tiny percentage of property taxes from Tacoma...so Tacoma residents get a free day once a month, but people out in Spokane don't even though it's possible that some of their taxes dribble into the funds for the zoo. Maybe. Possibly. Who knows. (OK, someone knows, but not me...)

I don't understand why they don't have CA offers either, but then I think they should make it for the entire West, LOL.

 

[MAH4546]

Wait, so what you are saying is if we bought our APs using monthly payments with this new rule we would still have active APs thru Jan but we wouldn't have to pay anymore on them? How is that fair???

It's not "fair," it is excellent customer service.

How does it keep cost fair? Why should I as a CA resident have to purchase a more expensive AP then someone who lives in So Cal? If this is a CALIFORNIA thing then everyone who lives in CA should qualify for the cheaper So Cal APs. It really is not cost prohibitive for companies to pursue defaulters outside of the state. I know because we deal with people all over the world where I work and we go after them for non payment of debt, it's generally not harder or more $$$ for us to go out of state then it is to stay in state.

Yes, it is cost prohibitive to go after defaulters outside the state, especially when the default is only for $100-$300. It is not harder if they consent, but an out-of-state defaulter can refuse to consent to in-state jurisdiction, which then leads to having to prove sufficient in-state connections. The reality is that - yes - it would be easy because they came to Disneyland and bought a ticket - but it still is cost time and money.

As for why they don't give NorCal customers SoCal passes: that's easy. Because then they would not buy park-hoppers.

The fact is that Disneyland needs to balance the SoCal deals with outside-of-SoCal prices to find the right balancing point to make money. Giving NorCal customers the SoCal deals would skew the numbers so heavily that prices would go up for everybody. SoCal passes are cheap, but SoCal residents with passes go often and spend money at the parks. I go about 5-6 times a month, and, while, yes, some days I'll only spend $3 on a snack, some days I'll spend $30-40. On average I probably spend about $100 a month in the parks. Disney can't get that kind of in-park revenue from NorCal people, because NorCal people won't come as often.

Don't live in SoCal or Baja California? Tough, suck it up or move there.

WDW has Florida-resident deals, Six Flags have local resident deals, etc., etc. It's how businesses work.

CA is good at trying to control everything.....lol

Every state has in rem jurisdiction. It's not a California thing. It's federal law.

 

[MAH4546]

But really, the program only ever stated that it was for southern CA residents, so IMO they are being ridiculously nice by letting the ones that slipped through keep their APs.

They aren't just being "nice," they are avoiding a legal nightmare if the AP's were to be voided.