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

[AnnaKristoff2013]

points will be used regardless, that is sometimes the argument you hear.

It’s wrong though. The tough truth is that timeshare systems work best when there is a lot of breakage. Having a hyper-efficient commercial rental market severely reduces that making availability tougher for everyone.

 

[muppets3d]

I suspect that at 11 months your odds will get a lot better. It will probably take a year or two though before it gets noticeably better.

That's what I'm thinking as well. I know these rooms will never be as easy to get as the other studios, just because there are so few of them and the resort is huge with lots of owners. But, currently they're all but impossible to get without playing the odds with waitlists. So anything would be an improvement.

 

[matt_in_nh]

I agree with this. I think a lot of commercial renters may wait to see if Disney is serious before selling, but others know who they are and will try to offload contracts that are still above where they bought them while they can.

I am not so sure.....if I purely had a business around this and don't want to get stuck with 4000 points per entity where only I could use them I would start dumping some. There is a precedent others have mentioned from other timeshares so the affects have some history that can be looked at. If this was my commercial business I think I would start offloading, maybe not all but at least some. Depending on the numbers you could see lots of contracts and no commercial buyers...it could drive down prices so companies will probably want to hedge and sell some.

 

[matt_in_nh]

My house is thrilled with today's news. We also wouldn't mind seeing the lead guest change that was mentioned above happen and see confirmed reservations disappear completely, but we'll take this. I've never had a problem with renting, but felt like those using bots or tons and tons of points as a business took away the level playing field.

The restriction on lead guest, if implemented would absolutely kill the confirmed res market but that is too strict a rule I think, people want to change to their son or daughter or neighbor should be allowed.

I think that statement you quoted is important! It really hits home that they don't want people buying DVC to turn it into a profit making business....

That statement confirms to me they are truly going after people or groups (companies) who have figured out how to make a business out of DVC, not someone trying to reduce their dues for this year. They are going after 4000/8000 pointers that dont use them ever and rent to dozens of randos across the country.

As mentioned in my earlier post I am looking at buying a resale contract with the intention of renting out points. But my primary reason for buying is so I can visit WDW at least every couple of years. I could buy half the number of points and bank/borrow but I also want the option to be able to visit every year if I want to or double up points should I want a bigger room. Based on what I've read so far I struggle to believe Disney will be bothered about a 150 point contract, even if I rent out all the points every other year, as it doesn't fit into the "frequently" definition and while the rental income will likely exceed my annual dues I wouldn't class that as commercial use.

I think you wont have a problem with your plans, could be wrong but that is my take.

 

[atthebeachclub]

I have a different view of personal use. I think personal use is using the points for your own vacations, family, or friends.

Of course you will use the money from renting points for personal reasons, but you aren't using the points personally.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to any and all renting. I just don't agree that renting is personal use.

So here’s a scenario: your friends wants to go to Disney and use your timeshare. Because you are all gainfully employed, they offer to pay you for its use. You give them a reasonable deal as those points are valuable to you, too, but it’s not free, and you may even make back a small percent on your original DVC investment.

Is this personal use?

 

[HFJohnson]

You just made two statements that were contradictory so I’m confused as to what your actual plan is. If you’re actually just going to rent out your points “every couple of years” then you’re right, probably ok. If you’re going to spend the first 5-10 years mostly renting points and only occasionally going, then what you are describing is a bad idea.

No, my plan is to alternate renting and visiting each year for 5-10 years and then after than, as I approach retirement, I expect to either visit more often or use all my points on bigger rooms, so less or no renting out of points should be needed. So I won't be financially relying on renting out regularly for decades, it would just be useful to have the option rather than buying a smaller contract.

 

[ChipTheRescueRanger]

As Disney hold x amount of points per resort and sells theses bookings for cash. I assume they cannot just stop renting. As they are by far the largest renter.

 

[airjay75]

I've been trying to think of analogy that could be helpful here, and I think I thought of one. I work for a fairly large corporation - not Disney large, but pretty large. Post-COVID, everyone was called back to the office three days a week, and it was mandatory with very limited exceptions (same policy today). That said, they stressed that flexibility was always there with respect to those 3 days required in the office, but defined that flexibility very vaguely - basically, look, don't abuse things and you'll be just fine. But, still, it was mandatory - was not supposed to be ignored.

Fast forward 9-12 months and there was a small percentage of people who just completely ignored the requirement and had yet to step in the office a single day. Those people were told, resign or comply immediately.

Another 6-12 months after that, after tracking people's behavior, there was another group of people who were flagged as abusing the flexibility - maybe one day in the office every other week, multiple weeks where they used "flexibility" for all three days, etc. To be in this group, you had to be in the bottom X% of people abusing the flexibility (according to whatever parameters HR set up). These people were flagged by HR and given a stiff talking to - get with the program, we're tracking you and you need to do better.

And, since then, no company-wide actions have taken place. Sure, there could be individuals who HR is dealing with, but no more company-wide actions to correct things. Presumably, management is happy overall with the level of compliance.

Of course, a side effect of all of this, is that some people who were not really abusing the system to begin with, felt pressure to use their flexibility a little less than maybe they did to begin with - the rule followers, even though they aren't the targets, always suffer just a little bit from these sorts of things.

Assuming Disney has a plan of action, one could see it looking very similar to this - the very serious offenders will see harsh corrective action (after of period of time giving them a chance to get with the program). The next group - the ones taking things just a little too far and have shown no change in their pattern from before this announcement get flagged and sent letters to change their ways or else. And, of course, the rule followers - the people occasionally renting out points or maybe even someone who hold a couple of small contracts and rents one out every other year - the people who really aren't the target of this - will likely feel the pressure to rent out less and/or sell off some of their points.

Of course, we really don't know how this will play out, but one could easily see something like the above. Time will tell - and it is going to take time to see how it all shakes out.

 

[muppets3d]

So here’s a scenario: your friends wants to go to Disney and use your timeshare. Because you are all gainfully employed, they offer to pay you for its use. You give them a reasonable deal as those points are valuable to you, too, but it’s not free, and you may even make back a small percent on your original DVC investment.

Is this personal use?

To me selling of a reservation for any reason is not personal use, but I did not write the contract so I don't know if Disney would consider it personal use or not. My guess is they aren't worried about the member that rents out one or two reservations a year but uses the vast majority of their points for their family.

 

[dcfromva]

We just don’t know how they will define frequent and regular. You may think those should be considered out of bounds, but will DVC?

It was left vague for this reason and won’t ever say what is and is not “frequent or regular”.

There really is no reason to prevent owners from using third parties to rent. Why?

Because they don’t need to…it sounds like they have built the system to flag when a membership has too many reservations not in the owners names.

All that matters will be the actual reservations booked and not where the renters came from.

Much easier for DVC to enforce! If they feel your pattern of reservations in the names of others is frequent and regular…by their definition… then they can hold you acccountable!

Which, honestly, appears to be a very nice balance.

It seems pretty easy to me that instead of asking whether the reservation was for "personal use", they could ask if the reservation was being rented "for compensation".

From there they could decide whether it was in the original POS agreement.

 

[GrimGrinningGuy]

I rented for the first time last month, it was awesome, I saved a fortune, had free parking etc. I admit I was very nervous was I never rented before and it was hard to have it “out of my control”. I had nightmares of the owner canceling on me or scamming me and since I was going all the way to Hawaii it felt risky. It all went fine and was awesome and I’d do it again but these “new” rules are putting a fear in me.

Maybe Disney should release their own discounts farther out to compete with DVC rentals. If I could get my usual 30 percent off direct from Disney 11 months out I’d probably just pick them over renting but they wait so long for discounts to hit (esp for Disneyland and Aulani)

 

[Mommb]

So here’s a scenario: your friends wants to go to Disney and use your timeshare. Because you are all gainfully employed, they offer to pay you for its use. You give them a reasonable deal as those points are valuable to you, too, but it’s not free, and you may even make back a small percent on your original DVC investment.

Is this personal use?

If the person using your points is a friend who wanted to take a trip, this is absolutely personal use. Your points are being used by someone you knew personally before they paid you for the points. The DVC announcement specifically mentions use by friends as an example of personal use.

 

[tx911]

So here’s a scenario: your friends wants to go to Disney and use your timeshare. Because you are all gainfully employed, they offer to pay you for its use. You give them a reasonable deal as those points are valuable to you, too, but it’s not free, and you may even make back a small percent on your original DVC investment.

Is this personal use?

I'll fall back on the verbiage Disney uses.

The opposites of "frequent" and "regular" are "infrequent" and "random".

So, if you are renting points infrequently and randomly, I think you can reasonably assume you are safe.

 

[Mommb]

It seems pretty easy to me that instead of asking whether the reservation was for "personal use", they could ask if the reservation was being rented "for compensation".

From there they could decide whether it was in the original POS agreement.

Renting for compensation is forbidden only if it indicates a pattern of commercial behavior. Yes, if DVC wanted to block all rentals, they could have forbid renting points from the start. They didn’t.

As many posts have said, there is a difference between renting occasionally when you can’t use all of your points and renting frequently with making money as the goal. If you rent occasionally, you can charge for the rental without running a business with your points.

Sure, many people renting as a commercial enterprise will still check the box for personal use. But if DVC then points out that the owner never or rarely books rooms for themself or for people they have travelled with before or whom other people they’ve booked for have travelled with before, it will be difficult to justify as personal use a lot of reservations for a lot of different people.

 

[Mommb]

Changes in rules apply to all members including Disney. Will Disney continue to rent out their points? Assuming they do how will they legally be able to justify different treatment for individual members?

If Disney starts posting on non-Disney owned websites and message boards about large numbers of points available for rental at a rate significantly below what someone calling Disney directly would pay, then yes, that would be inconsistent with DVC policy.

 

[airjay75]

I'll fall back on the verbiage Disney uses.

The opposites of "frequent" and "regular" are "infrequent" and "random".

So, if you are renting points infrequently and randomly, I think you can reasonably assume you are safe.

I'll offer a slight quibble with "random" being the opposite of "regular." I'd say the opposite is "irregular." And, to me, that is slightly more vague than random. I think I could argue that renting out one of your contracts every other year, at different times, to different people, at different resorts is "irregular," but I think I'd have a harder time arguing that it is "random." To me, "random" would imply no discernible pattern whatsoever, whereas "irregular" could have some degree of pattern or consistency, but if there are enough differences between rentals, you could argue that it lacks the degree of sameness to be characterized as regular. And, the me, Disney is intentionally using vague terms here because it gives them the maximum amount of discretion.

Of course, if it ever went to court, a judge might require Disney to come up with come more concrete guidance in order to enforce all of this, but, as others have mentioned, this is unlikely to end up in court. And, on the off chance that someone actually wanted to challenge this in court, one could easily see Disney settling to avoid a judge making a ruling and to continue giving them maximum discretion.

 

[matt_in_nh]

It’s wrong though. The tough truth is that timeshare systems work best when there is a lot of breakage. Having a hyper-efficient commercial rental market severely reduces that making availability tougher for everyone.

I get what you are saying....and I agree, the more regular folks vs pros the better for you and me. It is like the old fastpass and Disney plus....many people had or have no idea how the system works and they give up because "everything is sold out"....ends up better for me, increases my odds of grabbing a popular LL. The more sophisticated people get the harder it gets. Same thing with DVC, the questions you see on FB groups are ridiculous from people who own, some have no clue how the product works....I am good with more of them and less pros but I do think this will have the impact of lowering resale. Just not sure how to gauge by how much.

 

[dcfromva]

Renting for compensation is forbidden only if it indicates a pattern of commercial behavior. Yes, if DVC wanted to block all rentals, they could have forbid renting points from the start. They didn’t.

I am not suggesting they block all rentals. Only that they distinguish between whether a reservation is being rented for compensation. That way folks who are gifting reservations don't get their reservations canceled due to some inexplicable algorithm that Disney comes up with.

 

[matt_in_nh]

So what do people think this will do for resale inventory and prices. Dramatic, minor or not decipherable? I think it will have a moderate impact reducing resale. But it depends on how many commercial entities there are and how strict they enforce the new policy.

 

[matt_in_nh]

I am not suggesting they block all rentals. Only that they distinguish between whether a reservation is being rented for compensation. That way folks who are gifting reservations don't get their reservations canceled due to some inexplicable algorithm that Disney comes up with.

So you are saying gifting should be allowed but anytime money changes hands it should not be allowed? There is no plausible way for Disney to enforce that. Also, I don't agree..if someone wants to rent the points to their friend and go to the Bahamas on vacation one year that should be allowed