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

[Cyberc1978]

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I don't think they will stop all lead guest changes.

The documents say that approval is needed (or technically that approval is not needed for a non-rental) for a rental if the reservation is not already booked in the renters name. But do not say that it is needed for personal/family/friend usage without fees.

So they can allow lead guest changes for strictly personal/family/friend use and ask if it is a rental and deny a lead guest change on a possible rental on an already booked or spec reservation if they wanted to

how is a friend any different than any other lead guest change?

Everybody will when asked, just claim its a friend, I have lots of friends or the entire world is my friend.

 

[Sandisw]

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I don't think they will stop all lead guest changes.

The documents say that approval is needed (or technically that approval is not needed for a non-rental) for a rental if the reservation is not already booked in the renters name. But do not say that it is needed for personal/family/friend usage without fees.

So they can allow lead guest changes for strictly personal/family/friend use and ask if it is a rental and deny a lead guest change on a possible rental on an already booked or spec reservation if they wanted to

I am not sure I agree that they could make that distinction because renting is allowed and they don’t really have rules that distinguish other than having a contract.

But, I also think that the rules that they do will always be less complicated than more complicated.

Having said that, if they were to treat lead guest changes differently, then I think that would need to be clear in the HRR.

 

[xdan0920]

However, changing the lead guest is at the heart of spec renting & I suspect that using the paragraph I cited above to not allow a lead guest change in appropriate cases may have a greater impact, assuming they do actually enforce it.
In my mind the spec renters are making a mockery of first come/first served. They reserve villas at 11 months & just hold on to them until a renter comes along at say 6 months, meanwhile, many owners tried to grab that villa at 11, 10, 9, etc. months. It’s like cutting in line for a ride, the spec renters have fictitious place holders holding a spot in the stand by line so their renters can show up at the last minute & cut through the line.

I got into a debate a while back regarding this. I was told, "I make multiple reservations, because I just might use them, if I decide I can not, why shouldn't I be allowed to rent those booked reservations? So what If I do it 4x a year?"

It's impossible to make someone viewing it from that angle change their tune.

As the last 121 pages prove.

There’s literally an attorney in this thread, who broke it down extensively.

As for the false theory that it doesn’t apply to timeshare condos . It’s funny how it did apply when it came to the structural assessment laws for condos that were passed, and Disney had to do structural assessments of all of our timeshares.

If you do rent your points, I encourage you to continue to rent regularly and/or frequently and let us know how it turns out. It would be very informative for the membership base located here.

 

[Sandisw]

From Section 721 - the only mention of renting

(p)1. If there are any restrictions upon the sale, transfer, conveyance, or leasing of a timeshare interest, a statement in conspicuous type in substantially the following form: The sale, lease, or transfer of timeshare interests is restricted or controlled. Immediately following this statement, a description of the nature of the restriction, limitation, or control on the sale, lease, or transfer of timeshare interests shall be included.

So Section 721 requires specific language to restrict leasing - which does not exist as far as I can tell in our POS

The restriction in our POS against renting is that you can’t do it to the level that the board can reasonably determine you are a commercial enterprise or doing it for a commercial purpose.

So, we do have that as a restriction and the board gets to determine that policy…and the RIV and beyond contracts give owners some examples of what they could use.

Any restriction that wouldn’t fit into that, should be seen as a material change and voted on by owners as is required per the declaration of the condominium document.

What we do know is that they updated the terms and the only thing they told us is that personal use is not “frequently or regularly” renting.

They have not defined that but those words certainly confirm one’s right to rent…just not to a level that DVc determines is “frequently and regularly”

My opinion…if it was going to include all these other restrictions, why didn’t they include them with the updated language?

And, absent specific examples from DVC, or reports of enforcement, that is up to each owner to decide based on their current situation.

Until an owner is found in violation, then their actions are within the rules.

ETA: We can also go back to the offical statements made at the December meetings by the board…and what they said they want to target as best they can…large point owners renting thousands to make money.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Personally, I think it’s the pattern that will take people down, not the number of points. 4,000 points spent yearly by a core group of people even if it’s different lead guest names, as long as those names appear year after year, it takes a whole two minutes to search the park surveillance photos OR magic pass photos to see that these folks know each other ~VS~ 4,000 points doled out to different lead guests that never repeat and there is no on property evidence of them knowing each other.

I don’t think Disney would “ Spy” on their guests .
Is that what you are describing ?

 

[Cyberc1978]

I got into a debate a while back regarding this. I was told, "I make multiple reservations, because I just might use them, if I decide I can not, why shouldn't I be allowed to rent those booked reservations? So what If I do it 4x a year?"

It's impossible to make someone viewing it from that angle change their tune.

As the last 121 pages prove.

If you do rent your points, I encourage you to continue to rent regularly and/or frequently and let us know how it turns out. It would be very informative for the membership base located here.

I both use and rent my points. Sometimes one is more than the other.

I will continue to do what I do. If DVC tabs me on the shoulder for a friendly talk, i'll have the talk and if I need to adjust I will do that.

But I will also ask WHAT in my actions have made them tab me on the shoulder.

 

[Brian Noble]

Sorry I don’t know how to respond as I don’t quite understand what you mean

When thinking of defining a violation it is: "violate this or that rule" not "violate this and that rule".

And that means the universe of "not a violation" is the converse.

 

[Sandisw]

Personally, I think it’s the pattern that will take people down, not the number of points. 4,000 points spent yearly by a core group of people even if it’s different lead guest names, as long as those names appear year after year, it takes a whole two minutes to search the park surveillance photos OR magic pass photos to see that these folks know each other ~VS~ 4,000 points doled out to different lead guests that never repeat and there is no on property evidence of them knowing each other.

Strong statement here….There is absolutely no way that DVC is going to spend their money to scan park photos and the like to determine this.

Everything they need to make a reasonable determination that an owners membership,,,or all memberships an owner is tied to if legally allowed to do that…is already at their finger tips.

Reservations in the names of others can be monitored and they can decide if it’s high enough to be at issue.

They can use things like the number of lead guest changes as a metric or a host of other things.

Even the notion that some have said they’d just leave their name on it…DVC can monitor that and if they see it as a pattern that looks suspicious they can have a conversation with the owner.

Not sure what reason they would have to complicate this.

 

[Tatebeck]

how is a friend any different than any other lead guest change?

Everybody will when asked, just claim its a friend, I have lots of friends or the entire world is my friend.

I this case I was using family/friend as a stand in for their part about letting a guest use a reservation with no fees, so for free.

So if you want to let somebody have a reservation for free, go for it

 

[Tatebeck]

I am not sure I agree that they could make that distinction because renting is allowed and they don’t really have rules that distinguish other than having a contract.

But, I also think that the rules that they do will always be less complicated than more complicated.

Having said that, if they were to treat lead guest changes differently, then I think that would need to be clear in the HRR.

Nothing about that means that you aren't allowed to rent. You can still make a reservation and put renters names one it. You just aren't guaranteed to be allowed to change a lead guest name to a renters name after the reservation has already been made, according to the rules.

They clearly differentiate between guests not paying for the stay and guest who are paying for the stay aka renters. And they state that different approvals may/may not needed for the different groups. So IMO there's already enough there to cut down on it if someone is trying to change the lead guest again on their 10th AKV value studio reservation of the year

 

[lowlight]

And that is why someone like me who does not rent, wants to ensure that the contract is followed and they are required to keep it reasonable if going after those violating the commercial purpose clause.

And banning lead guest changes will not be seen as a positive move by your average owner because now, making a reservation means you have to know all guests at 11 months and that loss of flexibility would be huge.

But, the board stated last year, as this was part of my question to them, that theh recognize changes need to happen and I feel confident in the answer they gave me that it won’t get that far.

You do not use your membership in the same way an "average owner" would. I would bet a lot of Mickey bars that most average owners don't have upwards of 15 reservations on their dashboard at any given time "in case they decide to travel then", several for the same hard to get week, room, and resort. You are utilizing your membership in a way that you feel you are entitled to, and I can't fault you for that, but to proclaim that is the way the average owner utilizes their membership is a gross misrepresentation. You use your membership exactly like a spec renter would, except instead of renting the reservations out, you cancel a lot of them a few months later, which basically prevents owners who know they are going to travel at that time from booking, and opens it up to the <7 month trade in window. In other words, your usage has the same end result of a spec renter- the owners at the resort are deprived of that room due to speculation on whether you will take your 6th trip of the year to Disney or not. Again, you have this right, but to consider it the action of an average owner, and try to protect that interest with contract arguments on the boards is intriguing to watch. I would say that the average owner knows when they are going, and who they are going with, 11 months out to the day when they are booking. I think changes happening that would require this reservation to stay in tact, but change lead guest are very, very few and far between.

 

[mkatsy]

I don’t think Disney would “ Spy” on their guests .
Is that what you are describing ?

Nope never … have you been to epic universe yet? The lockers open when you stand in front of a camera, it literally knows who you are. Annual passholders don’t use passes at Universal anymore, we use facial recognition software at the gate. Your magic band triggers sensors as you move throughout the park and it’s capturing data about your habits and preferences.

 

[zavandor]

how is a friend any different than any other lead guest change?

Everybody will when asked, just claim its a friend, I have lots of friends or the entire world is my friend.

Degrees of separation!
A friend of a friend of a friend of mine is Madonna.
Or a friend of a friend of another friend of mine is Barak Obama.

I bet I can get to most people in North America within 4 degrees... and book a reservation for all of them

 

[Mouseforward]

I would say that the average owner knows when they are going, and who they are going with, 11 months out to the day when they are booking. I think changes happening that would require this reservation to stay in tact, but change lead guest are very, very few and far between.

I somewhat disagree, my usual process is to make reservations ( which was a tip I learned on this forum) is to book all rooms with myself as lead guest.

I book multiple concurrent rooms for family trips and update the lead guests later or cancel if they cancel before the holding period. I attempted to remain lead guest for 2 concurrent rooms at RIV and that caused lots of issues with MDE that resulted in me having to work with the front desk during my vacation ( which they solved by removing me from one room)

My sisters and their kids don't have the type of jobs that can commit to a vacation 11 months out. Nor do my family and friends that are small business owners or even college students. I frequently have to swap who is in each room. Its always a crap shoot with my family as to who I can put together , who is not speaking to whom and so on. These are decisions best made nearer to the trip.

 

[mkatsy]

Strong statement here….There is absolutely no way that DVC is going to spend their money to scan park photos and the like to determine this.

Everything they need to make a reasonable determination that an owners membership,,,or all memberships an owner is tied to if legally allowed to do that…is already at their finger tips.

Reservations in the names of others can be monitored and they can decide if it’s high enough to be at issue.

They can use things like the number of lead guest changes as a metric or a host of other things.

Even the notion that some have said they’d just leave their name on it…DVC can monitor that and if they see it as a pattern that looks suspicious they can have a conversation with the owner.

Not sure what reason they would have to complicate this.

Although many accuse the mouse of being miserly, one place they are not known for pinching pennies is in a courtroom. The technology exists

 

[lowlight]

I somewhat disagree, my usual process is to make reservations ( which was a tip I learned on this forum) is to book all rooms with myself as lead guest.

I book multiple concurrent rooms for family trips and update the lead guests later or cancel if they cancel before the holding period. I attempted to remain lead guest for 2 concurrent rooms at RIV and that caused lots of issues with MDE that resulted in me having to work with the front desk during my vacation ( which they solved by removing me from one room)

My sisters and their kids don't have the type of jobs that can commit to a vacation 11 months out. Nor do my family and friends that are small business owners or even college students. I frequently have to swap who is in each room. Its always a crap shoot with my family as to who I can put together , who is not speaking to whom and so on. These are decisions best made nearer to the trip.

And again, I would say that puts you in the minority of owners. You have every right to use your membership that way, but you can't say that's what the "average owner" does. It simply is not. The vast majority of owners have smaller contracts, stay in resort studios at low point seasons, have never rented a point, etc. Don't mistake the arguments made on Disboards to be the whims of the majority, the majority are clueless when it comes to utilizing every facet of their membership. The big 2 rules of DVC are- don't buy if you can't plan 11 months out, and buy where you want to stay. Causing a rebook to change lead guest will affect a very vocal minority on these forums and almost nobody else, except very occasionally. It's almost the perfect solution to get rid of spec renting, which will cause the spec renters to divest, since they aren't going to compete with DVC Rental Store et al to rent points for 21/pt (and whatever markup they make on that), when they've previously fattened their purses with 30+ a point spec rentals.

 

[mkatsy]

And again, I would say that puts you in the minority of owners. You have every right to use your membership that way, but you can't say that's what the "average owner" does. It simply is not. The vast majority of owners have smaller contracts, stay in resort studios at low point seasons, have never rented a point, etc. Don't mistake the arguments made on Disboards to be the whims of the majority, the majority are clueless when it comes to utilizing every facet of their membership. The big 2 rules of DVC are- don't buy if you can't plan 11 months out, and buy where you want to stay. Causing a rebook to change lead guest will affect a very vocal minority on these forums and almost nobody else, except very occasionally. It's almost the perfect solution to get rid of spec renting, which will cause the spec renters to divest, since they aren't going to compete with DVC Rental Store et al to rent points for 21/pt (and whatever markup they make on that), when they've previously fattened their purses with 30+ a point spec rentals.

And that’s the crux of the conflict between the statutes. The timeshare statute (721) compels the managing entity to create and modify rules to accommodate the majority of the membership. The condominium statute (718) only benefits the minority subset of the membership that want limitless renting. One faction’s desire to be unrestrained is impinging on the right of the rest of the membership to enjoy the property. The 721 statute states that this must be avoided by periodic review of member usage and rectified through a modification of the rules.

 

[Mouseforward]

you can't say that's what the "average owner" does. It simply is not. The vast majority of owners have smaller contracts, stay in resort studios at low point seasons, have never rented a point, etc.

So I can’t say what the average owner does, but clearly you can since you proceeded to do so right after telling me I can’t. I think you over value your own opinion.

 

[Mouseforward]

And that’s the crux of the conflict between the statutes. The timeshare statute (721) compels the managing entity to create and modify rules to accommodate the majority of the membership. The condominium statute (718) only benefits the minority subset of the membership that want limitless renting. One faction’s desire to be unrestrained is impinging on the right of the rest of the membership to enjoy the property. The 721 statute states that this must be avoided by periodic review of member usage and rectified through a modification of the rules.

This being the same 721 statute that demands specific language if they choose to restrict rentals.

 

[mkatsy]

This being the same 721 statute that demands specific language if they choose to restrict rentals.

I have no idea what happens if a statue conflicts itself but it does appear that 718 “has left the chat”