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

[Sandisw]

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.

Yes, and thank you for clarifying that! If DVC wants to allow owners to do things that aren't otherwise in the contract they can...

However, if they DO decide to enforce the rental portion of the contract, it has to apply to the owners of each contract....they cant say my actions are a violation of renting, if you are the one breaking the rules....just because we are both owners....

 

[Girlstar30]

That is the whole point many of us have said. . Nothing DVC has ever done, said or implied recently. including in the contract, that their goals is anything but stopping large point owners renting for commercial reasons.

DVC, if they do what they are supposed to do for those who own pre RIv contracts s is come up with reasonable definitions on what makes the membership commercial. And in line with FL laws about right to rent.

IMO, that is what we will see.

So those who own Riv or after have a different set of rules (less favorable to someone who rents) ? If so, Does this apply to poly island tower owners as well since its in the same association as og poly? This would be something important to me to know before purchasing

 

[Sandisw]

So those who own Riv or after have a different set of rules (less favorable to someone who rents) ? If so, Does this apply to poly island tower owners as well since its in the same association as og poly? This would be something important to me to know

The standard is the same.....you can not use your membership to rent in a way that DVC determines that you are in it for commericial reasons.

But, those with RIV, VDH, and CFW, some of the wording is different....they added more clarifiers as to what could be used as potential thresholds for defining commericial reasons.

Prior to that, the word "reasonable" was used, which meant, they are required to choose a threshold that people would consider reasonble when it comes to crossing the line. IIRC, owners of those contracts have more options to contest the decision.

For RIV and beyond, I don't believe we have the right to challenge in the same way and we don't have the word reasonable....

But, for example, the RIV POS states something like" create, maintain your own website". That doesn't exist in previous contracts so it is harder for them to apply it to those owners.

For a RIV owner, you have been put on notice that if you are doing that, and DVC decides to make it part of the definition, then you are in violation.

Since Poly tower was added to PVB, it follows all the same rules...they are one assocation.

 

[drusba]

Yes you are correct, I don't have a copy of my Riviera contract handy but it does call out personal use rentals as acceptable as we all know. It specifically says you should not buy DVC with the expectation to make a profit. Profiteering off of DVC is against the rules. Not renting.

There is nothing in the POS's that says profiting off of rentals is against the rules. The clause you are referring to that says one should not purchase with the expectation of making a profit is in a clause that is simply informing potential purchasers that DVC will not help them with rentals and that any member trying to do rentals will be facing rental competition by professional renters including from Disney and DVC entities, which could prevent a member from making any profit from rentals. That is actually the kind of clause that appears in many contracts relating to sale of vacation properties to assure the seller cannot later be sued by the purchaser claiming that the seller's sales rep told the buyer that doing rentals of the property would definitely be profitable. And it is the kind of clause that is never put in if rentals are prohibited.

So those who own Riv or after have a different set of rules (less favorable to someone who rents) ? If so, Does this apply to poly island tower owners as well since its in the same association as og poly? This would be something important to me to know before purchasing

Poly Towers is an addition to the original Poly DVC resort and covered by the Poly 1 POS.. As a result it is subject to the same, more favorable rental rules as Poly 1. Such additions to a resort have a downside that a new, separate resort does not. New resorts typically have a 50 year life, but any new addition to an already existing DVC resort has the same termination date as the original resort.

 

[Cyberc1978]

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.

IMO there is nothing in the rules saying DVC can’t dont that, on the other hand FL stat is saying that owners rights to rent can’t be limited etc without a vote and only those in favor will the limitations apply to.

NOW how Wyndham can get around that I don’t maybe their ownership is different than of DVC and maybe the FL stat therefore don’t apply do them. Maybe another option is that no one challenged Wyndham.

 

[Girlstar30]

The standard is the same.....you can not use your membership to rent in a way that DVC determines that you are in it for commericial reasons.

But, those with RIV, VDH, and CFW, some of the wording is different....they added more clarifiers as to what could be used as potential thresholds for defining commericial reasons.

Prior to that, the word "reasonable" was used, which meant, they are required to choose a threshold that people would consider reasonble when it comes to crossing the line. IIRC, owners of those contracts have more options to contest the decision.

For RIV and beyond, I don't believe we have the right to challenge in the same way and we don't have the word reasonable....

But, for example, the RIV POS states something like" create, maintain your own website". That doesn't exist in previous contracts so it is harder for them to apply it to those owners.

For a RIV owner, you have been put on notice that if you are doing that, and DVC decides to make it part of the definition, then you are in violation.

Since Poly tower was added to PVB, it follows all the same rules...they are one assocation.

Thank you. So is the 20 reservations and under ive been reading about here what they consider reasonable for the older contracts or they changed it or didnt clearly specify? Trying to catch up on everything longest thread ever

 

[Girlstar30]

I just make a reservation by phone with an otherwise lovely cast member and was straight out asked if the booking was for personal usage. I was taken back for a moment and felt defensive (although it was for personal use). Definitely, something to adjust to!

It feels a bit ridiculous to be asked that when you are the lead guest on the reservation

 

[DonMacGregor]

It feels a bit ridiculous to be asked that when you are the lead guest on the reservation

If you're making a spec reservation, then you're the lead guest... until you're not.

 

[Girlstar30]

If you're making a spec reservation, then you're the lead guest... until you're not.

When you change it they ask you this question again. That would be when it would make sense to ask this question.

Of course I would never really know how to answer it if i changed it to someone elses name as my definition of what personal use is, is different than there's

Because to me, personal use isn't renting to a stranger i dont know personally. To them it is. And if I did think this, I dont know how to draw the line on how many times I would really constitute it as being personal use.

So if I said yes to this according to what my definition is, that im apparently supposed to define for myself with what I feel comfortable with, I would be lying and I dont feel comfortable with that

 

[Sandisw]

Thank you. So is the 20 reservations and under ive been reading about here what they consider reasonable for the older contracts or they changed it or didnt clearly specify? Trying to catch up on everything longest thread ever

That can no longer be found in any official documents.

They have never said it isn’t a standard they use, but they removed it from documents.

 

[Girlstar30]

That can no longer be found in any official documents.

They have never said it isn’t a standard they use, but they removed it from documents.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Sandisw]

When you change it they ask you this question again. That would be when it would make sense to ask this question.

Of course I would never really know how to answer it if i changed it to someone elses name as my definition of what personal use is, is different than there's

Because to me, personal use isn't renting to a stranger i dont know personally. To them it is. And if I did think this, I dont know how to draw the line on how many times I would really constitute it as being personal use.

So if I said yes to this according to what my definition is, that im apparently supposed to define for myself with what I feel comfortable with, I would be lying and I dont feel comfortable with that

All you need to be responsible for is following the terms of the contract.

They are using the word your by phone, and chat. when it’s not even used in the new added sentence with online bookings.

The only purpose I can think of is to make owners feel uncomfortable, or maybe they just haven’t trained the CMs properly.

Regardless, you are not lying because you, as an owner can make reservations for others,,,whether it be family, friends, or renters taking vacations and under the contract, those are personal use reservations.

 

[Mouseforward]

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.

Also , they specifically state that they don’t guarantee room availability. You would have to prove damages and with the lack of any room availability guarantee there’s no damages. So I think it’s a snowball’s chance of any successful case regarding failure to enforce your perception of their rules.

 

[DanCali]

It specifically says you should not buy DVC with the expectation to make a profit. Profiteering off of DVC is against the rules. Not renting.

There is nothing in the POS's that says profiting off of rentals is against the rules. The clause you are referring to that says one should not purchase with the expectation of making a profit is in a clause that is simply informing potential purchasers that DVC will not help them with rentals and that any member trying to do rentals will be facing rental competition by professional renters including from Disney and DVC entities, which could prevent a member from making any profit from rentals.

I actually think that clause has nothing to do with rentals but rather resale value and capital gain. I.e., unlike maybe a house, don’t expect a vacation ownership interest to appreciate over time and you’re likely to lose money.

That was my interpretation when I read it. Rentals are not mentioned and didn’t even occur to me in that context.

 

[Mouseforward]

I’ve read most of but probably not 100% of this thread and I don’t think this was suggested

What if they simply said you could rent a percentage of your points each year however you had to indicate they were rental and you could only rent them at 10 months for your home resort in six months for any other.

Meaning 11 months reservations have to be named in the name of the account holder or authorized user on the account in the same household and they will not change the name if you booked at the 11th month period.

You wanna rent go ahead, but you can only do it at 10 months for your home resort.

 

[Sandisw]

IMO there is nothing in the rules saying DVC can’t dont that, on the other hand FL stat is saying that owners rights to rent can’t be limited etc without a vote and only those in favor will the limitations apply to.

NOW how Wyndham can get around that I don’t maybe their ownership is different than of DVC and maybe the FL stat therefore don’t apply do them. Maybe another option is that no one challenged Wyndham.

I don’t believe Wyndham requires owners to use their rental arm…and they don’t limit how often an owner can deposit a rental.

I don’t know when Wyndham updated their commercial purpose terms but unlike DVC, they have them in writing for owners…it’s posted in an early thread here

So, if those were there prior to that updated statue, then it wouldn’t apply.

If you read them, I’d say they are pretty reasonable.

 

[Girlstar30]

All you need to be responsible for is following the terms of the contract.

They are using the word your by phone, and chat. when it’s not even used in the new added sentence with online bookings.

The only purpose I can think of is to make owners feel uncomfortable, or maybe they just haven’t trained the CMs properly.

Regardless, you are not lying because you, as an owner can make reservations for others,,,whether it be family, friends, or renters taking vacations and under the contract, those are personal use reservations.

I know im not a commercial renter by any means obviously, obsessed with Disney vacations, and bought for the right purposes with nothing to worry about, i just have a really hard time with the wording and vagueness in general, i guess its just kind of irritating to me . But i also understand now why they feel the need to do this.

Anyways, reading and understanding more has made me more comfortable with it, im just more of a person that wants to know im absolutes so im never in danger of being questioned if I were to rent.

I do understand though that someone like me who has no interest in profiting off of this because I want to go each and every time really shouldn't care so I will stop being annoyed by it and yes I am in the camp that I will not feel sorry when the commercial renters get what is coming! Because stalking endlessly sucks

 

[Sandisw]

I actually think that clause has nothing to do with rentals but rather resale value and capital gain. I.e., unlike maybe a house, don’t expect a vacation ownership interest to appreciate over time and you’re likely to lose money.

That was my interpretation when I read it. Rentals are not mentioned and don’t even occur to me in that context.

I am attaching it but it discusses both sale and rentals.

 

[Mouseforward]

I actually think that clause has nothing to do with rentals but rather resale value and capital gain. I.e., unlike maybe a house, don’t expect a vacation ownership interest to appreciate over time and you’re likely to lose money.

That was my interpretation when I read it. Rentals are not mentioned and didn’t even occur to me in that context.

It’s about both - if you go back to when DVC started during the wild days of Florida timeshares. Lots of the early sleazy timeshares would sell them with the promises that they could rent them for you and you’d sell it a profit if you sold, they were sold as money making devices. Of course they were not money making devices and they were huge failures costing people thousands of dollars. Obviously people sued.

This provision is related to that past practice saying Disney will not accept liability. If you thought you were gonna make a profit off the timeshare either via rental or capital gain.

I remember them discussing this during some of the initial offerings when you went to the presentations for what became old Key West. My grandparents used to take me and make me sit through them so they could get the prizes.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve read most of but probably not 100% of this thread and I don’t think this was suggested

What if they simply said you could rent a percentage of your points each year however you had to indicate they were rental and you could only rent them at 10 months for your home resort in six months for any other.

Meaning 11 months reservations have to be named in the name of the account holder or authorized user on the account in the same household and they will not change the name if you booked at the 11th month period.

You wanna rent go ahead, but you can only do it at 10 months for your home resort.

Since the contract doesn’t differentiate on who members can make reservations for, and treats owners, guests, renters, exchangers, and invitees the same, I don’t think they can do it.

All owners of a home resort must have the same rules for booking, and telling you that certain guests can’t be named until later doesn’t seem to mesh with that.

This falls under the DVC membership agreement and the home resort rules and regulations.