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

[Sandisw]

If people only rented within the terms of their ownership (or at least the way I understand the terms to be as they were explained to me during my new membership orientation phone call - granted I am not a lawyer nor do I work for Disney so my opinion doesn't really matter), for one thing the rentals board on this website wouldn't exist because there would be so few rentals on offer at any given time it wouldn't be worth having a board dedicated to it.

Well I can tell you how it was explained to me when I bought and when I had in depth conversations last year.

In 2009 when I bought, the rule was that if your membership had more than 20 reservations in a rolling 12 months, you’d be flagged and contacted as possibly being seen as using it for commercial purposss.

If you stayed under that 20, no one was bothering you. And thus, those buying who might be doing a few rentals yearly were well under the written rules.

Fast forward to today and because of the ease of renting and exploding of DVC memberships, that high threshold seems to be inappropriate to stop people from becoming commercial renters.

Why do you think there are so many LLCs? Because it was used as a work around.

Now, they have made the language vague and used “frequent and regular”

And when I talked last year in depth, it was up to me as an owner to decide, if I needed to rent, to follow the written contract.

So, based on that, my belief is an owner renting a few reservations, even every year is not frequent or regular enough to violate the personal use clause.

An owner who is has several rental reservations every month and it never stops?

That would seem to shift to commercial use.

But, under the terms those of us who bought when that old language existed, DVC had a very lax definition.

This new update and the comments last year, that will be changing. To what? Wait and see

I posted this earlier…over 250k members…could mean somewhere close to 100k memberships.

Even if only 25% of memberships rented one reservation a year because they can’t travel, that’s 25k rentals at a minimum in the market

 

[Genie+]

I think that is why DVC updated transfer rules and will look the other way when people do it for money.

It helps their messaging with those owners who do care who stays in the room.

But, to be fair, there are many owners out there who do not care if a renter or an owner is using a room.

I’ve wondered if the transfer rules update was not only to improve membership, but also help fish out commercial use. It’s hard to argue you took on a transfer of points for personal use when selling them online within the week, repeatedly. Could be another nail in the coffin establishing ‘pattern of use’ is not personal.

 

[Mouseforward]

Well I can tell you how it was explained to me when I bought and when I had in depth conversations last year.

In 2009 when I bought, the rule was that if your membership had more than 20 reservations in a rolling 12 months, you’d be flagged and contacted as possibly being seen as using it for commercial purposss.

If you stayed under that 20, no one was bothering you. And thus, those buying who might be doing a few rentals yearly were well under the written rules.

Fast forward to today and because of the ease of renting and exploding of DVC memberships, that high threshold seems to be inappropriate to stop people from becoming commercial renters.

Why do you think there are so many LLCs? Because it was used as a work around.

Now, they have made the language vague and used “frequent and regular”

And when I talked last year in depth, it was up to me as an owner to decide, if I needed to rent, to follow the written contract.

So, based on that, my belief is an owner renting a few reservations, even every year is not frequent or regular enough to violate the personal use clause.

An owner who is has several rental reservations every month and it never stops?

That would seem to shift to commercial use.

But, under the terms those of us who bought when that old language existed, DVC had a very lax definition.

This new update and the comments last year, that will be changing. To what? Wait and see

I posted this earlier…over 250k members…could mean somewhere close to 100k memberships.

Even if only 25% of memberships rented one reservation a year because they can’t travel, that’s 25k rentals at a minimum in the market

In general, I don’t like changes to a contract once they’re signed could you imagine if you rented an apartment and the owner could change the lease at any time they felt like it?

Real estate TS or real property transactions should have consistent contracts. If they want to change policy, make it for the new owners moving forward.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve wondered if the transfer rules update was not only to improve membership, but also help fish out commercial use. It’s hard to argue you took on a transfer of points for personal use when selling them online within the week, repeatedly. Could be another nail in the coffin establishing ‘pattern of use’ is not personal.

It’s why they stopped the relaxed policy of transferring more than once between ones own membership.

Obviously those owners who relied on this the past 5 years when it started are impacted, but the impact is small.

The one thing I stay hopeful with is that the board seems to really care about optics and doing things that benefit them but can be billed as great for membership and impactful in a negative way to as few owners as possible.

Why I would be surprised to see things like making all cancel or rebook, or limiting name changes, etc.

Far to many average owners, not even aware of the rental concerns, could see that as way to punitive.

Can’t sell someone a $40k timeshare as flexible if it’s not.

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Unless you are a commercial owner, it seems cracking down on commercial owners is generally favored. They are undercutting Disney’s resort booking revenue and negatively impacting the DVC Member experience. If you were a prospective buyer and learned it’s hard to get certain reservations because people are gaming the system for profit you’d feel like (and many uninformed buyers do) you’ve just been had.
One of the advantages to resort reservations vs DVC is that availability isn’t really an issue. It can be mind blowing for that factor to get worse after plunking down $30k.

 

[wilkydelts]

In general, I don’t like changes to a contract once they’re signed could you imagine if you rented an apartment and the owner could change the lease at any time they felt like it?

Real estate TS or real property transactions should have consistent contracts. If they want to change policy, make it for the new owners moving forward.

@Mouseforward tell us which side of the fence you fall, without telling use which side of the fence you fall

 

[MartyParty]

I also heard a good theory online as to why Disney is now taking this seriously after 20 years. The theory is that it is now cheaper to rent points at any of the sold out resorts, then it is to buy a contract and pay maintenance. So now rentals are cutting into DVC sales.

This! Thanks for mentioning this. I had this thought a while back and forgot about it. I was helping a friend figure out how to rent points for a stay at Animal Kingdom Lodge. I didn't put pen to paper, but this is a reasonable bullet to add to the list of why Disney is now doing this. Being able to rent points for cheaper than purchasing direct kinda kills off the need for future direct buyers. If you bought in a while ago, owning likely continues to be the less expensive route versus purchasing today.

And I by no means want to steer this thread down the path of direct, versus, resale, staying at Disney, not staying at Disney, etc. I do think there is another thread that talks about the continue building of resorts, additional points, etc. Supply / Demand is a delicate balance for Disney otherwise the direct market falls of a cliff.

If you could rent points annually way cheaper than buying, then why wouldn't you? Plus, you're not tied into the long-term contract and retain more flexibility.

 

[muppets3d]

Unless you are a commercial owner, it seems cracking down on commercial owners is generally favored. They are undercutting Disney’s resort booking revenue and negatively impacting the DVC Member experience. If you were a prospective buyer and learned it’s hard to get certain reservations because people are gaming the system for profit you’d feel like (and many uninformed buyers do) you’ve just been had.
One of the advantages to resort reservations vs DVC is that availability isn’t really an issue. It can be mind blowing for that factor to get worse after plunking down $30k.

At this point why would anybody buy direct when you can just rent the dates you want from a broker. It's cheaper than buying direct. And availability is not an issue. You can get a confirmed reservation for pretty much any dates you want from any resort, thanks to bots.

 

[Sandisw]

In general, I don’t like changes to a contract once they’re signed could you imagine if you rented an apartment and the owner could change the lease at any time they felt like it?

Real estate TS or real property transactions should have consistent contracts. If they want to change policy, make it for the new owners moving forward.

I agree and why I think these conversations lead to good debate.

As someone who doesn’t rent nor do I intend to, it doesn’t mean I want see the contract changed unless it’s done via a vote of owners.

I really do believe that DVC wants to target a certain set of owners and once done, won’t be micromanaging the rest

They don’t need to because naturally, those who rent a lot, and might be in that middle area, may choose to handle it differently

 

[AstroBlasters]

The "system" will not burn down if resale contracts are devalued. Except for a few resorts, resale values have been dropping precipitously for years now that Disney has not been ROFRing much. If Disney cared about resale value they'd ROFR more to keep the price integrity up. But they don't. Why should anyone else care?

I believe this is short sighted and an extreme minority opinion. There is a 0% chance I would have bought in if there wasn’t a vibrant resale market.

 

[Kingkonig]

Massively improved availability for booking is good for the overall membership though. I'd argue it's way more important than resale value.

Turns out using the product you purchased is more important than figuring out the best way to try and sell it for as little of a loss as possible (regardless of what some YouTubers might say)!

Who would have ever guessed?

 

[muppets3d]

I believe this is short sighted and an extreme minority opinion. There is a 0% chance I would have bought in if there wasn’t a vibrant resale market.

If that were the minority opinion then companies like Westgate Resorts and Bluegreen Vacations would not exist. Those timeshare products have no resale value whatsoever - people routinely have to just walk away from those products and take the credit hit when they don't want them anymore.

 

[muppets3d]

Turns out using the product you purchased is more important than figuring out the best way to try and sell it for as little of a loss as possible (regardless of what some YouTubers might say)!

Who would have ever guessed?

Always pay attention to who sponsors the youtubers, then you realize why they're saying what they are saying.

 

[AstroBlasters]

If that were the minority opinion then companies like Westgate Resorts and Bluegreen Vacations would not exist. Those timeshare products have no resale value whatsoever - people routinely have to just walk away from those products and take the credit hit when they don't want them anymore.

That’s not what I bought into.

 

[Kingkonig]

Always pay attention to who sponsors the youtubers, then you realize why they're saying what they are saying.

Oh without a doubt. There’s a few groups that sponsor just about everything tangentially related to Disney, and their business models are almost exactly the same. Then you’ve got the other end where it’s all travel agents all the way down.

 

[muppets3d]

That’s not what I bought into.

You bought a points-based timeshare. Nobody ever told you it would be worth a dime when/if you choose to resell. Resale values have been dropping precipitously for years now and doesn't really show signs of stopping. Sorry, but it's not really a club, despite the name - it's just a timeshare.

 

[Brian Noble]

I believe this is short sighted and an extreme minority opinion. There is a 0% chance I would have bought in if there wasn’t a vibrant resale market.

You would not have.

But it's reasonable to assume that lots of people would have, because plenty of timeshare developers are able to sell timeshares at similar prices to DVC's wtih zero resale value. Is it a little harder? Sure. But it is definitely not impossible, or even prohibitively difficult.

 

[muppets3d]

Oh without a doubt. There’s a few groups that sponsor just about everything tangentially related to Disney, and their business models are almost exactly the same. Then you’ve got the other end where it’s all travel agents all the way down.

The amount of braindead content the "certified disney travel advisors" put on instagram is boggling. All for a measly 4% commission on a pop century reservation.

 

[Sandisw]

Unless you are a commercial owner, it seems cracking down on commercial owners is generally favored. They are undercutting Disney’s resort booking revenue and negatively impacting the DVC Member experience. If you were a prospective buyer and learned it’s hard to get certain reservations because people are gaming the system for profit you’d feel like (and many uninformed buyers do) you’ve just been had.
One of the advantages to resort reservations vs DVC is that availability isn’t really an issue. It can be mind blowing for that factor to get worse after plunking down $30k.

It is and even those of us who support an owner’s right to rent, don’t have an issue with DVC enforcing that clause.

And I can say that many cchoose WDW cash over rentals for this reason. You may end up spending more but $200 to hold your package with no penalty until 30 days?

It’s a no brainer for many of them.

 

[mfortis]

I have don't necessarily have an issue with commercial entities renting rooms, because Disney does it, etc.
But I think the commercial renters should have different rules to abide by when it comes to renting out points.

• No room hoarding for example.
• No reservation walking.
• Have a separate booking window, 9 months and 5 months for example.
• Make it so that they can only rent out points when they already have a possible renter.
• If you really wanted them to restrict them, they would have to call in to make reservations, lol