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

[cruisehopeful]

Ugh, I just found out. I wish they would let us sell part of a contract. Their ticket prices have more than doubled since we bought VGC. We simply can't afford to go as long anymore so renting the extra points makes the smaller trip feasible. I had to rent out all of last year's because our trip dates changed last minute and I'm renting out most of this year's too.

What's the worst that can happen if we're targeted? Force us to sell? Can they take away our membership without any compensation?

Nothing sounds particularly unusual about your situation. If they challenge you (and I doubt they will), just tell them what you said here. You aren't able to take as long vacations as you used to be able to. Not being able to afford vacations is actually a very normal thing.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Nothing sounds particularly unusual about your situation. If they challenge you (and I doubt they will), just tell them what you said here. You aren't able to take as long vacations as you used to be able to. Not being able to afford vacations is actually a very normal thing.

Right? Everyone (except maybe one person) that has commented here has absolutely nothing to worry about. Those that have something to worry about are lurking and reading and not actually commenting here. But many aren't on the DISboards at all.

 

[mfortis]

I dont think Disney cares if you own 50,000 points across multiple memberships as long as you personally are living it up in Grand Villas and not renting out studios for profit.

Did they actually say what a large point owner is? I once thought I was a large point owner until a friend told me he knew of lots of people with 4,000-12,000 points and that suddenly made me feel like a small point owner. So which am I?

Wow, that would be a long stay GF is about 4k points for the month of December in the Grand Villa. Annual dues would be circa $36k.
Goals!

 

[xdan0920]

I think most think, and DVC indicated that large points owners, those with thousands of points renting are in the cross hairs.

But your small point owner who is using at least 50% for themselves m? Nope, I don’t think they are going to bother them.

Just to circle back. There are 9 listings on the front page of the rental board of at least 500pts for rent. 7 of them over 1000.

These are the land lords in referring to.

 

[Wakey]

Imagine the situation many members find themselves in. Kids are leaving home, owner has nearly 400 points, now only really goes every other year, or for half the time. So rents, say half the points on average. Owner doesn’t want to sell because anticipates in 5-10 years will have grandkids and the use will increase again. Would this owner be OK do we think or should such an owner in this type of scenario be saying I’ve had enough of this, and selling the contracts? Doesn’t seem Disney will be targeting this person but not clear.
On my previous point, some POS specifically set out 20 reservations as being the necessary trigger to ask about commercial and the owner then has to confirm. That POS specifically forms part of the contract on purchase. It cannot be retrospectively amended by DVC issuing new rules. New rules must be compliant with that POS - At least for direct buyers of those resorts.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Imagine the situation many members find themselves in. Kids are leaving home, owner has nearly 400 points, now only really goes every other year, or for half the time. So rents, say half the points on average. Owner doesn’t want to sell because anticipates in 5-10 years will have grandkids and the use will increase again. Would this owner be OK do we think or should such an owner in this type of scenario be saying I’ve had enough of this, and selling the contracts? Doesn’t seem Disney will be targeting this person but not clear.
On my previous point, some POS specifically set out 20 reservations as being the necessary trigger to ask about commercial and the owner then has to confirm. That POS specifically forms part of the contract on purchase. It cannot be retrospectively amended by DVC issuing new rules. New rules must be compliant with that POS - At least for direct buyers of those resorts.

I think in this case the owner will be fine, the contract has a history of very clear personal use and wasnt purchased with the intent of renting. ie: you purchase and bam book a good date to rent out. Again so much over thinking in this thread. A commercial renter is very very clear even if DVC isnt giving hard number guidelines.

Side note: I am now just realizing your sign off always has this picture

 

[CarolynFH]

now we wait to see reports of any enforcement.

Which might of course simply trickle in slowly and might have to be inferred via reports from renters saying they were notified their reservations were cancelled; by someone noticing and reporting here that they're seeing a gradual reduction in the number of confirmed reservations being offered on the rental sites or a gradual increase in contracts for sale; or maybe even via reports here by buyers that their sellers were a well-known source of rental reservations. IOW I don't expect any big announcements from Disney that they've shut down a specific commercial renter. Whether any owners will post here that they've been directly affected (e.g. received a cease-and-desist letter, had multiple reservations cancelled, etc.) I don't know.

 

[CarolynFH]

Imagine the situation many members find themselves in. Kids are leaving home, owner has nearly 400 points, now only really goes every other year, or for half the time. So rents, say half the points on average. Owner doesn’t want to sell because anticipates in 5-10 years will have grandkids and the use will increase again. Would this owner be OK do we think or should such an owner in this type of scenario be saying I’ve had enough of this, and selling the contracts? Doesn’t seem Disney will be targeting this person but not clear.
On my previous point, some POS specifically set out 20 reservations as being the necessary trigger to ask about commercial and the owner then has to confirm. That POS specifically forms part of the contract on purchase. It cannot be retrospectively amended by DVC issuing new rules. New rules must be compliant with that POS - At least for direct buyers of those resorts.

I think it's possible that member might be contacted by Disney and asked for information on their change in use, but I don't think they'd be told to quit when their actions are reasonable. And I definitely don't think they should sell due to fear of this happening.

 

[Sandisw]

I think profit does need to be taken in to consideration.

I think of it this way - if you make a profit it does not necessarily make a rental commercial, as per your examples above.

However, if there is no money changing hands, no matter how frequent or regular the rentals are, Disney cannot possible argue that this constitutes ‘commercial’ use (I.e. in the business of making a profit from something).

The number of rentals does not tell the whole story necessarily. Disney can infer that frequent rentals = making money to the extent it is a business, but they will have to take other factors in to account.

That is why I said profit per se. Any rental make a profit if you define profit as simply getting money.

But. It’s the level of renting that is at issue and I believe profit isn’t a driving factor as much as it is whether that owner appears to doing it for commercial reasons.

Thst is why the word frequent and regular can be looked at in the context of DVC in many different ways.

Some might say renting yearly, even just one reservation, should be considered frequent and regular enough.

Someone else might decide that frequent and regular for DVC is a pattern over several years with fewer trips done by the owners than others

I can go on and on…and that is the reason DVC has made it general because they want to be able to review memberships and owners and enforce when they believe it’s clearly an owner running it reasons other than vacations.

But, I simply don’t believe at this point in time that DVC is going define this very narrowly and that the bulk of owners who rent will not be impacted.

Obviously, I have no idea but logically, especially since they are supposed to take a reasonable approach, it makes no sense they are going to spend time and money to worry about owners who rent a few hundred points.

We shall see.

 

[mfortis]

I think in this case the owner will be fine, the contract has a history of very clear personal use and wasnt purchased with the intent of renting. ie: you purchase and bam book a good date to rent out. Again so much over thinking in this thread. A commercial renter is very very clear even if DVC isnt giving hard number guidelines.

Side note: I am now just realizing your sign off always has this picture

I hope commercial renter doesn't include owners trying to offset some of the annual dues once in while.
I think of a commercial renter as person or an entity (fancy word) whose primary or substantial source of income comes from renting out points.

 

[tx911]

But, seriously, if you are required to check the box in order to make a reservation - I'm not sure what the check box does.

At the least, it requires a commercialrenter to willfully acknowledge that they are not using the membership as intended. It makes it undeniable that Disney intends that the membership be used for personal use.

I’m not a lawyer, but perhaps that gives them a better position if they do go after someone who is clearly engaged in commercial renting.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I hope commercial renter doesn't include owners trying to offset some of the annual dues once in while.
I think of a commercial renter as person or an entity (fancy word) whose primary or substantial source of income comes from renting out points.

Once in a while. This is your answer. No this isnt commercial.

 

[Sandisw]

Right this moment, if I try to book a room 11 months out, just over 24% of the room types are unavailable. (30/123)

When I bought 8 years ago it was treated as common knowledge that you can basically get anything but those 2 room types at AKL at 9-10 months or so, and some start to fill up but most things would even still be available at 7 months for bouncing around. The number of owners within single resorts has not gone up enough to cause a change. The 7 months issue is absolutely explainable by new resorts. 11 month? Not explained by "more owners" when looking at resorts that have been sold out for years. Walking, which separately is an issue, is one of those issues that comes up due to difficulty and like the renting thing snowballs a small, inconsistent issue, into a constant one. The more people who have trouble, the more people who walk, which causes more walking, etc.

As of now, 30 different room types, across 9 different resorts, are completely off limits 11 months out. That is not what it was a decade ago. People are complaining that it has gotten worse because it has gotten worse. I mean we own 4 resorts because we used the points from the first to try out the other 3 and then bought in... all three of those rooms we stayed in to test out those resorts, I couldn't book today at 11 months- I sure as heck wouldn't have gotten a 5-6 nights at 7 months.

That’s true but is it because of rentals or because the membership has grown and more and more owners plan ahead?

There has also been a change in the point minimum. When I bought it was 160….now it’s 100…and there have been years they allowed 75.

So, you have more members which also means more competition for rooms, especially studios.

Plus, you do have more owners who rent occasionally then before because it’s so much easier but that doesn’t mean that that subset is doing it against the rules.

If there are let’s say 50,000 memberships and each one does one rental a year….that’s 50,000 rentals. Of course, some don’t and some have the lion share, but the potential is there that 50k rooms or more a year could be occupied by renters.

 

[Sandisw]

I think perspective is needed here. I’ve never looked at that number, but I saw the 24% and immediately said to myself “oh, that’s actually a nice availability at 11 months!”.

What might seem bad to someone, might be great to someone else. Honestly I think 76% availability at 11 months is amazing.

And we are now looking at the 11 month booking for May which has seen an increase in popularity since they lowered the points.

Obviously, there are rooms that are booked for renters…but I just don’t think j people are going to see that availability changes to that degree because if an owner can’t rent, then they are not going to let points expire….they are going to use.

So, in the end, the rooms still get booked.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Just the other day I saw someone post 12 reservations for rent at popular resorts and/or popular room categories. This is commercial.

I saw someone post their website advertising themselves a as Disney loving family that wants to help you get cheap Disney accommodations by renting their points to you. There is a photo of them in front of the Villas at Disneyland Hotel, just a Disney loving family who wants to rent occasionally when they cant go? No absolutely not, and THEY KNOW THIS. They have a website, professional renting contracts. This is a commercial endeavor. (also I have seen them post many times, because this is business!)

If you have to think about a one off scenario when you may want to rent then you are not who is being targeted. Its simple. It's very clear that many people here do not see the blatant commercial renting that happens on other platforms.. if they did they would not be questioning these personal style scenarios as something Disney may care about. There is much bigger fish to fry than someone who cant go for a year or two.

 

[Mommb]

Imagine the situation many members find themselves in. Kids are leaving home, owner has nearly 400 points, now only really goes every other year, or for half the time. So rents, say half the points on average. Owner doesn’t want to sell because anticipates in 5-10 years will have grandkids and the use will increase again. Would this owner be OK do we think or should such an owner in this type of scenario be saying I’ve had enough of this, and selling the contracts? Doesn’t seem Disney will be targeting this person but not clear.

DVC knows how people has previously used their membership and the ages of the kids with whom they have used it. This is probably a common scenario for people who purchased while their kids were young (which is a lot of "personal use" buyers, especially in the early years of DVC) and anticipate going more often when they have grandchildren.

I would be very surprised if Disney goes after people who have used almost all of their points themselves or in groups for many years and then starts making reservations for other people with part or most of their annual points. It's clearly in Disney's interest to keep these people involved with Disney parks so that they do come back with grandchildren, or when they feel more comfortable traveling to the US, or when their health is better, or when whatever has caused a change has been resolved.

I think DVC has been very clear that they are targeting people who are and have for some time been using their DVC membership as a business and not to arrange trips for themselves and their family and friends. There are enough of those people that people with 400 points and adult children should not be concerned.

 

[Sandisw]

The problem I have to this very loose definition is that DVC has proven in the past that they can not be trusted to play by the rules nor do what is in the members best interests if it goes against their own interests. Examples of which are points reallocations of the SSR treehouses to studios; that should not have been legal because they are in different units and points can't be changed across units, yet most members didn't complain so they got away with it. The reallocation of points on lock-off rooms which they did role back but only after much complaining from members here.

In all those cases DVC did have a semblance of vague explanation that it was allowed

The lock off points are not part of the declared points, so they took wide latitude with that.

Now, they reversed it because they got called on it and decided it wasn’t a hill to die on. For treehouses, I am not convinced that for use they can’t cross units, as long as resort stays balanced.

And, since it’s never been determined it’s illegal and DVC did not backtrack on it, my guess is they feel stronger about it.

So, when it comes to this, DVC has always had the right to define what it means to use a membership commercially when it comes to renting.

This is not new. What may be new is enforcement and until we get word of someone’s pattern of rentals being flagged, then all one can do is make own decisions.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Just the other day I saw someone post 12 reservations for rent at popular resorts and/or popular room categories. This is commercial.

I saw someone post their website advertising themselves a as Disney loving family that wants to help you get cheap Disney accommodations by renting their points to you. There is a photo of them in front of the Villas at Disneyland Hotel, just a Disney loving family who wants to rent occasionally when they cant go? No absolutely not, and THEY KNOW THIS. They have a website, professional renting contracts. This is a commercial endeavor. (also I have seen them post many times, because this is business!)

If you have to think about a one off scenario when you may want to rent then you are not who is being targeted. Its simple. It's very clear that many people here do not see the blatant commercial renting that happens on other platforms.. if they did they would not be questioning these personal style scenarios as something Disney may care about. There is much bigger fish to fry than someone who cant go for a year or two.

I know exactly which poster you are referring to. It’s unbelievable right?!
I’m also regularly amazed by the same people posting reservations for rent which cover the entire month of Sept/ Dec and letting renters just pick the week they want. There are people who literally have every day covered and available for rent. I often wonder if there are groups of owners pooling their points and working together. I don’t know

 

[DonMacGregor]

I am not one of Disney’s lawyers, but I am a lawyer (and friends with Disney lawyers) and I am certain they can handle defending this policy without any real risk of loss, especially if occasional rentals are allowed.
They also have a huge advantage, which is that the only person for whom it would be worth bringing a very expensive lawsuit is a commercial renter! I also don’t know how you could demonstrate any significant harm without establishing that you are regularly and predictably renting for profit.

As someone who worked for Disney for over a decade, and who has family and friends who have worked in Burbank for decades as well, I would agree 100%. Anyone who knows Disney's VERY long history of aggressively protecting IP, playing hardball in labor relations (CBA's and dealing with Anaheim over Measure L for example), and their more recent willingness to take on the DAC/DAS issues would also agree that the Mouse is quite happy and willing to lawyer up and aggressively protect his interests. (Think Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder).

When Disney DOES settle or shy away from conflict, there is usually a strong emotional element to the litigation (injury, death, etc.), and there is a business decision that outweighs the legal. I don't see any heartstrings being pulled if a bunch of Disney Vacation Club owners sue Disney over the (arguable) loss or restriction of a secondary or even tertiary benefit to owning their points.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I know exactly which poster you are referring to. It’s unbelievable right?!
I’m also regularly amazed by the same people posting reservations for rent which cover the entire month of Sept/ Dec and letting renters just pick the week they want. There are people who literally have every day covered and available for rent. I often wonder if there are groups of owners pooling their points and working together. I don’t know

Yes this is happening.