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

[Mommb]

I think that this conflates two separate but related concepts: 1) What constitutes a prohibited rental, and 2) How Disney can identify people engaged in prohibited rental activity.

A single non-personal-use rental is prohibited, even if you ever only do it once over the lifetime of your ownership. We can go back and forth for days over what constitutes personal use for the purposes of the various terms and conditions (and Disney has given us some new hints about how they intend to interpret those provisions), but the second that line is crossed, then Disney is entitled to cancel that reservation.

DVC is very unlikely to go after someone who rents once, even for a large number of points, because DVC has no way of knowing whether such a use is a rental (that is, money was given to the owner) or a gift (owner put the reservation in someone else's name and no money changed hands). If it was a rental and the owner was paid, DVC has no way of knowing whether the amount was sufficient to result in a profit for the owner, or if the amount paid was less than the annual fees that the owner paid. Investigating someone for a single transaction will result in a lot of "false positives" in which the transaction is with a friend or family member (which is explicitly permitted as personal use, whether or not money is involved).

DVC is saying that "regularly or frequently" renting would be not be personal use. Regular and frequent bookings for other people could still be for personal use if they are not rentals, but such bookings can be noticed and monitored. When someone books a number of reservations for a number of different people, DVC can take a closer look at whether these are people for whom the owner has booked before. If these are all distinct people with no prior connection to the owner, DVC may start watching future transactions or contact the owner to remind them of the rules against commercial rentals or start blocking future (and possibly even current) reservations.

 

[Sandisw]

they could shift he points to another contract

Points can only be transferred between a membership and DVC will no longer allow more than one, even if you own them.

That practice alone would make it harder for thise owners who have a lot of them.

 

[Cyberc1978]

All true, if you rebook a reservation you can rechoose what contracts the points are coming from. And if you are under the seven month window you can do it between contracts (resorts).
The partiality will come when you have mixed direct and resale contracts. You cant use a resale contact to book at the all new resorts.

That's assumes you can cancel and rebook.

If you have the value, club level or BWV resort view, then your chances of rebooking is slim to none.

 

[Sandisw]

Wyndham doesn’t outlaw rentals. They just ban “commercial renting.” (The same as Disney theoretically does). That does not run afoul of the FL statute. They just actually enforce the rule, and enforce it severely.

Wyndham also has its own internal rental arm, that it lets owners post with. It takes a cut of course and the terms are such that nobody is going to profit from it (except Wyndham), but it exists.

What limits do they put? Can an owner deposit to them yearly?

It would be interesting to know how they handle it.

 

[mfortis]

That's assumes you can cancel and rebook.

If you have the value, club level or BWV resort view, then your chances of rebooking is slim to none.

There is a work around for that.

 

[Sandisw]

I am saying that even one rental does not comply with the personal use requirement is prohibited, regardless of the fact that it is only one rental. Rentals are of course allowed, and "personal use" may extend to certain types of for-profit rentals (as we have discussed in the past), but the second that my intent is to use my membership for non-personal-use reasons (however that is defined), I'm in violation of the rules and subject to cancellation or other action.

My point is that while I expect them to use frequency and regularity as signals that someone may be violating the personal use restriction, that's not what actually what defines the restriction, it's just how they'll identify some subset of people violating the restriction that they might choose to go after. There will certainly be additional people violating the rule who they won't bother going after either because they're more difficult to identify or it's not worth the effort.

Appreciate the clarification because I I read the first part as you saying that any rental, even one, is automatically a violation of personal use.

 

[Sandisw]

DVC is very unlikely to go after someone who rents once, even for a large number of points, because DVC has no way of knowing whether such a use is a rental (that is, money was given to the owner) or a gift (owner put the reservation in someone else's name and no money changed hands). If it was a rental and the owner was paid, DVC has no way of knowing whether the amount was sufficient to result in a profit for the owner, or if the amount paid was less than the annual fees that the owner paid. Investigating someone for a single transaction will result in a lot of "false positives" in which the transaction is with a friend or family member (which is explicitly permitted as personal use, whether or not money is involved).

DVC is saying that "regularly or frequently" renting would be not be personal use. Regular and frequent bookings for other people could still be for personal use if they are not rentals, but such bookings can be noticed and monitored. When someone books a number of reservations for a number of different people, DVC can take a closer look at whether these are people for whom the owner has booked before. If these are all distinct people with no prior connection to the owner, DVC may start watching future transactions or contact the owner to remind them of the rules against commercial rentals or start blocking future (and possibly even current) reservations.

This is exactly what I think many of us hope DVC will do…set thresholds that make sense and then monitor if it looks like it could be commercial.

 

[DanCali]

If you don't mind SSR or OKW, you can even get them for much less than dues when people rent their II exchanges out.

Talk about doings something that is explicitly forbidden by II, and has a history of biting those on both sides of the transaction...

Do this at your own risk!

https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/i...ays-and-how-they-suspended-my-account.109740/

 

[Sandisw]

Since it was posted that Wyndham has their own rental arm and owners can rent directly via them, would your opinion change at all if DVC set this up?

Not that I see them ever doing it, but thought it might be a nice connected topic to discuss.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Since it was posted that Wyndham has their own rental arm and owners can rent directly via them, would your opinion change at all if DVC set this up?

Not that I see them ever doing it, but thought it might be a nice connected topic to discuss.

I would be open to to as long ads they don't overcharge where it makes it not worth it.

TBH they should make swapping within their own system (cruises etc) much more appealing. Right now its laughable and Im surprised anyone actually does it.

 

[Mouseforward]

Since it was posted that Wyndham has their own rental arm and owners can rent directly via them, would your opinion change at all if DVC set this up?

Not that I see them ever doing it, but thought it might be a nice connected topic to discuss.

I would be perfectly happy with them banning rentals - if we could do three things.

1. Sell back up to 50 or so points at around 16 a point giving DVC the opportunity to rent them out at 22. This would have to, of course occur before your banking date.

2. Allow the use of extra points towards ticket or annual passes ( including a credit towards next year since most of us already have a pass) with even if we had to pay the small fee for the MMB membership.

3. Allow cancellations that occur within 60 days of the vacations to be brought back by Disney for 12 to 14 point.

 

[Sandisw]

I would be open to to as long ads they don't overcharge where it makes it not worth it.

TBH they should make swapping within their own system (cruises etc) much more appealing. Right now its laughable and Im surprised anyone actually does it.

I am hoping that we see that, especially since the MMB eliminated the $95 fee!!

You have to look closely because I have seen some that don’t seem completely crazy!

But the AP swap appears to be popular so offering owners better choices to swap vs rent, is a win win, since they get the rooms to rent themselves!!

 

[Sandisw]

I would be perfectly happy with them banning rentals - if we could do three things.

1. Sell back up to 50 or so points at around 16 a point giving DVC the opportunity to rent them out at 22. This would have to, of course occur before your banking date.

2. Allow the use of extra points towards ticket or annual passes ( including a credit towards next year since most of us already have a pass) with even if we had to pay the small fee for the MMB membership.

3. Allow cancellations that occur within 60 days of the vacations to be brought back by Disney for 12 to 14 point.

We at least have #2 for APs! How would your thoughts change if the price you were given level wasn’t that high?

For example, similar to the $14/point we are paying for OTU points with MMB?

 

[davidhr]

Since it was posted that Wyndham has their own rental arm and owners can rent directly via them, would your opinion change at all if DVC set this up?

Not that I see them ever doing it, but thought it might be a nice connected topic to discuss.

I don’t see them doing it, but a system like magical beginnings where they buy your points would be great.

Now that I think about it, I always want/need more points so I’d never use it

 

[Mouseforward]

And we're sitting here debating whether getting just SOME of those rooms into the hands of members would be "meaningful" enough.

those points will not disappear when they get rid of the commercial renters. Those room rooms will go to other members and I’ll be almost as hard to book. You’ll just have 25 members instead of one booking them.

However, I don’t see how anyone could successfully book that many value rooms at AK without significant software assistance. In fact, I don’t even know with software assistance if you could get that many rooms If I put on my tin foil hat, it would almost look like they would have to have inside or special access.

 

[VGCgroupie]

We at least have #2 for APs! How would your thoughts change if the price you were given level wasn’t that high?

For example, similar to the $14/point we are paying for OTU points with MMB?

I would’ve done it if it were less points for sure. .

 

[Mouseforward]

We at least have #2 for APs! How would your thoughts change if the price you were given level wasn’t that high?

For example, similar to the $14/point we are paying for OTU points with MMB?

We’re not really paying 14 a point when you factor in the cost of MMB. But I see your point. Below $14 a point is below what we paid if you’re a recent owner. My head is kind of stuck on 16 cause that’s about the point where if it was effortless and I could do it online in a second it would be better than listing it on a rental site. I hate all the hassle in the name, changing my time is worth something to me.

I still don’t think Disney would have a problem buying back at 16 when Disney basically sell rooms like at the poly at $38 a point rack rate.

 

[Sandisw]

Just to remind people, you can not talk about any business without linking it.

Second, you can not post specific rentals being advertised, which includes dates, etc.

Discussing in general terms is allowed…ie. There are a ton of AKV studios for rent out there is fine.,,but not specific dates or numbers. Some posts has to be deleted.

 

[Cyberc1978]

There is a work around for that.

tell me more?

 

[VGCgroupie]

tell me more?

Yeah inquiring minds want to know