DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Chuck S]

I’m genuinely not interested in the perspective of DVC landlords. I don’t feel bad that they own more points then they can afford and rely on rental income to make up the difference.

Don't forget that basically an extra year's worth of points were dumped into the system after covid. I did use mine up between large family trips and renting some out. But many owners may still have a surplus of points and simply bank year to year, giving them extra to use at will, maybe they will plan a group trip over the holidays, and want SEVERAL of those hard to get studios at the same time. And the current economy, people wanting to rent for a year of two rather than visit Disney, so they are booking reservations for rent. And also remember that many foreign owners HAD to rent points, bank points, or lose them after COVID, as they still were not permitted to travel to the US.

It's all been a perfect storm to add up to the rental market we see today, as others have said, banning rentals, even if they could, isnt't going to be an overnight solution to availability issues. It will take another year or so for the system to re-normalize.

 

[Sandisw]

Unless they decide that somebody booking a large amount of rooms at 11 months at rooms/time periods that are known to be highly profitable and immediately posting them for rent on a rental site counts as a pattern of commercial rental activity. They don't HAVE to wait until the room is rented and changed, they can see if rentals were attempted if they are on publicly viewable sites and act if they wish.


They kind of did it to themselves by letting resale prices drop while not ROFRing and simultaneously increasing the direct point cost. Most people are steered towards resale or renting now.

Maybe they could... lower the cost of direct points and start ROFRing to increase the value of resale contracts pushing people to buy direct?

Doubtful, as that would cost them more money. They are most likely just gonna shut down the egregious renters running afoul of their policies. They are the only ones allowed to milk the cash cow

Which ones do they cancel? And I don’t DVC would do it.

Even the document from 2008 stated that only those over 20 would be canceled and not all

So, I still contend that since we can have rentals and a reservation in the name of the owner is not one of them, they can’t take action until they see those reservations change names.

Again, it’s a pattern of rental activity and for the pre RiV contracts, IMO, they’d have to have evidence of actual rentals and not an attempt to do it.

Now, they certainly can keep that account under scrutiny and when those turn into rentals that is a different story.

 

[Sandisw]

In consideration of the timeline, trying to keep with simplicity and stages of impact, it makes sense. They can’t easily change the other contracts, but they can be more precise with new ones. The spirit of all the contracts from day 1 have prohibited commercial use though.

When it comes to legalities, it often comes down to protecting from unreasonable expectations. Look at all the fine print Disney uses on park tickets.

Thomas’ English muffins may have felt confident people knew how to use them in a toaster, especially when every package from day one mentions to ‘fork split’ them. But companies have to deal with unreasonable people. For a while Thomas’ started putting new wording on the package: Warning - Do not put whole muffin in toaster without splitting. It is since gone, but they were probably going through some type of litigation at the time. If I jam unsplit english muffins into a toaster where it’s hitting the heating elements and leave it unattended eta- and start a fire, I might find a lawyer to take that case because a big company didn’t explicitly instruct me not to.

But it’s been over 5 years since that was done and just like in 2008 when they created the document to clarify it, they have had plenty of time to do it.

And, based on what has been posted today, I think that supports that DVC can not use those rules for the pre RIv resort without using the actual rules that are there.

Sure, they feel you are running a business and they say we see this and we see regular advertising. But IMO, they can’t say because you advertise that contstuties being in a business.

It seems that some of the legal examples provided support that.

People can certainly choose not to agree with drusba but the information provided is detailed and legal enough for me to feel confident in its legal standing.

 

[Tatebeck]

Which ones do they cancel? And I don’t DVC would do it.

Even the document from 2008 stated that only those over 20 would be canceled and not all

So, I still contend that since we can have rentals and a reservation in the name of the owner is not one of them, they can’t take action until they see those reservations change names.

Again, it’s a pattern of rental activity and for the pre RiV contracts, IMO, they’d have to have evidence of actual rentals and not an attempt to do it.

Now, they certainly can keep that account under scrutiny and when those turn into rentals that is a different story.

They would cancel any rooms they felt were being used in a commercial way, up to possibly including every single reservation they made that was listed on a rental site. Just because they used to only look at any rentals after 20 reservations doesn't mean that they can't look at any rentals in the first 20 as well. It is clear that they are the ones that get to decide what is commercial use and what is not and that they have the ability to enforce or not at their own discretion.

A "pattern of rental activity" is not the same as "a pattern of rentals." Rental activities would include the actual act of renting, and other actions associated with the rentals.

Listing the reservations for rent is an activity that is related to the rentals. If they feel it is commercial and a part of a "pattern of rental activities," they could indeed enforce the rules as they see fit, even before the lead guests were changed on reservations.

IE if they noticed you have booked, immediately posted for rent, and rented out 10 reservations each year for the past few years for BWV standard and AKV value rooms during the first 2 weeks of December, they could make you cancel those or do something else to prevent you from completing the rentals, before you even request the lead guest change

 

[Genie+]

But IMO, they can’t say because you advertise that contstuties being in a business.

I agree. The advertising cannot be used alone. I could see it as a contributing factor when assessing pattern of commercial use. If year after year someone’s advertising tons of rentals and stripping/flipping contracts… it’s all those things together that smell like a duck.

 

[Sandisw]

Booking by check out day is easier than walking, even it one must add one day at a time to complete their booking. That only requires as many logins to add a day as the length of stay. Walking can require daily logins for many more days depending on how far in advance you initiate the walk.

Yes, but for those who can’t log in daily to pick up their next day, it may not seem like a better booking set up when they have no idea what walking even is.

Matter of fact, at the VGF meeting, after the word was used, an owner raised his hand and asked the board to please explain it because he had no idea.

So, that is what DVC has to contend with. Making the booking process that is seen by the membership as a whole as better and not worse.

Personally id rather not do day by day booking and just deal with walking and continue to use waitlists to get what I need.

I do stalk but that is a choice…and there have been times when I just used a waitlist for the lower costs room and I have yet not to have it fill when it when in right at 8:05 am the morning of the 11 month window.

 

[Sandisw]

They would cancel any rooms they felt were being used in a commercial way, up to possibly including every single reservation they made that was listed on a rental site. Just because they used to only look at any rentals after 20 reservations doesn't mean that they can't look at any rentals in the first 20 as well. It is clear that they are the ones that get to decide what is commercial use and what is not and that they have the ability to enforce or not at their own discretion.

A "pattern of rental activity" is not the same as "a pattern of rentals." Rental activities would include the actual act of renting, and other actions associated with the rentals.

Listing the reservations for rent is an activity that is related to the rentals. If they feel it is commercial and a part of a "pattern of rental activities," they could indeed enforce the rules as they see fit, even before the lead guests were changed on reservations.

IE if they noticed you have booked, immediately posted for rent, and rented out 10 reservations each year for the past few years for BWV standard and AKV value rooms during the first 2 weeks of December, they could make you cancel those or do something else to prevent you from completing the rentals, before you even request the lead guest change

This assumes that you don’t have the right to book a hard to get room and rent it.

And I just don’t believe that is true. If I want to rent three rooms every year in a VGF deluxe studio for early December to offset my dues, I believe I can and doing that level of renting does not even come close to saying I am running a business.

Again, it’s not just the pattern or rental… it’s that it needs to rise to the level , even with RIV, to be considered a commercial enterprise.

I think that post today from drusba makes this clear.

And yes, I know some don’t believe that but those words are used. I just dont buy that icommerucsl enterprise is irrelevant or nothing more than one potential choice for DVc to use.

So, no, I do not believe that DVC can choose to cancel all your reservations or even some of them simply because you advertised them if they never rented, because it is inherent that we are allowed to rent in relation to the condo statutes that apply

Now, if we were not given the right to rent because we own part of a leasehold condo, that may be different

And to be honest, I think DVC knows that their power when it comes to claiming a memberships is a commercial enterprise is not an easy threshold to meet.

As posted earlier, the document from 2008 gives insight on what message they wanted to send owners on the intent of the language in the declaration regarding the limitation on our right to rent.

This is enough for me as an owner to support my own interpretation of what I bought and what I am allowed to do.

Obviously, if some disagrees with that analysis then they are going to come up with different conclusions and that is fine.

 

[Genie+]

DVC has plans to do something this year. Hopefully we get a glimpse into the criteria used.

I don’t expect it to be more stringent than necessary… at this point. It might be fairly simple and intentionally not cut too deep.

If they do not use every method at their disposal, they still keep the future ability of unused methods. Depending how commercial activity flourishes or not, they can always come back to try again.

 

[lowlight]

I think that post today from drusba makes this clear.

Well I guess we can wrap this thread up then.

 

[Sandisw]

Btw, I am going to WDW the first week of November. I looked on just 1 DVC rental website and found 35 spec rentals already made. And that’s just 1 website. I am sure those people are just changing their travel plans and had no choice but to rent.

I don’t want changes that don’t match the product that I bought which was an ownership interest in a leasehold condominium.

As such, I am allowed to rent my ownership interest as long as I don’t turn it into a business.

And, whatever changes DVC does needs to match that and if it does not, I am not in favor of it.

I get some want a smaller rental market but the membership has grown by millions of points and with that comes a larger rental market because more rooms exist and more ownerships exist.

And that very well could be why they have made the changes they have made, first with RIV and even stricter with CFW.

Back when all those other resorts were created, the rental market was small, the ease of renting wasn’t what it is today and they had no idea how large it might grow.

So, it makes sense that they probably didn’t even worry about it.

Fast forward today and it’s different. No one can debate that. The rental market is huge.

But, IMO and that of others, it doesn’t mean DVD gets to materially change the purpose of the limitation in the original POS.

And that is why I am opposed to much of what people suggest because I am not willing to give up my rights simply because the number of owners out there renting is large or that owners have choose rent rooms that are popular when they clearly are not making DVC a business.

Obviously, those who are running a business should be stopped by DVC and if they are some of the worst players with booking the popular rooms, then that will lessen rooms being rented.

But, that doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to accept rules that we don’t believe are illegal, even if renting isn’t something we do or even care about.

This is why I am going to push back hard with DVC against any actions that limit my right to rent.

 

[Tatebeck]

This assumes that you don’t have the right to book a hard to get room and rent it.

And I just don’t believe that is true. If I want to rent three rooms every year in a VGF deluxe studio for early December to offset my dues, I believe I can and doing that level of renting does not even come close to saying I am running a business.

Again, it’s not just the pattern or rental… it’s that it needs to rise to the level , even with RIV, to be considered a commercial enterprise.

No, you definitely have the right to book a hard to get room, and you also have the right to rent it. I never said you didn't.

But the more times you do it, and the more frequently you do it, the more it may look like it is being used as part of a commercial enterprise in Disney's eyes. And they are the ones who ultimately get to decide when it crosses the line.

I think you ultimately agreed with me but just misunderstood what I was saying, because in the end you did say essentially what my point was, which is that whatever the pattern of rental activity looks like, it just depends on when Disney thinks it crosses the line, and most members wouldn't want to be on the other end of that.

They aren't going to give a hard rule "IE 20 reservations" again, because they know that serious renters will just try to find a way around it again and do everything they can to do the absolute most they can before crossing that boundary. It makes it easier if they can just say, "we know it when we see it"

 

[Genie+]

We bought a product that allows renting. We bought a product that over and over pointed out it was for personal use, so I do expect my ownership interests not to be fatigued by commercial activity when the contract explicitly says that is prohibited.

Call a guide and ask the 5 things they must tell you before you may purchase by phone.

One is that DVC is only for personal use. Another is not for commercial use.

I don’t want the flexibility of renting to be removed. There does need to be a line somewhere.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

35 confirmed reservations is not terrible, especially if they are spread across multiple resorts.

At least one rental site has hundreds of confirmed reservations, with about 200 being AKV Value and BWV Standard Studios, the most profitable rentals. (These are listed at about $32 to $42 per point.)

Name and Shame the Rental Site in my opinion.

 

[DougEMG]

I actually never said this, and don't believe it. I'd rather have some ability to rent when needed. If I had to choose all or nothing, though, mark me down for nothing.

I'm in the opposite camp. If it is a choice between keeping the current mess (which doesn't affect me at all) or not allowing any renting (what ever that definition of renting might be) I vote to keep the current system.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

One thing I would appreciate clarity on: early in this thread there was a lot of discussion of “20 rentals” but then someone shared recently that what Disney actually said was “20 reservations total and if you went above that you had to prove ALL of the first 20 were personal use or friends/family before you can book any more” — if that is correct, and was past practice, I think it tells us Disney feels it can limit rentals much more aggressively under existing resort rules (and wouldn’t shy away from some kinds of enforcement even if they require labor intense manual review).

I do agree with the others who don’t think Disney is likely to be splitting hairs over commercial purpose with small contract owners who rent less than half their points and aren’t routinely doing spec rentals...where they draw the line exactly may depend on how much their hotel business is hurting in 2025 and 2026.

In addition to there still being some backlog with COVID rollovers, there are now families who want to avoid Florida travel (trying to avoid political discussion digression), and possibly most impactful of all, many owners may want to skip or shorten trips in ‘25-26 while waiting for the new MK and AK additions. I personally am impacted by 2 of those 3 factors and trying to decide what I want to do with the 2025 WDW UY points we won’t need (probably try to spend most of them at DLR and AUL to be honest).

 

[Spivey378]

I, for one, welcome the commercial renters because hard to book reservations are already booked for me. I don’t need to walk or anything.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I'm in the opposite camp. If it is a choice between keeping the current mess (which doesn't affect me at all) or not allowing any renting (what ever that definition of renting might be) I vote to keep the current system.

And I've never rented a single point. I use mine, but I concur 100%. I may not always get my first choice, but knock on wood, I've always gotten a room WHEN I wanted one.

 

[Sandisw]

One thing I would appreciate clarity on: early in this thread there was a lot of discussion of “20 rentals” but then someone shared recently that what Disney actually said was “20 reservations total and if you went above that you had to prove ALL of the first 20 were personal use or friends/family before you can book any more” — if that is correct, and was past practice, I think it tells us Disney feels it can limit rentals much more aggressively under existing resort rules (and wouldn’t shy away from some kinds of enforcement even if they require labor intense manual review).

I do agree with the others who don’t think Disney is likely to be splitting hairs over commercial purpose with small contract owners who rent less than half their points and aren’t routinely doing spec rentals...where they draw the line exactly may depend on how much their hotel business is hurting in 2025 and 2026.

In addition to there still being some backlog with COVID rollovers, there are now families who want to avoid Florida travel (trying to avoid political discussion digression), and possibly most impactful of all, many owners may want to skip or shorten trips in ‘25-26 while waiting for the new MK and AK additions. I personally am impacted by 2 of those 3 factors and trying to decide what I want to do with the 2025 WDW UY points we won’t need (probably try to spend most of them at DLR and AUL to be honest).

I can only speak for myself but I have always used 20 reservations and not 20 rentals as the thrhold.

However, if the owner could not support that none were rentals, those 20 were left alone and only any above 20 were canceled.

Because it was call in only at the time, MS reviewed peoples memberships before making the 21st reservation and would not do it if the first 20 were either all in the names of others or a mix of owner and other guests, including renters.

As long as you didn’t call to book that 21st, you were deemed as not in violation of the commercial use policy, no matter what the mix of the first of the first 20 were.

My guess is that the record of rules that the SSR and VGF POS reference as being available to view…don’t know if others have the same language…may in fact be this same document.

To add, if someone was strategic, you could end up with 20 rentals and stays for yourself by spreading things out since it’s a rolling 12 months.

 

[CanadianDVC2024]

35 confirmed reservations is not terrible, especially if they are spread across multiple resorts.

At least one rental site has hundreds of confirmed reservations, with about 200 being AKV Value and BWV Standard Studios, the most profitable rentals. (These are listed at about $32 to $42 per point.)

I thought you were exaggerating until I checked out the 3 major intermediary agencies and the first one I googled... sure enough.

Wow.

 

[pzw90]

Kind of going off the tracks with this question but everyone seems to be a legal professional so probably get the most eyes on it.
When you buy a contract under an LLC. Can you sell the LLC that contains the assets and bypass ROFR? You’re not selling the contract but the LLC. Then switch out the owners or whatever structure there is.
Just thinking of different angles these big renters/brokers are using.