DVC Commercial Use Policy added to POS

[Dean]

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.

My point wasn't actually day by day reservations, those are obviously one. My point was more those that book for one stay with multiple reservations technically. These include different sets of points such as developer points, 11 month and 7 month points, multiple contracts (assuming they are lumped together for purposes of this rule), those that change resorts or rooms types, etc. Say one owned 3 different home resorts and wanted to go for two weeks but had family joining for 5 days. A 1 BR for 4 days, a 2 BR for 5 days and back to a 1 BR for 4 more days. Them they ended up using points at 11 months out at two of their resorts and used points at one resort for part of the 2 BR stay at resort A. That could be as many as 4 or 5 separate reservations technically. I'd think, and hope, that DVC would actually count them as one in this situation but my guess is they'd have to figure that out and it'd take them a while to do so. I don't think there's any doubt they'll count multiple reservations for the same dates such as a family trip as separate for this purpose.

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.

Certainly we don't know all the ramifications. I think your point is exactly where we differ. The fact the room is out of commission at the moment one person calls and thus there may not be availability for member X has no meaning in this discussion in my book, obviously it does in yours. If I book then later cancel that room will go to another member and someone will get use of it. It might not be member X but member Y, just like any other cancellation. If member X goes on the wait list and I later cancel, they will get if it they're first in line. But like all such rules that DVC might look at, it's a give and take. There will be those affected adversely and those helped. I think it's a reasonable rule, even in the worst case scenario.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

To me, it's a question of which decision is made first.

I suspect "Daddio" has customers who are long-time members and who have rented points themselves in the past. Perhaps they had bad experiences in the past. We've all heard the stories about non-members who ask about availability for a dozen different dates and then never follow-thru on the transaction. Others play one member against another to try and get the best deal. Some try to play games with the payment terms.

Whatever the case, these members may simply conclude that it's worth the expense to farm-out the legwork to someone else.

If we're talking about a member who is clearly non-commercial (well under 20 rentals per year, etc.) and is simply using Daddio for convenience sake, there is no harm done to either DVC or fellow members. The points are going to be rented regardless of who does the work.

DVC could certainly take exception, but I would file that under the heading of "spite."

The other scenario would be members who make the decision to rent specifically because Daddio's service exists. DVC could take issue with this, but it's hard to quantify how many members or points fall into either category.

What we DO know is that DVC went out of its way to re-define commercial renting on 12/31, and I don't see anything in there specifically aimed at shutting-down Dave's activities. Theoretically they COULD look at the collective contracts on which he is listed as an Associate and issue sanctions accordingly, but given the documented limitations of their computer systems I doubt this is even possible.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

If cancellations were included in DVC's collective tracking, the threshold would have been set much higher than 20. Even a member with a moderate number of points could amass that number of transactions per year when you factor in the occasional schedule change, adding days to reservations (and I'm not talking about day-by-day), changing room classes, waitlisting, booking stays with points from multiple contracts, etc.

There would be no sense in setting the tracking level at 20 transactions if they intend to look at all activity. More than half of the membership base would send up red flags annually.

 

[TreesyB]

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

That would suck for us indecisive people. I've already cancelled 2 different reservations due to changing circumstance.

 

[kimberh]

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.

So do you think it is 20 reservations per Membership number or per member? How could someone with this many points get around this? Oh, for curious minds, I do not have this many points!

 

[keys2kingdom]

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.

Please tell me the Wechsler's would not be able to get around this rule! It was shameless all the fictitious names they used over on the R/T board and the shill game mushpurple was running to direct people to their website. This is exactly the type of people I would hope the dragnet WOULD catch. The number of contracts they owned was obscene and the woman told her ebay customers to 'relax, this is my business I know what I'm doing'. It makes me hurl to think that group is still in business. Ack!

 

[keys2kingdom]

double post

 

[Dean]

I'm betting transfers don't count in the 20 a year.

 

[JimMIA]

What we DO know is that DVC went out of its way to re-define commercial renting on 12/31, and I don't see anything in there specifically aimed at shutting-down Dave's activities.

I agree, and I'm not advocating for shutting him down. I'm just making the point that DVC might take offense to his business, and if they do, this rule would provide the legal predicate they need to go against him.

Theoretically they COULD look at the collective contracts on which he is listed as an Associate and issue sanctions accordingly, but given the documented limitations of their computer systems I doubt this is even possible.

Actually, you could do it with Excel if you're a patient person.

They wouldn't use DVC's antiquated computers. The Disney accountants would use auditing software that works with any platform. It ain't rocket science -- it's standard auditing software they already have and use every day. They simply dump the underlying data from DVC's computer into their laptops and use the software to analyze. If you want to know more about the capabilities of the software, go here: http://www.acl.com/

That, I'm sure, is how they came up with the initial data on owners with more than 20 ressies a year. A super-simple search like that - for 100,000 accounts - would only take a couple of hours.

 

[dianeschlicht]

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.

Thanks to both of you for pointing that out. I was about to say the same thing. It has taken me awhile to catch up on this thread (I don't get here often enough)! As far as rentals and speculation are concerned, NO RULE is going to stop the pros. Just like locks don't stop burglers!

 

[TisBit]

I think that a lot of people are also missing the point of the wording. Under the new definition of commercial renting, you are NOT LIMITED to 20 reservations in a year, but rather your account will just be reviewed. While this will rile some peoples feathers, it creates a system where you can explain why you had so many reservations. For normal renters this will be easy! If you bank/borrow/trade and make one giant reservation of 15 rooms at one time, yes you could end up getting reviewed, but it would be clear to a supervisor that you were using your account appropriately (all rooms during the same time period, you were there, etc). Even if you wanted to do tons of split stays and that caused you to get up to 20 quickly, just looking at the Ressie will show they were all YOU, so there would be no further review!

Also, day by day renting really isn't a big deal and SHOULD NOT count, it is still one reservation, merely extended!

 

[Plutofan]

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.

[/QUOTE]

Because of the the following provision I personally believe that some of the changes were put in place so that Disney could make more money. This is pure speculation but I would assume that the breakage revenue that reduces our dues taps out at the 2.5% and that Disney makes a lot with the rest. Lets no forget that Disney is a for profit company. If you read your budget there are other provisions that are very favorable to Disney.

The budget states under breakage income "The Association is entitled to receive, as breakage income, the proceeds of such rentals not to erxceed 2.5% of the aggregate of the Condominium Operating Budget". It is to Disney benefit to have points go unused that they can convert to room reservations if available during the allowed period since they keep the excess above the 2.5%.

 

[Y-ASK]

So do you think it is 20 reservations per Membership number or per member? How could someone with this many points get around this? Oh, for curious minds, I do not have this many points!

1st just for disclosure: I rent about half of my points every year (400-600), some times more some times less. Unless a red flag is raised I don't think any of the reservation takers are able to see any thing more that what a single membership number account shows. In other words (example only) I own at OKW with an Oct UY - that is one membership number, one account. I also own at VB with a Feb UY - again a different membership number, a different account. Now if I added on at OKW by purchasing SSR points then both the OKW and SSR points (thus reservations) show on the one account. So if you've got a pocket full of membership cards and you manage them properly a commerical renter should be able to fly under the radar screen pretty easily and still rent a hugh amount of points, like the W's.

Y-ASK

For the record, I think the rule is reasonable, I think the number (20 per year) is reasonable and I'm fine with the change. I usually only have about 5-8 reservations (which include my personal) in a 12 month period and I do NOT rent pre-booked reservations.

 

[nunzia]

My point wasn't actually day by day reservations, those are obviously one. My point was more those that book for one stay with multiple reservations technically. These include different sets of points such as developer points, 11 month and 7 month points, multiple contracts (assuming they are lumped together for purposes of this rule), those that change resorts or rooms types, etc. Say one owned 3 different home resorts and wanted to go for two weeks but had family joining for 5 days. A 1 BR for 4 days, a 2 BR for 5 days and back to a 1 BR for 4 more days. Them they ended up using points at 11 months out at two of their resorts and used points at one resort for part of the 2 BR stay at resort A. That could be as many as 4 or 5 separate reservations technically. I'd think, and hope, that DVC would actually count them as one in this situation but my guess is they'd have to figure that out and it'd take them a while to do so. I don't think there's any doubt they'll count multiple reservations for the same dates such as a family trip as separate for this purpose.

Certainly we don't know all the ramifications. I think your point is exactly where we differ. The fact the room is out of commission at the moment one person calls and thus there may not be availability for member X has no meaning in this discussion in my book, obviously it does in yours. If I book then later cancel that room will go to another member and someone will get use of it. It might not be member X but member Y, just like any other cancellation. If member X goes on the wait list and I later cancel, they will get if it they're first in line. But like all such rules that DVC might look at, it's a give and take. There will be those affected adversely and those helped. I think it's a reasonable rule, even in the worst case scenario.

But what I think is trying to be addressed is member W who calls and uses his/her/their thousand points at 11 months at multiple resorts for desirable times, then these sold out weeks show up on ebay or renting sites, with member W having no intention of ever using all these reservations and is clearly a commercial renter. Then those sold out weeks will go to a renter, who isn't even in the alphabet, will cut out DVC owners who paid for the resort to be built, and will also lower income Disney's cash rate if those rooms didn't go to DVC people. I am sure there will be some glitches and indignant people who may be questioned, but at least Disney is addressing the problem, and hopefully the bugs in the plan won't impact too many, but if I get questioned, it won't bother me at all. I would hope all this will start to register trends and then even those with multiple accounts will evenually be caught.

 

[JimMIA]

How could someone with this many points get around this?

Well, without giving it much thought, posters here have already given you two scenarios to beat this rule. Tisbit gave you one scenario in post #25, which I expounded on a little in #27, and DBBN gave another option in post #68. I'm sure if someone with a vested interest sat down and really thought about it, they could come up with many other avenues to go around the rule.

Now that DVC has more clearly articulated what they consider commercial renting, that POS amendment alone will generate some voluntary compliance. In other cases, owners will look for ways around the controls, and they won't have any problem finding ways to bypass them.

Then DVC will have to make a business decision whether they want to address that, and if so, how and against who? DVC has the tools to go after violators; the question is really just a cost/benefit question for them to decide.

 

[JimMIA]

So if you've got a pocket full of membership cards and you manage them properly a commerical renter should be able to fly under the radar screen pretty easily and still rent a hugh amount of points, like the W's.

Yes, they would easily fly under the radar of the MS CMs booking ressies.

However, if and when they come to DVC's attention, the whole ballgame changes...if DVC wants it to. That's a business decision DVC has to make, but if they decide to go after someone, they won't have any problem identifying every transaction and every account they've ever been involved with.

The problem the commercial operations have is their business model requires that they be "out there." They have to be visible on the Web, or in several high-traffic places in order to attract customers. That makes them easy to find. Once they're found, it's just a question of whether they are big enough or egregious enough to bother going after.

 

[keys2kingdom]

The problem the commercial operations have is their business model requires that they be "out there." They have to be visible on the Web, or in several high-traffic places in order to attract customers. That makes them easy to find. Once they're found, it's just a question of whether they are big enough or egregious enough to bother going after.

Where are the Wechslers now? Has anyone kept track of them? I don't seem to be able to find anything.

 

[crisi]

The problem the commercial operations have is their business model requires that they be "out there." They have to be visible on the Web, or in several high-traffic places in order to attract customers. That makes them easy to find. Once they're found, it's just a question of whether they are big enough or egregious enough to bother going after.

That audit software also makes it easier to find - the same associate member search and excel spreadsheet that would spot Daddio (if they decide that is a problem) would likely find a family business with multiple contracts where everyone is an associate on everyone else's contract. Though its possible that they all just know each other's social security numbers and claim to be the owner on the phone.

There are a lot of things DVC CAN do to make it difficult for or shut down commericial renting, how much they CHOOSE to do is a different matter. There are also ways around any process they set up - but some of those ways are going to eat into demand and profit.

 

[TCPluto]

Now that DVC has more clearly articulated what they consider commercial renting, that POS amendment alone will generate some voluntary compliance. In other cases, owners will look for ways around the controls, and they won't have any problem finding ways to bypass them.

Then DVC will have to make a business decision whether they want to address that, and if so, how and against who? DVC has the tools to go after violators; the question is really just a cost/benefit question for them to decide.

Exactly. With expectations clearly spelled out, a great deal of compliance will autmoatically follow, in my opinion.

 

[DBorges]

If you do not violate the rule why worry.

It is gear towards the member whom use the DVC for profit not recreation.

Linking or day by day reservation will not trigger a alert .

I think 24 reservation in 24 diffrent names and 24 address all over the dang place will.

As for renting I am not against it But if you have 1000points and book resevation at the same resort for the same time period that takes away from other members.

As for the people who make a living off selling rental points look no further they are the cause for this change