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

[Brian Noble]

I just think that the notion that DVC is going to go to extremes in this is not supported by what they have said recently.

Oh, I agree with you, 100%.

 

[Massachusetts]

There are a lot of “double listings” going on.

I agree, some folks list with multiple brokers.

 

[Sandisw]

When a spec reservation is advertised for sale, DVC knows exactly what profit margin the member is shooting for. They can also identify the member by cross-referencing the reservation in their database and monitoring it to check when the member changes the lead guest when the reservation is sold. This is why I suspect the main target will be the low-hanging fruit of spec reservations being advertised openly, which happily also appear to be the types of rentals that people get most irate about, based on this and other threads I have seen. By contrast, for reservations where all DVC knows is that the lead guest is different from the member, they have no way of knowing whether or not it is even a rental, let alone what the profit margin might be if it was. As I mentioned earlier, I recently gifted a reservation to my son's future mother-in-law and some of her friends, for her first ever WDW trip. All people with completely different names, from a different state, who I have never traveled with before, and yet it is not a rental, and I have no idea how I would go about proving this if challenged by DVC, or what kind of proof they might demand.

The POS states the terms of the rental contract are up to the owner and not DVC. The rate one is charging for a rental is certainly going to be a term of thst contract.

So, IMO, this clause will need to be considered as part of their decision.

 

[sndral]

The contracts contain language that would enable enforcement targeting big renters based on at least 3 different restrictions.
First, there is the personal use/no commercial purpose clauses, which is what DVC is now reminding us of.
Second, there is the total point maximums currently set at 4000/8000. I’ve read that the business model of the gorillas is to set up many different entities to hold points & thus avoid the point caps, DVC could, and IMO should, enforce the provisions already in place to identify & shut down the multiple memberships controlled by the same parties which aggregate to more than 4000/8000.
Third, while it’s less clear to me that the those who spec rent are doing a lot of walking, I assume they do walk what they don’t rent. The basis for ending walking IMO is that it violates the first come/first served provisions in our contracts. The easiest way to deal w/ that is to set a hard limit on the number of times a reservation can be modified to different future dates before you’re required to cancel & rebook. I did wonder if earlier reports of contracts being locked for use when folks attempted to modify were first steps into that realm.
Circling back to personal/commercial use. Another enforcement tool targeting spec rentals specifically would be to force anyone changing lead guest to cancel & rebook. Spec renters don’t know who’s going to rent that one night stay in a resort view BWV studio this Dec., so they put a place holding lead guest name in when they make the reservation. Once they have a renter they change the lead guest to the renter’s name. Indeed, section 5.1 of my VGF Membership Agreement states “DVD’s approval of a rental by a club member is not required after a reservation has been made in a renter’s own name…” One less draconian way to enforce that & target spec rentals specifically would be that when you contact DVC to change the lead guest - as is required, they ask whether this reservation is rented & if the answer is yes, you’re required to cancel & rebook. If the answer is no, when the new lead guest checks in they’re asked if they rented the reservation, if their answer is yes, then the owner who attested it wasn’t a rental when they changed lead guest has their account frozen & any additional reservations where they’ve changed lead guest still on the books canceled.

 

[muppets3d]

The contracts contain language that would enable enforcement targeting big renters based on at least 3 different restrictions.
First, there is the personal use/no commercial purpose clauses, which is what DVC is now reminding us of.
Second, there is the total point maximums currently set at 4000/8000. I’ve read that the business model of the gorillas is to set up many different entities to hold points & thus avoid the point caps, DVC could, and IMO should, enforce the provisions already in place to identify & shut down the multiple memberships controlled by the same parties which aggregate to more than 4000/8000.
Third, while it’s less clear to me that the those who spec rent are doing a lot of walking, I assume they do walk what they don’t rent. The basis for ending walking IMO is that it violates the first come/first served provisions in our contracts. The easiest way to deal w/ that is to set a hard limit on the number of times a reservation can be modified to different future dates before you’re required to cancel & rebook. I did wonder if earlier reports of contracts being locked for use when folks attempted to modify were first steps into that realm.
Circling back to personal/commercial use. Another enforcement tool targeting spec rentals specifically would be to force anyone changing lead guest to cancel & rebook. Spec renters don’t know who’s going to rent that one night stay in a resort view BWV studio this Dec., so they put a place holding lead guest name in when they make the reservation. Once they have a renter they change the lead guest to the renter’s name. Indeed, section 5.1 of my VGF Membership Agreement states “DVD’s approval of a rental by a club member is not required after a reservation has been made in a renter’s own name…” One way to enforce that would be that when you contact DVC to change the lead guest - as is required, they ask whether this reservation is rented & if the answer is yes, you’re required to cancel & rebook. If the answer is no, when the new lead guest checks in they’re asked if they rented the reservation, if their answer is yes, then the owner who attested it wasn’t a rental when they changed lead guest has their account frozen & any additional reservations where they’ve changed lead guest still on the books canceled.

I agree getting commercial renting out of the system is pretty easy once DVC decides they actually want to do it.

But walking seems much harder to get rid of. Allowing so many date changes for a reservation before you're required to cancel and rebook could curtail it, that's probably the best suggestion I've heard yet to be honest.

 

[pkrieger2287]

Is anyone here going?

@pkrieger2287 are you going?

I’m in LA about to board a cruise ship.
So I fully anticipate chaos and all kinds of news.

Also - Someone forgot to tell California it’s summer…

 

[DanCali]

I think DVC would consider the using of a commercial site to rent your points as a violation. When DVC was created the internet really didn't exist. DVC probably thought that owners would rent points to just family and or friends since there really wasn't another feasible option at the time to reach a mass market at the time.

I'm going to go back to the tickets analogy....

If renting a timeshare via Redweek or Facebook turns it into commercial use then selling tickets on Stubhub or eBay makes you a commercial ticket broker?

It'd really be hard to make a case argue that $3000 of rental income is commercial use... Renting 100 out of 300 points is not like renting 10,000 out of 30,000 points.

 

[mkatsy]

I'm going to go back to the tickets analogy....

If renting a timeshare via Redweek or Facebook turns it into commercial use then selling tickets on Stubhub or eBay makes you a commercial ticket broker?

It'd really be hard to make a case argue that $3000 of rental income is commercial use... Renting 100 out of 300 points is not like renting 10,000 out of 30,000 points.

Timeshares and transient accommodations are regulated by the state of Florida. StubHub isn’t (to the best of my knowledge). Renting out your fractional ownership is a taxable privilege in this particular part of the country.

 

[DanCali]

Timeshares and transient accommodations are regulated by the state of Florida. StubHub isn’t (to the best of my knowledge). Renting out your fractional ownership is a taxable privilege in this particular part of the country.

So is selling on eBay (if it's for a profit).

The "American Rescue Plan" passed in 2021 requires all these marketplaces to report gross sales of over $600 on a 1099K whether it's real estate, tickets, or tchotchkes. There's no distinction, and it's up to you to have evidence/receipt that the 2020 iPhone SE you sold for $100 cost you $600 five years ago.

 

[BeachClub2014]

It'd really be hard to make a case argue that $3000 of rental income is commercial use... Renting 100 out of 300 points is not like renting 10,000 out of 30,000 points.

Not to be pedantic, but technically, they are the same from a percentage perspective. Both are 33.33% of the whole. However, I understand your overall point regarding volume.

 

[Sandisw]

The contracts contain language that would enable enforcement targeting big renters based on at least 3 different restrictions.
First, there is the personal use/no commercial purpose clauses, which is what DVC is now reminding us of.
Second, there is the total point maximums currently set at 4000/8000. I’ve read that the business model of the gorillas is to set up many different entities to hold points & thus avoid the point caps, DVC could, and IMO should, enforce the provisions already in place to identify & shut down the multiple memberships controlled by the same parties which aggregate to more than 4000/8000.
Third, while it’s less clear to me that the those who spec rent are doing a lot of walking, I assume they do walk what they don’t rent. The basis for ending walking IMO is that it violates the first come/first served provisions in our contracts. The easiest way to deal w/ that is to set a hard limit on the number of times a reservation can be modified to different future dates before you’re required to cancel & rebook. I did wonder if earlier reports of contracts being locked for use when folks attempted to modify were first steps into that realm.
Circling back to personal/commercial use. Another enforcement tool targeting spec rentals specifically would be to force anyone changing lead guest to cancel & rebook. Spec renters don’t know who’s going to rent that one night stay in a resort view BWV studio this Dec., so they put a place holding lead guest name in when they make the reservation. Once they have a renter they change the lead guest to the renter’s name. Indeed, section 5.1 of my VGF Membership Agreement states “DVD’s approval of a rental by a club member is not required after a reservation has been made in a renter’s own name…” One less draconian way to enforce that & target spec rentals specifically would be that when you contact DVC to change the lead guest - as is required, they ask whether this reservation is rented & if the answer is yes, you’re required to cancel & rebook. If the answer is no, when the new lead guest checks in they’re asked if they rented the reservation, if their answer is yes, then the owner who attested it wasn’t a rental when they changed lead guest has their account frozen & any additional reservations where they’ve changed lead guest still on the books canceled.

If they went that route, I would think they should at least have an exception for your FW owners?

 

[jennypenny]

I'm going to go back to the tickets analogy....

If renting a timeshare via Redweek or Facebook turns it into commercial use then selling tickets on Stubhub or eBay makes you a commercial ticket broker?

If I buy single game tickets from my local MLB team, I can sell them on SeatGeek if I change my mind, no problem.

If I'm a season ticket holder however, there is (similarly vague) language in the contract saying that tickets for some dates may be sold but that the team retains the right to withdraw the tickets if there is a pattern of selling or it's determined to be a commercial enterprise.

 

[mkatsy]

In narrow cases, it would, for example, if you built a website for the sole purpose of renting your own points. That may lead them to think that it’s a commercial enterprise.

Now using a third-party website has its own issues. I’m not buying the third-party website as the innocent intermediary broker argument. They’re tacking on eight dollars a point and then covering their eyes and ears and not paying any transient occupancy tax on that rental. So if you rent your points through them at $20, you’re potentially still paying a TOT of $28 a point since you pay TOT tax and sales tax on the total amount of the transaction with no deductions. I feel like they should be at least responsible for the taxes on the eight dollars they added on it. It’s going in their pocket. I’m sure they’re paying their business income tax, but they’re really sticking the person using their service with the majority of the taxes.

In 2025 Airbnb has agreements to collect and remit these taxes for hosts, but it’s rolling out in limited areas.

 

[DonMacGregor]

It's easy to get into the weeds with this and start trying to split hairs with what is commercial and what is allowed. My own personal feeling is that renting out half your points every year to cover dues crosses the line, but I know many would disagree.

Because that flies in the face of the "But my guide suggested I buy a 150-point contract to book rooms, and another 150-point contract to rent out to offset dues, so in reality, DVC is actually telling you that you can rent out 50% of your points" argument.

 

[tx911]

Because that flies in the face of the "But my guide suggested I buy a 150-point contract to book rooms, and another 150-point contract to rent out to offset dues, so in reality, DVC is actually telling you that you can rent out 50% of your points" argument.

If it's not in writing...

But my point exactly. Why argue about what is and isn't permissible? I just want them to actually do something and go after the big players.

 

[Flash_Sloth]

If it's not in writing...

But my point exactly. Why argue about what is and isn't permissible? I just want them to actually do something and go after the big players.

I agree. It is all a lot of speculation until we get confirmed reports of actions that DVC is taking. I'm eagerly waiting to hear those stories. Only then will we have a better understanding.

I haven't kept up with every reply in this thread, but I think that somebody mentioned that they should have a little bit of randomness just to keep people guessing. Otherwise, we'll know the exact limits, and the commercial renters will find some loophole to be just below that threshold. Maybe it will be similar to ROFR where we're left wondering "why did they ROFR this contract but not that contract?" They have their logic or randomness.