DVC plans to target commercial renters

[DVCSunDevil]

So if someone need to drop their first day for ANY reason at ANY time it’s a cancel and rebook?

Which is why I proposed being able to modify your check in date once if it is in the same calendar week. That would allow for someone to change their check in day only once if it is in the same week of the original check in date.

 

[Sandisw]

After 70 pages, I still have not seen any suggestions that seem more feasible and effective than Disney focusing on the websites that have pages and pages of highly desirable spec reservations to rent, identifying the point owners by cross-referencing the dates and resorts with the reservations system, issuing warnings to these renters who are indisputably engaged in a pattern of commercial activity, and as a last resort canceling reservations if those warnings are not heeded.

The problem is that just identifying who those reservations belong to is not enough. Until the name on that is changed to someone elses name, DVC can not assume they will become actual rentals....if they don't rent, they get canceled.

Now, they could certainly use that as a way to flag a membership, but do you realize how much time and effort and CM's that takes? All DVC has to do is simply do what they have always done...use the computer to flag membershps that reach a target level and take it from there.....

They can lower that threshold by the simple hit of the button...then, once they do that, they can remind the owner that their membership was flagged for having a lot of reservations on it and that the number is reaching, or has reached a threshold that could constittue a violation of the commercial purposes clause....just put them on notice....and tell them that they will be monitored closely.

Those of us who have a lot of reservations on their memberships...I currently have 14 between all three....none which are for renting....would have no issue because we know they will be used by either family or friends, or canceled when plans are solidified.

Its really not that hard for DVC to implement the rules they have at their disposable...they don't have to do all these complicated things to change the product.....nothing will be perfect, and early December, without walking and without spec renters, commercial renters, etc. will still disappear within seconds of 8 am....at the most popular resorts because all thse taking them for renting will just be replaced by owners who want them which will still leave the majority of owners out of luck.

I get that people are okay with that but that is why DVC doesn't need to go crazy here because they can achieve what people appear to want....by enforcing the commercial purpose clause and rules that already exist.

 

[DVCSunDevil]

Haha ...I didn't take it personally. I just gave you a taste of what reaction might be if some &%^$ like that was actually put into practice.

I did sort of bristle a bit inside at possibly being referred to as 'collateral damage'.

Again, keep on thinking and posting - you may eventually come up with a workable solution. Disney is very busy reading these boards culling out any possible solutions that might be acceptable.

I would think someone like you who only has one modification wouldn't be impacted. I would assume the rule would have some leeway.

 

[Sykes]

When you say non personal use, what do you mean?

I ask because I have seen it used before to mean owners only….or are you talking, owners, guests and renters who fall below the commercial purpose restrictions?

If personal use was well defined in the contract then this discussion would be a whole lot shorter.

In my case, I was using it to mean whatever Disney, in their reasonable discretion, defines as personal use as, calling out that they expressly forbid commercial use and commercial renting. That's a bit of a non-answer, but I think they have pretty wide latitude. I get that you're addressing to the all-sales-are-commercial argument, and I agree that the contract does not intend to prohibit all paid rentals.

If you're asking where I would choose to draw the line if I were Disney exercising their reasonable discretion (which I don't think you really were, but I'll answer anyway), I'd say that intent matters. I think Disney welcomes people to rent as long as the primary purpose of ownership is for their private enjoyment of the resorts. That is, if people are primarily using points for their own vacations but happen to have extra points for whatever reason--their vacation patterns temporarily change or are unpredictable, or they own a few extra so they can stay at a variety of accommodations, or they rent points out to other families that join them on their vacations, or similar--then they should be allowed to. I think that if someone owns any number of points specifically for the purpose of renting them out then they are engaging in a commercial practice. This would include someone who originally bought to stay at resorts but whose vacation patterns have permanently changed and now they're renting most of their points. (There is a somewhat tenuous argument that someone commercially renting out points for the purpose of covering dues or other expenses for their Disney vacations might be complying with the spirit of the personal use clause, but I think it's a stretch.)

 

[Sandisw]

Curious what people think regarding the prohibition against advertising rentals and the use of third party websites to list them. On their face, third party rental sites, while swearing they are merely facilitators, are almost a textbook definition of “advertising” which LexisNexis defines as “any form of representation that is made in connection with business in order to promote the supply or transfer of a product.”

Now, the third party websites may themselves not be in violation of any DVC rules and not subject to any legal action by Disney, but it seems like anyone listing their confirmed reservation on a third party site might just be in violation of the advertising prohibition.

I think this would be an uphill battle for even DVC to implement because the restrictions in the contract are related to commercial purpose and saying that using a third party broker to advertise means you are using your membersihp for a commerical purpose but if you find a renter by using a sign at the supermarket, that doesn't? It makes it hard for owners to rent and the sense I got at the meeting...yes, I am going back to that...is that they want rules that support an owners ability to rent.

As people have stated, DVC can do whatever they want and we have to live with it unless it is a clear violation of the contract, but I just don't believe that DVC is going to take drastic measures to go after the third party rental sites, because they would then at least have to support why renting on DIS or FB, or any other website would be okay...unless they plan to deem all use of the internet?

I don't personally understand why owners would want such restrictive rules that really change the product in ways that go beyond commerical purpose renting.

 

[DonMacGregor]

In general I would be OK with it, I just worry what happens if a medical issue comes up, a child has an event at school or a major sports tournament, or some unmovable thing at work past the banking window.

Get rid of the 4m banking window and then it’s workable.

I mean folks managed before the sites existed and before people caught on to the benefits of confirmed reservations, so I don’t see how the third party sites are integral to renting out your points, or are anyone’s only option (and certainly not guaranteed by any DVC contractual language), but I was really asking if I’m the only one who sees listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site as violation of the advertising prohibition.

 

[Hubalorian]

I think this would be an uphill battle for even DVC to implement because the restrictions in the contract are related to commercial purpose and saying that using a third party broker to advertise means you are using your membersihp for a commerical purpose but if you find a renter by using a sign at the supermarket, that doesn't? It makes it hard for owners to rent and the sense I got at the meeting...yes, I am going back to that...is that they want rules that support an owners ability to rent.

As people have stated, DVC can do whatever they want and we have to live with it unless it is a clear violation of the contract, but I just don't believe that DVC is going to take drastic measures to go after the third party rental sites, because they would then at least have to support why renting on DIS or FB, or any other website would be okay...unless they plan to deem all use of the internet?

I don't personally understand why owners would want such restrictive rules that really change the product in ways that go beyond commerical purpose renting.

Could DVC define any use of “spec renting” on the internet be for commercial purposes a violation? However, leave the check availability and book for a rental method intact? Could they tease the two apart?

 

[Sandisw]

If personal use was well defined in the contract then this discussion would be a whole lot shorter.

In my case, I was using it to mean whatever Disney, in their reasonable discretion, defines as personal use as, calling out that they expressly forbid commercial use and commercial renting. That's a bit of a non-answer, but I think they have pretty wide latitude. I get that you're addressing to the all-sales-are-commercial argument, and I agree that the contract does not intend to prohibit all paid rentals.

If you're asking where I would choose to draw the line if I were Disney exercising their reasonable discretion (which I don't think you really were, but I'll answer anyway), I'd say that intent matters. I think Disney welcomes people to rent as long as the primary purpose of ownership is for their private enjoyment of the resorts. That is, if people are primarily using points for their own vacations but happen to have extra points for whatever reason--their vacation patterns temporarily change or are unpredictable, or they own a few extra so they can stay at a variety of accommodations, or they rent points out to other families that join them on their vacations, or similar--then they should be allowed to. I think that if someone owns any number of points specifically for the purpose of renting them out then they are engaging in a commercial practice. This would include someone who originally bought to stay at resorts but whose vacation patterns have permanently changed and now they're renting most of their points. (There is a somewhat tenuous argument that someone commercially renting out points for the purpose of covering dues or other expenses for their Disney vacations might be complying with the spirit of the personal use clause, but I think it's a stretch.)

That does answer my question and added information that might have been a follow up. I just wanted to be sure that when you were talking about the "personal use" caluse that my interpertation of yours was the same as mine. and it sounds like they are.

I too think that personal use is based on the intent of the member using it for vacation vs a business/commercial purpose but that renters fall under that umbrella as well.

It just too many renters can't fit under it! I do truly believe that DVC understands this as well and that they don't want to change the product to make it appear all renting and all ways to rent are suddenly prohibited or severly limited for the current resorts.

I think the huge change to the CFW POS for point reallcation and renting is a big clue that things are going to change in the future and its another reason why I have a strong feeling all future resorts, including LL, will be under the trust model, even if each one has their own RTU plan and function no differently in practice than resorts of today.

 

[Judique]

I would think someone like you who only has one modification wouldn't be impacted. I would assume the rule would have some leeway.

I haven't come out against walking or renting as such.

I feel more affected by spec rentals and Facebook companies and businesses whose business has become not only listing and selling DVC but a side hustle of renting high value rooms and whose staff include a high volume of people who are very familiar with the product and who may have knowledge and abilities beyond any we speak of on here.

My old eyes see people I recognize and that alone makes me uneasy about the current and predominant rental purveyors.

I was around when Disney sent letters in the past and one of the lines was 'competing with Disney's business', not so much 'affecting availability for members'.

So my visual experience tells me that Disney is looking more at rooms it could have sold and profits it could have made and communicating that to DVD more than at the poor little BWV owner who can't get their room of choice.

The bottom line is if the commercial renting is curtailed a bit, more availability will come forward, maybe not a whole lot, but some.

Hey, they are also reading on here. Some are definitely Disboard members.

 

[Sandisw]

Oh I'm not particularly distressed about 2nd week. Since it's my solo trip I'm very flexible between both weeks. I always start looking with the first week to give a better shot at getting something. Solo is also just last year and possibly this year. Someone could come along and make it not solo.

Also, I was fortunate this year to actually meet a Dis boarder at Hilton Head (I was there for the holiday with family) which made both our trips a little less 'solo'. I've met quite a few Disney people over the years.

This is me...I always reserve rooms for the first and second weeks in December at both RIV and VGF because I don't know which week I can use until I find out about whether or not I will be supervising student teachers in the Fall....and I don't find that out until usually May....

 

[GoingSince1990]

The problem is that just identifying who those reservations belong to is not enough. Until the name on that is changed to someone elses name, DVC can not assume they will become actual rentals....if they don't rent, they get canceled.

Now, they could certainly use that as a way to flag a membership, but do you realize how much time and effort and CM's that takes? All DVC has to do is simply do what they have always done...use the computer to flag membershps that reach a target level and take it from there.....

They can lower that threshold by the simple hit of the button...then, once they do that, they can remind the owner that their membership was flagged for having a lot of reservations on it and that the number is reaching, or has reached a threshold that could constittue a violation of the commercial purposes clause....just put them on notice....and tell them that they will be monitored closely.

Those of us who have a lot of reservations on their memberships...I currently have 14 between all three....none which are for renting....would have no issue because we know they will be used by either family or friends, or canceled when plans are solidified.

Its really not that hard for DVC to implement the rules they have at their disposable...they don't have to do all these complicated things to change the product.....nothing will be perfect, and early December, without walking and without spec renters, commercial renters, etc. will still disappear within seconds of 8 am....at the most popular resorts because all thse taking them for renting will just be replaced by owners who want them which will still leave the majority of owners out of luck.

I get that people are okay with that but that is why DVC doesn't need to go crazy here because they can achieve what people appear to want....by enforcing the commercial purpose clause and rules that already exist.

It would take one competent programmer just a few days to be able to generate a report from a list of spec rentals from a website giving the owners names for the reservations with the same resorts and dates. And if Megaowner LLC turns out to own the points for 40 or 50 of those reservations, then it's fairly simple to focus on that owner, watch for the reservations disappearing from the website as they are rented, and monitoring for the corresponding lead guest name changes that are requested. At which point DVC absolutely has the points owner dead to rights in terms of engaging in a pattern of commercial activity. The problem with simply accusing everyone who has a large number of reservations of commercial activity is that they can respond that all those reservations are for family or friends, and it is very difficult indeed for DVC to prove otherwise.

 

[Sykes]

It just too many renters can't fit under it! I do truly believe that DVC understands this as well and that they don't want to change the product to make it appear all renting and all ways to rent are suddenly prohibited or severly limited for the current resorts.

I agree, and I'll also note that "who is violating the personal use restriction" and "who you go after for violating the personal use restriction" can be different groups. (Well, one has to be a subset of the other, but you can choose to, for example, only go after the worst offenders.) If I'm Disney then I probably look the other way when considering people that are probably commercially renting but mostly doing it to cover their Disney trip expenses. (I can always choose to address them later if going after the big fish doesn't sufficiently improve the situation.)

 

[DonMacGregor]

I think this would be an uphill battle for even DVC to implement because the restrictions in the contract are related to commercial purpose and saying that using a third party broker to advertise means you are using your membersihp for a commerical purpose but if you find a renter by using a sign at the supermarket, that doesn't? It makes it hard for owners to rent and the sense I got at the meeting...yes, I am going back to that...is that they want rules that support an owners ability to rent.

As people have stated, DVC can do whatever they want and we have to live with it unless it is a clear violation of the contract, but I just don't believe that DVC is going to take drastic measures to go after the third party rental sites, because they would then at least have to support why renting on DIS or FB, or any other website would be okay...unless they plan to deem all use of the internet?

I don't personally understand why owners would want such restrictive rules that really change the product in ways that go beyond commerical purpose renting.

In your zeal to answer the question you wanted to hear, and not the question I asked, you entirely missed my point. In fact, I went out of my way to specifically state in a separate paragraph, that I don’t think the third party sites themselves are violating any rules and that Disney couldn’t and wouldn’t go after them, yet your second paragraph addresses that very point I didn’t make.

I simply asked if anyone else believes that listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site (or a telephone pole outside your local market) would fall under the prohibition against advertising. If not, then what does satisfy the definition of advertising, and if nothing does, then why does the POS include the advertising prohibition? It exists for a reason.

I mean, are we saying I can take out a full page in the New York Times, listing all of my confirmed reservations, yet feel secure in my ability to do so because precluding me from doing so limits my enjoyment of the use of those points?

 

[GoingSince1990]

Could DVC define any use of “spec renting” on the internet be for commercial purposes a violation? However, leave the check availability and book for a rental method intact? Could they tease the two apart?

I hope not. As an example, I had two villas booked for later this month (MLK weekend), one for my wife and daughter and I and another for a friend (with no payment). As it turns out, our friend was unable to travel due to a business trip. The points are February use year and we are well past the banking deadline, so I listed the reservation for our friend with DVC Rental Store at $15 per point, and someone purchased it. While some may consider this an "11 month spec rental", I hope that nobody would consider this to be a "pattern of commercial activity" that should not be permitted.

 

[JackosinDIS]

In your zeal to answer the question you wanted to hear, and not the question I asked, you entirely missed my point. In fact, I went out of my way to specifically state in a separate paragraph, that I don’t think the third party sites themselves are violating any rules and that Disney couldn’t and wouldn’t go after them, yet your second paragraph addresses that very point I didn’t make.

I simply asked if anyone else believes that listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site (or a telephone pole outside your local market) would fall under the prohibition against advertising. If not, then what does satisfy the definition of advertising, and if nothing does, then why does the POS include the advertising prohibition?

Are you referring to the new (post RIV) POS wording here?

I can’t recall the exact language, but I’m not sure that there is a ‘prohibition’ against advertising. Does it just include advertising on third party websites as an example of what could fall within commercial use?

If that’s what you mean, then my answer would be ‘yes’ I do think that listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site could fall under this example.

 

[lowlight]

I hope not. As an example, I had two villas booked for later this month (MLK weekend), one for my wife and daughter and I and another for a friend (with no payment). As it turns out, our friend was unable to travel due to a business trip. The points are February use year and we are well past the banking deadline, so I listed the reservation for our friend with DVC Rental Store at $15 per point, and someone purchased it. While some may consider this an "11 month spec rental", I hope that nobody would consider this to be a "pattern of commercial activity" that should not be permitted.

This is the very definition of what should be accepted rental use, in my opinion. Now, if you do this 3 out of the next 5 years, do you believe that would likely change the appearance?

that I don’t think the third party sites themselves are violating any rules and that Disney couldn’t and wouldn’t go after them

What about trademark violation for profiting off of the use of DVC abbreviation? Or is only Disney Vacation Club trademarked and not the abbreviation?

and not the question I asked

Weird, isn't it.

 

[Sandisw]

Could DVC define any use of “spec renting” on the internet be for commercial purposes a violation? However, leave the check availability and book for a rental method intact? Could they tease the two apart?

I am really having a hard time with saying a commercial purpose and the intent of that clause in the contract was meant for anything other than that DVC is not meant to be a commericial enterprise and the sole purpsoe is vacations...which is why I think you see it repeated over and over and over.

I know people have a different take, but when I bought and read through all my contracts, and the language used, I really do believe that it is pretty easy and common for the average DVC owner to have come to that same conclusion.

So, going back to your question. Spec renting is nothing more than a reservation that has been made first and then finding a renter.

Some spec rentals are chosen because they have a high probility of earning a good profit, but other spec rentals are chosen becaue an owner has points that expire and they grab what they can, or its a reservation that started out as their own but now something happened and they need to cancel and are within 31 days or even or they wa nt to make the process simple and just find something and rent it.

That is why IMO that spec renting is not something that DVC is going to try and define. In o e way, it goes against the whole FCFS notion because the owner is booking a room they intend to let someone use....and renters count.....

Some of the language of the contract says things like you can't rent until you make a reservation, an owner does not need DVCs permission to rent once a reservation is in an owners name, and even that terms and conditions are up to the owner. Does banning spec renting go against any of that? Could your average owner say it does and that spec renting, on its own, doesn't make an owners reasons for owning DVC all of a sudden not for vacation purposes.

I will always come back to evaluating any limitations for what we book, how we book it and where we find a renters against the intent of the commerical purposes clause as I understand it....and I just don't think any of this fits into that in a reasonable way.

Could DVC do it and say its allowed and force owners to live with it or fit it? Absolutely....but I personally don't think they will belcause they do seem to want renting for commercial purposes to be stopped while still allowing owners the flexiblity to rent points when they need to and I don't see that stopping the adverstising of confirmed rentals changes an owners purpose for owner DVC....and if it doesn't, then it should not be prohibited.

Oh, and how to they deal with a FW owner? Banning spec renting would ban them from renting what they bought...sure, it can be canceled, and DVC could say that they must, but again, I would think that they at least have to make that clear to FW owners that they can only use it for themselves or guests, and not renters?

If DVC plans to make changes, all of these are going to be have to be considered by DVC and if they are like most companies, they run there it all and then decide...once they do, they can find a way to spin it. I just don't see DVC investing all this time and money to make it complicated when they don't need to.

 

[Tatebeck]

I simply asked if anyone else believes that listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site (or a telephone pole outside your local market) would fall under the prohibition against advertising. If not, then what does satisfy the definition of advertising, and if nothing does, then why does the POS include the advertising prohibition? It exists for a reason.

I mean, are we saying I can take out a full page in the New York Times, listing all of my confirmed reservations, yet feel secure in my ability to do so because precluding me from doing so limits my enjoyment of the use of those points?

I haven't found anything in the documents that says one is not allowed to advertise for their personal reservation up for rent. The only time they specifically prohibit anything regarding "advertising" is if you try to put advertisements for something on DVC/Resort property. Like hanging a banner for your other business from your DVC balcony or something.

If you are thinking that just because many definitions include "advertising" as part of a definition of "commercial" or similar words, then I don't think that applies here. You can advertise for a personal rental, but you would not be able to advertise for a commercial enterprise rental. It's not the advertising that makes it against the rules, it is the rental and the intent of the rental itself.

Word of mouth is also a form of advertising. Are all members supposed to now say that "oh I may have a room I am not going to use available for rent, but I can't tell you when it is, or what room it is, or anything about it according to the rules"? That would just be silly. They specifically say that renting is allowed as long as it is not part of a commercial enterprise. They have to have a way for you to find the person you will rent to.

 

[GoingSince1990]

If not, then what does satisfy the definition of advertising, and if nothing does, then why does the POS include the advertising prohibition? It exists for a reason.

I'm not familiar with any "advertising prohibition" in the POS. What is the exact wording of this provision?

 

[Sandisw]

In your zeal to answer the question you wanted to hear, and not the question I asked, you entirely missed my point. In fact, I went out of my way to specifically state in a separate paragraph, that I don’t think the third party sites themselves are violating any rules and that Disney couldn’t and wouldn’t go after them, yet your second paragraph addresses that very point I didn’t make.

I simply asked if anyone else believes that listing a confirmed reservation on a third party site (or a telephone pole outside your local market) would fall under the prohibition against advertising. If not, then what does satisfy the definition of advertising, and if nothing does, then why does the POS include the advertising prohibition? It exists for a reason.

I mean, are we saying I can take out a full page in the New York Times, listing all of my confirmed reservations, yet feel secure in my ability to do so because precluding me from doing so limits my enjoyment of the use of those points?

I saw the quote of advertising but I didn’t see that anything in your post that yourreference was in relation to the terms of the contract and it’s actually language that exists. I thought it was a general explanation since you tied it to something else.

So, let me get back to after I find and read that clause as your post was not clear.

Without reading that, my initial response is yes, I do think an owner can advertise a reservation in the NYT…

IIRC, that clause is prohibitngs owners from advertising themselves as “DVC” but ill find and read again.

It would exist for a reason. It’s the same question I asked about the use of the words commercial enterprise in relation to commerical purpose. It’s there for a reason.

ETA. It would certainly be helpful to have the section of the contract you found that in.