DVC Commercial Use Policy added to POS

[dianeschlicht]

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.

I'm not sure that would work too well though. Frankly, I am just amazed that ANYONE would employ him in that way. Now THERE is a practice that has all kinds of red flags on it! I can't imagine why ANYONE would put someone else on their contract as an associate for the sole purpose of renting points!

 

[DBorges]

I'm not sure that would work too well though. Frankly, I am just amazed that ANYONE would employ him in that way. Now THERE is a practice that has all kinds of red flags on it! I can't imagine why ANYONE would put someone else on their contract as an associate for the sole purpose of renting points!

He gets 13.00 per point then get 100% up front from the renter and only gives the DVC member 50% at time of rental and 50% a time of trip then he keeps 3.00 per point ..

So this guys charges for 157 point contract for rental 2041.00-1570 what he pays the member and gets 471 for doing nothing OMG

And he get access to your points and account I say HELL NO!!!!

Who in the right mind would do this

 

[wildernessDad]

I am all for this change in the rewording of the POS. I GUESS that the threshold of 20 reservations per year is okay. I'd be darn lucky to make 5 reservations in a year, let alone 20, so as far as I am concerned, it could go lower, say to 15.

As far as Daddio is concerned, I would be very surprised if he isn't on DVC's target list of those who are professional renters. And all of those who add him as an Associate Member are also probably on that list.

 

[Brian Noble]

The obvious solution for a commercial renter is to restrict oneself to high-point rentals to stay below the 20-reservation threshold. For example, speculatively booking Christmas and Easter weeks, etc.

 

[JimMIA]

I'm not sure that would work too well though.

Oh, it would work just fine. If DVC refuses to add him as an associate, or removes him from being an associate on an account, how does he rent?

The trouble with things like this is, you never really win. It's just a cat-and-mouse game between those trying to enforce compliance with the rules and those trying to bypass the rules. So, you cut off one avenue and the bypassers just try something new. DVC can't prohibit renting entirely, and as long as there is a reasonable profit in renting, this will be an ongoing battle. DVC will never win, but hopefully they can reduce commercial renting to a tolerable level.

 

[JimMIA]

The obvious solution for a commercial renter is to restrict oneself to high-point rentals to stay below the 20-reservation threshold. For example, speculatively booking Christmas and Easter weeks, etc.

Yep. And that's why I keep saying I hope the Disney auditors use some more sophisticated tools. They can easily identify individuals who are doing speculative bookings. They can easily identify accounts that are being used for speculative bookings.

The 20-ressie threshhold is a sensible and reasonable trigger, IMHO, to cause DVC to take a closer look at an account. That's all they're going to do. They're going to look and ask questions.

It's a good step, but it's not the final answer (there is no final answer, it's an ongoing battle). And it won't address every aspect of the problem.

 

[Off-The-Deep-End]

Yep. And that's why I keep saying I hope the Disney auditors use some more sophisticated tools. They can easily identify individuals who are doing speculative bookings. They can easily identify accounts that are being used for speculative bookings.

The 20-ressie threshhold is a sensible and reasonable trigger, IMHO, to cause DVC to take a closer look at an account. That's all they're going to do. They're going to look and ask questions.

It's a good step, but it's not the final answer (there is no final answer, it's an ongoing battle). And it won't address every aspect of the problem.

Jim:

I believe the zero name change policy (possibly to go into affect later this year) will totally eliminate speculative booking, wheither it is from a commerical renter, or the DVC owner who rents once a year to cover maintenace fees.

This change more than the others will lead to more high demand time availability for DVC Owners, and is the best policy that (IMHO) addresses speculative booking. I see spec booking as much more of a problem than commerical renting. A point is a point, and if used to book a specific date for a committed vacation, well, I see that as following the system's rules. However, Spec renting, takes availability out of the system, for a maybe vacation, and forces us onto waitlists.

Taken together, these two policies should help with availability.

 

[LIFERBABE]

Well I guess I am a Commercial Renter

I took my entire family to WDW last June, (+9) reservations, on top of our stay after they left (+1). Then I went back for F&WF (+2) then we went back for Christmas at AKV (+2) and SSR (+3) we added on nights so it was separate unique reservations. We have another Family gathering at Hilton Head in May because we all had such a great time last June (+8) then we are staying at BCV for a week over the summer (+1)

So my total from June 2007 to June 2008 is 26 reservations! Not counting the ones I cancelled because my niece was to join us, but her husband got to come home from Iraq so she stayed home instead (go figure). We have well over 1000 points and they should not have sold them to me if they did not want me to use them. I pay my dues on time.

I guess I will have to start sending photos in to DVC of our family gatherings as proof that I am not a Comm Renter.

And no one can say what a "normal" member is or what is too many. I have more points, so I am going to use more points.

 

[crisi]

Let's say, just for arguments sake, that they take this and combine it with the unlikely (in my mind) can't change primary names rule. For instance, you can only make 20 ressies in a year - and you can only change the name on reservations X times in a year - and name changes can only be done for stays taking place after your banking window has closed or where the points would otherwise go into holding.

 

[JimMIA]

Well I guess I am a Commercial Renter

I took my entire family to WDW last June, (+9) reservations, on top of our stay after they left (+1). Then I went back for F&WF (+2) then we went back for Christmas at AKV (+2) and SSR (+3) we added on nights so it was separate unique reservations. We have another Family gathering at Hilton Head in May because we all had such a great time last June (+8) then we are staying at BCV for a week over the summer (+1)

So my total from June 2007 to June 2008 is 26 reservations!

Which will trigger someone looking at your account.

If that someone has any training at all, they will clearly see those 26 ressies were for five trips, not a bunch of unrelated stays, and that you were present on each trip. If they've got any sense, that should not raise any concern at all. If it does trouble them, a simple, "Yes, we had two family reunions" should be enough to satisfy them.

If you have any problems as a result of that pattern, someone is brain-dead at MS. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

This clarification/definition/whatever is not going to cause problems for owners using their accounts in legitimate ways.

 

[DBorges]

Well I guess I am a Commercial Renter

I took my entire family to WDW last June, (+9) reservations, on top of our stay after they left (+1). Then I went back for F&WF (+2) then we went back for Christmas at AKV (+2) and SSR (+3) we added on nights so it was separate unique reservations. We have another Family gathering at Hilton Head in May because we all had such a great time last June (+8) then we are staying at BCV for a week over the summer (+1)

So my total from June 2007 to June 2008 is 26 reservations! Not counting the ones I cancelled because my niece was to join us, but her husband got to come home from Iraq so she stayed home instead (go figure). We have well over 1000 points and they should not have sold them to me if they did not want me to use them. I pay my dues on time.

I guess I will have to start sending photos in to DVC of our family gatherings as proof that I am not a Comm Renter.

And no one can say what a "normal" member is or what is too many. I have more points, so I am going to use more points.

No your not you made the reservation in your own name not someone else or should I say not in 20 other peoples name from 20 other location thru out the us aor anywhere for that matter.

As for the last statement "And no one can say what a "normal" member is or what is too many. I have more points, so I am going to use more points"

Yes DVC can and I think they will this will stop the people using DVC for a profit not for its intended use.

You need to remeber DVC can refuse any reseravtion and from what I have learned today they do .

SO Big brother is watch the people whom abuse the RULES . Keep it simple do what it was intend to do and you will never have to be told that your not a normal member..

 

[DBorges]

Which will trigger someone looking at your account.

If that someone has any training at all, they will clearly see those 26 ressies were for five trips, not a bunch of unrelated stays, and that you were present on each trip. If they've got any sense, that should not raise any concern at all. If it does trouble them, a simple, "Yes, we had two family reunions" should be enough to satisfy them.

If you have any problems as a result of that pattern, someone is brain-dead at MS. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

This clarification/definition/whatever is not going to cause problems for owners using their accounts in legitimate ways.

YA what Jim said do not read into the rule .. Or as they say never assume anything ..

 

[keys2kingdom]

Which will trigger someone looking at your account.

If that someone has any training at all, they will clearly see those 26 ressies were for five trips, not a bunch of unrelated stays, and that you were present on each trip. If they've got any sense, that should not raise any concern at all. If it does trouble them, a simple, "Yes, we had two family reunions" should be enough to satisfy them.

If you have any problems as a result of that pattern, someone is brain-dead at MS. I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

This clarification/definition/whatever is not going to cause problems for owners using their accounts in legitimate ways.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is going to be caught in this dragnet who shouldn't be. If I were an auditor the situation LIFERBABE describes wouldn't even warrant a second glance. The system will catch anyone who meets the initial criteria and then a human will decide if it merits continued investigation. My guess is that the majority of the time it won't.

Don't worry LIFERBABE we'll all vouch that you're no 'commercial renter' .

 

[JimMIA]

Let's say, just for arguments sake, that they take this and combine it with the unlikely (in my mind) can't change primary names rule. For instance, you can only make 20 ressies in a year - and you can only change the name on reservations X times in a year - and name changes can only be done for stays taking place after your banking window has closed or where the points would otherwise go into holding.

I'm starting to think the two issue may be related, but not like that.

I'm thinking the "no-changes" thing (if it happens) will be a requirement for manual override to change names -- during which the account would be reviewed to see if it looked like a commercial renter. If the account looks like yours and mine and Liferbabe's -- sure, change the names. If the account looked commercial, "cancel and rebook subject to availability."

I could be wrong, but I'm not at all sure they have a rule that allows them to just refuse to change a name.

 

[keys2kingdom]

I'm thinking the "no-changes" thing (if it happens) will be a requirement for manual override to change names -- during which the account would be reviewed to see if it looked like a commercial renter. If the account looks like yours and mine and Liferbabe's -- sure, change the names. If the account looked commercial, "cancel and rebook subject to availability."

Now you're talking, I'd support that scenario.

 

[JimMIA]

Agreed. I don't think anyone is going to be caught in this dragnet who shouldn't be. If I were an auditor the situation LIFERBABE describes wouldn't even warrant a second glance. The system will catch anyone who meets the initial criteria and then a human will decide if it merits continued investigation. My guess is that the majority of the time it won't.

Don't worry LIFERBABE we'll all vouch that you're no 'commercial renter' .

Right. That's what auditing controls do -- they identify things which need to be looked at. They're alarm systems...not judges, juries, and firing squads.

Liferbabe's situation would be: "Hmmm. Oh, okay -- cool. Next?"

 

[DBorges]

The new rules doesn"t say anywhere that is will go after Members who use there points lol(were missing the point here)

They are looking for people who do not use there points but make reservation under other names beside there own>>

How hard is this to understand

 

[JimMIA]

Well, don't forget that DVC sometimes does use nuclear solutions for fly-swatter problems.

Remember the one-transfer rule? That one caused a bunch of problems for many people who were not doing anything wrong.

 

[DBorges]

That was one I supported too.

Key word here is members not renters lol

 

[tjkraz]

Despite the healthy dose of cynicism in this thread, I'm willing to give DVC the benefit of the doubt here.

The setting of a benchmark (i.e. 20 reservations) is necessary. When you're staring down the likelihood of a legal challenge from commerical renters who have hundreds-of-thousands of dollars invested in DVC points, you have to be clear in defining the infraction. Using the "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck" test just doesn't fly in this situation.

Will a "20 reservation" threshold catch all of the violators? No, but it's a start.

Will DVC recklessly start cancelling reservations from people who are booking odd trips for friends or family members? I doubt it.

However you slice it, DVC (and Disney) has an image to uphold and I don't see them arbitrarily cancelling member reservations just because someone hits 21 ressies in a 12-month period. The sensible way to do this is to have an executive-level staff member (perhaps even in the legal department) review the entire case before sanctions are imposed. If the member's history suggests violations of the POS, certain administrative holds / limiations are applied to the account while written notification is sent to the member.

Having front-line MS Cast Members making decisions on who is or is not a "commerical renter" is just silly, and even DVC has to realize the liability and bad publicity that will incur.

As for people being upset with "Daddio's" service, I guess I don't understand where that is coming from. It's basically a convenience service--it's paying someone a fee for doing a job that you don't want to do yourself. In my mind it's no different than paying someone to mow your lawn, cook your dinner (restaurant) or even sell your DVC contract (resale broker.) Those are all tasks that we are CAPABLE of doing ourselves, but instead we choose to let someone else assume the burden in exchange for a fee.

Now I've never rented points myself and if I did, I wouldn't be inclined to use such a service. I think I can handle the process myself. But then I don't pay anyone to mow my lawn either.

Either way, I don't see where acting as a broker on point rentals violates the terms of the POS.