DVC Commercial Use Policy added to POS

[JimMIA]

I would be VERY surprised if cancelled reservations were counted as was suggested above.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't counted. A ressie which is canceled still ties up availability for a period of time, and to me, that's the whole point.

I'll give you an example. Without talking, my two daughters made ressies at WDW -- one at OKW, the other at SSR. The dates were a week or 10 days apart, two separate trips. A month later, they talked and decided to juggle their dates a bit and stay together in a 2 BR at SSR. They made the 2 BR ressie and canceled the other two. That ended up being only one trip, but logically it seems to me that it was 3 ressies.

I expect them to count anything with a confirmation number.

 

[TisBit]

You know, it occurs to me that what WE count as one reservation can acually be multiple ones in the eyes of DVC. For example: we often will start out in a two bedroom and downsize to a 1 bedroom after guests leave. I wonder if that is considered one reservation or two? We also have folks who split their stay to avoid weekends. That would definitely be considered two. I can see 2 trips being as many as 6 reservations depending on how it is done.

True, but as JimMIA said, I think that those types of situations can easily be explained. Also, any reservations in the owners names would not need some elaborate explanation. I am sure the policy is designed so when DVC looks at your ressie history, sees that you made 20 reservations, canceled 5 last minute and changed the names from your own to someone else's 10 times, you are going to have a tougher time explaining yourself!

I personally like the idea of people buying DVC for personal use, not an investment. Even on these boards there are a lot of people that suggest renting points to get more money to take a cruise, etc. Even people that buy more contracts just to rent those out to cover costs of their 'personal' contract. While it doesn't seem to be epidemic now, it definitely could easily become a problem!

In the meantime I will sit back and watch all the hardcore renters start freaking out saying 'they can't tell me what to do!'

 

[DBorges]

It is more for the members whom have 1000 or more contracts that rent to get capitol gain.

Yes you could say that all the renters are friends (hell I would call them that too if I got money).

Now I have a about 420 points and I have rented but that is not why I have DVC I use it and what I can not use I may rent .

Now on too 20 reservations wow I WISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JimMIA]

Actually, if someone were renting even occasionally, that 20 ressie threshhold could come up pretty quickly.

Many who rent call to check availability for their renters -- and if there is availability, they make the reservation to hold it for their potential client. If that ressie doesn't actually result in a completed transaction, they just cancel the ressie. You do that a few times, add those ressies to your normal trips, and you could get to 20 pretty quickly.

Those who rent some might want to take a quick look at their account histories and see how many confirmation numbers they've actually generated over the last 12 months -- might be a lot more than you think!

 

[TisBit]

Those who rent some might want to take a quick look at their account histories and see how many confirmation numbers they've actually generated over the last 12 months -- might be a lot more than you think!

And remember its a rolling 12 month....so if you exceed your reservations due to renting it could be really bad or really good. If you had to make 10 ressies in one month you could end up sitting around for awhile before it drops, or if you only do two a month, you will be back in the system within a month. I think it will modify how people do their ressies and maybe will help the system.

 

[DBorges]

Actually, if someone were renting even occasionally, that 20 ressie threshhold could come up pretty quickly.

Many who rent call to check availability for their renters -- and if there is availability, they make the reservation to hold it for their potential client. If that ressie doesn't actually result in a completed transaction, they just cancel the ressie. You do that a few times, add those ressies to your normal trips, and you could get to 20 pretty quickly.

Those who rent some might want to take a quick look at their account histories and see how many confirmation numbers they've actually generated over the last 12 months -- might be a lot more than you think!

I have rented my points and yes I have called to see if it was available but I never I repete never hold the resevation till I have a confirmed renter....

I have 3 reservations for april and one for nov ..

That is a total of 4 in one use year 20 revervation is a way over what the normal Member would do.

I do not feel this is too little I think it is in place to limit the reseravtion hord from booking reseravtion to pay for there member ship and never travel once.

SO if you are like me and have a decent amount of points and use them for personal use there is no way you will reach that 20 reservation theshold

 

[JimMIA]

And remember its a rolling 12 month....

Well, some of us are assuming it's a rolling 12-month period because of the wording. But Disney is notoriously sloppy about units of time. Sometimes a "month" is a month; other times, it's 30 days. Seven months is seven months if you're making DVC ressies, but six months is 180 days if you're making dining ADR's. A year is sometimes a calendar year, sometimes a Use Year...so who knows what 12 months means!

Your underlying point is well taken, though. If a commercial renter is clever about their bookings, they could elude the 20-ressie threshhold.

First year, they book Easter week ressies at 11 months (May?). Those go away the following May, so they book 4th of July in June. Those go away the following June, so they book Labor Day in October or Thanksgiving in December. Then early December, then Christmas, then New Years, then Easter again. DVC uses a "rolling 12 months," they use "rolling 11 month windows."

As the saying goes, "Same commercial rental activity, different day."

 

[JimMIA]

I have rented my points and yes I have called to see if it was available but I never I repete never hold the resevation till I have a confirmed renter....

I would never do it that way either, but many do.

 

[DBorges]

It is ment to help us members .. Not hurt the only ones it hurt or the member that (rent for profit) and use it not as it was ment to be used ..

Dvc knows that some "members" abuse this and that it makes it hard for your typical member to get them hard to get resevations.

I support it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zane_Anthony]

I just wish I had enough points to make 20 reservations in one year !!! I am in SEVERE borrowing mode!

 

[MichelleB]

I also believe that the normal member does not do 20 reservations in a 12 month period. I support this and wonder why it isn't a lower number personally. I'm tired of not being able to get a ressie and then see multiple posts for members trying to rent out a time period I wanted. I am aware of all the multiple reasons they may have to rent and the occasional renter isn't someone I have an issue with. It's those that purposely make a ressie to rent it out. If this helps limit that, then I'm all for it.

 

[JimMIA]

I haven't read any post by anyone objecting to this addition to the POS. In reality, it's not a change at all -- it's just a codification in the POS of the amplification/clarification DVC legal did about a year ago.

At that time, they apparently did some basic auditing work, identified some owners with more than 20 ressies over a year period, and sent them letters telling them DVC was looking at their accounts to see if they were being used for commercial renting. In that letter, DVC legal reminded the owners that, if commercial renting was identified, DVC had the option of cancelling those reservations. (A much more likely scenario, IMHO, has always been DVC would simply decline to make ressies they felt were commercial...and the more detailed information in the POS amendment seems to bear that out.)

I personally think many of the true commercial renters are in the process of getting out of the business. Right after the DVC legal letters, there was a sudden uptick in the number of resales available. More importantly, I noticed a change in the character of many resale contracts. Where before we had seen a lot of "loaded" contracts with full current year points and banked points, we suddenly started seeing many more stripped contracts.

If you look at resale listings today, you'll still see many, many contracts with virtually no current points. I suspect many of those belong to commercial renters who have rented out all the points they can without taking on extra risk by borrowing, and are now selling the contracts. Many of those contracts undoubtedly had to be held through the holidays because they had pending rental reservations on the contracts.

If all that's true, this strategy will be very helpful to the average owner who wants nothing more from their accounts than great vacations -- and it won't hurt those who rent occasionally.

 

[DBorges]

Jim said "If you look at resale listings today, you'll still see many, many contracts with virtually no current points. I suspect many of those belong to commercial renters who have rented out all the points they can without taking on extra risk by borrowing, and are now selling the contracts. Many of those contracts undoubtedly had to be held through the holidays because they had pending rental reservations on the contracts."


I sold a contract last year with no points as I had to borrow to do my twice a year trips..

This may be true for some but not all ..

DVc has clamped down and will continue to do so I beleive they have even fired DVC sales people whom did just what the POS state commercial renting..

 

[cpbjgc]

I am glad they are finally defining commercial use as that should help cut down the arguments that phrase has stirred up over the last year or so .

What I am wondering is how this definition would work with the "service" where someone adds themselves as an associate to a contract for the sole puprpose of renting out points on behalf of the owner? It seems that activity, which in my mind is a commercial use of the contract, would not be caught under this interpretation as the activity is spread out over several contracts. What do others think?

 

[granmanh603]

I also believe that the normal member does not do 20 reservations in a 12 month period. I support this and wonder why it isn't a lower number personally. I'm tired of not being able to get a ressie and then see multiple posts for members trying to rent out a time period I wanted. I am aware of all the multiple reasons they may have to rent and the occasional renter isn't someone I have an issue with. It's those that purposely make a ressie to rent it out. If this helps limit that, then I'm all for it.

I totally agree with you. this is only to benifit the members who are playing by the rules.

 

[JimMIA]

This may be true for some but not all ...

Right, there are always stripped contracts on the market.

But I'm talking about going from 10% of the resale offerings being stripped to 75%! That's not just coincidence.

 

[DVC Mike]

What I am wondering is how this definition would work with the "service" where someone adds themselves as an associate to a contract for the sole puprpose of renting out points on behalf of the owner? It seems that activity, which in my mind is a commercial use of the contract, would not be caught under this interpretation as the activity is spread out over several contracts. What do others think?

You're right. That type of activity would not be detected under the new rule, since DVC is only looking for a max of 20 reservations per membership ID.

Thus, it looks like David's (aka Daddio) site won't be affected by this.

 

[TisBit]

You're right. That type of activity would not be detected under the new rule, since DVC is only looking for a max of 20 reservations per membership ID.

Thus, it looks like David's (aka Daddio) site won't be affected by this.

But the members could be affected if too many reservations are made on their contracts. I think it would be a wake up call if you were trying to book your own vacation and it turns out that he has made too many reservations and you are blocked out of your own vacation!

While this won't solve all the problems, I think it is a great start. We will see if it is followed through or not. Also interesting that it is not 20 for the reservation, but rather, 20 for the DVC Member.

 

[JimMIA]

What I am wondering is how this definition would work with the "service" where someone adds themselves as an associate to a contract for the sole puprpose of renting out points on behalf of the owner? It seems that activity, which in my mind is a commercial use of the contract, would not be caught under this interpretation as the activity is spread out over several contracts. What do others think?

I think you're absolutely right, but that's a really easy one to fix.

DVC knows who that person is. If they want to prevent him from providing that service, all they have to do is say "no" when someone wants to add him as an associate on their account. While he's not doing more than 20 ressies on an account, he clearly maintains a website for commercial DVC rental purposes, and that meets the definition.

To prevent others from getting into the same business, all they have to do is set up a computer routine that alerts them whenever the same person is established as an associate on X number of unrelated accounts. They add that person's name to the naughty list, and decline to add them.

 

[DBorges]

You're right. That type of activity would not be detected under the new rule, since DVC is only looking for a max of 20 reservations per membership ID.

Thus, it looks like David's (aka Daddio) site won't be affected by this.

Ok Mike who is this??(never mind I google it wow what a racket )

The crooke gets 13 per point what does the dvc member get..\\

That should not be allowed that is just wrong