DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Brian Noble]

I don't think point transfers are a huge source of rental inventory. First, there is a one-transfer/year limit---and this dates back to one of Disney's earliest attempts at curbing the rental market. I vaguely recall it was around the same time they limited the number of accounts one could be listed as an Associate on. Second, where do these cheap transfers come from, and why does no one on DIS talk about them? If they existed, folks here would be all over them. This isn't Fight Club.

Transfers probably do play a role, but if they do it is as part of the buy-strip-flip. Buy a full-points contract, strip it by transferring points to another contract you own (because intra-owner transfers are currently unlimited) and sell the stripped contract. Because loaded contracts are under-valued and stripped contracts are over-valued, this is cheaper than getting external transfers. With a little luck, you won't even pay dues on all of the points.

 

[xdan0920]

Not only people renting on their own. At least one of the biggest 3rd party rental sites tells you what room and what days to book if you want to rent them your points. They are always 30$ a point+ rooms.

That's fine though. Nothing against the narrow definition of the rules there.

 

[Sandisw]

A reminder everyone…sarcastic posts are not allowed.

Future posts of this nature will be deleted and warnings/infractions issued.

 

[DonMacGregor]

DVC could also have owners be required to issue guest certificates to those who are not renters.

Other timeshares do this. Seems like a simple way to determine rentals. If the reservation is not in the owner’s name, and there is no guest certificate on file, then the reservation is a rental.

Not saying anything about anything on the enforcement of rentals debate, should they or should they not be allowed, etc..Just saying it would serve remove some of the ambiguity as to which reservations are rentals, and which are not.

Unfortunately, you end up back where you started though. How many guest certificates are you allowed per year? If it’s unlimited, then everyone suddenly becomes your guest. If it’s finite, someone will complain that they really did need XXX reservations for their closest friends and relatives.

 

[Sandisw]

Other timeshares do this. Seems like a simple way to determine rentals. If the reservation is not in the owner’s name, and there is no guest certificate on file, then the reservation is a rental.

Not saying anything about anything on the enforcement of rentals debate, should they or should they not be allowed, etc..Just saying it would serve remove some of the ambiguity as to which reservations are rentals, and which are not.

Unfortunately, you end up back where you started though. How many guest certificates are you allowed per year? If it’s unlimited, then everyone suddenly becomes your guest. If it’s finite, someone will complain that they really did need XXX reservations for their closest friends and relatives.

It could be unlimited…just have it that both the owner and the renter need to sign it and the guest presents it at check in.

If I am a renter and an owner asks me to sign one, I’d be leary of that owner.

 

[Brian Noble]

Other timeshares do this. Seems like a simple way to determine rentals. If the reservation is not in the owner’s name, and there is no guest certificate on file, then the reservation is a rental.

A "guest certificate" in these other systems doesn't mean the occupant is a guest (vs. a renter). It means that the occupant is not one of the owners of record. You'd need one whether you are giving a stay to your kid, or renting it to Joe Internet.

 

[kboo]

up to page 23:

Can only worry about me. I have chosen to give up worrying about the least expensive room first try…I spend time stalking and other things to get what I want.

me too. In this regard, DVC definitely hasn't saved us money because we go in larger units now, even with our family of 4. Then again, it has saved us a lot of headache sharing a room with our tweens.

Recently there were members who wanted to book new Poly rooms, they tried and much to their dismay sold out, then they see those dates they wanted for a family trip being commercially rented out within the hour. THIS is why people care.

I don't know about "commercially" but this definitely happened with VDH rooms when it first opened. But then I was looking for a Christmas trip last May (2024) and it had plenty of availability in studios at 7mo. VGC in larger units also lasted for about a day or so, but that's also because the units were a LOT of points. As I recall, the VDH rooms that were hard to get the first year (and maybe they still are) were runDisney events and festival weekends. The larger units at VDH (1-2 br) are still near-impossible at 7mo.

At several resorts, during the most in-demand times of year, an owner can:

• Book whatever they want with themselves as the lead guest
• Book as many other units as they want for their guests traveling at the same time*.
• Book up to two reservations per year for unaccompanied guests.

The limit of two is across all restricted resorts/periods.

As with a lot of PPs, I am in favor of keeping rules simple to avoid unintended consequences (and workarounds by commercial renters). Here's a personal example of why this ^ isn't going to work for me AT ALL. We did a LOT of Disney trips in 2024, so we are probably taking a break in 2025 - haven't decided what we are doing over Thanksgiving or Xmas but if the room we want isn't available, we'll figure it out. Anyway - so we are gifting 3 stays this year: 1 to a friend and 2 as honeymoon/wedding presents to extended family members. I booked and kept my name on it, and probably won't change the lead guest until much later. Why? If there are cancellations, delays, people need a date change, I can much more easily do it if I'm still the lead. For all of these friends/family, they're new to WDW so I'm helping them make dining reservations, etc. But I still need to get off the lead so they can manage their own MDE. I love being able to do this for our friends/family, and their preferred travel times aren't ours.

 

[Brian Noble]

Here's a personal example of why this ^ isn't going to work for me AT ALL.

The "limit of two" in Wyndham is not all-resorts/year-round. It is at very specific times at very specific resorts. For example, at Bonnet Creek the restricted times in 2025 are:

MLK weekend
President's weekend
Memorial Day weekend.
Peak summer (June/July)
Labor Day weekend
Thanksgiving's four-day weekend
Christmas->NYE.

This doesn't include spring break, summer shoulder season (May/August), or hardly anything during the Fall. And none of the other four Orlando resorts are restricted at any point in 2025.

It would not be hard for Disney to do something similar. For example, I would imagine OKW and SSR could be open season (almost) year round.

This is all very speculative of course, and I genuinely don't expect Disney to follow this particular Wyndham strategy. Other strategies, yes, but not this one.

 

[Genie+]

As with a lot of PPs, I am in favor of keeping rules simple to avoid unintended consequences (and workarounds by commercial renters). Here's a personal example of why this ^ isn't going to work for me AT ALL. We did a LOT of Disney trips in 2024, so we are probably taking a break in 2025 - haven't decided what we are doing over Thanksgiving or Xmas but if the room we want isn't available, we'll figure it out. Anyway - so we are gifting 3 stays this year: 1 to a friend and 2 as honeymoon/wedding presents to extended family members. I booked and kept my name on it, and probably won't change the lead guest until much later. Why? If there are cancellations, delays, people need a date change, I can much more easily do it if I'm still the lead. For all of these friends/family, they're new to WDW so I'm helping them make dining reservations, etc. But I still need to get off the lead so they can manage their own MDE. I love being able to do this for our friends/family, and their preferred travel times aren't ours.

Not that DVC is expected to do anything like that Wyndham move, but it still would allow a dozen or more rentals in other people’s names and without the owner joining their dates.

It would just be limited to 2 of those reservations where you are not joining booked in the highest demand room/dates.

Or say you had a dozen reservations without your name listed, and 10 overlapped your trip dates. ALL twelve of those could be booked in the highest demand room/dates.

The count only starts when the 3 criteria are being met simlutaneously. If even one of those criteria is not happening, it is not counted.

So in your case with the 3 bookings, where it is not in your name, and you won’t be visiting over the dates you book for those guests, and just one of the 3 was booked in the ~95% of point inventory that is not included in the list of highest demand rooms/dates, you would not be affected. (The other 2 could be booked in that high demand rooms/dates)

 

[DonMacGregor]

A "guest certificate" in these other systems doesn't mean the occupant is a guest (vs. a renter). It means that the occupant is not one of the owners of record. You'd need one whether you are giving a stay to your kid, or renting it to Joe Internet.

Right. I was just speculating on other uses of something like a “guest certificate” (call it whatever you want).

The problem I see is, no matter what type of documentation DVC might try to implement, it’s ultimately going to be self-policing. I had considered the possibility of them setting up a Docusign type form that could be filled out to satisfy the (already existing) requirement that all rentals have a contract in place, including price paid, as a means to track rental activity, or some requirement that every non-owner be issued some type of certificate that must be signed by the lead guest and produced at check in, but you’re always left with how the owner is representing the reservation (some people apparently have extremely large extended families and ginormous circles of friends).

It’s like when the DMV asks you to enter on the title transfer form, the price you paid for (for purposes of collecting sales tax), and regardless of whether it’s a ‘72 Pinto or a 2022 E Class Merc, the sales price always seems to be $500.

 

[Genie+]

regardless of whether it’s a ‘72 Pinto or a 2022 E Class Merc, the sales price always seems to be $500.

Even the pinto is worth more than $500 today

 

[DonMacGregor]

Even the pinto is worth more than $500 today

View attachment 927402

You have to be of a certain age to appreciate that the flames are running backwards, from the rear of the car…

 

[Brian Noble]

no matter what type of documentation DVC might try to implement, it’s ultimately going to be self-policing.

And any such effort is doomed. I know some folks have suggested that renters won't want to rent from someone bending the rules, but if the rule-bender offers an extra $100 off renters will fall all over themselves to take it.

 

[Genie+]

And any such effort is doomed. I know some folks have suggested that renters won't want to rent from someone bending the rules, but if the rule-bender offers an extra $100 off renters will fall all over themselves to take it.

I thought about that. It would be very hard for broker rentals because contact info is not exchanged between owner/renter.

For Facebook renters, there’s already the hurdle of trust. I think most renters already feel some token of risk here, and would balk at knowingly taking an illegitimate reservation. It would be ALOT more work for the renters.

Look here on Rent/Trade board. There’s alot of interaction already with looky-loos and the majority of inquiries go nowhere. It would be that much harder if renters had to find willing people out of the serious inquiries.

I really get the feeling there wouldn’t be that many willing people, at least where they’ve never interacted with the point owner before. These rooms and trips are very expensive… is it worth helping the owner to lie about being a rental or not for $100?

Eta - And potentially put your trip in jeopardy, because if you’re going on record saying it is not a rental, that means the owner can take it back. You haven’t paid anything.

I would not do it. And I did my first DVC rental thru eBay lol. I have a high tolerance for risk.

 

[JM735]

As someone who was relatively indifferent at the start of this discussion, I decided to share where I’ve landed after hours of reading over the past month. I have never rented out my points and have no plans to rent points in the future.

I believe the “commercial” verbiage (and all variants) was incorporated to protect Disney’s interests, since they are contractually allowed to function as a commercial renter and they wanted to protect their business model. While intent of the verbiage may or may not have bearing, it is probably a factor in how they approach enforcement.

From my perspective, the inability to reserve a specific category is not an issue that requires DVC intervention. This is an inherent caveat to DVC; villa size and view aren’t guaranteed, other than fixed-week contracts. Points are being used by owners to make the reservations. If some reservations are cancelled by DVC, or some other action is taken against an owner (e.g. forced to divest points), the points are still likely to be used (personal use, donated, sold via resale / ROFR), so the intense competition will continue. Swapping out who individually benefits, doesn’t change the scarcity of some highly sought rooms.

Automatically reserving rooms using bots may present an imbalance that requires attention, but I think that specific action should be addressed independent of other factors (commercial, rental, etc.).

I’m not convinced that rentals, even including commercial, create harm that requires remedy by DVC, including changes to the current reservation model or system. After reading more than 1,700 posts, I believe the question of harm is the fundamental disagreement of this thread. All of the peripheral discussions surrounding language, definitions, interpretation, and ability/power/rights of the various contracts, statutes and entities, come back deciding if there is an issue that requires intervention. For me the answer is no.

Even with changes to the more recent agreements, I agree that Disney has significant breadth on defining and enforcing the commercial clauses. But I do not envision them locking themselves into a more specific definition. Nor do I see them expending significant resources. I’m fine with them going after some owners (for example those violating point ownership levels), but I do not believe DVC needs to publicly share the criteria.

Of course this is all just my opinion. It’s certainly been an interesting read, and I appreciate so many passionate opinions and detailed replies. It’s been thought provoking to say the least. Although I doubt I’d admit to anyone how much time I’ve spent reading this discussion!

 

[lowlight]

From my perspective, the inability to reserve a specific category is not an issue that requires DVC intervention. This is an inherent caveat to DVC; villa size and view aren’t guaranteed, other than fixed-week contracts.

This is an opinion, and a valid one, as it doesn’t affect you.

I’m not convinced that rentals, even including commercial, create harm that requires remedy by DVC, including changes to the current reservation model or system.

The same way the contract doesn’t guarantee room size or view, it DOES guarantee that commercial* renting is prohibited. *What defines commercial is up for debate on these boards only, the act itself is definitely prohibited and it’s not an opinion you can disagree on.

 

[xdan0920]

I can’t see how you land on the idea that the rental market isn’t having an effect on owner availability. There’s thousands of confirmed reservations available for rent right now. There’s 10s of thousands of points available for rent right now. How can that not affect availability?

 

[Sandisw]

I can’t see how you land on the idea that the rental market isn’t having an effect on owner availability. There’s thousands of confirmed reservations available for rent right now. There’s 10s of thousands of points available for rent right now. How can that not affect availability?

It is really just a different mindset.

Some of us view it from the lense that since it was an owner who booked it, who they choose to let stay doesn’t matter to us.

 

[lowlight]

It is really just a different mindset.

Some of us view it from the lense that since it was an owner who booked it, who they choose to let stay doesn’t matter to us.

Right, and that’s a valid opinion. The contract doesn’t care about opinions though, to be frank. Commercial renting (definition pending) isn’t allowed. It’s not allowed whether you or 8000 people think it’s ok. It’s not even allowed if Disney wants to turn a blind eye to it. The terms of this contract must be upheld by both sides, no? I have to uphold my agreements and DVC theirs. In the end we may not agree on the manner in which they must be upheld concerning rentals, but arguing that they shouldn’t be upheld is not even on the table.

 

[Sandisw]

Right, and that’s a valid opinion. The contract doesn’t care about opinions though, to be frank. Commercial renting (definition pending) isn’t allowed. It’s not allowed whether you or 8000 people think it’s ok. It’s not even allowed if Disney wants to turn a blind eye to it. The terms of this contract must be upheld by both sides, no? I have to uphold my agreements and DVC theirs. In the end we may not agree on the manner in which they must be upheld concerning rentals, but arguing that they shouldn’t be upheld is not even on the table.

I was simply responding to how someone could come to that conclusion in reference to impact on availability for other owners.

The mindset is just different. While some care who is using the room, others just don’t.

Nothing related to more than that.