Does Disney allow DVC members to rent their points?

patty57

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
4,383
Hi All, I will be renting from a DVC member, but was told that if anyone at Disney asked I should say I'm a relative because DVC contracts do not allow DVC members to rent their points? I was also told that everyone's contract says they cannot rent, but everyone does it and Disney doesn't really do anything about it unless it is very frequent. I had not heard this before and am wondering about it. Is this the way it is?
Thanks, Patty
 
Having read through the contract a couple months ago, they don't want people making a *business* of it, but otherwise it's allowed.
 
Bumbershoot..I checked references which were all positive. Would you take this as a red flag?
 
Renting is allowed. Transferring points for money is not. The owner of the points may be confusing the two.
 

Members are permitted to rent their interests in the timeshare. The restriction is that they cannot be engaged in the business of renting for which Disney has provided a definition that if you make more 20 reservations in a year you will be presumed to violating the restriction. Don't know whether your member is raising a red flag although many are often confused about what they can actually do.
 
DVC actually requires members to notify Member Services if they are renting a reservation.
 
DVC actually requires members to notify Member Services if they are renting a reservation.

I've never seen this in any of our paperwork, and I looked several times.

Could you please post the area of the contract wehre this is noted?
 
/
I've never seen this in any of our paperwork, and I looked several times.

Could you please post the area of the contract wehre this is noted?
It is a clause slipped into the POS a number of years ago, it was not always there. I don't have access to the POS to direct you right now.
 
Thanks for all the info. Everyone on these boards are always so helpful. :thumbsup2
 
It is a clause slipped into the POS a number of years ago, it was not always there. I don't have access to the POS to direct you right now.

Thanks Dean. I was sure I had never seeen this, but we bought a long time ago.

The other issue is, there is no real way to either enofrce this, or sanction when an issue is discovered.
 
Technically, your "guests" (people staying for no charge) are entitled to some member perks, where people who are "renting" are not. The reality is DVC rarely asks which they are and just puts "DVC member" on their room key.
 
there is no real way to either enofrce this
That's correct. What's more, "landlords" have every incentive *not to* identify renters, as doing so lowers the value of the stay (no free Internet, etc.)
 
Thanks Dean. I was sure I had never seeen this, but we bought a long time ago.

The other issue is, there is no real way to either enforce this, or sanction when an issue is discovered.
Maybe, maybe not. They could flag your account as not in good standing. I don't expect them to worry about it and I would expect a warning process first but there are options. They could even deny anyone arriving access and deny the ability to make new reservations if they so chose. That's really about all the options they have for anything including the commercial clause, transfers for pay, etc. The problem they'd have legally is there is no provision identifying repercussions or a fine process and no system to define how such issues are resolved making it unlikely DVC could even survive a voluntary arbitration much less a legal challenge. That's likely one of the reasons they (without the legal authority) chose to make the extension at OKW a special assessment released by a deed back. Too bad no one challenged them on that (that I know of) as there really wasn't a way to legally defend that option because they didn't have the legal right or authority within the POS to charge a SA for such an option. It's actually possible that there was a challenge but we haven't heard about it. I say it that way because if someone did challenge it and DVD knew they couldn't win, they would likely have worked out a compromise but part of that compromise would likely have been the agreement not to discuss it or the terms. Too bad I didn't still own OKW at the time or we'd know for sure, well I do still own BWV though.
 
Maybe, maybe not. They could flag your account as not in good standing. I don't expect them to worry about it and I would expect a warning process first but there are options. They could even deny anyone arriving access and deny the ability to make new reservations if they so chose. That's really about all the options they have for anything including the commercial clause, transfers for pay, etc. The problem they'd have legally is there is no provision identifying repercussions or a fine process and no system to define how such issues are resolved making it unlikely DVC could even survive a voluntary arbitration much less a legal challenge. That's likely one of the reasons they (without the legal authority) chose to make the extension at OKW a special assessment released by a deed back. Too bad no one challenged them on that (that I know of) as there really wasn't a way to legally defend that option because they didn't have the legal right or authority within the POS to charge a SA for such an option. It's actually possible that there was a challenge but we haven't heard about it. I say it that way because if someone did challenge it and DVD knew they couldn't win, they would likely have worked out a compromise but part of that compromise would likely have been the agreement not to discuss it or the terms. Too bad I didn't still own OKW at the time or we'd know for sure, well I do still own BWV though.

As they're the keeper of the reservation they could do that. But I don't think Disney would do so, with the accompanying law suits that would clearly follow.

They have a weak position to try and defend in a civil suit, given the ambiguity and lack of consistent enforcement.
 
As they're the keeper of the reservation they could do that. But I don't think Disney would do so, with the accompanying law suits that would clearly follow.

They have a weak position to try and defend in a civil suit, given the ambiguity and lack of consistent enforcement.
No argument overall as I hope I was clear above. However they had the same weak position or even weaker for the SA for OKW but did go that route. The problem members have is the points have a shelf life. It can take months to years to carry out such legal action while the points and reservations are sitting there and Disney knows this. Plus, I don't think they're too worried about law suits since they have a good legal department. I could see them going that route but only after some appropriate back and forth. The same is also true, more or less, for the commercial renting clause.
 



















DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top