DVC Commercial Use Policy added to POS

[LIFERBABE]

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

You seem to have the problem understanding. Im sorry you have a problem seeing other POV's.
My reservations are under other names from all parts of the country. I was only allowed to put 1 reservation in my name.
We will see how all this pans out, but I've been a member long enough to know that common sense does not always apply.
For me to answer 1 question about my point usage is 1 question too many.
I illustrated my own usage so that people see that 20 unique reservations are easily accomplished without being a comm. renter.

 

[TisBit]

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.

.

Not to mention MS would even notice that the other reservations were even for the same people, which is an easy identifier that they are family/friends. I think if you had 26 ressies in 26 different names, that would raise the flag.

 

[DBorges]

You seem to have the problem understanding. Im sorry you have a problem seeing other POV's.
My reservations are under other names from all parts of the country. I was only allowed to put 1 reservation in my name.
We will see how all this pans out, but I've been a member long enough to know that common sense does not always apply.
For me to answer 1 question about my point usage is 1 question too many.

All I have to say if the shoe fits wear it .

I have made for 2008 a total of 5 reservation all in my own name even if I had famiely or friends traveling .

So if you had diffrent names of famiely members you were traveling with you may need to explane this to someone other then me.

Or have you got caught up in the Renting for profit.

there is a diffrence between same date reservation and 20 diffrent dates under diffrent names and loactions I am willing to bet that your reservation were all diffrent room during the same time frame you were there I am also willing to bet that they were linked ..


Personally I do not care either way the rule will only hurt the ones whom abuse it. SO like I said if the shoe fits wear it

I am not flaming you or attacking you I merly am saying the rules is there for a reason so do not break that rule and your safe

 

[VLee]

.

I have made for 2008 a total of 5 reservation all in my own name even if I had famiely or friends traveling .

So if you had diffrent names of famiely members you were traveling with you may need to explane this to someone other then me.

When we made our holiday reservations, we needed more than two rooms for my family. MS would not let me put both rooms under my name. So to someone looking on the outside, the other room might look like a "rental", when in reality, it was for family...but my name could not be listed on it, since I had my name on another room during the same dates.

 

[DBorges]

When we made our holiday reservations, we needed more than two rooms for my family. MS would not let me put both rooms under my name. So to someone looking on the outside, the other room might look like a "rental", when in reality, it was for family...but my name could not be listed on it, since I had my name on another room during the same dates.

AS you said above you were there and i bet they linked the rooms to your name I have done this as well and they were all linked

That is not what we are talking about.

We are talking about the person above making 21 reservation in others names yes they will have to either expane it or follow the rules

 

[dianeschlicht]

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.

I agree with Jim, Liferbabe! If they truly look at that pattern, they will see it's a gathering that includes you as the owner of the points.

 

[DVC Mike]

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.

I tend to agree with Tim on this. Daddio, to me, is "guilty" of nothing more than being an enterprising individual. He has setup a business that offers a service – acting as an intermediary between renters and DVC members.

For the renter, he offers a service that theoretically is skilled in renting and aware of the pitfalls. Of course, the renter will pay more by renting through a third party instead of direct from a DVC member. I would rather rent direct from a DVC member I knew, but if I couldn’t find one, I guess I would consider his service.

For the DVC member who doesn’t like the hassle of having to rent out their own points, they can use this service to have someone handle it for them. Of course, the DVC member will make less by utilizing this service, as it is a business that takes its cut of the fee the renter is paying. I’ve also heard you must make Daddio an “associate member” on your DVC contract. I’m not sure it is true, but if it is, I would be uncomfortable making a third party an associate member.

I guess his service does "enable" the practice of renting by making it easier, so DVC may go after him if their intent is to reduce renting because of the competition it brings to CRO trying to rent "Disney Deluxe Villa's". If they are more concerned about true "commercial renters", then this new POS change seems adequate -- for a start.

 

[DBBN]

If I was a commercial renter (I've been accused of being exactly that by several posters on these boards) the 20 reservations rule wouldn't mean anything to me. It's been reported on these boards, by very capable investigators, that at least one prolific renter had many, many memberships - some memberships held individually, some held as joint owners, some held by their children and others still held in countless trusts. Reality is any commercial renter who has hundreds of thousands $$$$ or as has been reported even milloins of $$$$ of DVC ownership has the resources to EASILY circumvent the "20 rule". As I read it, if I had 5 memberships held in various names I could manage 100 reservations in any 12 month period and operate completely within the newly defined POS commercial renter definition. If each of those rentals averaged only 100 points each that would be 10,000 points rented in a 12 month period.

This is a feel good change that will likely impact the average every day owner much more than it does any commercial renter. In my opinion much like the one transfer rule has impacted every day owners more than any commercial renter.

I usually stay away from rental discussions due to the subject being so dear to so many but for the record we have 2 memberships (I have a membership and my DW has a membership), with 2 different use years totaling 1675 points. The maximum number of reservations on either of my memberships in any 12 month period is 8. I've rented some of our points for the last 4 years or so and will continue to do so until we're retired and use all of our points for our extended stays.

I'm with LIFERBABE on this issue when LIFERBABE states - "1 question about my point usage is 1 question too many".

 

[JimMIA]

I agree with Tim and Mike that Daddio's service is just that -- a service. And I also came up with the analogy of the resale broker, or a real estate broker who deals primarily in rentals. I think those comparisons are right on point.

(The yard dude I have trouble with, but yard dudes are really cheap in Miami, so maybe my POV is skewed. NOBODY in Miami cuts their own grass!)

I also do not know -- nor have I ever heard it alleged -- that Daddio engages in speculative bookings during peak time periods. As long as he's not engaging in speculative bookings, he's not doing anything more than acting as a surrogate for an owner, exercising the owners rights in a legitimate way within the rules.

That said, he does maintain a website dedicated almost exclusively (I believe) to DVC rentals, and there is little doubt about what his business is. Since he maintains a website for that purpose, there is no doubt that DVC could use that as the predicate to go after him if they chose to do so.

Should they? I dunno. Mike astutely cited two motivations for DVC enacting this policy: stopping speculative bookings, and reducing competition with CRO (which I, for one, don't necessarily consider a wholesome objective)

To the degree that Daddio is just a facilitator for something the owner would do anyway, I'd say it's a zero-sum game for DVC. No harm, no foul. Would I use his service? Naw. But do I hate him? Naw, not as long as he's not taking prime time disreputably.

To the degree that Daddio enables owners who would NOT rent on their own, however, he's a direct competitor to DVC. Or more accurately, to CRO. Does that concern me? Not so much. I'm really much more concerned with what impacts us as owners.

 

[CarolMN]

I agree with Tim and Mike that Daddio's service is just that -- a service. And I also came up with the analogy of the resale broker, or a real estate broker who deals primarily in rentals. I think those comparisons are right on point.

(The yard dude I have trouble with, but yard dudes are really cheap in Miami, so maybe my POV is skewed. NOBODY in Miami cuts their own grass!)

I also do not know -- nor have I ever heard it alleged -- that Daddio engages in speculative bookings during peak time periods. As long as he's not engaging in speculative bookings, he's not doing anything more than acting as a surrogate for an owner, exercising the owners rights in a legitimate way within the rules.

That said, he does maintain a website dedicated almost exclusively (I believe) to DVC rentals, and there is little doubt about what his business is. Since he maintains a website for that purpose, there is no doubt that DVC could use that as the predicate to go after him if they chose to do so.

Should they? I dunno. Mike astutely cited two motivations for DVC enacting this policy: stopping speculative bookings, and reducing competition with CRO (which I, for one, don't necessarily consider a wholesome objective)

To the degree that Daddio is just a facilitator for something the owner would do anyway, I'd say it's a zero-sum game for DVC. No harm, no foul. Would I use his service? Naw. But do I hate him? Naw, not as long as he's not taking prime time disreputably.

To the degree that Daddio enables owners who would NOT rent on their own, however, he's a direct competitor to DVC. Or more accurately, to CRO. Does that concern me? Not so much. I'm really much more concerned with what impacts us as owners.

FWIW, I think it is in the best interests of the membership as a whole to have CRO/WDWTC be able to rent out rooms at rack rate. If they have to discount (because the general public would rather pay less by renting points), then that's a detriment to the membership.

Most rooms that go to CRO/WDWTC from the sold out resorts get there because members use points for a cruise or certain other non-DVC options. If CRO has to discount the rooms that pay for the non-DVC options, it stands to reason that the points to do those things will be higher than they otherwise would need to be.

Also, any unreserved member inventory goes to CRO/WDWTC at the 60 day mark. If CRO/WDWTC has to discount those rooms, then there is less money returned to the members - money for those rooms (called breakage) is used to reduce our annual dues. This is a biggie for me.

I'm positive that Disney/Developer wants to sell rooms in the developer's inventory at rack as much as possible, too. But that's certainly OK with me because I think it is in the members' best interest for rooms at the DVC resorts to go for rack. A win-win if you will.

 

[JimMIA]

I'm positive that Disney/Developer wants to sell rooms in the developer's inventory at rack as much as possible, too. But that's certainly OK with me because I think it is in the members' best interest for rooms at the DVC resorts to go for rack. A win-win if you will.

I'm in favor of the change/clarification/whatever.

Here's the one part I have a potential issue with. I think Mike is correct in saying DVC has two motivations in changing our POS, which governs the use of our points. One rationale is that it stops a perceived abuse, and the other is that it enhances Disney CRO's competitive situation.

I don't think - at this point - that this change is going to adversely affect any DVC owner who is using their account legitimately.

I would have a problem with DVC using the POS to improve their competitive position at the expense of DVC owners. Like I said, I don't THINK that will happen, but if it does, that's not a wholesome reason to change the POS.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I support the rule too

but you are WAYYYYY over simplifying the potential issues

 

[tjkraz]

To the degree that Daddio enables owners who would NOT rent on their own, however, he's a direct competitor to DVC. Or more accurately, to CRO. Does that concern me? Not so much. I'm really much more concerned with what impacts us as owners.

It's probably a "chicken and egg" situation. Does a facilitator like Daddio encourage renting, or do people first resign themselves renting and THEN determine that using a broker is more convenient?

I'm positive that Disney/Developer wants to sell rooms in the developer's inventory at rack as much as possible, too. But that's certainly OK with me because I think it is in the members' best interest for rooms at the DVC resorts to go for rack. A win-win if you will.

I totally agree. I'm sure this is part of Disney's motivation. Just a small policy change like prohibiting non-members from calling Member Services has likely soured SOME guests on the prospect of renting. Every time they slowly chip away at the rental market, theoretically demand for cash villas should go up.

But opposing forces are strong, too. These days it seems like every Disney guidebook and website has some information on renting as a means to save money.

The great mystery to me is how strong cash business is for DVC rooms. Our trading values keep getting worse, not to mention the addition of the $95 fee which some have suggested is related to the deterioration of bookings for cash villas.

Others claim that the cash rooms are frequently full and people are unable to book a desired villa thru CRO. I don't know what to believe.

 

[TisBit]

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!'

Finally

 

[TisBit]

Couple of random thoughts (logs on the fire), I don't know how to do the multiple posts stuff, so just apply it where you may:

Of course DVC doesn't want competition to the cash rooms! Why would any Hotel sell their rooms to private individuals, just so they can turn around and rent them out to someone else. For that there is no reason for DVC ownership, Disney could just rent it themselves!

As far as Daddio (I just got an email about 50 distressed points ironicly ) I saw his site while researching my DVC purchase. It was interesting and I thought, if I ever find myself in a bind...maybe....but now I hear the whole associate membership, I don't think so!

It is interesting how many people complain about the CRO rooms syphoning rooms from DVC members, I don't see that outrage towards renters, who in essence are doing the exact same thing (and could be argued worse with speculative bookings).

Anything to help keep DVC and affordable vacation option and ultimately help me in the end use it to the best potential, I will not fight DVC on!

But as it has already been mentioned, I hope it is used to help stop bad practices and minimize inconveniences for members. Like at the airport, I would never take a weapon on a plane and I don't particularly enjoy being screened, but I wouldn't want them to remove their policies and practices to keep us safe! (I know one will kill you and the other is vacation, but man, if there was no Disney in my future..... )

 

[Dean]

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.

Like I said, I seriously doubt cancelled reservations will count once they are cancelled but it will be interesting to see what happens with this. It would certainly be far more reasonable to count multiple reservations on a single trip as separate than to count cancelled reservations.

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..

As a matter of employment with Disney, it is against rules for employees who own to rent their points. It's a potential conflict of interest plus they have a potentially unfair advantage in getting reservations to rent.

Whatever DVC does, it must be consistent. While the rules may have some intention of preventing renting, they must be employed evenly once in place or changed so they apply to everyone. DVC cannot take each reservation and make individual decision about what they thing the intent is unless it is within the rules as written. No rule will be totally fair or unfair and there will likely be unintended consequences such as more spec renting, higher points options (can we say AKV concierge) and the like.

 

[JimMIA]

To the degree that Daddio enables owners who would NOT rent on their own, however, he's a direct competitor to DVC. Or more accurately, to CRO. Does that concern me? Not so much. I'm really much more concerned with what impacts us as owners.

It's probably a "chicken and egg" situation. Does a facilitator like Daddio encourage renting, or do people first resign themselves renting and THEN determine that using a broker is more convenient?

I don't think it's a case of which came first. I think it is a question of the effect of his service. The first example I gave (facilitation) covers those who decided to rent and use the service because it's more convenient.

The quote above is a completely different group of owners, as the bolding in my quote above emphasizes. I think there are some owners (I have no idea whether it's a large number or small) who simply would not go through all the hassle of renting on their own. As a matter of fact, I know there's at least one -- me.

 

[TreesyB]

Since I don't make 20 reservations per year, and I also don't rent out my points, this particular rule has absolutely no effect on me.

I don't think the average DVC member makes 20 reservations per year.

But Dean makes a good point about day-by-day callers. would each day be considered a reservation? And if you had a 10 day reservation and then another 10 day reservation within the same year, where you made day-by-day reservations, one could end up with 20 reservations in a year.

Oooops - there are more pages... continue reading.

 

[JimMIA]

If I was a commercial renter (I've been accused of being exactly that by several posters on these boards) the 20 reservations rule wouldn't mean anything to me. It's been reported on these boards, by very capable investigators, that at least one prolific renter had many, many memberships - some memberships held individually, some held as joint owners, some held by their children and others still held in countless trusts. Reality is any commercial renter who has hundreds of thousands $$$$ or as has been reported even milloins of $$$$ of DVC ownership has the resources to EASILY circumvent the "20 rule". As I read it, if I had 5 memberships held in various names I could manage 100 reservations in any 12 month period and operate completely within the newly defined POS commercial renter definition. If each of those rentals averaged only 100 points each that would be 10,000 points rented in a 12 month period.

I wanted to come back to this post. I think it's a very relevant point, and the post probably got skipped over because a lot of folks don't know what's being referenced here.

I forget the name (starts with a W, maybe?) and the numbers, but there is at least one family here who own an un-Godly number of DVC points. I forget if it's 14,000 or 17,000, or 31,000, but it's a HUGE number of points. And they are very active renters, as you might expect.

DBBN is correct, I think, in saying this new rule will probably not affect those folks much at all. They have so many accounts the wealth will be spread and this particular rule will not kick in.

I think this new rule is a positive step, but this family (and I'm sure there are other groups out there) is a perfect example of why no one rule or procedure is going to cure the overall problem.

 

[JimMIA]

Like I said, I seriously doubt cancelled reservations will count once they are cancelled but it will be interesting to see what happens with this.

Obviously we don't know yet, but here's my logic. Say in January I book a December ressie at VWL day-by-day at 11 months.

DVC Mike calls MS to book a villa at one of his home resorts, but there's no room at the inn. Granny does the same, with the same result. So do several dozen other VWL owners trying to book holidays at VWL for their families. None of them can get in because all the rooms are booked.

I approach my banking deadline in the fall, so I cancel the ressie and bank. For 8-10 months, I've had that ressie tied up. Logically, it seems to me that should count just as much as a ressie which was used. The availability was taken -- not permanently, but other owners were deprived of it because of my reservation.

We'll obviously have to wait and see, but my guess is they'll count anything they issue a confirmation number for.