DVC plans to target commercial renters

[GoingSince1990]

I don’t. I never have rented and never will. So I’m not concerned with “unintended consequences”

Do you ever make a reservation for family or friends, not charging them, and not going on the trip yourself? If so, your ability to do this could be limited by the unintended consequences of some of the more extreme approaches that have been suggested.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Do you ever make a reservation for family or friends, not charging them, and not going on the trip yourself? If so, your ability to do this could be limited by the unintended consequences of some of the more extreme approaches that have been suggested.

Are people really gifting stays to family 20 times per year? No, no they are not. Fear mongering. Disney is not stupid enough to put crazy restrictions like that in place. Commercial is clearly commercial, it is not hard to spot.

 

[xdan0920]

Do you ever make a reservation for family or friends, not charging them, and not going on the trip yourself? If so, your ability to do this could be limited by the unintended consequences of some of the more extreme approaches that have been suggested.

Sure, I’m not the least bit worried about that. Don’t think anyone is. It seems like people who are worried, are the people who own more points then they use, and rent to make weight.

 

[tx911]

Are people really gifting stays to family 20 times per year? No, no they are not. Fear mongering. Disney is not stupid enough to put crazy restrictions like that in place. Commercial is clearly commercial, it is not hard to spot.

If they are, they bought waaayyyy too many points.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t. I never have rented and never will. So I’m not concerned with “unintended consequences”

I don't rent either but I do use my membership for myself and family and friends. I book rooms on spec that then end up canceled or put into the names of family/friends going with me.

So, limitations for use of my ownership for changes does impact me.....so yeah, I don't want them to treat owners as running a busines just because they use them for others.

 

[VGCgroupie]

If they are, they bought waaayyyy too many points.

Yeah and who be dropping cash like that on all that family? At that point sell, whats the point of keeping something declining in value.

 

[Sandisw]

Can someone can point me to the provisions of Florida law protecting owners right to rent their points/reservations. I'm curious as those would likely be important in consideration of changes any changes that DVC offers.

Thanks!

The part of the statutes directly dealing with timeshare is Chapter 721. But there are elements of Chpater 718 and Chapter 719 that apply to them as well since they are a leashold condominimum.

You'd need to go back through all of that as well as the POS to see exactly which statutues it mentions with certian aspects...

 

[GoingSince1990]

Are people really gifting stays to family 20 times per year? No, no they are not. Fear mongering. Disney is not stupid enough to put crazy restrictions like that in place. Commercial is clearly commercial, it is not hard to spot.

Some have suggested that the number of reservations an owner is permitted to make without being on the reservation themself should be reduced to a much lower number than 20. My point is only that it is theoretically possible for a clampdown on renters to have undesirable consequences even for owners who never rent their points.

 

[Sandisw]

Are people really gifting stays to family 20 times per year? No, no they are not. Fear mongering. Disney is not stupid enough to put crazy restrictions like that in place. Commercial is clearly commercial, it is not hard to spot.

That is the thing....that 20 reservations per membership doesn't seem to be working now that the internet and social media make it easy to rent.

So, whatever changes DVC makes could very well impact those how don't rent.....its not fear mongering either...its just that what DVC decides to do isn't always going to be what owners think they should do and I still contend that the ability to enforce easily will play a role in whatever they do with this...

 

[TCRAIG]

Regarding Wyndham, we "bought" (actually it was free but for about $200) several years ago to be able to stay at Bonnet Creek for longer trips. We were able to use it the first year and recoup our big purchase LOL. We found using it terribly restrictive vs DVC. Our UY was January but we had to make reservations for fall by March. Changing nights or adding or subtracting was a nightmare and very restrictive. I just had that sick feeling about the whole thing once I tried using it.

Due to building a new home in 2023 we were too busy to travel and too intimidated to rent it ourselves as reservations were being cancelled (it would have been 2+ weeks in a 1 BR at WBC). We listed it for rent through Wyndham and they had an exchange rental in San Fran booked. When I called to see where the payment was they told us the renters cancelled and we got nothing. There was NO communication from Wyndham. We were able to give it back and wash our hands of them. We broke even.

We've been DVC since 1996 and I can't imagine having to go through that kind of BS. It was stressful and I just felt like the product was okay IF you were able to use it. Just saying...we need to be careful in what we wish for.

Exactly this! If I wanted a Wyndham TS for WDW - I would have bought one…and savd tons o’moolah…
While I do think that DVC needs to curtail ‘commercial’ renting - I don’t want those limits to be a complete overhaul of the current booking process. I say look for bookings over some largish number that are not in the member’s name (should be fairly easy to code) and then review to see if those fit the commercial definition as defined by DVC - as in running a business and not just members renting their points - contact them and then go from there….
Start with the most egregious cases…

 

[VGCgroupie]

Some have suggested that the number of reservations an owner is permitted to make without being on the reservation themself should be reduced to a much lower number than 20. My point is only that it is theoretically possible for a clampdown on renters to have undesirable consequences even for owners who never rent their points.

I do not see this happening. Renting non commercially has always been allowed. As always, people have taken it too far and capitalized on the fact that Disney hasn't been enforcing existing rules. I think many commenters here have not been out on the web looking at the commercial spec rental market, it is very clear who is renting commercially and Disney is smart enough to figure it out. They aren't going to be policing a normal owner who rent to their kids a couple times per year.

 

[tx911]

I do not see this happening. Renting non commercially has always been allowed. As always, people have taken it too far and capitalized on the fact that Disney hasn't been enforcing existing rules. I think many commenters here have not been out on the web looking at the commercial spec rental market, it is very clear who is renting commercially and Disney is smart enough to figure it out. They aren't going to be policing a normal owner who rent to their kids a couple times per year.

How many points do you even need to get 20 reservations?
I'd be renting 20 1-night stays

 

[Tatebeck]

I agree with some of the other members saying that they will likely keep the definition of commercial vague and go after anyone they feel is obviously doing it for profit. They may not change the booking system or rules as written at all, just go after enforcement of the "I know it when I see it cases" first.

If I were them I would just start by putting an algorithm in that searches members' reservations and reports what percentage (both percentage of points, and percentage of reservations made) were made without any of the owner(s) on the reservation or on a concurrent reservation. Then using that over various periods (1 year, 5 years, etc) That would give you a good starting point for contacting members you think may be acting commercially and warning them before starting to cancel reservations or recommending that they downgrade their membership point total. And they can ask who is family/close friends and will likely be on repeat reservations vs one-time renters.

They can just sort by either by total number of points or by the number of categories that exceed more than something like 50% or 75% and start checking once there are maybe 3 or 4 that exceed what they feel like is a normal percentage of points/reservations to rent out for personal use. And the multiple lengths of time stops a single year of renting from popping onto their radar since they confirmed that is perfectly fine to rent out all of your points for a year you are not going to use them. Thoughts?

Maybe they would need another category for % or # of "problem" or "suspicious" rooms used by non members during the time periods as well?

Something like:

% of non member points used in the last Year	?%
% of non member points used in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member points used in the last 5 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last Year	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 5 years	?%

 

[VGCgroupie]

That is the thing....that 20 reservations per membership doesn't seem to be working now that the internet and social media make it easy to rent.

So, whatever changes DVC makes could very well impact those how don't rent.....its not fear mongering either...its just that what DVC decides to do isn't always going to be what owners think they should do and I still contend that the ability to enforce easily will play a role in whatever they do with this...

Someone in another forum said its per contract not per membership, if that is true or not is up for debate. Obviously per contract would make no impact, per membership slight impact, per member much bigger impact. But Disney will also have to figure out these people who have multiple LLC's Disney isnt a fly by night company, I think they have the full capability to figure this out, especially if it is impacting their bottom line, ie: their own cash rentals.

 

[VGCgroupie]

How many points do you even need to get 20 reservations?
I'd be renting 20 1-night stays

A ton. I have a lot, probably more than I need and I foot the bill for my adult child and her family. I have nowhere near enough points to touch 20 reservations. Well... if I could score Aulani hotel rooms and AKV values consistently... maybe

 

[Brian Noble]

How does this line up with what @drusba mentioned in his reply?

Which reply, and what part of it specifically?

 

[dvcsince93]

I agree with some of the other members saying that they will likely keep the definition of commercial vague and go after anyone they feel is obviously doing it for profit. They may not change the booking system or rules as written at all, just go after enforcement of the "I know it when I see it cases" first.

If I were them I would just start by putting an algorithm in that searches members' reservations and reports what percentage (both percentage of points, and percentage of reservations made) were made without any of the owner(s) on the reservation or on a concurrent reservation. Then using that over various periods (1 year, 5 years, etc) That would give you a good starting point for contacting members you think may be acting commercially and warning them before starting to cancel reservations or recommending that they downgrade their membership point total. And they can ask who is family/close friends and will likely be on repeat reservations vs one-time renters.

They can just sort by either by total number of points or by the number of categories that exceed more than something like 50% or 75% and start checking once there are maybe 3 or 4 that exceed what they feel like is a normal percentage of points/reservations to rent out for personal use. And the multiple lengths of time stops a single year of renting from popping onto their radar since they confirmed that is perfectly fine to rent out all of your points for a year you are not going to use them. Thoughts?

Maybe they would need another category for % or # of "problem" or "suspicious" rooms used by non members during the time periods as well?

Something like:

% of non member points used in the last Year	?%
% of non member points used in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member points used in the last 5 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last Year	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 5 years	?%

I agree that DVC first needs to ascertain the scope of the problem, but I would put the onus on the members to inform them about rentals.

For example, DVC could require that at the time a reservations made or modified, the owner inform them if the reservation was for their use/a gift or a rental. That way, whenever someone decided later to rent the reservation, they would have to tell DVC when they modified the resevation. Moreover, if a rental, the owner would inform DVC where the rental was being listed.

In addition, DVC could also require that for check-in, the renter has to disclose if they were gifted the reservation or are renting the unit and if so, through whom.

In fact, DVC could also require the rental companies to provide them with the list of all the rentals and the member number of the people making the rentals.

None of these requirements would prevent anyone from renting but It would give DVC a better idea of the scope of renting. If people are comfortable with their actions, they should not have a problem telling DVC if it was a rental.

Moreover, to motivate people to be honest, DVC could state that if the information from the three sources was not consistent or accurate, the reservation could be canceled as of the date of check in. This would allow them to try and minimize gaming the system. Although, as with all rules, it would never be stopped completely.

The information that DVC obtained regarding rentals could then be used to decide the scope of renting within the system. For example, they would better know if certain renters were renting all our most or most of their points. It would also allow DVC to confidentially contact these people who do commercially rent.

 

[Tatebeck]

I agree that DVC first needs to ascertain the scope of the problem, but I would put the onus on the members to inform them about rentals.

For example, DVC could require that at the time a reservations made or modified, the owner inform them if the reservation was for their use/a gift or a rental. That way, whenever someone decided later to rent the reservation, they would have to tell DVC when they modified the resevation. Moreover, if a rental, the owner would inform DVC where the rental was being listed.

In addition, DVC could also require that for check-in, the renter has to disclose if they were gifted the reservation or are renting the unit and if so, through whom.

In fact, DVC could also require the rental companies to provide them with the list of all the rentals and the member number of the people making the rentals.

None of these requirements would prevent anyone from renting but It would give DVC a better idea of the scope of renting. If people are comfortable with their actions, they should not have a problem telling DVC if it was a rental.

Moreover, to motivate people to be honest, DVC could state that if the information from the three sources was not consistent or accurate, the reservation could be canceled as of the date of check in. This would allow them to try and minimize gaming the system. Although, as with all rules, it would never be stopped completely.

The information that DVC obtained regarding rentals could then be used to decide the scope of renting within the system. For example, they would better know if certain renters were renting all our most or most of their points. It would also allow DVC to confidentially contact these people who do commercially rent.

That would create a lot of hoops for both members and guests to jump though to use the membership the way they have for years and years. Some may not find the product as appealing, hurting their sales. It inconveniences almost every legitimate member to get data, when I believe it is DVCs opinion that the vast majority of rental problems are from relatively few members and LLCs with a very large number of points each.

They should already have the data needed to go after members like this without a huge influx of superfluous data that would be generated from having members and renters declare every reservation. They would be requiring extra work from all members, to get extra data that they would need to sort through, to do basically the same thing they can already do. IE: Creating more work for members, which in turn creates more work for them. That is a lose-lose situation and I would probably guess something like that would be a last resort if their first attempts fail horribly. Why create work for thousands of people when you quite literally could get started with one person and the data they already have.

 

[nalababybear]

I agree with some of the other members saying that they will likely keep the definition of commercial vague and go after anyone they feel is obviously doing it for profit. They may not change the booking system or rules as written at all, just go after enforcement of the "I know it when I see it cases" first.

If I were them I would just start by putting an algorithm in that searches members' reservations and reports what percentage (both percentage of points, and percentage of reservations made) were made without any of the owner(s) on the reservation or on a concurrent reservation. Then using that over various periods (1 year, 5 years, etc) That would give you a good starting point for contacting members you think may be acting commercially and warning them before starting to cancel reservations or recommending that they downgrade their membership point total. And they can ask who is family/close friends and will likely be on repeat reservations vs one-time renters.

They can just sort by either by total number of points or by the number of categories that exceed more than something like 50% or 75% and start checking once there are maybe 3 or 4 that exceed what they feel like is a normal percentage of points/reservations to rent out for personal use. And the multiple lengths of time stops a single year of renting from popping onto their radar since they confirmed that is perfectly fine to rent out all of your points for a year you are not going to use them. Thoughts?

Maybe they would need another category for % or # of "problem" or "suspicious" rooms used by non members during the time periods as well?

Something like:

% of non member points used in the last Year	?%
% of non member points used in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member points used in the last 5 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last Year	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 3 years	?%
% of non member reservations in the last 5 years	?%

You must use a different DVC site than we do. Anything close to above would leave us in permanent seven dwarves status.

 

[Tatebeck]

You must use a different DVC site than we do. Anything close to above would leave us in permanent seven dwarves status.

It's very likely that they could download the reservation data from the online system (and probably they already do) into a separate offline system so that it would not be actively running anything on the booking site, as fragile as it already is