DVC must stop rentals.....

[Bearval]

Honestly, I don’t think most here have an issue with how I use my membership and I take no offense in anyway!

I think it does bring up the point that any meaningful changes to the system to try and curb spec renting or certain owners renting a lot of points, will do more harm than good to owners who bought and use for personal use.

I am sure it is more profitable to Disney if you rent or let someone else use your points for a room. We have only owned for 6 years now and I can tell you that we don't buy many souvenirs ( other than maybe a sweat shirt or a hoodie) and we eat more than half of our meals in our room since it is a full kitchen. A newbie will drop a lot on souvenirs and eat almost all their meals at Disney locations.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm not sure Disney has the ability to "fix it" under Florida timeshare law. And I'm not sure I'd want them to even try, though I've never rented out my points. I have used them for friends and family at 11 months. IT seems like the OP is saying that no one but an owner should be the primary name on a reservation at 11 months, and that they should not be allowed to change that. To insist that the owner be the primary would eliminate booking additional rooms for family at 11 months for a big group trip. I walked reservations for a GV and a Two Bedroom at OKW over Thanksgiving last year, for my group of 11. The current room supply situation really isn't renters, it is two years or more of pent up points, remember, foreign owners are just now beginning to be able to use their points post pandemic. And as I said earlier, the sheer number of small contract owners also creates artificial demand and competition for studios. The system was initially designed for 230+point ownerships. Here on the DISBoards, our Rent/Transfer board has always discouraged speculative renting, but we don't prohibit it, we simply charge people more to use our board if they want to offer an existing reservation more than 30 days prior to check-in. While we see a lot of brokers, Facebook groups, and other websites make such existing reservations readily available. But really, I wonder, overall, what is the percentage of renter occupied units to owner occupied units in the grand scheme of things.

 

[sethschroeder]

Unless one assumes with no rentals, points will just be lost.

They would be but who knows if it was enough.

Hard to stop rentals though but they could stop some of the bigger groups out there doing rentals. When you have all new people on every booking basically you can likely tell that its being used against the terms of the contracts which does not allow DVC to be a rental property for an owner.

 

[Sandisw]

They would be but who knows if it was enough.

Hard to stop rentals though but they could stop some of the bigger groups out there doing rentals. When you have all new people on every booking basically you can likely tell that its being used against the terms of the contracts which does not allow DVC to be a rental property for an owner.

They can’t legally stop rentals as those are allowed under the POS, unless deemed commercial renting.

They decide what it means for a membership to be seen as being used as for commercial purposes.

And, they have defined that…if one has more than 20 in a rolling 12 months it could trigger a review.

Now, how strictly they do that, we don’t know but there are guidelines and I know others don’t agree but the number of reservations that are true rentals compared to owners and their guests is probably pretty small.

 

[Henwen88]

So what about the owners of guaranteed week resorts? I happen to own a December week in a studio at CCV that I paid a premium (via extra points) to purchase. I feel that I should be allowed to rent the reservation if I chose not to go, or chose not to re-convert to points if I do not plan on traveling that year.

That would technically be a 'spec' rental - but I own that week (it is not in the first come, first served pool), so I should be entitled to do what I wish with that reservation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

They can’t legally stop rentals as those are allowed under the POS, unless deemed commercial renting.

Renting is, by definition, commercial activity. It's the textbook example of commercial activity. Renting points to your mother is still commercial activity.

Disney isn't saying "fewer rentals than X is not commercial activity," they're saying "fewer rentals than X is too small for us to bother doing anything about."

AND, you could run 100 rentals and Disney still isn't doing anything about it.

 

[Sandisw]

Renting is, by definition, commercial activity. It's the textbook example of commercial activity. Renting points to your mother is still commercial activity.

Disney isn't saying "fewer rentals than X is not commercial activity," they're saying "fewer rentals than X is too small for us to bother doing anything about."

AND, you could run 100 rentals and Disney still isn't doing anything about it.

I am basing it on what the contract says, and it expressly gives the owner the right to rent unless it’s deemed being done for commercial purposes.

So, regardless, they define what it means to be commercial, and some is in the contracts and some has been updated.

I disagree that they haven’t defined it. It has been stated that more than 20 in a 12 month rolling period is seen as something that could trigger a review for using it for commercial purposes vs personal use,

Memberships who stay under that 20 are seen as falling within the rules as it being personal use.

So, yes, Disney has defined that if you are under 20, you are not in violation of the contract when it comes to a mix of rental and own use.

None of us know what they have done for those they deem in violation.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I am basing it on what the contract says, and it expressly gives the owner the right to rent unless it’s deemed being done for commercial purposes.

So, regardless, they define what it means to be commercial, and some is in the contracts and some has been updated.

I disagree that they haven’t defined it. It has been stated that more than 20 in a 12 month rolling period is seen as something that could trigger a review for using it for commercial purposes vs personal use,

Memberships who stay under that 20 are seen as falling within the rules as it being personal use.

So, yes, Disney has defined that if you are under 20, you are not in violation of the contract when it comes to a mix of rental and own use.

That's incorrect.

If you're driving 71 MPH on a road with a speed limit of 65 MPH, you're speeding. The fact that the police would never pull you over for that speed doesn't magically mean that you're in compliance with the speed limit.

 

[robinb]

That's incorrect.

If you're driving 71 MPH on a road with a speed limit of 65 MPH, you're speeding. The fact that the police would never pull you over for that speed doesn't magically mean that you're in compliance with the speed limit.

The analogy is more like the minimum and maximum speeds on a Highway. You must go at least 45 mph and no more than 70. 45 mph drivers only use their points for themselves and the keep the traffic moving. 46-70 mph drivers rent from 1-20 reservations in a year. They are faster than the minimum but still legal. Drivers who speed and rent more than 20 times risk being pulled over.

 

[tjkraz]

Yes. Other people decided sooner. Other people booked spec weeks to rent.

Other people booked spec weeks for their great aunt from the fathers side who mentioned one time she likes Kissimmee in the fall.

Joking about the third, but really, I’d just like a chance to decide, like I used to be able to do, hey, I’d like to use my timeshare in 6 months.

Sue me.

Anecdotally, demand has increased throughout 2022 due to reluctance or inability to travel during the pandemic. It's not just spec renters changing the landscape, it's your fellow members changing the manner in which they choose to use their points. There are around 2000 DVC studios at WDW. It's unlikely that a large percentage of them are being held by spec renters for your specific dates. DVC cannot possibly address every long-term change in member booking patterns through new administrative rules.

Book what you can and use the waitlist. There will be cancellations among the hundreds of rooms currently booked.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The analogy is more like the minimum and maximum speeds on a Highway. You must go at least 45 mph and no more than 70. 45 mph drivers only use their points for themselves and the keep the traffic moving. 46-70 mph drivers rent from 1-20 reservations in a year. They are faster than the minimum but still legal. Drivers who speed and rent more than 20 times risk being pulled over.

This is called a "materiality threshold." It's artificial. A difference in degree, not kind.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I am basing it on what the contract says, and it expressly gives the owner the right to rent unless it’s deemed being done for commercial purposes.

So, regardless, they define what it means to be commercial, and some is in the contracts and some has been updated.

I disagree that they haven’t defined it. It has been stated that more than 20 in a 12 month rolling period is seen as something that could trigger a review for using it for commercial purposes vs personal use,

Memberships who stay under that 20 are seen as falling within the rules as it being personal use.

So, yes, Disney has defined that if you are under 20, you are not in violation of the contract when it comes to a mix of rental and own use.

None of us know what they have done for those they deem in violation.

Another problem.

You're mixing "reservations" and "rentals." The POS says you can make 20 RESERVATIONS per year or you're going to be investigated and asked to prove that you're not engaging in commercial activity. It does not say you can make 20 RENTALS per year.

There is absolutely no guarantee in the contract that you're "allowed up to 20 rentals."

Commercial activity is banned, period. 20 reservations is the threshold where they make you prove that you're not engaging in commercial activity. That doesn't mean that commercial activity under 20 is permitted, it just means you're too small for them to be bothered to make you prove that you're legit.

 

[Pens Fan]

Last year we purchased a Hilton Head contract via resale. It was mostly stripped and had a delayed closing (7 months). Because of that we got a good price and we were fine with the transaction. However, I did do some poking around in the SC property records just to make sure everything was on the up and up. When I searched for the seller's name I was very surprised at the number of deeds that popped up. This guy owns multiple HH contracts. I don't recall how many, but at least 20 or more. Then I searched for him as a seller and saw that he'd sold multiple contracts in the past. This piqued my curiosity so I searched for him in Orange County, FL records. Holy DVC contracts!! Again, multiple bought, multiple sold. It almost has to be a business. As ours was partially stripped and we had to wait to close (assuming it was due to a reservation but can't know for sure), my conclusion was he buys contracts, rents out the points and then sells them for a profit. Maybe he limits his rentals to 20 a year to stay off of DVC's radar? I have no clue.

I doubt he's the only one doing this. Does it really affect availability that much? I have no idea. We own where we want to stay and usually book at 11 months. We also don't book studios - only 1 or 2 BR's. So far, we've always been able to get what we want, though I've learned that CCV - even in a 2 BR - in early December requires either walking or stalking. But overall, we've always gotten what we wanted. I understand the the smaller, hard to get categories are tough during popular times, but at the end of the day even if you somehow eliminated the "commercial renters" from the equation, they would still be hard to book rooms. You'd still be competing with owners for them. Some categories just don't have enough supply to meet demand and I have a hard time believing eliminating renting would change that. But that's just my humble opinion.

 

[Madame]

Last year we purchased a Hilton Head contract via resale. It was mostly stripped and had a delayed closing (7 months). Because of that we got a good price and we were fine with the transaction. However, I did do some poking around in the SC property records just to make sure everything was on the up and up. When I searched for the seller's name I was very surprised at the number of deeds that popped up. This guy owns multiple HH contracts. I don't recall how many, but at least 20 or more. Then I searched for him as a seller and saw that he'd sold multiple contracts in the past. This piqued my curiosity so I searched for him in Orange County, FL records. Holy DVC contracts!! Again, multiple bought, multiple sold. It almost has to be a business. As ours was partially stripped and we had to wait to close (assuming it was due to a reservation but can't know for sure), my conclusion was he buys contracts, rents out the points and then sells them for a profit. Maybe he limits his rentals to 20 a year to stay off of DVC's radar? I have no clue.

I doubt he's the only one doing this. Does it really affect availability that much? I have no idea. We own where we want to stay and usually book at 11 months. We also don't book studios - only 1 or 2 BR's. So far, we've always been able to get what we want, though I've learned that CCV - even in a 2 BR - in early December requires either walking or stalking. But overall, we've always gotten what we wanted. I understand the the smaller, hard to get categories are tough during popular times, but at the end of the day even if you somehow eliminated the "commercial renters" from the equation, they would still be hard to book rooms. You'd still be competing with owners for them. Some categories just don't have enough supply to meet demand and I have a hard time believing eliminating renting would change that. But that's just my humble opinion.

The big rental/resale companies are doing this as well. Buy, strip, rent, flip.

 

[DVC Doctor]

I'm not sure Disney has the ability to "fix it" under Florida timeshare law. And I'm not sure I'd want them to even try, though I've never rented out my points. I have used them for friends and family at 11 months. IT seems like the OP is saying that no one but an owner should be the primary name on a reservation at 11 months, and that they should not be allowed to change that. To insist that the owner be the primary would eliminate booking additional rooms for family at 11 months for a big group trip. I walked reservations for a GV and a Two Bedroom at OKW over Thanksgiving last year, for my group of 11. The current room supply situation really isn't renters, it is two years or more of pent up points, remember, foreign owners are just now beginning to be able to use their points post pandemic. And as I said earlier, the sheer number of small contract owners also creates artificial demand and competition for studios. The system was initially designed for 230+pont ownerships. Here on the DISBoards, our Rent/Transfer board has always discouraged speculative renting, but we don't prohibit it, we simply charge people more to use our board if they want to offer an existing reservation more than 30 days prior to check-in. While we see a lot of brokers, Facebook groups, and other websites make such existing reservations readily available. But really, I wonder, overall, what is the percentage of renter occupied units to owner occupied units in the grand scheme of things.

^^^ Thank you for allowing renting of DVC points on DISboards !!!

So what about the owners of guaranteed week resorts? I happen to own a December week in a studio at CCV that I paid a premium (via extra points) to purchase. I feel that I should be allowed to rent the reservation if I chose not to go, or chose not to re-convert to points if I do not plan on traveling that year.

That would technically be a 'spec' rental - but I own that week (it is not in the first come, first served pool), so I should be entitled to do what I wish with that reservation.

Technically, you should give it to me for free to use as I don't want you to get into trouble with Disney, but I would prefer a 1 bedroom if you can swing that

 

[xdan0920]

Anecdotally, demand has increased throughout 2022 due to reluctance or inability to travel during the pandemic. It's not just spec renters changing the landscape, it's your fellow members changing the manner in which they choose to use their points. There are around 2000 DVC studios at WDW. It's unlikely that a large percentage of them are being held by spec renters for your specific dates. DVC cannot possibly address every long-term change in member booking patterns through new administrative rules.

Book what you can and use the waitlist. There will be cancellations among the hundreds of rooms currently booked.

Thanks. Just so we are clear, again. I don’t need advice on how to use a product I’ve owned and used for 20 years.

 

[Sandisw]

Another problem.

You're mixing "reservations" and "rentals." The POS says you can make 20 RESERVATIONS per year or you're going to be investigated and asked to prove that you're not engaging in commercial activity. It does not say you can make 20 RENTALS per year.

There is absolutely no guarantee in the contract that you're "allowed up to 20 rentals."

Commercial activity is banned, period. 20 reservations is the threshold where they make you prove that you're not engaging in commercial activity. That doesn't mean that commercial activity under 20 is permitted, it just means you're too small for them to be bothered to make you prove that you're legit.

You are arguing a point that is not accurate. DVC has stated that more than 20 reservations could mean your membership is being used for what they define as commercial purposes vs renting in general. There is a difference. We are allowed to rent. Period. That element of commercial is expressly granted to us.

Under 20 has been defined by Disney to be okay, even if all are rentals. And yes, I know that for a fact as I asked.

They set the rules and based on that, they don’t care to define for commercial purposes to be less than 20 reservations or rentals at this time. You don’t have to agree but that is what it is.

Do they have the right to change those rules when defining what it means to be using a membership for commercial purposes. Yes.

But, legally, any change would need to be what most would be considered a reasonable definition that an owner is using thhe memgerhsip for commercial purpose va renting within the terms of the contract.

It is why the language says we can rent but not for commercial purposes and then goes on in the contract to expressly include language as to what could constitute a commercial purpose.

DVC has drawn the line at 20. Less than 20 it falls within our legal right to rent. More than 20, and you may be subject to a review.

With that, we simply don’t agree.

 

[CarolMN]

Let's all cut @xdan0920 some slack here. It's OK to say you don't like something about the way DVC works. He/She knows how booking works, and is just disappointed that it's becoming more and more necessary to book some dates other than NYE as far in advance as possible. It hasn't always been like that. I for one, LOL, remember the "good old days".

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of the other arguments in this thread. Posters are just repeating the same things over and over. No new information as far as I can tell. Would stop reading this thread if I could but that's part of a Mod's job.

Now you can cut me some slack, too. I'm resisting the " lock temptation" and done complaining for now.

 

[Matty B13]

The big rental/resale companies are doing this as well. Buy, strip, rent, flip.

Yep!

I wonder if this plan falls apart on them when we go through this recession, with no one to buy these stripped contracts and they owe dues coming in January.

My reasoning for this assumption is that on FB a realtor I know started a post with "This isn't 2008 again" I wanted to respond with "It might be worse". This is exactly what every realtor said right up to 2008. I bought a house in 2005 and ended up breaking even on it when I sold it, but put in about $30k into it, and didn't recoup those costs.

 

[Madame]

Yep!

I wonder if this plan falls apart on them when we go through this recession, with no one to buy these stripped contracts and they owe dues coming in January.

My reasoning for this assumption is that on FB a realtor I know started a post with "This isn't 2008 again" I wanted to respond with "It might be worse". This is exactly what every realtor said right up to 2008. I bought a house in 2005 and ended up breaking even on it when I sold it, but put in about $30k into it, and didn't recoup those costs.

I bought my house in 2005 too. Then the market tanked. I’ve held onto it though. I sincerely hope they get stuck with them. I know it’s mean-spirited, but it would serve them right & I am not feeling overly charitable on this subject.