DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss.

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I can tell you that they have confirmed changing a name on a reservation even when saying it’s a rental under the personal use language. They simply added the note.

I think right now, based on all I am reading, MS hears rental and may have been instructed to say it’s not allowed.

But, there has been no change in MS changing lead guests even when rental comes up. Plus, since rentals are allowed, saying yes it’s for personal use is not a lie.

This is not directed at Sandi in particular, but in general I would not assume that because you believe renting to a stranger is "personal use because rentals are allowed" that Disney will not view it as dishonest or fraud. If you say to them "I am renting it for money but I believe it falls within personal use" (ideally in writing in the chat) that's one thing, but if they have said "personal use is for you, your friends or family" but you subjectively believe it's personal based on chatter on the internet, you're taking a real risk.

I don't know why an individual owner would take the risk of facing some sort of consequence from Disney instead of just booking on demand (instead of spec renting).

(note: edited to fix a typo)

 

[Sandisw]

I also think that even if they are not on the same dashboard, if you're using the same name, address, email, or SSN (pretty sure Disney has the SSN on all the contracts?) it would be very easy to link them together. For those who aren't purely commercial renters, you'll also probably be using overlapping identities in MDE after linking with your trip reservations.

The most sophisticated and cautious renters might have a variety of LLCs with different tax info and corporate addresses... but I'm not sure how many really went through the trouble.

This is why the previous policy was easy to work around because it was written in a way to apply your each membership.

What I have no clue about is whether the can legally enforce rules across multiple memberships that have an owner in common.

 

[Sandisw]

This is not directed at Sandi in particular, but in general I would not assume that because you believe renting to a stranger is "personal use because rentals are allowed" that Disney will not view it as dishonest or fraud. If you say to them "I am renting it for money but I believe it falls within personal use" (ideally in writing in the chat) that's one thing, but if they have said "personal use is for you, your friends or family" but you subjectively believe it's personal based on chatter on the internet, you're taking a real risk.

I don't know why an individual owner would take the risk of facing some sort of consequence from Disney instead of just booking on demand (instead of spec renting).

(note: edited to fix a typo)

Even the new T and Cs say frequent and regular renting is what is not personal use…and without a definition from DVC, one is not committing any fraud by saying the name change, even if it is a rental, if one beleives they are not in violation of the contract.

Why people spec rent? Sometimes it’s because they have a reservation they can’t use with expiring points and there is nothing else available tj book.

There are reasons why it happens. Remember, bookings for family and friends is allowed and MS did not ask if it was a rental…it was volunteered to them..

If you say your lead guest name change is for a family or friends, there is no issue and will be confirmed.

Which goes back to the same comment before…IMO, it’s not all lead guest names are at issue but rather a frequent number than most average owner wouldn’t be doing that would flag those renting in large numbers.

Obviously, if DVC contacts someone, they have to tell them how they violated the contract…owners are entitled to that.

But there are so many different things they can do to root out the commercial renters without catching owners who rent or change names on reservations who are doing it within reasonable ways that match.

And I am not telling anyone what to do…my experience is just that….because an owner is responsible only to DVC.

Personally, I think this whole thing, the more I read, is about making people think twice about what you book.

We shall see what in response to my request for the policy on file. Hope to send Friday!!

ETA: this could also turn out to be a don’t ask don’t tell like transfers? Don’t mention money and they process.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I’ve started to read the POS for CCV - and fell upon the section that says: “to encourage purchase for personal use, owners may not currently aggregate ownership interest so as to compile more than 4,000 home resort vacation points per DVC resort or an aggregate of 8,000 home resort vacation points at all DVC resorts…..

To encourage personal use you can’t buy more than 4,000 points at 1 resort or more than 8,000 points total. If DVC are encouraging owners not to buy more than that, which imo is a ton of points, an argument can be made as to any owner owning less than than have followed DVC’s recommendation and even with renting should be on the right side of DVC’s judgment scale. If owners are following recommendations set forth by DVC how can any of their rentals not be seen as personal use?

IMO DVC can’t recommend one thing and when push comes to shove end up cancelling owners reservations just because owners did what DVC recommended.

 

[JackosinDIS]

I’ve started to read the POS for CCV - and fell upon the section that says: “to encourage purchase for personal use, owners may not currently aggregate ownership interest so as to compile more than 4,000 home resort vacation points per DVC resort or an aggregate of 8,000 home resort vacation points at all DVC resorts…..

To encourage personal use you can’t buy more than 4,000 points at 1 resort or more than 8,000 points total. If DVC are encouraging owners not to buy more than that, which imo is a ton of points, an argument can be made as to any owner owning less than than have followed DVC’s recommendation and even with renting should be on the right side of DVC’s judgment scale. If owners are following recommendations set forth by DVC how can any of their rentals not be seen as personal use?

IMO DVC can’t recommend one thing and when push comes to shove end up cancelling owners reservations just because owners did what DVC recommended.

While it doesn’t explicitly say less than 4000 points is not commercial, that wording very much implies that within those limits is personal use. I’m sure they could get round that though by just saying it is a guideline, and that the frequent and regular rental pattern will still be the main factor in determining commercial use.

 

[Mommb]

I’ve started to read the POS for CCV - and fell upon the section that says: “to encourage purchase for personal use, owners may not currently aggregate ownership interest so as to compile more than 4,000 home resort vacation points per DVC resort or an aggregate of 8,000 home resort vacation points at all DVC resorts…..

To encourage personal use you can’t buy more than 4,000 points at 1 resort or more than 8,000 points total. If DVC are encouraging owners not to buy more than that, which imo is a ton of points, an argument can be made as to any owner owning less than than have followed DVC’s recommendation and even with renting should be on the right side of DVC’s judgment scale. If owners are following recommendations set forth by DVC how can any of their rentals not be seen as personal use?

IMO DVC can’t recommend one thing and when push comes to shove end up cancelling owners reservations just because owners did what DVC recommended.

DVC is not recommending that people buy 4,000 or 8,000 points. They are saying that having more than that may not be considered personal use.

If someone staying in Grand Villas several times a month with 20 other people that they book into other rooms, then 3,500 points could be personal use.

If someone posts frequently about point availability on websites or apps, books 50 reservations a year in 50 different names, and (per My Disney Experience) does not stay on site themselves, then 3,500 points is probably not personal use.

Certainly, the same person could fall into one category one year and the other category the next, if, for example, health issues prevent travel. But if someone has been in the second category for over 3 years, simply having fewer than 4,000 points doesn't mean they are using their membership for personal rather than commercial use.

 

[mkatsy]

I’ve started to read the POS for CCV - and fell upon the section that says: “to encourage purchase for personal use, owners may not currently aggregate ownership interest so as to compile more than 4,000 home resort vacation points per DVC resort or an aggregate of 8,000 home resort vacation points at all DVC resorts…..

To encourage personal use you can’t buy more than 4,000 points at 1 resort or more than 8,000 points total. If DVC are encouraging owners not to buy more than that, which imo is a ton of points, an argument can be made as to any owner owning less than than have followed DVC’s recommendation and even with renting should be on the right side of DVC’s judgment scale. If owners are following recommendations set forth by DVC how can any of their rentals not be seen as personal use?

IMO DVC can’t recommend one thing and when push comes to shove end up cancelling owners reservations just because owners did what DVC recommended.

Personally, I think it’s the pattern that will take people down, not the number of points. 4,000 points spent yearly by a core group of people even if it’s different lead guest names, as long as those names appear year after year, it takes a whole two minutes to search the park surveillance photos OR magic pass photos to see that these folks know each other ~VS~ 4,000 points doled out to different lead guests that never repeat and there is no on property evidence of them knowing each other.

 

[Cyberc1978]

While it doesn’t explicitly say less than 4000 points is not commercial, that wording very much implies that within those limits is personal use. I’m sure they could get round that though by just saying it is a guideline, and that the frequent and regular rental pattern will still be the main factor in determining commercial use.

I agree. But if a regular John Doe like most of us here owns say less than 2,000 points we are no where near that encouragement level which I would interpret to be on the safe side even if some rent a lot of points or spec renting.

I’ve read in one of the many 2,300 replies here that since DVC gets to write the POS and amend it and any other contract related to DVC any doubt in interpretation should be in the benefit of the little guy vs the big guy (Disney). I can’t remember the exact wording using.

Re: Spec renting shouldn’t matter in that regard or any other regard. A rental is a rental no matter what room or resort you rent.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Even the new T and Cs say frequent and regular renting is what is not personal use…and without a definition from DVC, one is not committing any fraud by saying the name change, even if it is a rental, if one beleives they are not in violation of the contract.

Except that if you go back to your own #2 post in this thread, Disney did say “Personal use may include enjoying the benefits of a DVC Membership with family or allowing use of any reserved Vacation Home to friends and family on occasion. Additionally, personal use means that the member does not regularly or frequently rent/sell reservations booked using their membership.”

Emphasis mine— there are two separate points (linked by the word additionally)— first, personal use includes allowing use for family and friends on occasion…Additionally, means it needs to fit in both categories to be personal use.

 

[Cyberc1978]

DVC is not recommending that people buy 4,000 or 8,000 points. They are saying that having more than that may not be considered personal use.

If someone staying in Grand Villas several times a month with 20 other people that they book into other rooms, then 3,500 points could be personal use.

If someone posts frequently about point availability on websites or apps, books 50 reservations a year in 50 different names, and (per My Disney Experience) does not stay on site themselves, then 3,500 points is probably not personal use.

Certainly, the same person could fall into one category one year and the other category the next, if, for example, health issues prevent travel. But if someone has been in the second category for over 3 years, simply having fewer than 4,000 points doesn't mean they are using their membership for personal rather than commercial use.

No but they are encouraging purchasing for personal use. By their encouragement ppl should not to buy more than 4,000 points.

I don’t know how binding “encourage” is but one way to understanding it is if you stay under your points are for personal use.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Most states have two-pronged DUI laws. The first being the impaired operation of a motor vehicle (the swerving/didn’t pass the field sobriety test part), and the second being driving with a BAC greater than .08 (or .02 if you’re a minor) You can be convicted on either or both (and are charged separately for that reason). Some people are physically impaired below the .08 number, and some aren’t impaired even if they are over the .08 (or at least they can pass the field tests).

My interpretation of the situation with DVC is that rental activity is analogous with the LEO’s observation of your driving, and your performance in the field tests. Owning in excess of the stated number of points is analogous with the BAC limit.

 

[Huskerpal]

I own in three different timeshare system: Disney Vacation Club, Marriott Vacation Club, and Worldmark by Wyndham. I have found that timeshare rules and regulations have commonalities among all three that basically boil down to:

1 - As an owner you are required to follow the rules.
2 - The management company interprets those rules at its sole discretion.
3 - If you do not agree with that interpretation, you can appeal the interpretation with the management company.
4 - If still not satisfied, an owner is free to seek judicial relief.

It is the management company's game and if you don't like how it is played you can divest your ownership interest or sue them.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Most states have two-pronged DUI laws. The first being the impaired operation of a motor vehicle (the swerving/didn’t pass the field sobriety test part), and the second being driving with a BAC greater than .08 (or .02 if you’re a minor) You can be convicted on either or both (and are charged separately for that reason). Some people are physically impaired below the .08 number, and some aren’t impaired even if they are over the .08 (or at least they can pass the field tests).

My interpretation of the situation with DVC is that rental activity is analogous with the LEO’s observation of your driving, and your performance in the field tests. Owning in excess of the stated number of points is analogous with the BAC limit.

Sorry I don’t know how to respond as I don’t quite understand what you mean

 

[Sandisw]

While it doesn’t explicitly say less than 4000 points is not commercial, that wording very much implies that within those limits is personal use. I’m sure they could get round that though by just saying it is a guideline, and that the frequent and regular rental pattern will still be the main factor in determining commercial use.

The other part is taking alll aspects of the contract and asking, “How is someone buying this product going to interpret what they are and are not allowed to do” when it comes to the level of rentals.

And we all know DVC can choose to make very strict rules and let owners take them to court

But DVCs own prior policies seem to support a higher rather than lower threshold when determining things.

 

[mkatsy]

Sorry I don’t know how to respond as I don’t quite understand what you mean

It’s a qualitative & quantitative evaluation. The total number of points you own is the quantitative evaluation and how you manage your points is the qualitative evaluation. Either metric can “fail” you … if a member is found to own in excess of the number of allowed points by using deceit, that can trigger consequences. A member’s usage pattern can trigger consequences. The two metrics are independent and both are not required to be present for them to take action.

 

[Sandisw]

Except that if you go back to your own #2 post in this thread, Disney did say “Personal use may include enjoying the benefits of a DVC Membership with family or allowing use of any reserved Vacation Home to friends and family on occasion. Additionally, personal use means that the member does not regularly or frequently rent/sell reservations booked using their membership.”

Emphasis mine— there are two separate points (linked by the word additionally)— first, personal use includes allowing use for family and friends on occasion…Additionally, means it needs to fit in both categories to be personal use.

Exactly and absent any specific definition of what level of renting is frequent and regular, it is up to each individual to interpret it in the context of the contract.

So, if one believe the renting levels dont fit that criteria, then I don’t see how DVC can accuse an owner of doing something fraudulent.

I have read several reports, and my own experience that if one is changing lead guest and says it’s a family or friend, there is no issue.

Remember too that the contract does use guest and leasee as different.

I do think that if they are going to change the modification rules for lead guests…and they certainly have the right to add that to the HRR…then I think DVC should have to do what they did with updating transfer rules, and update the official document.

So far, I haven’t read any reports of anyone being told that they have a new policy and owners will be notified.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s a qualitative & quantitative evaluation. The total number of points you own is the quantitative evaluation and how you manage your points is the qualitative evaluation. Either metric can “fail” you … if a member is found to own in excess of the number of allowed points by using deceit, that can trigger consequences. A member’s usage pattern can trigger consequences. The two metrics are independent and both are not required to be present for them to take action.

Sure it could but absent an offical policy threshold, there is a level of understanding owners would have when buying.

If DVC doesn’t want to make the same mistake as 2008 and give specifics, then each owner is left to make decisions on how they interpret the rules of the contract…which, as I shared, is exactly what I was told.

If someone feels renting yearly is outside the contract they shouldn’t do it…but if another owner feels that is within their right to rent, and rents yearly, then they can do it until DVC tells them their actions are out of bounds.

If DVC allows it, then DVC has decided it matches renting under personal use.

 

[Cyberc1978]

It’s a qualitative & quantitative evaluation. The total number of points you own is the quantitative evaluation and how you manage your points is the qualitative evaluation. Either metric can “fail” you … if a member is found to own in excess of the number of allowed points by using deceit, that can trigger consequences. A member’s usage pattern can trigger consequences. The two metrics are independent and both are not required to be present for them to take action.

Aarh thanks

It’s a possibility that is how it works.

With that said, I will continue to use and rent my points as I see fit. If DVC has a problem with that they are more than welcome to me, and Ill adjust.

For now I don’t know if I should adjust at all and if I should what I should adjust to. According to what @Sandisw wrote owners are entitled to an explanation.

 

[Sandisw]

Aarh thanks

It’s a possibility that is how it works.

With that said, I will continue to use and rent my points as I see fit. If DVC has a problem with that they are more than welcome to me, and Ill adjust.

For now I don’t know if I should adjust at all and if I should what I should adjust to. According to what @Sandisw wrote owners are entitled to an explanation.

To just clarify for others, owners who are told their actions are a violation of the commercial use policy have the right to have it explained to them as to what they did that crossed the line.

 

[mkatsy]

I have so few points that renting isn’t even on my radar, but if I were, and I was doing everything I knew I was supposed to be doing, then I would carry on until I was specifically told to stop. If I was playing some shell game with those points, I would be looking over my shoulder right now. I think most people know which category they fall into, they just want some reassurance from the people making the decisions.