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

[Tatebeck]

DVC can easily do just the "low hanging fruit here" and go after anyone using a third party commercial service that rents their points for them. DVC can claim the use of a commercial company to rent an owners points violates the agreement. This wouldn't stop people from renting out points themselves on " wastebook" or any other message board but it would severely cut back on it since people would have to "trust" a stranger and hope not to get scammed. In addition to that most people I would assume pay the commercial sites for the rentals using credit cards so they have some protection and can pay back over time for that vacation but I am sure not many people would or have the ability to accept credit card payments.

I don't think they will try to do this, even though the language exists in the newer contracts. This would not do much of anything to stop the true large point owning members using their contracts as a commercial enterprise (unless the owners/operators of the third party rental sites themselves are actually owning contracts to rent out).

If they are then obviously that should be stopped as that is against the terms. But if they are just renting out points/reservations from other owners/members as they say, then I would hazard to guess that most of those members using those sites to rent out their points are doing so more as part of their "personal use" than the large point owners commercially renting.

Those sites take a cut themselves (they pay the member one fee for their points, then sell the reservation/points for probably 4-8 dollars more per point to the final renter), so if a large commercial renter who owns say 4,000 points decides to use one of those sites to rent out their points every year and the site upcharges $5 per point for that cut, then that large point owner is losing out on $20,000 of profit per year or more. That would make them seem like they are NOT a commercial renter if they are not trying to maximize their profits and renting their points for as much as they can get.

So I think that the third party sites are safe at least for now (as long as they don't/stop buying contracts to rent out themselves) unless all of DVCs early attempts to curb commercial renting fail, then they may look to these sites eventually.

 

[muppets3d]

But why wouldn’t an LLC just put someone local on payroll (or do it themselves if they are actually local) and send that individual over in person to check in as the lead guest. It would legitimize their rentals over the “little guy” that’s in another state. Similar to those moms that were hiring locals with disabilities to cut the lines. (Way before DAS) It seems to me that a voucher system would be more effective. Actually you wouldn’t even need to come all the way inside, just get close enough with remote check in.

You would then be wasting a sleeping spot in the room. DVC studios typically sleep 4 or 5, so that's a big decrease in capacity.

 

[mkatsy]

You would then be wasting a sleeping spot in the room. DVC studios typically sleep 4 or 5, so that's a big decrease in capacity.

Again, this isn’t an appropriate activity for people that fly by the straight and narrow. But people do far stranger things to save money (or get that coveted reservation) than put a guest in a room that isn’t on the manifest ( but is still inside fire code).

 

[muppets3d]

Again, this isn’t an appropriate activity for people that fly by the straight and narrow. But people do far stranger things to save money (or get that coveted reservation) than put a guest in a room that isn’t on the manifest ( but is still inside fire code).

I simply don't believe that anybody would do this. Do you have evidence of it happening or are you just pulling things out of your butt?

If we're just dreaming up things for people to do that are against the rules, why doesn't somebody build a fence around themselves in the magic kingdom and declare it sovereign land and then build their own timeshare on their sovereign land?

 

[Matty B13]

My question is who would have to sue ( and have a legal right to sue) if they DVC were to enforce this?
Would it have to be owners of DVC? Could third party renters of DVC points (ex. Dav@#d's)? And if DVC were to be sued who pays their legal fees if they were to prevail? Would the owners of DVC have to pay a special assessment?

I wouldn't think the Brokers wouldn't have any standing to sue DVC for use of THEIR System, probably only the point owners would have standing. But I'm guessing the Brokers all have at least a few points that they own...... but if they sue for renting they just proved DVC's point that they are renting commercially.

 

[mkatsy]

I simply don't believe that anybody would do this. Do you have evidence of it happening or are you just pulling things out of your butt?

context is important … this is a theoretical discussion among people who have zero influence over the outcome, about possible solutions to a problem. No … this is NOT currently happening, the concept is for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Kingkonig]

I wouldn't think the Brokers wouldn't have any standing to sue DVC for use of THEIR System, probably only the point owners would have standing. But I'm guessing the Brokers all have at least a few points that they own...... but if they sue for renting they just proved DVC's point that they are renting commercially.

Yeah, this is why I think Disney is pretty comfortable with this crackdown. The best way to prove standing you have to prove loss of income. Which……if you prove loss of income (or profit), then you ‘played yourself’ or whatever the saying is.

context is important … this is a theoretical discussion among people who have zero influence over the outcome, about possible solutions to a problem. No … this is NOT currently happening, the concept is for entertainment purposes only.

Agreed. I would say it’s unlikely that the commercial brokers would be willing to do this, since it requires having a lot more people on payroll (at least short term/hourly) as the owner of a contract. Cuts into their profit margins in an already tight margin business. Similar to travel agents, you’re selling somebody else’s product for a small fee, so it’s all about volume.

 

[lowlight]

a

I simply don't believe that anybody would do this. Do you have evidence of it happening or are you just pulling things out of your butt?

If we're just dreaming up things for people to do that are against the rules, why doesn't somebody build a fence around themselves in the magic kingdom and declare it sovereign

I’ve had it happen to me once the first time I rented an II exchange. The owner asked to keep his name on the reservation, I assume to skirt the renting prohibition, but I told him no.

 

[muppets3d]

a


I’ve had it happen to me once the first time I rented an II exchange. The owner asked to keep his name on the reservation, I assume to skirt the renting prohibition, but I told him no.

But was he willing to meet you at the resort to check in? I guess you probably didn't get that far in the discussion.

 

[Sandisw]

My question is who would have to sue ( and have a legal right to sue) if they DVC were to enforce this?
Would it have to be owners of DVC? Could third party renters of DVC points (ex. Dav@#d's)? And if DVC were to be sued who pays their legal fees if they were to prevail? Would the owners of DVC have to pay a special assessment?

Because the restriction is that you don’t use your membership for a commercial purpose.

Meaning, you are renting reservation at a level higher than what would be considered typical under the right to rent.

And, as I said, contract says DVC is supposed to use a reasonable definition.

So, action DVc takes would be against owners and it’s hard to imagine them being able to support that an owner who may have one rental did something considered commercial by using a broker but an owner who did the same thing using an advertisement the local grocery store did not.

The owners use of the membership is the same. One reservation in someone else’s name.

But, as I said, there are other things they can do to stop large point owners that they would have no trouble matching reasonable that it would make no sense to me to do this.

ETA. Now, the RiV and beyond levels do say “regular use of one”‘could be considered you’ve crossed the line.

And RIV and beyond don’t have the word reasonable either so that gives DVC a bit more leeway.

But, it does say pattern of rental activity and outright banning the use of a third party broker?

Think it would be a tough sell for DVC to owners.

 

[Sandisw]

But why wouldn’t an LLC just put someone local on payroll (or do it themselves if they are actually local) and send that individual over in person to check in as the lead guest. It would legitimize their rentals over the “little guy” that’s in another state. Similar to those moms that were hiring locals with disabilities to cut the lines. (Way before DAS) It seems to me that a voucher system would be more effective. Actually you wouldn’t even need to come all the way inside, just get close enough with remote check in.

Unfortunately, nothing DVC does will prevent some from finding a way around this if they want.

Not sure why they would want to overcomplicate it.

Their statements point to wanting to get the large point owners who have turned this into a business out.

Even the 2008 policy is enough to do that if they simply tweek it….and then actually enforce.

However, let’s say someone did do it…DVC can still evaluate what is happening on a membership and lock them out saying they appear to be a commercial enterprise.

 

[kilik64]

But was he willing to meet you at the resort to check in? I guess you probably didn't get that far in the discussion.

Unless I missed some detail on all of this, why would they have to physically meet you? Res would be in MDE like any other, just do the online check in and go straight to room?

 

[lowlight]

But was he willing to meet you at the resort to check in? I guess you probably didn't get that far in the discussion.

No, never got that far. I missed the part you responded to where they said someone would go in person. Don’t see that happening, I think the front desk would catch on after seeing them 3x in a day.

 

[muppets3d]

Unless I missed some detail on all of this, why would they have to physically meet you? Res would be in MDE like any other, just do the online check in and go straight to room?

I have no idea, that was the ridiculous scenario I was responding to. Nobody's gonna do that.

 

[matt_in_nh]

What if I can't really afford cookies, I mean, they are $10 a box after all. So I buy two boxes, then sell 1 of those for $20 in order to pay for the first. Surely that is okay?

That violates someone's personal opinion that 50% selling is too much, you would have to eat at least one cookie from the box you sell.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I simply don't believe that anybody would do this. Do you have evidence of it happening or are you just pulling things out of your butt?

If we're just dreaming up things for people to do that are against the rules, why doesn't somebody build a fence around themselves in the magic kingdom and declare it sovereign land and then build their own timeshare on their sovereign land?

I have seen people already recommend doing this on other forums to avoid getting flagged as a rental. They wont need to show up and check in at the front desk because doing that is no longer needed with digital check in. I would post screenshots so you all dont think I am lying, but that is not allowed

 

[VGCgroupie]

So how is it that none of these DVC blogs and forums have any info on what happened at the meeting?? They almost always do. and report it right away. Silence this time around.

 

[lowlight]

That violates someone's personal opinion that 50% selling is too much, you would have to eat at least one cookie from the box you sell.

Again, I fully encourage you to rent as many points as you want. It's the best way to tell what's going to happen. This entire thread is personal opinions and conjecture mixed with guilt and fear mongering, so eat up.

 

[muppets3d]

I have seen people already recommend doing this on other forums to avoid getting flagged as a rental. They wont need to show up and check in at the front desk because doing that is no longer needed with digital check in. I would post screenshots so you all dont think I am lying, but that is not allowed

I don't doubt that people are leaving the owner as the lead guest so it isn't flagged and/or to save having to call member services. That has happened a lot over the years. What was new and ridiculous to me is a rental outfit would hire a "professional lead guest" someone purely to be available to go to the resort as needed.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I don't doubt that people are leaving the owner as the lead guest so it isn't flagged and/or to save having to call member services. That has happened a lot over the years. What was new and ridiculous to me is a rental outfit would hire a "professional lead guest" someone purely to be available to go to the resort as needed.

Yeah this wouldn't happen for so many reasons mostly because its not needed but also because that cuts into profits paying someone