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

[Judique]

I think a real problem with the commercial renters has to do with the fact that they book rooms before there are actually people to put in the particular room.

An ordinary member will book what they need or want with a large probability they will be using it. I do think the probability for an ordinary member to get what they want will be better than what has been implied, IF the commercial renting is curtailed. After all, I DID get CL and value studios at Jambo many times before mega renting has become so widespread.

I agree, Bobbi! I used to be able to book CL at Jambo here and there and I don't even own at AKV. There would be odd nights scattered across the website and I got as high as 3 nights in a row just by stalking and waitlisting. These would coincide with a split stay at BWV or BCV.

A founding member that I personally know (who has owned since the beginning) shared last week that for the first time they were not able to get their (CL room) days at the 11 month window. I was surprised they had done so well up to now.

 

[JackosinDIS]

I am solidly curious who here is actually okay with people renting a majority of their points simply for profit?

Honestly, I am absolutely fine with it, if they are renting ‘on demand’ rather than renting confirmed reservations. It makes absolutely no difference to me, and whether or not they make a profit is immaterial to me. I accept that it’s not in line with the contract we all signed, but it’s not my job to police that.

Theoretically, if someone was renting all their points to others for no money would it bother you at all?

 

[DanCali]

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.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this totally, I do think that renting out a home resort reservation booked at 7-11 months puts an owner on a more solid footing because they are renting out deeded property and maybe have certain property rights, which may not apply when renting an "exchange booking" inside 7 months.

I think the commercial aspect really does not apply in practice to someone with 200 points (or even 2000 points) who rents out some points on occasion. Anyone following some of the FB rental groups sees the same names come up again and again offering points for rent. Maybe some just "bump" their listings daily and create the illusion of serial renters, but a handful of them are likely indeed serial renters who rent out thousands of points per year. I wouldn't be surprised if some have a 6-figure DVC rental income per year. To me, that's when things start to feel and sound "commercial".

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

If they do anything, they’ll go after the contracts owned by LLCs with an identified pattern of “frequent” transactions (buy strip rent sell). That’s how commercial owners get around the ownership limit and scale it, in direct competition of Disney.

IMO you have nothing to worry about if you own the points under your name and rent out excess points.

The fields of the Timeshare User Group Forums are littered with fallen commercial renters who posted takes like these.

Maybe you're right, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Kingkonig]

Theoretically, if someone was renting all their points to others for no money would it bother you at all?

I mean, that’s different than a normal situation though, as that removes profit motive *and the actions that go along with that*.

One is a favor that costs *you* money (and are less likely to do), one is an action that *reduces losses, or increases gains*. That is a strong motivator to act unethically, or even outside the bounds of contractual agreements.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Honestly, I am absolutely fine with it, if they are renting ‘on demand’ rather than renting confirmed reservations. It makes absolutely no difference to me, and whether or not they make a profit is immaterial to me. I accept that it’s not in line with the contract we all signed, but it’s not my job to police that.

Theoretically, if someone was renting all their points to others for no money would it bother you at all?

While I agree on demand can be better for the more even playing field aspect of it, using DVC as business isn't allowed in the contract I agreed to. I fully expect DVC to enforce the rules and I 100% respect them for enforcing the rules, it is their job to police that.

If a person were running a charity enterprise and gifting rooms, no I have no problem because that isn't against the rules, commercial renting is and always has been a violation.

Thank you for responding and admitting that you think commercial renting is something that should be allowed.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Well as someone who bought with the thought to maybe sell if I get tired of DVC, I don't like the thought of it going to 0....but I get that is a possibility when buying a timeshare. DVC has always been different. The driver here will be how much high end commercial renting is actually going on as a percentage of the overall product and how much Disney actually cracks down. If they drive it down and can continue to sell then they stand to make a lot more money by exercising ROFR. I do like the thought of getting a Crescent lake property near 0....I just dont think that will happen as a result of this.....as we appraoch 2042 it will happen.

I don't think DVC is going to zero. I just don't think Disney cares about resale value either way as much as people here think they do.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

I read through the thread and the consensus seems to be under 1k point there should be no need to worry,

The consensus here is meaningless. Sorry. Only Disney knows what they are going to do and they aren't saying. I continue to recommend that if you want an idea of what they might do, look to what other systems have done, and not what random people on a message board (including me) think they will do.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Thank you for responding and admitting that you think commercial renting is something that should be allowed.

slightly twisting my words there VGC, but I’ll let you off

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Exactly. Now, using the HOA example people have before, you *could* impose financial penalties and then place a lien on the deed, but that costs money and time.

They don't need to do any of that. They can just cancel reservations and impose escalating suspensions of your ability to book. You'll then self-exit to get out of the maintenance fees for your now worthless asset.

 

[Cyberc1978]

If a person were running a charity enterprise and gifting rooms, no I have no problem because that isn't against the rules, commercial renting is and always has been a violation.

Seen from Disneys POV that doesn’t matter. As long as the owner is not in the room they would consider it a rental. Otherwise anyone could claim it’s a charity giftaway.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I guess I am just not convinced that every BW SV studio or RIV tower studio, etc that is out there for rent is being offer by a commercial renter.

This is what makes discussion difficult. I would challenge you to link one post where someone has explicitly said that every single spec reservation in those categories is always listed by a professional renter, at each resort, and every day of the year.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Seen from Disneys POV that doesn’t matter. As long as the owner is not in the room they would consider it a rental. Otherwise anyone could claim it’s a charity giftaway.

Yeah this is a hard one. Commercial means what it means. And I am certain there is nobody gifting thousands of points worth of stays to strangers every year so it doesn't really need any further defining.

 

[AstroBlasters]

slightly twisting my words there VGC, but I’ll let you off

I mean… I read it as you are ok with commercial renting as long as it’s not spec renting.

I think that’s probably where I land. That is also because I think the overwhelming majority of renters aren’t booking 11m out.

 

[Cyberc1978]

SoMe has a lot of threads about owners claiming they will sue Disney if they cancel any of their reservations.
Curious to see when or IF that happens.

My assumption is the regular John Doe like everyone here wouldn’t bother but maybe the big brokers do? Afterall it’s not pennies they have to say goodbye to.

 

[EPCOT Terran]

Honestly, I am absolutely fine with it, if they are renting ‘on demand’ rather than renting confirmed reservations. It makes absolutely no difference to me, and whether or not they make a profit is immaterial to me. I accept that it’s not in line with the contract we all signed, but it’s not my job to police that.

Theoretically, if someone was renting all their points to others for no money would it bother you at all?

Whew, this is a long and fast-moving thread! This post probably comes closest to where my head is at. I'm a relatively new owner (joined last year) and I haven't had a chance to rent yet. I'm not sure I ever will, if I can keep my points close enough to my need. After reading the back and forth through over 30 (40?) pages of posts, I think the speculative room booking is the biggest concern I would have. The idea that someone out there is using a bot to snag specifically interesting rooms/weeks so that they can then go looking for someone to sell to just feels wrong. Kind of like someone taking all of the water bottles from a 'Free - Take One' cooler and then turning around and selling them to others. Sure, the sign said 'Free - Take One' but that doesn't make it feel less scummy when someone takes without need. Whether someone makes a little or a lot of money when renting (or even no money) doesn't seem to enter the equation.

On a related but different note, more than one poster has mentioned having no problem getting a room because they go after higher-point rooms (1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, expensive view, etc.). I can't help but think this drives a dynamic where people buy direct using the points for a studio (particularly if it's usually 2 people, like my wife and I) and then need to buy more points when they realize they can't easily get those cheaper rooms at the times they want to travel. I'm not sure Disney would be too upset about a dynamic that drives more point purchases either, except possibly from a customer satisfaction/brand reputation perspective. Of course, as other posters have mentioned, getting rid of/discouraging large-scale commercial renting won't guarantee that this dynamic doesn't still play out going forward. After all, there are only so many of those cheaper rooms.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I mean… I read it as you are ok with commercial renting as long as it’s not spec renting.

I think that’s probably where I land. That is also because I think the overwhelming majority of renters aren’t booking 11m out.

If it were just spec renting being stopped I do believe that alot of commercial enterprises would chose to exit. Spec renting is more profitable, and requires much less man power to do.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Are we all just going to choose to ignore the elephant in the room? David's appears to be thriving once again, despite the debacle over refunds during Covid.

My recollection is that the owners were left holding the bag with the David's debacle, not the renters. Covid was also a super unusual black-swan event where potential renters may be willing to let somethign slide. Tons of reviews on tripadvisor and all over social media warning people away from renting because of cancelled reservations (what happened with Wyndham) would absolutely be a horse of a different color.

 

[Kingkonig]

I do wonder if the board sponsor decided to change the name of their holding company in order to remove “DVC” from it in order to get out in front of this kind of thing.

Hard to pivot away from a line of business if it is the core of your business model, even harder if it’s in the name of your company.

 

[guy_incognito]

mega renters