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

[AnnaKristoff2013]

.I am good with more of them and less pros but I do think this will have the impact of lowering resale.

The developers who adopted these policies often saw resale values plummet to near zero. However, they still have no problem selling developer contracts. I get that people think Disney cares about the resale market, but Disney almost certainly does not, and exercises ROFR when they want additional inventory, not to prop up the resale market. The positive for us personal users (including mixed direct/resale purchasers like myself) is that there should be a lot more plentiful and cheap resale contracts to pick up once all the commercial renters start heading for the hills.

 

[Judique]

Ironically, they could squash the bot traffic just by putting a captcha on the booking page.

So why hasn't this been done? Any ideas? I gave up complaining of bots a while back because it seemed nobody took it serious.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Every type. 9 of them are not studio or 2 bedroom, and those that are 2 bedroom are not all lock-off, so the person say if they are studios or a lockoff (so including a studio) it doesn't count is just an awkward comment.

This is another piece of why these conversations go in circles. I don't think 76% availability on the first day to book is good. I think it's even worse when I can't book it but I can easily rent it.

Only 8 of those room have a studio/2 bedroom overlap in unavailability. So we can pretend that number is only 19 unavailable, but it also means the number of room types is fewer. There's a lot of unavailable rooms knowing you can rent them - which means no member is getting to book and stay there.

Yes, but when 29 of the cookies are stolen by bots who go sell them right in front of you so only 15 of them go to guests, it becomes even more frustrating for members. These things add up over time when members can almost never get into the room they want while people are casually strolling up 3-5 months later and renting that same room.

People are absolutely not being locked out of their home resorts at 11m, they just may not be availability in a certain view category.

IMO rental spec booking during the home resort window is obviously done with a profit maximization motive and harms the membership experience overall. People who do it regularly should have heightened commercial scrutiny.

 

[Wakey]

Was it in an actual version of the POS? I don’t remember seeing that it was rather part of Home Resort Rules and Regulations?

Yes it was in a POS. I copied it above.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

That might be the main lesson from watching Wyndham do this. The bulk of the rank-and-file owners were solidly behind each change, even some of the more drastic ones, like Owner Priority periods. The policies were designed such that they did not impact the vast majority of owners, so those owners at worst shrugged.

Yup. The Wyndham changes were great for me as a personal use resale owner who got my contracts essentially for free. . I just booked a 2 bedroom presidential reserve at Bonnet creek yesterday for mid August. That would never have been possible when everyone was mega renting BC.

 

[PlutoNotPlanet]

So why hasn't this been done? Any ideas? I gave up complaining of bots a while back because it seemed nobody took it serious.

It's not that simple. Good bots can pass the captcha gate as well. It might make normal user even slower.

 

[Sandisw]

Every type. 9 of them are not studio or 2 bedroom, and those that are 2 bedroom are not all lock-off, so the person say if they are studios or a lockoff (so including a studio) it doesn't count is just an awkward comment.

This is another piece of why these conversations go in circles. I don't think 76% availability on the first day to book is good. I think it's even worse when I can't book it but I can easily rent it.

Only 8 of those room have a studio/2 bedroom overlap in unavailability. So we can pretend that number is only 19 unavailable, but it also means the number of room types is fewer. There's a lot of unavailable rooms knowing you can rent them - which means no member is getting to book and stay there.

Yes, but when 29 of the cookies are stolen by bots who go sell them right in front of you so only 15 of them go to guests, it becomes even more frustrating for members. These things add up over time when members can almost never get into the room they want while people are casually strolling up 3-5 months later and renting that same room.

I was on today at 8:12 am. Every WDW resort had availability to book rooms. Only one resort was booked for studios.

Now, some of the lower cost views were gone.

And, thst aligns with the first serve nature of the contract.

DVC should find a way to stop bots being used.

I just want to point out that the notion that anyone is being completely shut out of booking their WDW at 11 months is simply not true.

Do those who are commercially renting book high demand rooms? Yes.

Are they they only ones booking those rooms? No

So, stopping commercial renters may help increase a chance but is it going to be meaningful enough that every owner who wants a BW resort view studio will get it now without an issue?

I am still of the belief that regardless of what rooms a commercial renter is taking, the enforcement should be the same if that owner has indeed demonstrated they are violating that aspect of the contract.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes it was in a POS. I copied it above.

I see your analysis but the link to the POS document didn’t come through for me…could you post it again?

 

[Mouseforward]

Some would argue that if the renter went out of business and sold their points, the new owners would do the same thing. Unless those new owners are booking 99% studios, that's not true.

I completely disagree with your premise. The thing is the new owners will be mostly booking studios that’s why the new resorts are built with more studios. People’s preference isn’t going to change. They want the cheapest room.

Yes there’s a handful of people who like to book one bedrooms. However. a significant amount of them are people who are locked out of studios.

For people who aren’t staying for a week the one bedroom is basically the redheaded stepchild of rooms DVC it doesn’t sleep anymore than a studio, and it cost more than twice as much.

That’s causing the studio issue.

 

[Brian Noble]

Here's another thing I will probably post regularly in this thread:

It is very risky to assume that any regular pattern of rentals will be fine. I see a lot of folks saying "Well, I only own X points, and only rent out Y of them each year. Surely that's fine! It's those (hypothetical) Other Guys who are bad actors!"

It's fine unitl it is not fine. It is also worth pointing out that the other developers that have gone down this road were not necessarily applying the same criteria all the time and to everyone. There have been instances of two (or more) owners mostly doing the same things, one in the crosshairs, and one not. Why? No one knows---at least, no one who wasn't in the room when the decisions were made. True, the larger and more egregious it was, the worse the odds, but one is always playing the odds. And it is the odds, because as I've also said, this sort of mechanism only works if there is some (apparent) randomness to it. It can't be predictable, otherwise the pros will work within the boundaries of what is known to be acceptable.

People will do what they will do. But if I had a plan to consistently rent out points on a regular basis to people I don't otherwise know, I'd have a Plan B in mind, and I'd do it quickly.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I think renting half your points every single year to pay dues should qualify as frequent and regular. Renting should be occasional and rare.

Use the points to go on vacation. If you have too many points, sell some contracts. If you can't afford the dues, sell all your contracts. If you don't want to go to Disney any more, sell all your contracts.

That may be your opinion, but that’s not what our deeds limit us to or how DVC has operated.

I know someone who purchased RIV, VDH, and AUL direct via financing and then 2 years later had a job change that lowered his income. That has led to him needing to rent out point to cover dues and loan payments because the contracts are pretty far underwater vs their resale value when factoring in commissions.

Should that owner be forced to default on those loans and ruin their credit for 10 years? Or, can he rent out the points until the income goes up/expenses go down/contracts can be sold for amount owed on loan + commissions? Are we to bring back debtors prisons and shame them? Perhaps indentured servitude?

What about the people who purchase DVC when their kids are young and have a gap between those kids being young adults and grand kids? Should they be forced to sell the contracts and pay the high commissions if they don’t use all of the points for a few years?

These are examples of owners who are not in it for a business. They did not purchase the points solely “for profit”.

Now, at some point continuing to hold on to too many points may mean that people have transitioned to acting like a “for profit” business….. and that is what the rules are for. We should not be using DVC to act like hotel booking agents or real estate “flippers” as part of a long term cash flow plan…. even if that cash flow plan is just to spend the money in other areas at Disney.

 

[Wakey]

I see your analysis but the link to the POS document didn’t come through for me…could you post it again?

Here was a big discussion on it, was a revision back in 2007. DVC Mike on here actually received this POS when he bought an add on. I agree that they could not change it retrospectively for people who had bought before that date. They also changed it again to remove reference to the 20, not sure when though, they probably realised that would give them issues. If anyone bought during the period when it existed, I think they’ll have issues departing from it.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

Do DVC and their lawyers even know this existed?! Maybe they do, hence the verbiage now is so vague. They may try to argue that the last para allows them to introduce more rules but if you bought then on a basis of a 20 a year test I suspect a lawyer would make a good go of it.

I don’t accept that Disney have these lawyers and no one can ever win and they never settle. In fact I personally know that’s nonsense. The law is the law. These agreements are so loosely drafted, that arguments can probably be made both ways, but ambiguity is usually interpreted against the contract maker.

I’m hoping DVCs move is doing what is right for membership and not clamping down to ridiculous levels where people with 300 points can’t rent half etc. I continue to say they are horribly conflicted.

 

[Brian Noble]

Even "I'm only doing this for X years until I have grandchildren" is risky. Less risk, but not none.

Should that owner be forced to default on those loans and ruin their credit for 10 years? Or, can he rent out the points until the income goes up/expenses go down/contracts can be sold for amount owed on loan + commissions? Are we to bring back debtors prisons and shame them? Perhaps indentured servitude?

That is nothing but hyperbole. There is a large gap between "defaulted on a timeshare loan" and indentured servitude. The former will be a credit hit, but it is usually modest if it is in the larger context of a well-managed financial life. TUG has a non-trivial (though anecdotal) record of this outcome. One very common piece of advice we give there: If it is a choice between day-to-day necessities and defaulting, defaulting is the right answer. The few who come back to tell us what happened report that their credit took a hit---maybe 100-150 points or so---but nothing worse than that. Yes, they'll pay a little extra for loans for a while, but it is not a life-changing experience.

And, yes, if someone takes a large hit in their income, there may be consequences, and those consequences may change the way commercial enterprises value their risk. That is not something I am fond of, but it is part and parcel of late stage capitalism.

 

[Brian Noble]

Disney does not like competition from within. I see a lot of that from former DVC guides working for companies that rent points as one aspect of their business profile and those companies have bragged about their experienced employees.

This is worth noting. And it is not just competition from within, but any time someone starts making noticeable money (and worse, fame) off of the Mouse's back, the Mouse can take exception. As just two examples, there was the Great Tour Guide Massacre a few years ago. Around the same time, they trespassed that couple that was selling unlicensed merch. The Tour Guide thing had been going on for years until it was stopped cold all at once. They went to the mattresses with the couple.

 

[tx911]

That may be your opinion, but that’s not what our deeds limit us to or how DVC has operated.

I know someone who purchased RIV, VDH, and AUL direct via financing and then 2 years later had a job change that lowered his income. That has led to him needing to rent out point to cover dues and loan payments because the contracts are pretty far underwater vs their resale value when factoring in commissions.

Should that owner be forced to default on those loans and ruin their credit for 10 years? Or, can he rent out the points until the income goes up/expenses go down/contracts can be sold for amount owed on loan + commissions? Are we to bring back debtors prisons and shame them? Perhaps indentured servitude?

What about the people who purchase DVC when their kids are young and have a gap between those kids being young adults and grand kids? Should they be forced to sell the contracts and pay the high commissions if they don’t use all of the points for a few years?

These are examples of owners who are not in it for a business. They did not purchase the points solely “for profit”.

Now, at some point continuing to hold on to too many points may mean that people have transitioned to acting like a “for profit” business….. and that is what the rules are for. We should not be using DVC to act like hotel booking agents or real estate “flippers” as part of a long term cash flow plan…. even if that cash flow plan is just to spend the money in other areas at Disney.

Yes, I know that unique life circumstances happen and may require a short term period of renting. Certainly just my opinion, but I think if you find yourself in that position for more than a couple years, you should consider selling some or all of your contracts.

The membership is meant for vacations, with occasional renting permissible. I think if you are renting every single year half your points to cover dues, That would certainly fit my personal definition of frequent and regular.

Who knows what DVC will consider against the rules. But I think it mostly falls under common sense. If you think you might be pushing the limit, you probably are.

 

[AstroBlasters]

Even "I'm only doing this for X years until I have grandchildren" is risky. Less risk, but not none.

That is nothing but hyperbole. There is a large gap between "defaulted on a timeshare loan" and indentured servitude. The former will be a credit hit, but it is usually modest if it is in the larger context of a well-managed financial life. TUG has a non-trivial (though anecdotal) record of this outcome. One very common piece of advice we give there: If it is a choice between day-to-day necessities and defaulting, defaulting is the right answer.

And, yes, if someone takes a large hit in their income, there may be consequences, and those consequences may change the way commercial enterprises value their risk. That is not something I am fond of, but it is part and parcel of late stage capitalism.

Of course it is hyperbole. But, the point is that life happens and Disney doesn’t want you to stop spending money on Disney products and services over the rest of your family’s lifetime because you had a job change once in your 30s that led to a few lean years.

I am not aware of any other timeshare owners that are also trying to get you to pay for a streaming service, go to movies, visit theme parks, go on cruises, buy merch, indoctrinate your kids/grandkids, etc. There is a flywheel going on here.

So, while DVC is a timeshare…. it’s parent company is not like every other timeshare owner and has additional considerations.

It does NOT want people to treat DVC as a personal travel agency business and has legal language in the contract to enforce that.

Where they draw that line will be the interesting part to observe.

 

[muppets3d]

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.

I would not buy in to DVC planning to rent out my points on anything resembling a regular basis at this point.

 

[Duckbug.Ducktales]

This is worth noting. And it is not just competition from within, but any time someone starts making noticeable money (and worse, fame) off of the Mouse's back, the Mouse can take exception. As just two examples, there was the Great Tour Guide Massacre a few years ago. Around the same time, they trespassed that couple that was selling unlicensed merch. The Tour Guide thing had been going on for years until it was stopped cold all at once. They went to the mattresses with the couple.

I think the only ones that are safe at making a business out of going to Disney Parks are YouTubers and social media influencers. They provide free advertising, BUT they also have to stay in that realm. The YouTubers that had lived a year at WDW and have so many room tours on their channel were also caught up in that great tour guide massacre because they started a side business doing tours... went to court to get their trespassing lifted but failed.

 

[Moonspinner]

Here was a big discussion on it, was a revision back in 2007. DVC Mike on here actually received this POS when he bought an add on. I agree that they could not change it retrospectively for people who had bought before that date. They also changed it again to remove reference to the 20, not sure when though, they probably realised that would give them issues. If anyone bought during the period when it existed, I think they’ll have issues departing from it.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

Do DVC and their lawyers even know this existed?! Maybe they do, hence the verbiage now is so vague. They may try to argue that the last para allows them to introduce more rules but if you bought then on a basis of a 20 a year test I suspect a lawyer would make a good go of it.

I don’t accept that Disney have these lawyers and no one can ever win and they never settle. In fact I personally know that’s nonsense. The law is the law. These agreements are so loosely drafted, that arguments can probably be made both ways, but ambiguity is usually interpreted against the contract maker.

I’m hoping DVCs move is doing what is right for membership and not clamping down to ridiculous levels where people with 300 points can’t rent half etc. I continue to say they are horribly conflicted.

We have never rented out any of our points. We consistently make more than 20 reservations a year and we’ve never been contacted by dvc about it.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Ironically, they could squash the bot traffic just by putting a captcha on the booking page.

That might have been true in the early days of bots. Now bots are evolving just like AI and captcha will only give you false hope

So why hasn't this been done? Any ideas? I gave up complaining of bots a while back because it seemed nobody took it serious.

They can’t. See above.

It's not that simple. Good bots can pass the captcha gate as well. It might make normal user even slower.

Exactly.