DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss! **Check Post #1678 - Walking Language????

[Sandisw]

See this is what I'm talking about, that same chapter also says condo associations can't prohibit you from installing an EV charger if you want one - try telling the resort manager at Jambo House you need an EV charger outside of your value studio and Florida statute says you can put one in. So I'm not convinced that this rental provision would actually stand up as applicable to DVC.

Take @drusba word for it. She is a lawyer who has extensive knowledge of how the laws apply to the timeshare product (as well as many other contractual issues).

 

[muppets3d]

Hang on to your hats friends!!!!!! I was reading the new T & C again and I completely missed this!!!

I think we have updated rules and consequences to PREVENT WALKING!!!

And, its so simple and yet, it will have no impact on owners who need the flexibilty to make and change reservations!!!!!

Here it is (bold is mine!)

“In addition, Disney reserves the right to cancel or modify a reservation (including after the reservation has been confirmed) if the reservation includes or resulted from a mistake or error of any kind, if Disney confirms that a reservation was made for commercial purpose and not for personal use, or where it appears that a guest has engaged in fraudulent or misleading activity in making the reservation. If a reservation is cancelled by Disney, Disney shall have no responsibility beyond the refund of monies paid to Disney and/or Vacation Points used, for the reservation.

No ambiguity, no hidden meanings, no deciding intent, nothing!!! If DVC thinks you are engaging in fraudlent or misleading activity, they can modify or cancel. And, you are agreeing to this every single time you book!!!!

I can't imagine anyone can say that walking is not misleading....that is exactly what it is! Now, the rules expressly prohibt it!!!

The best part is that DVC still gets to make the final decision and if someone needs to modify or change a reservation for legitimate reasons, they can!

Kudos to them for figuring this out so easily because my biggest fear was that the changes would be deterimental to those who truly do have reasons to modify and change!!!

Misleading activity could be booking a room you have no intention of ever using just to hold the room for the dates you want.

Or you said the reservation was for personal use but you're actually renting it, that also meets that standard I'd say.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Hang on to your hats friends!!!!!! I was reading the new T & C again and I completely missed this!!!

I think we have updated rules and consequences to PREVENT WALKING!!!

And, its so simple and yet, it will have no impact on owners who need the flexibilty to make and change reservations!!!!!

Here it is (bold is mine!)

“In addition, Disney reserves the right to cancel or modify a reservation (including after the reservation has been confirmed) if the reservation includes or resulted from a mistake or error of any kind, if Disney confirms that a reservation was made for commercial purpose and not for personal use, or where it appears that a guest has engaged in fraudulent or misleading activity in making the reservation. If a reservation is cancelled by Disney, Disney shall have no responsibility beyond the refund of monies paid to Disney and/or Vacation Points used, for the reservation.

No ambiguity, no hidden meanings, no deciding intent, nothing!!! If DVC thinks you are engaging in fraudlent or misleading activity, they can modify or cancel. And, you are agreeing to this every single time you book!!!!

I can't imagine anyone can say that walking is not misleading....that is exactly what it is! Now, the rules expressly prohibt it!!!

The best part is that DVC still gets to make the final decision and if someone needs to modify or change a reservation for legitimate reasons, they can!

Kudos to them for figuring this out so easily because my biggest fear was that the changes would be deterimental to those who truly do have reasons to modify and change!!!

Not so fast.

Those terms were also included in the June 2023 terms and conditions. If they means what you think they mean wouldn’t DVC have cancelled walking reservations by now?

 

[muppets3d]

Not so fast.

Those terms were also included in the June 2023 terms and conditions. If they means what you think they mean wouldn’t DVC have cancelled walking reservations by now?

DVC hasn't enforced their commercial renting provisions either. The hope is they're fixing to.

 

[Sandisw]

Is there a copy of this letter? Was it recent?

No, they received that later back when the 20 reservation POS language existed. They have posted about their experience in this thread.

 

[muppets3d]

Take @drusba word for it. She is a lawyer who has extensive knowledge of how the laws apply to the timeshare product (as well as many other contractual issues).

Perhaps they can explain why the renting provision applies to DVC but the EV charger one doesn't.

 

[mkatsy]

IMO there is nothing in the rules saying DVC can’t dont that, on the other hand FL stat is saying that owners rights to rent can’t be limited etc without a vote and only those in favor will the limitations apply to.

NOW how Wyndham can get around that I don’t maybe their ownership is different than of DVC and maybe the FL stat therefore don’t apply do them. Maybe another option is that no one challenged Wyndham.

What do you mean the owners right to rent can’t be limited? Leases less than 6 months or units rented 3 times or more (basically short term rentals) in a year are excluded from the rental protection statute.

 

[muppets3d]

What do you mean the owners right to rent can’t be limited? Leases less than 6 months or units rented 3 times or more (basically short term rentals) in a year are excluded from the rental protection statute.

Pretty much as I figured, it doesn't include DVC. So DVC actually doesn't "have to" allow rentals at all, at least by the law.

 

[Sandisw]

Misleading activity could be booking a room you have no intention of ever using just to hold the room for the dates you want.

Or you said the reservation was for personal use but you're actually renting it, that also meets that standard I'd say.

I am being nitpicking but you have to stop using the word personal use as though renting doesn't count.....its not an accurate statement

Having a guest on a reservation who is a renter IS considered personal use. Personal use is not defined as only the owner....

The contract allows you to book as many reservations as you want. But, if you are booking for dates you think you might go, then its not fraudelant or misleading because you want them.

Walking, on the other hand, has you booking for dates you can't go and you so you are misleading DVC in this instance..

 

[Cyberc1978]

DVC hasn't enforced their commercial renting provisions either. The hope is they're fixing to.

My point is this is the exact same wording as was including in old T&C. It’s not new it’s old.

The wording goes all the way back to 2018 too, maybe even longer who knows.

 

[muppets3d]

I am being nitpicking but you have to stop using the word personal use as though renting doesn't count.....its not an accurate statement

Having a guest on a reservation who is a renter IS considered personal use. Personal use is not defined as only the owner....

The contract allows you to book as many reservations as you want. But, if you are booking for dates you think you might go, then its not fraudelant or misleading because you want them.

Walking, on the other hand, has you booking for dates you can't go and you so you are misleading DVC in this instance..

The last sentence of your comment was the crux of my post.

 

[Tatebeck]

Yes, walking could be considered to be/have been against the rules for quite a while, they just have chosen not to do anything about it.

 

[muppets3d]

Yes, walking could be considered to be against the rules for quite a while, they just have chosen not to do anything about it.

Hopefully lots is fixing to change and it's not just a new procedure for booking (checking the box to agree) for no reason.

 

[Cyberc1978]

What do you mean the owners right to rent can’t be limited? Leases less than 6 months or units rented 3 times or more (basically short term rentals) in a year are excluded from the rental protection statute.

According to the FL stat 718.110(13):

An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.

I don’t know if the following argument will hold but if the previous limit were 20 reservations per rolling 12 months - then an argument could be made that any limits to those 20 reservations would not stand as it would be a limitation to the number of times an owner could rent as per the FL stat.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Yes, walking could be considered to be/have been against the rules for quite a while, they just have chosen not to do anything about it.

I disagree otherwise the board would have said so during the meeting in December.

 

[Tatebeck]

According to the FL stat 718.110(13):

An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.

I don’t know if the following argument will hold but if the previous limit were 20 reservations per rolling 12 months - then an argument could be made that any limits to those 20 reservations would not stand as it would be a limitation to the number of times an owner could rent as per the FL stat.

Again, the old 20 reservation limit just guaranteed that they would review your membership at that point, and that's all. You could very well have been breaking the rules while making less than 20 reservations and still have gotten in trouble if DVC wanted to do something about it.

 

[Tatebeck]

I disagree otherwise the board would have said so during the meeting in December.

And I then disagree with you on that. I feel they basically did say so. They clearly said that walking was unintended (meaning you aren't supposed to be able to) but the system itself lets you because of the change they made in the online booking tool when going from check-out day to check-in day reservation booking. They just don't want to have to read into the intent of every booking made that is then modified afterwards

 

[BeachClub2014]

Walking is suddenly misleading and against the rules? That's ironic given I've been told on the Disboards a gazillion times that walking reservations was perfectly fine and within the rules.

 

[Sandisw]

Not so fast.

Those terms were also included in the June 2023 terms and conditions. If they means what you think they mean wouldn’t DVC have cancelled walking reservations by now?

Sugar cakes...I thought it was new...

Many of us always said that walking is allowed and nothing is written to prevent it, and those conversations alwlays revolved around the Home Resort Rules and Regulations and what was written there...

Had I personally actually ever read this document and saw that back in 2023, then my stance that walking was allowed would have been different.

While the act of walking is just making and modifying a reservation unlimited times, and the rules currently allow allow for that, one can't say that when you are making your reservation you are not making it under false pretenses or in a misleading way.

BUT, this should give DVC the authority to cancel or modify reservations that they have evidence have been walked and it is a document that owners should be able to use in conversations with DVC about walking.

Remember, DVC can choose to ignore parts of the contract and not enforce them against owners...ie: transfer for money or the commercial purpose clause....and we don't have recourse as owners.

And, for all we know, they have chosen not to ignore the practice....but, at least know owners have something to specifically use to add context to the word "intent" that is in the HRR.....

 

[Sandisw]

Walking is suddenly misleading and against the rules? That's ironic given I've been told on the Disboards a gazillion times that walking reservations was perfectly fine and within the rules.

I was one of them but I didn't realize this language existed......my saying it was within the rules was always based on how the HRR were written..

As I just posted, had I realized this...apparently I completely missed it....then I would have never said it was....so, count me has someone who has changed sides.