DVC plans to target commercial renters

[muppets3d]

But at the same time, what percentage of the overall membership are complaining? Should the same percentage complaing that Disney transportation is too expensive be able to expect DVC to change to a private bus provider, like Swalfin and Shades of Green? Or change the maintenance company, or replace Olivia's with a Jack in the Box? Then consider that the majority of those complaining are basically the small point (100 to 125 points) owners. DVC helped create this issue by allowing contracts of less than the original 230 points, and permitting small add-on contracts at many resorts, rather than requireing a new full point membership for each resort, and not merging smaller add-ons at your home resort into the original home resort contract.

And why are many small contracts contributing to the problem? It creates a much larger base of owners competing ONLY for these value and standard studios, without the flexibility to move up to a one bedroom unit if the studios are already spoken for.

Lots of issues contribute to the problem of availability we have today (if you even believe it is a problem, for the sake of argument let's agree that it is a problem). But I think the biggest reason is spec renting.

 

[lowlight]

But at the same time, what percentage of the overall membership are complaining? Should the same percentage complaing that Disney transportation is too expensive be able to expect DVC to change to a private bus provider, like Swalfin and Shades of Green? Or change the maintenance company, or replace Olivia's with a Jack in the Box?

The difference is, DVC has a legal responsibility to protect the membership and enforce the terms of the contract in regards to commercial renting. Wouldn’t it only take 1 single owner with 1 single lawsuit and the ability to prove DVC knowingly allowed the contract provisions to be violated causing material damage for it to matter? I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s an avenue worth pursuing.

 

[Chuck S]

The difference is, DVC has a legal responsibility to protect the membership and enforce the terms of the contract in regards to commercial renting. Wouldn’t it only take 1 single owner with 1 single lawsuit and the ability to prove DVC knowingly allowed the contract provisions to be violated causing material damage for it to matter? I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s an avenue worth pursuing.

And then we come back to the problem of defining "commercial renting," is it one owner renting out their points and making reservations upon request of a renter? Is it spec renting, is it both,? To me, reserving 11 months out for a spec rental is an issue, and that could be fixed by not allowing any reservation booked during the 11 month window to change names. Members could reserve rooms for themselves, or for friends and family up to the number of points they have during the eleven month window, even walking those reservations if they feel the need to do so, but if for some reason they need to change the names at a later date, it would need to be that the original reservation would need to be canceled and a new reservation made based upon availability, or the name changed after the 7 month period based upon if there is still availability for that room type. That would likely eliminate the problem of spec rentals being booked at 11 months. Or maybe only allowing a name change one month or less prior to check-in for reservations made during the 11 month window. That would allow owners who suddenly have a travel issue with a home resert reservation to maybe recover something.

As you know, here on the DIS we don't allow owners to offer existing reservations more than 30 days prior to the check-in date without paying a $125 rental plan for one reservation or $250 plan for a maximum of three existing reservations per year to discourage the practice of spec rentals. The vast majority of our rental board is point rentals based upon requests of renters and resort availability.

 

[tom1944]

I am thinking for most of the DVC owners coming down hard on commercial renters might have a bigger impact on the price of resale contracts and not getting AK value studios.

I mean that is what I am thinking- will resale prices drop enough for me to buy another contract because I just can't pass it up.

 

[nalababybear]

And then we come back to the problem of defining "commercial renting," ...

As you know, here on the DIS we don't allow owners to offer existing reservations more than 30 days prior to the check-in date without paying a $125 rental plan for one reservation or $250 plan for a maximum of three existing reservations per year to discourage the practice of spec rentals. The vast majority of our rental board is point rentals based upon requests of renters and resort availability.

And this is a clear example of a simple, yet effective definition and enforcement policy.

Something simplistic will also be needed by DVC if they want to curtail activity without significantly affecting sales and enthusiasm for the DVC product.

 

[pzw90]

And then we come back to the problem of defining "commercial renting," is it one owner renting out their points and making reservations upon request of a renter? Is it spec renting, is it both,? To me, reserving 11 months out for a spec rental is an issue, and that could be fixed by not allowing any reservation booked during the 11 month window to change names. Members could reserve rooms for themselves, or for friends and family up to the number of points they have during the eleven month window, even walking those reservations if they feel the need to do so, but if for some reason they need to change the names at a later date, it would need to be that the original reservation would need to be canceled and a new reservation made based upon availability, or the name changed after the 7 month period based upon if there is still availability for that room type. That would likely eliminate the problem of spec rentals being booked at 11 months. Or maybe only allowing a name change one month or less prior to check-in for reservations made during the 11 month window. That would allow owners who suddenly have a travel issue with a home resert reservation to maybe recover something.

As you know, here on the DIS we don't allow owners to offer existing reservations more than 30 days prior to the check-in date without paying a $125 rental plan for one reservation or $250 plan for a maximum of three existing reservations per year to discourage the practice of spec rentals. The vast majority of our rental board is point rentals based upon requests of renters and resort availability.

Would also be nice if there was more required to post, have a certain amount of posts in a time frame (similar to being able to get PMs). So those posters are contributing to the community and not just profiting from it. If you look at their post history it’s just bumps or going back on their own threads.

 

[lowlight]

Something simplistic will also be needed by DVC if they want to curtail activity without significantly affecting sales and enthusiasm for the DVC product.

My ability to rent out my DVC wasn’t even in the top 20 reasons I purchased. I know it’s important to you, but you keep saying that putting limitations on the way YOU use your DVC is going to lower the sales and resales value for everyone. For me, it will make me more likely to purchase more direct points if they stop the big renters and the more often than occasional renters like yourself. Renting has ruined the value of DVC to me, and I honestly would have just rented from another owner every year or gone into business myself like you have if I would have known this when I first purchased.

 

[Chuck S]

Would also be nice if there was more required to post, have a certain amount of posts in a time frame (similar to being able to get PMs). So those posters are contributing to the community and not just profiting from it. If you look at their post history it’s just bumps or going back on their own threads.

In order to purchase the $124 ot $250 plan, your usrname has to have been registered for at least 6 months, and ALL users of the rental board must have the 10 posts required to activate private messaging. There is a free plan available and have at least 50 post made over the last 6 months, with at least 8 posts in 4 of the last 6 months. The free version of the Silver plan allows a maximum of 3 posts, two of them must be points for rent/transfer type postsn and one mpost may be offering an existing reservation 30 days or less from the check-in date.

The only plan for those who have not had their user name for at least 6 months is a $59.95 Gold Plan, which allows up to a maximum of 6 threads, two of those threads may be existing reservations offereed 30 days or less from check-in.

This is all detailed in the Required Reading sticky thread on the Rental Board.

 

[nalababybear]

My ability to rent out my DVC wasn’t even in the top 20 reasons I purchased. I know it’s important to you, but you keep saying that putting limitations on the way YOU use your DVC is going to lower the sales and resales value for everyone. For me, it will make me more likely to purchase more direct points if they stop the big renters and the more often than occasional renters like yourself. Renting has ruined the value of DVC to me, and I honestly would have just rented from another owner every year or gone into business myself like you have if I would have known this when I first purchased.

So you still CAN rent out yourself now that you do know. You choose not to engage with rentals and that's fine.

Again, limits CAN potentially affect the product. I believe resale restrictions is a good reflection on this. It hasn't killed the resale, but it certainly has put a damper on it compared to older DVC memberships. The flip side is Direct sales appear to continue strongly for Riviera and VDH (with continued huge point contracts 500+ no less) so there's that too.

There are many ways to do Disney differently -- it's not a single monolith by any means. When one puts limits and restrictions on things, it tends to make things less appealing for a wider range of folk -- narrowing the potential pool of buyers. Disney may deem it worthwhile, it may not.

 

[xdan0920]

But at the same time, what percentage of the overall membership are complaining? Should the same percentage complaing that Disney transportation is too expensive be able to expect DVC to change to a private bus provider, like Swalfin and Shades of Green? Or change the maintenance company, or replace Olivia's with a Jack in the Box? Then consider that the majority of those complaining are basically the small point (100 to 125 points) owners. DVC helped create this issue by allowing contracts of less than the original 230 points, and permitting small add-on contracts at many resorts, rather than requireing a new full point membership for each resort, and not merging smaller add-ons at your home resort into the original home resort contract.

And why are many small contracts contributing to the problem? It creates a much larger base of owners competing ONLY for these value and standard studios, without the flexibility to move up to a one bedroom unit if the studios are already spoken for.

I'd be curious to see what percentage of owners have just enough points to stay a week in a studio annually. Then also consider that newer guaranteed week contracts will also take studios out of the overall system during prime weeks of the year.

It’s irrelevant how many points an owner has. If enough of us have a problem with the rental market. Disney can and should address it.

 

[xdan0920]

And this is a clear example of a simple, yet effective definition and enforcement policy.

It’s a clear example of “commercial” as the Dis is profiting off the rental market.

 

[MICKIMINI]

Do you realize I quoted multiple people?

I am happy to hear you never had to rent points. I hope you have always been able to use up your points. That is great!

We have had years when for one reason or another we could not go and did not want to lose money, so we rented. It is allowed. During covid we sent our son and DIL as many times as they wanted to use up points and even sent them to Aulani. In the past couple years we've sold several contracts because we knew my parent's are aging, our son and DIL are doing more European trips and we just built a new home. We spent 5 weeks at WDW in 2022 and gave our son and DIL almost two weeks with us the same year. We spent as many points as we could and still ended up renting some points so not to lose them. We will wait until 2026 to travel to WDW again since we are now under 200 points. Life just gets in the way sometimes.

It is important IMO to allow members a reasonable amount of rentals. Bots do not count and should be squashed.

I disagree. Especially on what would be considered reasonable. Renting half your points to pay dues? Unreasonable. Sending your brother and his family, reasonable.

I really don't have time for this, however your response has nothing to do with my post. Just sayin'. End of convo.

 

[xdan0920]

I disagree. Especially on what would be considered reasonable. Renting half your points to pay dues? Unreasonable. Sending your brother and his family, reasonable.

I really don't have time for this, however your response has nothing to do with my post. Just sayin'. End of convo.

Lol

 

[Chuck S]

It’s irrelevant how many points an owner has. If enough of us have a problem with the rental market. Disney can and should address it.

It is not irrelevant to the overall membership and timeshare operations. If the vast majority of owners had 100 to 125 points, there is no way there would be enough studios to go around, and larger units would sit empty on a continuous bases.

 

[Genie+]

DVC does not need to guess like us. They have full access to the data and can see things 100 times more clearly than we could ever hope. We can only guess where and how much or how little impact is happening to the membership. I’d bet the level of metrics they have hard figures on would blow our minds.

When commercial renting is discussed there’s this lingering idea that hard reservations will be hard regardless, so clamping down on for profit use won’t do anything but allow DVC to take advantage of us via whatever changes occur. I think impact to the membership goes well beyond those most popular bookings and DVC can see year on year how personal use was impacted by the increase of commercial activity. It’s not just pulling the cream from 11 month availability - it pulls the cream at every stage. Now people say ‘so what, regular owners can make those same bookings.’ That’s not the point. The point is typical use patterns between the 2 groups, how they differ and to what degree do negative impacts have on intended use. The product is sold for personal use. It was set up to function around that. People bought in to a personal use system, not a commercial use system. So if one needs to be protected over the other? Not for commercial use comes in to play.

Years of grumblings about rentals but the most DVC did was the very lenient ‘20+ reservations/yr would trigger review’ clarification. People have been complaining the whole time. What is now so different that in December DVC finally acknowledged needing to combat commercial use over this next year? I think the only question at this point is what are they going to do about. I’d guess something that targets the worst impacts to the personal use product. And whatever methods they choose they will have data to back up those decisions if push came to shove legally.

 

[Chuck S]

It’s a clear example of “commercial” as the Dis is profiting off the rental market.

Actually, no, the charge gives owners access to the board, IF they don't qualify for the free access. We do not take any percentage per rental, like commercial brokers. You would be surprised how little money is actually generated from Rental Plans. We even occasionally have owners that pay for a plan and NEVER post any points or rreservation for rental during the year of that plan. Weird, I know, but it happens.

Apparently, you are one of those saying ANY rental is a commercial rental? And that is clearly NOT the case under DVC rules.

 

[xdan0920]

Actually, no, the charge gives owners access to the board, IF they don't qualify for the free access. We do not take any percentage per rental, like commercial brokers. You would be surprised how little money is actually generated from Rental Plans. We even occasionally have owners that pay for a plan and NEVER post any points or rreservation for rental during the year of that plan. Weird, I know, but it happens.

Apparently, you are one of those saying ANY rental is a commercial rental? And that is clearly NOT the case under DVC rules.

Dis is literally charging people to post rentals. Aka profiting off the rental market. It’s fine, I think. I just don’t get the sense in denying it.

 

[Nabas]

Dis is literally charging people to post rentals. Aka profiting off the rental market. It’s fine, I think. I just don’t get the sense in denying it.

Yes, I think it’s fine.

Dis (as an entity) is not a DVC owner and is not subject to the terms of the POS.

Instead, Dis (and other DVC rental intermediaries) are facilitating communication between two parties of a rental agreement.

Whether or not an agreement between two parties qualifies as a commercial rental is a concern for those two parties; not for Dis.

It’s like placing an ad in a newspaper for an apartment for rent. Generally, the newspaper has no skin in the game.

 

[bdrex28]

The difference is, DVC has a legal responsibility to protect the membership and enforce the terms of the contract in regards to commercial renting. Wouldn’t it only take 1 single owner with 1 single lawsuit and the ability to prove DVC knowingly allowed the contract provisions to be violated causing material damage for it to matter? I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s an avenue worth pursuing.

IF there was a lawsuit, the Plaintiff would subpoena all the DVC records and they could specify what they want. It wouldn't be that hard to put in the scope of the documents the requirement to provide all reservations that were transferred to another name on the reservation by a DVC owner that happened maybe more than 5 times per year. So, basically anyone DVC Member who booked at least 5 reservations in a 12 month period that was transferred to another name. You could even limit the scop to those that were transferred to 5 different names.

Obviously I'm just grabbing an arbitrary number of 5, but in a lawsuit they would subpoena those records and define the scope.

 

[Chuck S]

Dis is literally charging people to post rentals. Aka profiting off the rental market. It’s fine, I think. I just don’t get the sense in denying it.

Except in your previous post, you said the DIS was a "clear example of commercial" because we charge people who do not meet our posting prerequisite for free use, to access the board, even though the DIS itself is not a DVC owner, and is under no obligation to DVC under a DVC contract.

It’s a clear example of “commercial” as the Dis is profiting off the rental market.