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

[Sandisw]

I still don't think you get what I am saying. That specific multiple reservation rule said that you could book up to 20, and until then you weren't at risk of breaking the multiple reservation rule at all, yes.

But it also said it was not the only thing you could do to be considered commercially renting (or breaking other rules) and just because you follow that one multiple reservation rule does not mean that you may not be breaking other rules.

If you do/did anything else that made them think you were breaking other rules then they could 100% do something about it without changing the multiple reservation rule specifically.

But they could not cancel…anything under 20. That is what the rule was, how it was explained to owners and how it was enforced.

Yes, the could use other things and add them, but the rule as written by DVC prevented them canceling under 20.

And that is why that policy got abused because DVC failed to write it in a way that prevented people from making all 20 rentals.

I know you think they could do something with reservations under 20, but they would have been violating the policy if they had done it, and it’s why they never cancelled below that.

As I said, if you asked DVC to explain the policy, it was “you can have up to 20 in 12 months rolling ” and as long as you stayed under it, you were not in violation of the commercial use policy and no reservations could be canceled.

When they saw the abuse, all that was needed was to update the policy…which, would have been pretty easy for them to do.

Then, what you suggest would have been no issue.

Again, I am not saying the 2008 rule was well done. I think it’s a poor one because it doesn’t distinguish beteeen owner and guests vs. rentals, except when you wanted to make the 21st one. .

From what I learned back then it was DVCs way of setting a high threshold to account for owners and guests without having to micromanage each membership, especially since at the time, finding renters was not as easy as today.

But, it’s just not accurate to say that owners could have reservations canceled when they had less than 20 simply because DVC decided they wanted to based on other factors…without first changing the offical policy.

As I mentioned, it’s like the holding rule. They can’t penalize more than 31 days out if the rule doesn’t say they can…

Or the transfer rules. They say one in or out per UY…they can’t prohibit a transfer by any owner who stays in the rules because they think they do it to much.

It’s about what is written as the actual policy because that is what owners are required to follow. If DVc wants something different, all they need to do is update the rules because they definitely can do that!

Right now, I think it would be pretty simple for DVC to amend that 2008 policy to get what they want.

 

[Tatebeck]

But they could not cancel…anything under 20. That is what the rule was, how it was explained to owners and how it was enforced.

Yes, the could use other things and add them, but the rule as written by DVC prevented them canceling under 20.

And that is why that policy got abused because DVC failed to write it in a way that prevented people from making all 20 rentals.

I know you think they could do something with reservations under 20, but they would have been violating the policy if they had done it, and it’s why they never cancelled below that.

As I said, if you asked DVC to explain the policy, it was “you can have up to 20 in 12 months rolling ” and as long as you stayed under it, you were not in violation of the commercial use policy and no reservations could be canceled.

When they saw the abuse, all that was needed was to update the policy…which, would have been pretty easy for them to do.

Then, what you suggest would have been no issue.

Again, I am not saying the 2008 rule was well done. I think it’s a poor one because it doesn’t distinguish beteeen owner and guests vs. rentals, except when you wanted to make the 21st one. .

From what I learned back then it was DVCs way of setting a high threshold to account for owners and guests without having to micromanage each membership, especially since at the time, finding renters was not as easy as today.

But, it’s just accurate to say that owners could have reservations canceled when they had less than 20 simply because DVC decided they wanted to based on other factors…without first changing the offical policy.

As I mentioned, it’s like the holding rule. They can’t penalize more than 31 days out if the rule doesn’t say they can…

Or the transfer rules. They say one in or out per UY…they can’t prohibit a transfer by any owner who stays in the rules because they think they do it to much.

It’s about what is written as the actual policy because that is what owners are required to follow. If DVc wants something different, all they need to do is update the rules because they definitely can do that!

Right now, I think it would be pretty simple for DVC to amend that 2008 policy to get what they want.

The rule importantly NEVER says that they CANNOT cancel a reservation. It simply says that they can cancel reservations under certain circumstances according to this one rule. Then specifically say that this is not the only rule you have to follow. Please show me in the rule/documents where it says that they CANNOT ever cancel reservations under 20 if they break other rules. It isn't there. It do

So they could not cancel anything below 20 reservations using the multiple reservation rule unless they broke the multiple reservation rule after making 20 reservations.
They could cancel reservations below 20 per the other rules. Whether breaking commercial enterprise restrictions/rules or breaking other rules. The multiple reservation rule did not supersede every single other rule that Disney/DVC had/has. That would be absolutely ridiculous. It says so right here.

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

Just because a member may have had less than 20 reservations did not give them free reign to do whatever they wanted and break any rule they wanted and say "nope you can't do anything or cancel any of my reservations because I have less than 20"

You could not stop paying your dues, set up a snack and merchandise shop in your DVC room you book 1 month at a time with the longest reservation possible, refuse to leave your room after checkout and try to stay extra days, sneak into staff areas of the resorts, dine and dash in the restaurants, sneak into the pool after hours, smash or steal all the furniture in your room, scream and berate other guests/the cast members, go swimming in the lakes/areas with no swimming signs, and then say "but I have less than 20 reservations so it's fine."

Everyone, please just go read the rule linked.

 

[Sandisw]

To add, IMO, this explains wny they only used the terms “frequently or regularly renting/selling” and being clear you can get canceled if they determine it.

That gives them the flexibility to ebb and flow with a reasonable definition without having to actually update anything as they see potential abuse.

They could still take a generous approach and go after only those owners they mentioned…but they could also narrow it down…and I don’t think we will ever get a written policy as specific as 2008.

It burned them and they won’t let that happen again.

 

[Sandisw]

The rule importantly NEVER says that they CANNOT cancel a reservation. It simply says that they can cancel reservations under certain circumstances according to this one rule. Then specifically say that this is not the only rule you have to follow. Please show me in the rule/documents where it says that they CANNOT ever cancel reservations under 20 if they break other rules. It isn't there.

So they could not cancel anything below 20 reservations using the multiple reservation rule unless they broke the multiple reservation rule after making 20 reservations.
They could cancel reservations below 20 per the other rules. Whether breaking commercial enterprise restrictions/rules or breaking other rules. The multiple reservation rule did not supersede every single other rule that Disney/DVC had/has. That would be absolutely ridiculous. It says so right here.

"This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions."

Just because a member may have had less than 20 reservations did not give them free reign to do whatever they wanted and break any rule they wanted and say "nope you can't do anything or cancel any of my reservations because I have less than 20"

You could not stop paying your dues, set up a snack and merchandise shop in your DVC room you book 1 month at a time with the longest reservation possible, refuse to leave your room after checkout and try to stay extra days, sneak into staff areas of the resorts, dine and dash in the restaurants, sneak into the pool after hours, smash or steal all the furniture in your room, scream and berate other guests/the cast members, go swimming in the areas with no swimming signs, and then say "but I have less than 20 reservations so it's fine."

The word used was “in excess” of 20 when violating the commercial use policy.

I am not talking about any other situations other than that. We are not talking about other parts of the contract. We are not talking about any of the situations you mentioned.

Ths conversation is specific t and only about thr commercial use policy that DVC had and will have in the futures as it related to the section of the contract in terms of commercial use.

You keep quoting those lines and those were there to alert owners they could change the rules at anytime and include other things….but they were still required to actually change them…thst is a big difference and one DVC never chose to do in this instance.

If DVC had the power to do what you say, within those terms, then we would not have seen owners setting up multiple memberships in LLCs, etc and get away with it.

They have because DVC wrote a policy that allowed loopholes and never took steps to close them…until now.

 

[Tatebeck]

The word used was “in excess” of 20 when violating the commercial use policy.

I am not talking about any other situations other than that. If you violate other aspects of the contract, yes, they have powers to cancel, lock you out, etc,

But this conversation is specific to that 2008 policy as it related to the section of the contract in terms of commercial use.

Okay, thank you, I felt like I was going crazy lol.

 

[Sandisw]

Okay, thank you, I felt like I was going crazy lol.

As I said above, it’s really DVCs own making in not updating things when they clearly have the power to do it.

But, I also believe that they didn’t…and not sure they even do now..see it as a large number of owners doing rentals outside what they should,

 

[lowlight]

Just because a member may have had less than 20 reservations did not give them free reign to do whatever they wanted and break any rule they wanted and say "nope you can't do anything or cancel any of my reservations because I have less than 20"

Imagine making 20 1 week Grand Villa reservations…that’s a lot of points to think “I’m not in violation of the rules because I’m not over 20”.

 

[Tatebeck]

You keep quoting those lines and those were there to alert owners they could change the rules at anytime and include other things….but they were still required to actually change them…thst is a big difference and one DVC never chose to do in this instance.

If DVC had the power to do what you say, within those terms, then we would not have seen owners setting up multiple memberships in LLCs, etc and get away with it.

They have because DVC wrote a policy that allowed loopholes and never took steps to close them…until now.

Those lines were there to let members know that there are still other rules they need to follow and also that they could update these terms at anytime. The first part is why I kept quoting them, not the second.

 

[Sandisw]

Those lines were there to let members know that there are still other rules they need to follow and also that they could update these terms at anytime. The first part is why I kept quoting them, not the second.

Got it. I was taking it into the context of only the document. How it explains why are answers didn’t seem to mesh!!!

 

[Sandisw]

Imagine making 20 1 week Grand Villa reservations…that’s a lot of points to think “I’m not in violation of the rules because I’m not over 20”.

Except DVC said that was what defined it. So, if DVC said you were fine then you were fine.

And, so far, I’ve never seen reports of anyone being held to a different standard.

Obviously they are reevaluating all of this so we wait to see what will and will not be allowed moving forward.

And why I said, I don’t even expect them to get this specific again because it burned them.

 

[lowlight]

Remember though DVC explicitly said that was okay. So owners were not in violation.

And, as you hade said, only DVc gets to set them.

The first sentence is where you and I, and I imagine several others, disagree. You and Tatebeck have been arguing that for awhile so I don't want to rehash it, but suffice to say, I agree with Tatebeck's interpretation. I just don't believe that someone using upwards of 18k points for rentals was not in violation. Now did DVC pursue anyone outside of a few C&D letters? I agree with you there, they did not enforce anything <that we are aware of> unless they went above 20. Was it a violation and was it enforced are different questions.

The second sentence I agree fully with you.

 

[mkatsy]

The first sentence is where you and I, and I imagine several others, disagree. You and Tatebeck have been arguing that for awhile so I don't want to rehash it, but suffice to say, I agree with Tatebeck's interpretation. I just don't believe that someone using upwards of 18k points for rentals was not in violation. Now did DVC pursue anyone outside of a few C&D letters? I agree with you there, they did not enforce anything <that we are aware of> unless they went above 20. Was it a violation and was it enforced are different questions.

The second sentence I agree fully with you.

I haven’t read the POS but don’t most contracts warn you not to interpret their failure to enforce as a waiver of their right to later enforce. So basically, just because it looks like I don’t care … don’t get comfortable.

 

[Sandisw]

The first sentence is where you and I, and I imagine several others, disagree. You and Tatebeck have been arguing that for awhile so I don't want to rehash it, but suffice to say, I agree with Tatebeck's interpretation. I just don't believe that someone using upwards of 18k points for rentals was not in violation. Now did DVC pursue anyone outside of a few C&D letters? I agree with you there, they did not enforce anything <that we are aware of> unless they went above 20. Was it a violation and was it enforced are different questions.

The second sentence I agree fully with you.

The only thing I want to add is what DVC did back then and how it was presented to owners.

They told owners commercial use violations did not kick in until after 20…they just didn’t…because DVC defined it that way.

We can keep debating what should and should not happen, but DVC didn’t enforce below 20 because they told owners that the policy didn’t kick in until after 20.

People can say they didn’t enforce below because they chose to ignore but that is not what happened and not how the policy was defined, explained and implemented.

If DVC comes out tomorrow and says the 20 rule policy a still in play, then that’s what owners will be allowed to do.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven’t read the POS but don’t most contracts warn you not to interpret their failure to enforce as a waiver of their right to later enforce. So basically, just because it looks like I don’t care … don’t get comfortable.

There are things that the POS gives them the authority to do and not do.

If you haven’t read it, it’s long but it explains a lot and many things I didn’t understand until I read all of them…yes, including for resorts I do not own!! lol

Owners should definitely know their rights and what authority they have, but DVC still has to actually follow certain procedures. For example, changes seen as material to the contract must be voted on by owners. DVD can’t just change those.

What they dont have the right to do is tell you this is the rule, but then do whatever they like.

Do you think because the HRR can be amended that DVC can put points in holding outside 31 days when that’s not what is says ?

Would you not expect DVC to change those terms before they penalize someone differently? That’s the point..not that they can amend, but if they do, then they have to do it a certain way.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but if DVC says this is how we define it, and this is allowed, then how is it a violation?

And, I’m not saying they can’t define this anyway they choose and justify it as appropriate.

Times are different, ease of renting is different and people exploited the rules.

But, the contract lanauge needs to be accurate. And their actions should match their legal abilities.

All owners should want to ensure whatever they do is allowed by the contract, even when it doesn’t impact you.

It’s why I said I don’t expect us to see any further language changes other than what they just did. It’s simply clarifying the same policy of what they already had…and could explain why MS CMs the few times I called this week stated as such.

Same with walking…DVC has the power to stop it with simple language changes. They said that. Whether they will? Who knows.

 

[mkatsy]

And owners should not….but DVC still has to actually change the policy to reflect the new rules.

They don’t have the right to tell you this is the rule, but then do whatever they like.

That’s the point. Do you think because the HRR can be amended that DVC can put points in holding outside 31 days when that’s not what is says ?

Don’t you believe that DVC would be required to change those terms before they penalize?

Maybe I am misunderstanding but if DVC this is how we define it, and this is allowed, then how is it a violation?

And, I’m not saying they can’t define this anyway they choose and justify it as appropriate.

Times are different, ease of renting is different and people exploited the rules.

But, the contract lanauge needs to be accurate. And it’s why IMO I don’t expect us to see any further language changes other than what they just did.

Same with walking…DVC has the power to stop it with simple language changes. They said that. Whether they will? Who knows.

Oh I am 100% in favor of transparency, but I’ve also read stories from before I came on board about them denying the existence of BLT when everyone saw it plain as day so as much as I wish there wasn’t, I think there is always going to be some ambiguity baked into the system that favors the mouse. That’s why I believe it is more efficient to focus on the big fish, attempt to disrupt their business model, and see where that gets us, and then revisit it as needed.

 

[Sandisw]

Oh I am 100% in favor of transparency, but I’ve also read stories from before I came on board about them denying the existence of BLT when everyone saw it plain as day so as much as I wish there wasn’t, I think there is always going to be some ambiguity baked into the system that favors the mouse. That’s why I believe it is more efficient to focus on the big fish, attempt to disrupt their business model, and see where that gets us, and then revisit it as needed.

That did happen but that was because DVD had not legally declared it as a DVC resort.

Once it officially showed up recorded in the county records, they could not deny it.

And. I definitely think this new update was done to clarify but still give them the wiggle room to case by case things.

Frequently and regularly can now mean whatever they want it to, within reason for those who own preRiV resorts, and changes as the times change.

It’s why I would not be surprised to see them treating your less than 1000 point owners differently than 8000 point owners this time around.

 

[TheDailyMoo]

but suffice to say,

Totally off topic but "Suffice to say" is my preferred version of that particular saying.

Although Suffice to say and suffice it to say are both technically correct, and there are many references dating back to the early 1800s in America and England using the "suffice it to say" version...regardless I personally like the version you use here. OK that was a little more than off topic sorry! Carry on...as you were!

 

[Cyberc1978]

So, they are not starting from scratch and at the very least, any changes that would appear to be a more restrictive interpretation of commercial purpose will have to be explained to owners as to why the change in interpretation from their view.

We shall see…

Are you saying if a mega renter gets their reservations cancelled and they asks why, DVC needs to explain themselves?

 

[mkatsy]

Totally off topic but "Suffice to say" is my preferred version of that particular saying.

Although Suffice to say and suffice it to say are both technically correct, and there are many references dating back to the early 1800s in America and England using the "suffice it to say" version...regardless I personally like the version you use here. OK that was a little more than off topic sorry! Carry on...as you were!

“Suffice it to say”= VGF “Suffice to say”= everywhere else …. except the moderates where “let’s just say” will apply

 

[Matty B13]

I think DVC will start asking to see the signed contracts for the rentals if they get threatening letters from Mega Renter Owners Lawyers, which will plainly show they are breaking their contracts.