DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Disfamwa]

Since the contract for DVC has nothing to do with the parks, I don’t think they can ban them from property.

I think the remedy would be canceling reservations above and beyond what is seen in violation, which is what was in the documents years ago.

They may be able to lock the account is someway. That’s a good question for someone with actual contract law experience.

I just thought Disney might have more leeway in taking away their rights to the park vs taking away something related to their deeded property (I was specifically thinking of an unofficial parks tour guide, who was also a DVC member, and was banned from all Disneyworld property except his home resort).

 

[Sandisw]

I just thought Disney might have more leeway in taking away their rights to the park vs taking away something related to their deeded property (I was specifically thinking of an unofficial parks tour guide, who was also a DVC member, and was banned from all Disneyworld property except his home resort).

But that was because that person was doing something at the parks..and just happen to be a DVC owner.

If the violation is renting their DVC reservations above what the contract allows, then the remedy would need to be related to that in some way because it’s the DVC contract violated and not any park rules.

 

[Disfamwa]

But that was because that person was doing something at the parks..and just happen to be a DVC owner.

If the violation is renting their DVC reservations above what the contract allows, then the remedy would need to be related to that in some way because it’s the DVC contract violated and not any park rules.

I’m not a lawyer, but it actually doesn’t seem to be that different because that they are competing with Disney Parks for room rentals on Disney Parks property. Similar to how a tour guide could be operating in the park, but they could ban them from all non-deeded Disney property including hotels.

I actually think since Disney parks are private property, they are probably allowed to deny entrance to anyone as long as it doesn’t violate any discrimination laws.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not a lawyer, but it actually doesn’t seem to be that different because that they are competing with Disney Parks for room rentals on Disney Parks property. Similar to how a tour guide could be operating in the park, but they could ban them from all non-deeded Disney property including hotels.

I actually think since Disney parks are private property, they are probably allowed to deny entrance to anyone as long as it doesn’t violate any discrimination laws.

IANAL either but I doubt they can ban someone from the park for violating the DVC contract.

 

[xdan0920]

The original point charts were designed for owners to have at least 230 points.

What are you basing this on?

I have a year 1 contract with 170 points. Why do you think 230 was the designed number when 170 was the main selling amount?

 

[xdan0920]

FWIW.

My hope is that DVC eliminates commercial renting as defined by renting your points through a 3rd party commercial website.

If that happens, getting rooms will get so much less stressful.

 

[Sandisw]

What are you basing this on?

I have a year 1 contract with 170 points. Why do you think 230 was the designed number when 170 was the main selling amount?

The initial buy in for OKW was 230 points. Are you saying you bought OKW with 170 when DVC debuted?

 

[Sandisw]

FWIW.

My hope is that DVC eliminates commercial renting as defined by renting your points through a 3rd party commercial website.

If that happens, getting rooms will get so much less stressful.

I think if they decided to do that, they’d get a lot of negative push back from a lot of owners, especially when they made the statements at the meetings in support of owners right to rent when they need to.

It certainly wouldn’t be a good PR move for them. But they have been known to do things that don’t make sense to the rest of us.

 

[xdan0920]

The initial buy in for OKW was 230 points. Are you saying you bought OKW with 170?

Yes. Actually now I am remembering, we bought in 96.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes. Actually now I am remembering, we bought in 96.

The initial buy in was 230 when it debuted in 1992…and by 1996 was down to 150.

 

[MICKIMINI]

Well the average renter is not arranging their rental anywhere close to 11 months out to be able to book the lower point rooms (BWV standard studio or AKL value studio as examples). I think commercial renters walk reservations to certain low-point high value dates and room categories and then sit on those reservations for however long it takes find a renter. If they were stopped from renting out speculative confirmed reservations, I bet some amount of the walking would decrease and then average DVC members would feel less pressure to walk too.

It’s hard to say how much the walking would decrease, and there would likely still be some times (early December for instance) where walking was still more popular.

Has walking gotten worse as speculative confirmed rentals have increased? I haven’t been an owner long enough to know.

Edit: Could Disney ban people from the parks who they deem to violate the not for commercial use part of our contracts? I feel like even most commercial renters are Disney fans, and the threat of being banned from the parks might be a powerful tool (they should clearly define what counts as commercial before doing anything like this). I know parks is a different branch, but they probably have an interest in shutting down commercial renters too since it eats into their hotel business.

1996 DVC owner. Yes, walking has gotten much worse in the past 5 years or so. I have only done it a few times and find stalking and waitlisting gets me most of what I want. The bots really tick me off!

 

[JackosinDIS]

I'm not sure speculative renters are doing all that much walking. They don't need any particular dates, just some dates within a desirable range.

I’m almost certain they are walking. Most of the big renters on FB have 3 or more Sunday to Thursday reservations advertised for BWV standard view during September. These obviously produce the highest profit at any time of the year. I know from experience (I.e trying myself to start a walk during that period) that each of these reservations was walked in from June.

 

[DonMacGregor]

IANAL either but I doubt they can ban someone from the park for violating the DVC contract.

Also NAL, but reasonably certain that a business has the right to serve or not serve anyone for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. It would only be illegal if the ban was based on race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, or various other protected classes, or if it was done out of retaliation or harassment.

I’m guessing that if Disney feels they were defrauded or suffered some damage as a result of the violation of the DVC contract, they could easily extend a ban to any or all of their associated properties, facilities, or venues.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I’m almost certain they are walking. Most of the big renters on FB have 3 or more Sunday to Thursday reservations advertised for BWV standard view during September. These obviously produce the highest profit at any time of the year. I know from experience (I.e trying myself to start a walk during that period) that each of these reservations was walked in from June.

June through September is wild and also suggests that people with Aug/Sep UY don’t even have the possibility of getting those rooms. If the problem gets slightly worse, Jun UY won’t be able to book them either.

 

[DVCanadian]

FWIW.

My hope is that DVC eliminates commercial renting as defined by renting your points through a 3rd party commercial website.

If that happens, getting rooms will get so much less stressful.

DVC has no way to tell what is rented via 3rd party brokers, the owner still makes the reservation. The rental brokers just connect people for a fee.

Should be possible for DVC to pull data to report on number of reservations where the name on the reservation doesn’t match the name on the contract. Find the contracts and owners where this number is very high and start there.

 

[theww228]

If the DVC “system” worked as intended the points would be balanced by demand. There wouldn’t be a special rooms, BW std and boardwalk views, AK value rooms, CL. It is obvious that the points are not the correct amount and should be adjusted to make them “fair”. The usual responses are, “well there are just a few of them and that is also why they are so hard”. There are only a few bungalows as well, but they generally have availability. However they were allocated a reasonable number of points to not make them a great deal, so the supply and demand balances out. It is crazy that a standard view room is so many fewer points when they have better views than many other resorts, facing the road at the beach club or the dumpster view at BRV. The next response is, “I like those high value / low point rooms, don’t rebalance to take them away”. Yes, everyone likes those rooms and that is why they are so hard to get, but those rooms are small population in the overall ecosystem. Adjusting points better by season needs to happen as well. If you look at the calendar there are definitely months that have demand that does not match supply. The first half of December points are way too low for the demand. September is low for the demand, August is high for the demand. Adjust the calendars, they have the data.
RIV is out of whack with the number of points between std and premium views, for studios it is 4-5 points difference. I am sorry, the views are different enough to justify that big of a difference, more like 2 in my opinion. If you look the standards are always booked up before the standards. If they were set up correctly, they would both book very similar to each other. Who is at fault for the imbalance? The owners or DVC for how they set up the point charts?
The other elephant in the room is folks changing at the seven month window. I hear so many complaints about people not being able to get what they want at the 7 month window, but they want something that is in high demand. “I can’t get a full week at the beach club at 7 months like I could years ago”. Most of the year there is availability at beach club between the 7-11 months. If you want to stay at BC, buy there and plan ahead. As DVC has expanded there are more and more people trying to move to the “better in their eyes” rooms/resorts. When there are so many people saying by at SSR but don’t plan on staying there, it creates an imbalance in the system. If SSR would have come on line with point requirements that were 1/3 the requirement of a room at beach club it would be very difficult to get a room at SSR.
Bottom line: if the points requirements match demand the system works itself out, if the points requirements allocations do not match demand there are reservations that everyone wants and others that no one wants. I am not saying that they should try the lock-off grab they tried years ago, but either balance the system or realize there will be a few “gems” that will always be difficult to get and only get harder over time.

 

[theww228]

Should be possible for DVC to pull data to report on number of reservations where the name on the reservation doesn’t match the name on the contract. Find the contracts and owners where this number is very high and start there.

Just because a reservation is not in the owners name does not necessarily mean it has been rented. Most of my points end up in the names of family and friends. I am going to have a serious problem if I have spent this much money over the years to help out family and friends with trips. Our plan is to spend a significant portion of the winter at Disney in the future and we have been acquiring points with this plan. However, with time constraints of jobs, sports and school we simply do not have the time to travel there as much now.
I am fine with putting clearly defined rules/limits on what constitutes a commercial renter, but it cannot impede with how regular owners should be able to use their memberships.
I have stays booked for friends and family from all over the country. I have rooms booked for families that weren’t able to afford to head down for the school band trip. If I am not able to do this then we have totally gone off the rails. I am hoping that Disney does not make the cure worse than the ailment.
I still feel that putting a reasonable limit on the number of name changes makes the biggest impact without affecting the majority of owners. This would eliminate most of the confirmed reservations that are holding the best rooms and dates.

 

[zavandor]

September is low for the demand, August is high for the demand.

There is demand in September because it's low. I've been going mostly in September since I bought in 2012 and September, even if it was the cheapest season was still very slow until the last week. I even managed to book 7 months the DVC trifecta: BWV standard studio, AKV value and BLT standard studios (a few times) and every other resort has always had availability. Only lately September has become a bit more challenging, since they changed to 7 seasons and lowered it even more.
But I agree that August, especially the last two weeks, should be lowered.

 

[Chuck S]

Just because a reservation is not in the owners name does not necessarily mean it has been rented. Most of my points end up in the names of family and friends. I am going to have a serious problem if I have spent this much money over the years to help out family and friends with trips. Our plan is to spend a significant portion of the winter at Disney in the future and we have been acquiring points with this plan. However, with time constraints of jobs, sports and school we simply do not have the time to travel there as much now.
I am fine with putting clearly defined rules/limits on what constitutes a commercial renter, but it cannot impede with how regular owners should be able to use their memberships.
I have stays booked for friends and family from all over the country. I have rooms booked for families that weren’t able to afford to head down for the school band trip. If I am not able to do this then we have totally gone off the rails. I am hoping that Disney does not make the cure worse than the ailment.
I still feel that putting a reasonable limit on the number of name changes makes the biggest impact without affecting the majority of owners. This would eliminate most of the confirmed reservations that are holding the best rooms and dates.

I'm in a similar situation. I often book more than one unit to travel with friends/family, and have had up to three units booked at a time. No one in my surviving family and friends shares my last name. So just how would DVC make that determination remains to be seen.

 

[Sandisw]

Also NAL, but reasonably certain that a business has the right to serve or not serve anyone for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. It would only be illegal if the ban was based on race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, or various other protected classes, or if it was done out of retaliation or harassment.

I’m guessing that if Disney feels they were defrauded or suffered some damage as a result of the violation of the DVC contract, they could easily extend a ban to any or all of their associated properties, facilities, or venues.

I’ll rephrase then…I do not think Disney would get into that level of legal battle to ban people from the park for potential DVC contract violations when all DVC has to do is cancel the reservations.