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

[Genie+]

The real benefit to VGF 1 is that it has the best laundry room in WDW - I am a studio guy since 75% of my vacations are solo. I am very into good laundry rooms and the dryers at VGF are so hot and fast that you may burn yourself on your jeans if you are not careful. BC /BW are meh as far a laundry rooms BW is too close to the pool and it is hard to get an open machine and I found BC washers leak on the floor so you have to put towels down.

Now I need to try the laundry room! DH did early one morning. I’m going to ask if him how much he enjoyed it over the others.

 

[Sandisw]

In addition to all the changes and problems you discuss, I would assume most for profit enterprises are borrowing forward to rent all or most of their points. If commercial enterprises own more than a few percent of total points at a resort, that will also compound availability problems, both in the categories they book and in other categories as owners trickle down into their 2nd/3rd/4th choice rooms. It’s not a coincidence that you’re almost always buying max stripped contracts from renters.

Of course trying to maximize profit is a commercial use— it’s difficult to imagine any defense of spec renting that wouldn’t be totally focused on commercial incentives.

The reason it’s difficult every week and not just popular weeks to travel is *because* of spec renters. Ordinary owners may want to maximize points, but they are still going to travel less in certain seasons, but because they are a less desirable time to travel, the points are extremely low, and spec renters will grab them to maximize profits. These are times that used to be available more frequently at least until the 7 day mark, but now renter-owners will snag them trusting they can fill it with someone at $30/pt or more.

I’d bet good money this is the real reason Disney is taking action. They don’t want to be renting rooms for the cost of your average rental, but they are having to drop rates to compete with the people advertising rental DVC units.

I think the degree of the crackdown will be determined by whatever it takes to increase occupancy and reduce significant discounts. If the economy is strong they may only need to go after the major players, if it keeps weakening, people renting points to pay for points are more likely to end up in the crosshairs. I would be OK with either option so long as they end spec renting of the most profitable rooms, which would push out many of the people who only own points for the money.

Anybody who relies on legal advice suggesting that the only restriction on “commercial use” is that you can’t hang a shingle and run a business like a travel agency, nightclub, or medical clinic out of your timeshare is setting themselves up for disappointment and possible financial disaster.

Disney has been clear about this for decades.
People often reference “up to 20 reservations” but very few point out that if you went over 20, you needed to demonstrate to Disney that not a single one of your first 20 reservations was a rental, not 19 were OK, not even a few, you were locked out unless you demonstrated they were all not rentals. People should keep this in mind when deciding their risk tolerance and what they think DVC will tolerate as personal use.

Here’s an idea: what if (instead of getting mired in personal use ambiguity) Disney made you check a box at the time you run a search that it is or isn’t a rental, before you can see availability. If it is a rental, you need to upload the rental contract before booking. Still allows for the periodic rental situation and shouldn’t interfere with less toxic rentals of excess points to confirmed renters, but would prevent spec renting and provide a natural disadvantage for the rooms that are in extremely high demand?

As of today, though, DVC has not declared that the act of spec renting a high profit room is considered a contract violation under the commercial renting clause.

It will be interesting to see if they do.

While yes, if you went above 20, you were than forced to prove that none under 20 were rentals, and if you couldn’t they canceled the ones above 20…

But since DVC didn’t even flag accounts until you passed the 20, it didn’t really matter what those under 20 were because DVC told owners they would not even begin to enforce the clause until you triggered the review.

At least it was a written definition of what triggered potential consequences.

But, that is what made it easier for owners to become the mega renter. They simply did what it took to stay below DVCs admitted radar.

Since rentals in some capacity are allowed under the contract, I think it would be extremely problematic to set up different booking rules.

Easiest thing is to is follow through with what the contract says…require owners to notify MS it’s a rental, require the owners, guests and renters of DVC reservations to acknowledge it…I am the owner…I am a guest of the owner…I am a renter who has paid for this reservation…as part of the online check in or in personal check in and take it from there.

This way, DVC can set whatever triggering metric they want, and proceeds with enforcement.

 

[Sandisw]

My point is DVC isn’t solely targeting every BWV-S, AKV-V, RIV-S, RIV-Duo, studios in Seasons 1-3, near park studios after 7 months, Poly Tower Duos, etc. Yes, DVC has VGF resort studios for December. But I don’t see them plucking the highest $/pp in any targeted way.

DVC seems content working their breakage, selling off undeclared inventory, and seem to be booking a variety of rooms for cash from points they control via exchanges and whatnot.

If they were slamming the inventory like spec res, I’d expect to see them hoarding runD dates at BC/BW villas, using more of their points during high demand times and rooms, and noticeably avoiding the lowest demand rooms/dates. To see the ratio of those to be out of line with everything else they put up for cash. Doesn’t look that way.

Spec Reservations though? Watch an aggregate site. Some look to be regular people just selling off a trip they couldn’t take. The vast majority are those targeted highest $/pp listed above. Plus as the dates get closer you can watch them pluck whatever relatively decent availability pops up in the RAT and list it. This is vastly different from what DVC offers for cash.

Again, not my point. You mentioned that DVC has typically shown some restraint and not taking rooms that are very popular away from owners.

The fact that they took BPK from owners in December appears that maybe this is a change in their tactics, especially when we know cash guests are being given some of the same high profit popular rooms owners are losing out on.

I’m not and never have been trying to compare commercial renters who spec rent hard to get rooms against DVCs booking of rooms for cash guests.

Now that they are allowing owners to use points for APs, that they did not 6 months ago, they will be taking more rooms…and thus, it will have some impact on owners.

If that RiV or AKV owner has lost out on their room and sees it on the Disney website, don’t you think they will be just as frustrated seeing it there?

Could we see DVC take more hard to get rooms from owners than they do now given the new trade option for APs?

Could a big reason for finally going after big time renters is so they can capture more of the profit margin that those mega renters are enjoying?

 

[Genie+]

Again, not my point. You mentioned that DVC has typically shown some restraint and not taking rooms that are very popular away from owners.

I hope I never implied in taking any. Pounding them and mostly only them the same way spec res does - no.

The fact that they took BPK from owners in December appears that maybe this is a change in their tactics, especially when we know cash guests are being given some of the same high profit rooms owners are losing out on.

BPK is all studios. 202 of them. It makes up 50% of VGF points. This one example is not typical of the DVC landscape.

 

[Genie+]

Could a big reason for finally going after big time renters is so they can capture more of the profit margin that those mega renters are enjoying?

Very possibly. But if they also improve the product for members to enjoy personal use as intended? Win/win.

When DAS changes came out many people were quick to point out greedy ol’ Disney trying to sell LLs. Sure that was part of it. But the changes also improved guest experience for many.

Protect the product DVC is selling. Protect the guest experience WDW is selling. In both cases they were looking out for their own self interest by making things easier for their own financial interests AND protecting what they hope to keep selling at high prices.

 

[Sandisw]

I hope I never implied in taking any. Pounding them and mostly only them the same way spec res does - no.



BPK is all studios. 202 of them. It makes up 50% of VGF points. This one example is not typical of the DVC landscape.

Do really think that matters to the VGF owners who wanted to book them and got shut out?

Any room that is popular and in high demand that taken for rentals, no matter who takes them, results in the same thing.

One less owner who isn’t getting their room.

Sure, this may not be typical, but it’s not something we have seen…it’s a change…and I think it’s something interesting to watch as they go after the commercial renters.

Once those commercial spec renters are gone, who do you think will have the biggest incentive to take more of rooms?

 

[Genie+]

Do really think that matters to the VGF owners who wanted to book them and got shut out?

I was shut out last year and booked Nov lol.

It’s nowhere near the same thing to me. You have one pattern of activity that ONLY pounds the hardest rooms constantly. Sorry if I don’t recognize Disney/DVC doing the same thing.

 

[PlutoNotPlanet]

Trying to provide a different perspective regarding the high price of spec rentals via Disney’s lens (though I would hate it personally):

Disney might not care how renters price the spec rentals since the renters take the same number of night away. Actually, Disney might like to see a higher price. Because the lower the rental price, a customer might be more likely to book via renters than via Disney directly.

 

[Sandisw]

Trying to provide a different perspective regarding the high price of spec rentals via Disney’s lens (though I would hate it personally):

Disney might not care how renters price the spec rentals since the renters take the same number of night away. Actually, Disney might like to see a higher price. Because the lower the rental price, a customer might be more likely to book via renters than via Disney directly.

Interesting take!

 

[Carouselofplanning]

Someone mentioned earlier that cash rates are getting close to DVC owner per point rates. So they are putting large discounts on the rooms this summer AND trying to crack down on the rental market? Tell me the new park down the block is hurting business this summer without telling me that.

 

[PlutoNotPlanet]

I doubt DVC wants to decimate the entire rental market, because that has benefits to both DVC and to owners. It does seem to enhance the ‘value’ and promote sales.

Agreed. We have heard many stories about friends of owners staying at DVC leading to a DVC purchase. People rent without knowing the owner might also buy in.

If I run the business, I would like to the situation that rentals are available but not always fully available. (e.g., stayed at a good resort once, then found no availability when want to stay again.) Or rental cost is higher than owning in the long run. That’s when you have a better chance to convert guests to owners.

If guests feel they can always rent, they won’t consider a bigger commitment. If the rental price is low and comparable to moderate or even value resorts, then the guests not able to rent can go back to where they stay before.

 

[PlutoNotPlanet]

Someone mentioned earlier that cash rates are getting close to DVC owner per point rates. So they are putting large discounts on the rooms this summer AND trying to crack down on the rental market? Tell me the new park down the block is hurting business this summer without telling me that.

Totally. They are competing with Universal, with off-site properties, Airbnb, besides DVC the internal competitor. When demand is high, DVC is always fully booked, then the impact on cash booking is lower.

 

[Sandisw]

I was shut out last year and booked Nov lol.

It’s nowhere near the same thing to me. You have one pattern of activity that ONLY pounds the hardest rooms constantly. Sorry if I don’t recognize Disney/DVC doing the same thing.

I never said Disney and spec renters actions were the same either.

IDVC taking some high demand rooms adds to the issue for owners who are already losing out on them , which results in the same outcome for owners…fewer hard to get rooms for their own personal use.

Good discussion!

 

[Cyberc1978]

Someone mentioned earlier that cash rates are getting close to DVC owner per point rates. So they are putting large discounts on the rooms this summer AND trying to crack down on the rental market? Tell me the new park down the block is hurting business this summer without telling me that.

That was only for the woodsheds at CFW right?

At least for my dates they aren’t coming close to owner rates.

 

[AstroBlasters]

The villas building is very nice, the real story is the 1 bedroom and larger villas however. My opinion - if you're gonna do a studio, stick to big pine key. Each to their own!

No…. the original villas are the worst…. no one should ever book there… especially the 2 bedrooms over Spring Break…. pay no attention to the penguin lobby…. and the short walk to the monorail…. and the short walk to PolyT….. move along… resort villas are right this way…. I hear the soundproofing is great!

 

[Mommb]

Here’s an idea: what if (instead of getting mired in personal use ambiguity) Disney made you check a box at the time you run a search that it is or isn’t a rental, before you can see availability. If it is a rental, you need to upload the rental contract before booking. Still allows for the periodic rental situation and shouldn’t interfere with less toxic rentals of excess points to confirmed renters, but would prevent spec renting and provide a natural disadvantage for the rooms that are in extremely high demand?

This wouldn't work for initial searches because people who have offered points for rent and are trying to meet a specific request (e.g., offered to rent a friend some points if there's anything available during the trip the friend has already planned) might not have a contract until they know they can make a reservation.

Asking whether a reservation is a rental and if so asking for a contract would, however, work when a previously-made reservation is being changed from the owner's name to another guest's name. If a reservation is being changed to a renting guest's name, there should be a rental contract in place. Even if DVC doesn't do anything with the contract, it will allow them to keep track of the number and timing of spec reservations. I'm not sure how to prevent owners from simply saying "Oh, this isn't a rental," but if someone makes a large number of "not a rental" name changes DVC may choose to follow up with the guests after the trip, when they would have no reason not to tell whether they had paid for their room.

 

[DanCali]

DVC may choose to follow up with the guests after the trip, when they would have no reason not to tell whether they had paid for their room.

Here’s an idea: what if (instead of getting mired in personal use ambiguity) Disney made you check a box at the time you run a search that it is or isn’t a rental, before you can see availability. If it is a rental, you need to upload the rental contract before booking.

I called yesterday to make a reservation and I had to verbally agree.

Some of this is potentially headed down the path of harassing owners and guests.

Why would anyone want to have their ownership turn into this?

It's most likely less than 0.1% of owners who are causing 50% of the problems. This really should not go down the road of changing what is a good booking/visiting experience for everyone else.

 

[HollyP]

Interesting… we all missed this little error in the June 2025 rules!


I may resort to only making reservations by calling member services… thereby never actually agreeing to these new terms and conditions!

I called yesterday to make a reservation and I had to verbally agree.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Disney might not care how renters price the spec rentals since the renters take the same number of night away. Actually, Disney might like to see a higher price. Because the lower the rental price, a customer might be more likely to book via renters than via Disney directly.

I was also thinking about this— cheap rentals are worse for Disney hotels than expensive rentals (undercutting pricing at hotels), but conversely, the more money that renters milk from their guests, the less money they have left for Disney to extract on F&B, merch, tours, etc. If someone is willing to pay $500, Disney wants them at WVL or AKV or a cabin and not in a privately rented DVC studio. I think in Disney’s perfect world, rentals would be a few hundred and only at OKW and Saratoga?

This wouldn't work for initial searches because people who have offered points for rent and are trying to meet a specific request (e.g., offered to rent a friend some points if there's anything available during the trip the friend has already planned) might not have a contract until they know they can make a reservation.

Good point, it’s totally unreasonable for a contract to be executed before a room is secured, but you could still ask them to fill out a few fields about rental terms, then upload the contract within 72 hours or such.

Some of this is potentially headed down the path of harassing owners and guests.

Why would anyone want to have their ownership turn into this?

Having to upload the contract for rentals is “harassing owners”? I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to be slightly inconvenienced the few times a decade I rent out my points if it meant that owners using for themselves got priority over owners trying to maximize profits for rentals.

It's most likely less than 0.1% of owners who are causing 50% of the problems. This really should not go down the road of changing what is a good booking/visiting experience for everyone else.

The experience wouldn’t change for everyone who is using their points to book for themselves and guests, only those booking on behalf of paying customers.

Earlier in this thread people talked about the only proven way to stop renting for profit is to kill demand, but I think they also need to make it harder for the people abusing the system while making minimal (ideally zero) changes for the people using their points as intended. Slowing down renters just a little bit could dramatically increase the average owner’s chance of getting coveted rooms.

 

[Mouseforward]

That was only for the woodsheds at CFW right?

At least for my dates they aren’t coming close to owner rates.

SSR is 330 - Boardwalk 395 they have good rates for pass holders this summer

RIV / YC / VgF / Poly still high