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

[IMMkXLVI]

I guess we can start with It's against the Rules.

Probably we could end there. But the other factor is the allegation that commercial renters invariably hoard huge numbers of high-demand rooms, presumably using bots and long periods of reservation walking to maximize their efficiency in obtaining those rooms. Thus the perception is that commercial renters are bad for the average member.

I haven't read the rules in their entirety but what I have read is laced with ambiguity. Even when I read articles discussing the rules, they often cite the ambiguous nature of the rules and rule enforcement. This is why I didn't just dismiss the question in my own mind as "against the rules". It's against the rules to drive past the posted speed limit but drive on any interstate, highway, freeway or city road and tell me that this rule is adhered to.

As for the other reasons you cited, I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Granted we haven't owned DVC long enough for a historical pattern but the points would be owned by someone, if not the commercial renter. Those individuals would be seeking reservations and so the points would still be used. It seems to me like a 6 to 1 , half dozen to the other scenario. A percentage of the same people that rent might then buy DVC and seek out the same reservations previously acquired from a commercial owner. Nothing is being avoided in this scenario. As for bots, one could suggest that anyone, the casual renter and the commercial one both can employ such measures.

Time till tell if it changes things or improves them for the owner that books for themselves.

 

[tx911]

I haven't read the rules in their entirety but what I have read is laced with ambiguity. Even when I read articles discussing the rules, they often cite the ambiguous nature of the rules and rule enforcement. This is why I didn't just dismiss the question in my own mind as "against the rules". It's against the rules to drive past the posted speed limit but drive on any interstate, highway, freeway or city road and tell me that this rule is adhered to.

As for the other reasons you cited, I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment. Granted we haven't owned DVC long enough for a historical pattern but the points would be owned by someone, if not the commercial renter. Those individuals would be seeking reservations and so the points would still be used. It seems to me like a 6 to 1 , half dozen to the other scenario. A percentage of the same people that rent might then buy DVC and seek out the same reservations previously acquired from a commercial owner. Nothing is being avoided in this scenario. As for bots, one could suggest that anyone, the casual renter and the commercial one both can employ such measures.

Time till tell if it changes things or improves them for the owner that books for themselves.

Well, we know that commercial use is against the rules. I agree that whether and when renting reaches the definition of "commercial" is not spelled out explicitly, but I think we all have a pretty darn good idea what it means, and I think the ones doing it know darn well that they are engaged in commercial use. Unfortunately, they aren't just going to stop on their own volition. After all, they are by definition making money doing it.

 

[Brian Noble]

I suspect Disney also firmly believes in capitalism, but might disagree with some here on how it is best implemented.

And, independently of what is "right" or even what a court might ultimately construe, Disney's interpretation will be the one we live with unless someone is willing to spend a lot of money and time to challenge it.

 

[Sandisw]

How about no more than 25% of you points on average per year?

If you only rent every 4 years, you could rent 100% of your points.

Every other year renter? No more than 50%, etc.

Opinion here!

It certainly seems like that would be seen by many as reasonable. And, its ideas like this that some of us would like to see DVC consider.

The problem with %, though, is that the more you have, the more you can rent, which means more actual reservations....

25% of 500 points seems reasonable....25% of 8000 points is still 2000 points and a lot of rentals.....

At least we know that their current thinking includes frequently or regularly....that is a start! I personally am hoping they decide to look at ranges vs. specifics (which is what got them into this trouble to begin with).

Having that 20 reservations threshold before a review was triggered, set the bar pretty high for moving into the commericial purpose world and it does provide insight as to what they believed, at that time, was reasonable definition of commericial.

Not saying they have to stay with that, and honestly, don't expect them to, because DVC has grown, and the ease of renting has grown.

ETA: Let's speculate.....they set the general guidance at a few (3 to 5) reservations a year for everyone....doesn't matter the size of the reservation, or the number of points it takes, just reservations in the names of others.....applied to everyone.

I believe the most popular rental is a studio so it won't take that many points to get there.....and would temper even the large point owners, or force them into renting the larger units instead becaus the # of reservations is fixed.

Then, they monitor and allow for unique situations or emergencies.....where someone might be skipping a year, etc. That can be monitored case by case...

The other benefit I could see with having the reservations at that reasonable level is that it does severly cut down on single night reservations....

 

[tx911]

Opinion here!

It certainly seems like that would be seen by many as reasonable. And, its ideas like this that some of us would like to see DVC consider.

The problem with %, though, is that the more you have, the more you can rent, which means more actual reservations....

25% of 500 points seems reasonable....25% of 8000 points is still 2000 points and a lot of rentals.....

At least we know that their current thinking includes frequently or regularly....that is a start! I personally am hoping they decide to look at ranges vs. specifics (which is what got them into this trouble to begin with).

Having that 20 reservations threshold before a review was triggered, set the bar pretty high for moving into the commericial purpose world and it does provide insight as to what they believed, at that time, was reasonable definition of commericial.

Not saying they have to stay with that, and honestly, don't expect them to, because DVC has grown, and the ease of renting has grown.

I think I might be ok with it.

If you're paying north of $70,000 (!!) in dues every year and using the other 6000 (!!) points for you and your family vacations, I'd probably be fine with you renting out the other 2000.

 

[Sandisw]

Ducked out of the thread for a day due to a medical procedure. Came back and skimmed all the new pages. Glad to see everyone is still at the very same conclusion (confusion) as before and really nothing new is being added

Since I don’t commercially rent I’m not going to to worry about it, stay out of this thread and focus on finding a new BWV contract that I will personally use. I’m also going to email DVC and thank them for taking some sort of action against commercial renters.

Just sending pixiedust for you to feel better AND for luck in finding that perfect BWV contract!!!!!!!!!

 

[ShaneDJ]

Well, we know that commercial use is against the rules.

I agree that whether and when renting reaches the definition of "commercial" is not spelled out explicitly, but I think we all have a pretty darn good idea what it means

Absolutely disagree with this.

We have 81 pages on this thread because of completely different ideas of what this means.

81 pages (so far), and we still have not gotten any specific clarifications and we likely won't be changing the opinions of others here. Only DVC can give us the clear idea.

 

[lowlight]

I can’t give you a number. I’m for stopping egregious abuse while keeping ownership rights.

What percentage of rentals do you think they should stop at? 100%?

You can't give a number, and you want me to give you a number, but many on the "renting is ok" side are bemoaning the fact that Disney isn't giving a number either. That's a problem. I want them to start at the top and go all the way down until the issue is corrected. Whether that ends up being 5% of people who rent or 95% is irrelevant to me. What is the point in any of this at all if the problem isn't rectified?

 

[Sandisw]

I think I might be ok with it.

If you're paying north of $70,000 (!!) in dues every year and using the other 6000 (!!) points for you and your family vacations, I'd probably be fine with you renting out the other 2000.

I added an ETA above!!! LOL

 

[BeachClub2014]

You can't give a number, and you want me to give you a number, but many on the "renting is ok" side are bemoaning the fact that Disney isn't giving a number either. That's a problem. I want them to start at the top and go all the way down until the issue is corrected. Whether that ends up being 5% of people who rent or 95% is irrelevant to me. What is the point in any of this at all if the problem isn't rectified?

Not asking this in an arguing way, but I am curious to learn your thoughts on what the "problem" is and what "rectified" looks like.

 

[tx911]

ETA: Let's speculate.....they set the general guidance at a few (3 to 5) reservations a year for everyone....doesn't matter the size of the reservation, or the number of points it takes, just reservations in the names of others.....applied to everyone.

I believe the most popular rental is a studio so it won't take that many points to get there.....and would temper even the large point owners, or force them into renting the larger units instead becaus the # of reservations is fixed.

Then, they monitor and allow for unique situations or emergencies.....where someone might be skipping a year, etc. That can be monitored case by case...

The other benefit I could see with having the reservations at that reasonable level is that it does severly cut down on single night reservations....

I'd be good with that, number of reservations instead of point total.

Combine that with average per year, such that if you go several years renting none, you could rent more in the 4th year.

 

[Sandisw]

So it turns out we have an example of a Wyndham C&D letter, posted in TUG just today.

https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/email-notice-of-club-wyndham-plus-rule-violation.375070/

Do you have or know where we can find the Commerical Use Provisions of that contract that is referenced?

There are a few things posted but not sure if that is all of it?

 

[tx911]

Absolutely disagree with this.

We have 81 pages on this thread because of completely different ideas of what this means.

81 pages (so far), and we still have not gotten any specific clarifications and we likely won't be changing the opinions of others here. Only DVC can give us the clear idea.

Yes, we have different ideas at the point where "personal" and "commercial" converge.

Where we would all agree is where they are most divergent, and that is where I hope DVC begins the crackdown. Those are the folks I'm referring to when I say they know what they're doing and know that it's wrong.

 

[Sandisw]

So, with the Wyndam link posted above, here is what is posted as prohibited:

• Guest certificates are added to reservations that constitute a large percentage of your total points.
• Lots of guest reservations year after year.
• Speculative reservations. Meaning many reservations are cancelled close to the 15 day prior to checkin mark

Key takeways for me:

They use % of total points as a metric, and they look for patterns over more than one year... What is most interesting is that it doesn't sound like the making of speculative reservaitons is prohibited, but if you end up making and canceling a lot of them close to check in, its an issue.

Those familar with this, are there different guest certificates for those that are renters and those that are just family/friends?

 

[BeachClub2014]

So, with the Wyndam link posted above, here is what is posted as prohibited:

• Guest certificates are added to reservations that constitute a large percentage of your total points.
• Lots of guest reservations year after year.
• Speculative reservations. Meaning many reservations are cancelled close to the 15 day prior to checkin mark

Key takeways for me:

They use % of total points as a metric, and they look for patterns over more than one year... What is most interesting is that it doesn't sound like the making of speculative reservaitons is prohibited, but if you end up making and canceling a lot of them close to check in, its an issue.

Those familar with this, are there different guest certificates for those that are renters and those that are just family/friends?

Thanks for this summary, @Sandisw. I'm curious to know what percentage they use. All of this seems relatively reasonable to me.

 

[Sandisw]

You can't give a number, and you want me to give you a number, but many on the "renting is ok" side are bemoaning the fact that Disney isn't giving a number either. That's a problem. I want them to start at the top and go all the way down until the issue is corrected. Whether that ends up being 5% of people who rent or 95% is irrelevant to me. What is the point in any of this at all if the problem isn't rectified?

So, what is the level of renting you believe individual owners should be allowed to do during their ownership that does not turn their membership into a commerical one?

 

[IMMkXLVI]

Here's another metric, when we purchased our 300 Riviera points, the selling agent was going to do it as a single contract. Only at the behest of a forum member of ******* suggesting we break it up into 150 point contracts did I know this was an option and beneficial. If we were purchasing a larger contract, say 2000 points, would he have suggested breaking it up? I don't know but if he wouldn't have, then I'd have a single contract for 2000 points that if our vacation needs change and we aren't using them, then I'd have an issue because I couldn't split them later for resale so I could have points for us but not be saddled with points we no longer use.

Disney should consider a mechanism (within Florida real-estate laws) that allow for large contracts to be split up to allow for resale.

 

[tx911]

So, what is the level of renting you believe individual owners should be allowed to do during their ownership that does not turn their membership into a commerical one?

You didn't ask me, but I kind of like the idea of 50% every 2 years. This would require owners to pay their own dues half the time or half of their dues all the time.

 

[tx911]

Here's another metric, when we purchased our 300 Riviera points, the selling agent was going to do it as a single contract. Only at the behest of a forum member of ******* suggesting we break it up into 150 point contracts did I know this was an option and beneficial. If we were purchasing a larger contract, say 2000 points, would he have suggested breaking it up? I don't know but if he wouldn't have, then I'd have a single contract for 2000 points that if our vacation needs change and we aren't using them, then I'd have an issue because I couldn't split them later for resale so I could have points for us but not be saddled with points we no longer use.

Disney should consider a mechanism (within Florida real-estate laws) that allow for large contracts to be split up to allow for resale.

That's a good point. It's all or none if you have a single large contract.

 

[PlutoNotPlanet]

There will always be a healthy rental market because DVC ownership has grown.

100%, unless DVC decides to go down the no-rental-at-all route.
The equilibrium was probably broken in the last several years when mega renters come in. The demand of DVC rental increased as more guests are aware of the option. Then, mega renters doubled down to secure even more points, more rooms, as well as more advertising. Now, it irritates both existing owners and Disney