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

[BeachClub2014]

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.

Yeah, I'm not buying this metric, so to speak.

It seems that someone dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars on 2,000 points in one contract would take the time to research what they are buying and the available options. Something as simple as asking the salesperson: "We're considering purchasing 2,000 points. What are my options? What do you recommend to allow for future resale, if needed?"

 

[byurick]

Disney should just create their own portal where members can rent their extra points. Then they say can say if you rent outside it they will cancel your reservations.

 

[DanCali]

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?

Define the “problem”… What would you like this to resolve?

Because I think some “problems” will never be rectified (like if the “problem” is grabbing 7 nights at AKV value at 7 months). So you’d be right - what’s the point in any of this!

 

[Sandisw]

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.

The line in the sand that DVC can draw for what changes your membership to one that is being used for commerical purposes, is, currently, vague...this is true...but whatever it is, we are guaranteed the right to have that line seem reasonable, since, as an owner, you are allowed to make rental reservations.

But, what is not ambigous and is clear is that you can not use your membership as a commerical entripse....You can't rent so many reservations that one can reasonably conclude you bought it to make money to a degree that your primiary purpose is no longer for you to use it for vacations.

And, that is what DVC should be enforcing, regardless of whether that owner wants them to or not.

The benefits for having renters to DVD and Disney....they buy a contract....is really irrelavant to the discussion because this is about each owner who bought DVC using their membership within the rules.

So, if you are making rental reservations at a rate that DVC feels is too frequent or too regular to still be considered you have it for personal use reasons, then they can, and should, consider your membership a commerical one.

Now, what we obviously have different opinions on is what definition of frequently and regularly should DVC use that is reasonable.

In terms of bots, doesn't matter if we had the ability to use them or not, the TWDC technology terms prohibit them.....

 

[Sandisw]

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

The explosion of mega renters who are doing it against the rules is really a result of DVC's own making.

The old rule started it because they told owners when they would consider you having crossed the line....stay below it and we won't even flag your account. They also had the rules in such a way that they did apply per membership and so owners created many under lots of different owners, LLC, etc. And, they set that threshold high.

To be fair, back then, it wasn't easy finding renters, there may have only been one rental broker, and things like social media were not what they are today.

But, we both know that legally they can't stop all renting and they know that too....they acknowledged as much at the meeting last year.

IMO, though, they would have no reason to even try, when they can come up with rules that would be seen to mesh with not only the contract, but FL statutes!!! But take out those mega renters who are violating the contract right now!

 

[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 did give me a number. You said you believe .1 percent (I believe you edited it to add an even smaller fraction than that) accounts from 25%-50% of rentals, and that would be sufficient. I asked you, if that didn't work to curb the widespread commercial renting, what number should that extend to? I think they should keep going until they've satisfied the legal terms of the contract they made me sign- no commercial renting is allowed. We don't know that number, so I don't have a number to give you other than "all of the commercial renting that exists and is reasonably able to be stopped".

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.

The problem is widespread commercial renting. Rectified means that commercial renting is no longer a viable lifestyle.

Define the “problem”… What would you like this to resolve?

Because I think some “problems” will never be rectified (like if the “problem” is grabbing 7 nights at AKV value at 7 months). So you’d be right - what’s the point in any of this!

See above. Most everyone here who isn't a frequent renter themselves seems to agree that commercial renting is a problem. We are at page 82 and I've not seen anyone else argue a different "problem". There are tangential issues, but the problem is commercial renting is widespread. That's what we want stopped. There's no point in doing any of this as DVC if you aren't going to fix the problem, and I think members should not let DVC off the hook until they've resolved it, which again, means commercial renting is not happening anymore without repercussions. If the top .1 of renters only rent 25% of the total rentals on the market, and another 35% of mid-tier renters rent another 50%, then stopping at that top .1 makes no sense, right? If you're going to do something, do it right.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

The reason you can't split a contract later is because the points are simply a way to represent your ownership interest in a specifc unit and splitting later might through that off. And, IIRC, FL real estate law wouldn't allow it either....

In terms of guides, no, they don't regularly recommend splitting and part of it is that it costs an owner more money to do that...additional closing costs...but, maybe it is something you should send as feedback to DVD.

Unfortunately, buying a larger contract has a downside because you either sell all or none...and as life changes, you might not be able to use all the points. But, that isn't an acceptable reason to rent beyond what you are legally allowed to rent.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney should just create their own portal where members can rent their extra points. Then they say can say if you rent outside it they will cancel your reservations.

As great as that might be, it would completely be in conflict with the hotel division. I can't imagine that there isn't something within the TWDC that would prevent DVC from doing it....

But, one should never say never!!

 

[BeachClub2014]

The problem is widespread commercial renting. Rectified means that commercial renting is no longer a viable lifestyle.

Gotcha. Thanks for defining these terms from your perspective.

I won't argue that commercial renting is likely widespread and has a seemingly significant impact on at least a subset of rooms. I would go a little further and suggest that the general rental landscape has grown to the point of being harmful, much like commercial renting.

I would have no problem if DVC drew the line at 50% of your annual points per contract being eligible for renting. That still accommodates the legal requirement to allow for renting, would account for all of the "what if I (fill in the blank with a reason), and can't use my points people, and encourages personal use, as is stipulated in the POS.

 

[DanCali]

You did give me a number. You said you believe .1 percent (I believe you edited it to add an even smaller fraction than that) accounts from 25%-50% of rentals, and that would be sufficient. I asked you, if that didn't work to curb the widespread commercial renting, what number should that extend to? I think they should keep going until they've satisfied the legal terms of the contract they made me sign- no commercial renting is allowed. We don't know that number, so I don't have a number to give you other than "all of the commercial renting that exists and is reasonably able to be stopped".



The problem is widespread commercial renting. Rectified means that commercial renting is no longer a viable lifestyle.



See above. Most everyone here who isn't a frequent renter themselves seems to agree that commercial renting is a problem. We are at page 82 and I've not seen anyone else argue a different "problem". There are tangential issues, but the problem is commercial renting is widespread. That's what we want stopped. There's no point in doing any of this as DVC if you aren't going to fix the problem, and I think members should not let DVC off the hook until they've resolved it, which again, means commercial renting is not happening anymore without repercussions. If the top .1 of renters only rent 25% of the total rentals on the market, and another 35% of mid-tier renters rent another 50%, then stopping at that top .1 makes no sense, right? If you're going to do something, do it right.

Except nobody agrees on what “commercial“ means beyond that LLCs and bots are probably crossing a line.

Based on your prior post It seems that you’re willing to shut down 95% of renters. I doubt that many here will agree with that. It’s a right owners have.

 

[DanCali]

I would have no problem if DVC drew the line at 50% of your annual points per contract being eligible for renting.

But that’s potentially problematic too. If you have 100 RIV and 100 VGF renting 50/50 is ok but 70/30 is not?

 

[lilsonicfan]

Disney should just create their own portal where members can rent their extra points. Then they say can say if you rent outside it they will cancel your reservations.

This is what I came here to say - though Idk if anyone suggested this in the first 81 pages as I didn't read it, I'm sorry. But this seems like a great way for DVC to capitalize on the rentals anyway. I did read the first page of that Wyndham thread and it sounds like Wyndham does have its own such system.

 

[BeachClub2014]

But that’s potentially problematic too. If you have 100 RIV and 100 VGF renting 50/50 is ok but 70/30 is not?

I like simple solutions. A common theme in this thread is the desire to obtain clarity on where the lines may be drawn. 50% of each contracts annual allotment is simple and clear. It also eliminates any profit motivation for commercial enterprises so that problem goes away pretty quickly.

 

[lowlight]

Except nobody agrees on what “commercial“ means beyond that LLCs and bots are probably crossing a line.

No amount of arguing between us will change that. It’s up to DVC. I’m saying that whatever they decide is the threshold, they should go until 100% is eradicated. Not just the big guys, everyone who meets their internal benchmark. Otherwise, you cut one head off and three more grow in its place. If that ends up being half of all renters, 5%, or 99% is irrelevant. They have an internal threshold, I want them to enforce it like they are contractually obligated to.

 

[Sandisw]

You did give me a number. You said you believe .1 percent (I believe you edited it to add an even smaller fraction than that) accounts from 25%-50% of rentals, and that would be sufficient. I asked you, if that didn't work to curb the widespread commercial renting, what number should that extend to? I think they should keep going until they've satisfied the legal terms of the contract they made me sign- no commercial renting is allowed. We don't know that number, so I don't have a number to give you other than "all of the commercial renting that exists and is reasonably able to be stopped".



The problem is widespread commercial renting. Rectified means that commercial renting is no longer a viable lifestyle.



See above. Most everyone here who isn't a frequent renter themselves seems to agree that commercial renting is a problem. We are at page 82 and I've not seen anyone else argue a different "problem". There are tangential issues, but the problem is commercial renting is widespread. That's what we want stopped. There's no point in doing any of this as DVC if you aren't going to fix the problem, and I think members should not let DVC off the hook until they've resolved it, which again, means commercial renting is not happening anymore without repercussions. If the top .1 of renters only rent 25% of the total rentals on the market, and another 35% of mid-tier renters rent another 50%, then stopping at that top .1 makes no sense, right? If you're going to do something, do it right.

It still seems to me that you are looking at the number of rentals by ALL owners, calling it commericial renting, and saying that needs to be reduced.

That is not what DVC is required to do.....they are required to stop invidiual owners from renting in a commericial way.....

So, its not about % of rentals being reduced when this is done, but stopping 100% of the mega renters who are doing it commericial out of the market....

What none of us know is what % of all the owners renting are in the "mega renter doing it commericially" bucket? Many of us believe that the number of owners who fall into that category is a relatively small % of total owners participating in today's rental market.

So, if DVC knocks out 100% of all the mega renters, then the number of rentals in the market is where it should be.....unless, one wants DVC to say that owners "can not rent" reservations at all....

I'd still like to know what you think the average DVC owner should be allowed to rent?

 

[IMMkXLVI]

The reason you can't split a contract later is because the points are simply a way to represent your ownership interest in a specifc unit and splitting later might through that off. And, IIRC, FL real estate law wouldn't allow it either....

In terms of guides, no, they don't regularly recommend splitting and part of it is that it costs an owner more money to do that...additional closing costs...but, maybe it is something you should send as feedback to DVD.

Unfortunately, buying a larger contract has a downside because you either sell all or none...and as life changes, you might not be able to use all the points. But, that isn't an acceptable reason to rent beyond what you are legally allowed to rent.

I figured it might be against Florida law given it is an interest in real property. When I was in talks with our DVC agent, I made it apparent that in the event of our passing, we'd like to leave the points to our two children. He never suggested a split contract.
The math was there for him. 300 divided by two. Easy peasy. We were novices and had zero DVC knowledge. We relied on him, the authority, to educate us. Only when I mentioned the same thing to a forum member did splitting the contract come up. He had to cancel and rewrite it since it was already drafted that way. He also didn't advise not to try booking without speaking to DVC first to benefit from the first reservation with an agent, for more flexibility in that initial booking. I forgot what it's called.

I don't envy Disney trying to resolve it without alienating any DVC members that aren't renting commercially.

 

[lowlight]

I'd still like to know what you think the average DVC owner should be allowed to rent?

You might have been typing this when I made my reply above. It’s not for me to decide. My opinions don’t matter. DVC has likely set an internal threshold. I want them to enforce it to the 100th percentile is all. Not just go after the “big guys” and call it a day.

 

[tx911]

You might have been typing this when I made my reply above. It’s not for me to decide. My opinions don’t matter. DVC has likely set an internal threshold. I want them to enforce it to the 100th percentile is all. Not just go after the “big guys” and call it a day.

I think if the "small guys" got a letter similar to the one posted by Wyndham it would do the trick.

 

[JackosinDIS]

They have an internal threshold, I want them to enforce it like they are contractually obligated to.

That is not what DVC is required to do.....they are required to stop invidiual owners from renting in a commericial way.....

I’m being slightly pedantic here, but just to note that there is no contractual obligation, or requirement on DVC to enforce the terms of the contracts with any owner.

There is no ‘mutual enforceability’ clause in any of our contracts, which would otherwise enable an owner to require DVC to take action against any other owner for breach. DVC are not in breach of the terms of the contract by failing to do so.

 

[Sandisw]

You might have been typing this when I made my reply above. It’s not for me to decide. My opinions don’t matter. DVC has likely set an internal threshold. I want them to enforce it to the 100th percentile is all. Not just go after the “big guys” and call it a day.

I agree it is up to DVC and not us....

If DVC determines that the "big guys" are the ones renting at a level they feel is commericial, then it sounds like we agree that is who should be targeted.

I get you don't want to share your opinion on what you think an owner should be allowed to do so we can leave it there!!!