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

[WinterSolider]

Ah, there’s the rub I suppose.

“true commercial renting”

What does that mean to you exactly?

Disney is now saying, DVC is for personal use, and regular/frequent renting is not allowed.

There's still way too much gray area in the middle of "commercial renting" and "personal use."

If I book a room for my sister and don't charge her anything, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

If I book a room for my sister and she pays me $15 per point, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

If my kid breaks her leg so I can't make my trip and rent the room to a stranger on Facebook, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

 

[IMMkXLVI]

There's still way too much gray area in the middle of "commercial renting" and "personal use."

If I book a room for my sister and don't charge her anything, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

If I book a room for my sister and she pays me $15 per point, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

If my kid breaks her leg so I can't make my trip and rent the room to a stranger on Facebook, that's not "commercial renting," nor is it "personal use."

Use, as a noun; the privilege or benefit of using something.

One could argue you "benefitted" by her paying you x per point.

 

[TCRAIG]

What you aren't seeing is that in many cases, the commercial owner and the broker are one in the same. That is the problem.

There are some commercial owners who are individuals and use forums or facebook to advertise. But the rental brokers that we all know themselves own thousands of points as well.

Yes - and if Disney decides the brokers are renting their own points in a manner that falls under their commercial guidelines- then I would expect that and only that activity to be subject DVC’s commercial renting review.

 

[mkatsy]

What you aren't seeing is that in many cases, the commercial owner and the broker are one in the same. That is the problem.

There are some commercial owners who are individuals and use forums or facebook to advertise. But the rental brokers that we all know themselves own thousands of points as well.

Bingo … and some of those points are held by multiple LLC’s with an address in the same building as the broker. it’s all public record, but ya gotta dig for it

 

[muppets3d]

Bingo … and some of those points are held by multiple LLC’s with an address in the same building as the broker. it’s all public record, but ya gotta dig for it

And the lady that answers the phone but can't even point to Saratoga on a map "owns" 8000 points?

 

[Sandisw]

So let me get this straight. DVC publicly states that they have created a separate, dedicated operating group within MA/MS, tasked with ferreting out commercial renters, and further states it’s important enough to them to “go after it” with this dedicated team, yet we’re going to operate on the assumption (based on rainbows and unicorns I guess), that the issue is not, in fact, widespread and maybe only affects < 1% of reservations and is therefore of di minimis importance. “Added resources” and “whole team of folks focused on this”, for an issue that’s so small as to really amount to nothing more than a nothing burger. Someone better be sending letters to DVC demanding to find out just how much this wild goose chase by this “whole team of folks” is costing us. Also, if it’s no big deal, what “improvement” was Yvonne Chang hoping to see?

So let me get this straight. DVC publicly states that they have created a separate, dedicated operating group within MA/MS, tasked with ferreting out commercial renters, and further states it’s important enough to them to “go after it” with this dedicated team, yet we’re going to operate on the assumption (based on rainbows and unicorns I guess), that the issue is not, in fact, widespread and maybe only affects < 1% of reservations and is therefore of di minimis importance.




“Added resources” and “whole team of folks focused on this”, for an issue that’s so small as to really amount to nothing more than a nothing burger. Someone better be sending letters to DVC demanding to find out just how much this wild goose chase by this “whole team of folks” is costing us.

Also, if it’s no big deal, what “improvement” was Yvonne Chang hoping to see?

As somone who was at that meeting, two of them, I can tell you the context in which that was offered and it was in relation to them having a dedicated people devoted to activitely looking at ways to go after the group they were describing...those large point owners renting thousands of points "as best they can"..

I took that to mean that they would be reviewing current policy to make sure that those who have found ways around the commerical renting rules have been stopped. The implication was that this is indeed a small subset of owners doing the things peopole are complaining about and not that there are a lot of owners out there who are doing things they should not be.

Again, the notion by the board was "we hear you" and "yes, we are actively reviewing it with extra people" but the comment about it not being a common practice was more of a "the good news is this doesn't represent a large number of reservations out there".

Its not like the board even brought this up....all the discussions were in relation to questions asked....and the time at the SSR meeting was minimal compared to VGF, which was about 10 minutes of the Q & A.

ETA: What I think they will be able to point to when asked?

One, they amended the transfer rules so that all owners can only do one in or out, even from there own membership and two, they now require owners to attest they are following the terms of the contract for personal use, each and every time.

And, I bet there are some who may be thinking twice about the level of renting they are doing just because of that one change.....

They also are giving some owners the ability to trade points for an AP, which means the potental for fewer owners needing to rent points.....

And, they now allow owners to trade banked and borrowed points with other owners, which, is another example of doing something that might reduce an owners need to rent reservations with expiring points.

 

[DL1WDW2]

They have to be approved officially before getting released.

That always happens at the next meeting.

Thanks you are correct again
Thanks for reminding us
You are always the best source for me and many others.

 

[Sandisw]

There are a few statements that have been repeated so many times in so many threads over so many years by just a few select people that they are now repeated as fact, and this is one. Nobody in their right mind thinks it’s 1%. If I had to guess based on number of reservations listed at any time, the spec rental market is likely around $100 million a year, and then add the points rental on top of it.

And I will say that spec rentals are not a violation UNLESS they are all down by the same owners....and while there are certainly a lot of rentals out there that appear to be by the same player, which would fall into that owner renting at a commericial rate, you can't look at the entire market and say they are all violations.

Which, fits the messaging that came out of last years December meeting.....that they saw this as a small subset of owners causing a lot of the issues that owners are upset about....

 

[DL1WDW2]

DVC is responding because bad publicity hurts Sales and the complaints were beyond ignoring anymore.

Once upon a time DVC was a great “ membership” and very rarely anybody complained about DVC …
But having to Walk the minute the calendar turns to 11 months for certain dates and locations ( a lot of them ) has made for unhappy members .
We can not give up the fight and eventually we can find a solution .
Otherwise, I would have a very difficult time recommending joining to friends, family or strangers.
I still think the “ talk “ has continued the belief that it is easy to join cause it is easy to sell… But I have been monitoring 50 points BLT points for a long time .
I added on in 2018 55 points at $155 and there are points for sale on the resale market for less than that currently.
Once upon a time , a small contract did not last It was grabbed immediately.
So do not believe they are easy to unload !

We should print this up and take it to the next DVC meetings
But we are also part of the problem that has created this and we are just as responsible .
DVC needs us to honestly work together .

 

[Sandisw]

So discounting basically all renting there is only a small amount of rental activity. Got it!

I don't think that is what is being said....

DVC can not look at things across the system, and apply rules because they don't like what owners are doing collectively...it is only about each individual owner and what actions they do that matters.

So, if one is looking at the commerical rental market as one big owner, then sure, it looks like there is a big problem...but if those rentals are being offered by thousands of DVC owners, and each owner is only offering what would not be considered "frequent or regular" however DVC decides to enforce it, then those reservations are considered acceptable rentals.

I certainly have no idea what any other members activity looks like...only DVC does.....

 

[Sandisw]

I might be misunderstanding your argument. Are you saying it’s ok for the brokers to do it and it isn’t commercial to list for owners, or that owners who rent through brokers aren’t doing so commercially?

Correct. Using a broker to rent a reservation has not ever been considered a pattern of rental activity that DVC has used to say the owner is renting for commerical purposes and not under their right to rent.

A broker who is renting reservations under their own ownerships, may or may not be renting to the degree that DVC consideres renting for commercial purposes. For a broker, though, if their memberships are in the names of LLCs, businesses, etc. they do have different rules that DVC can apply to them because of what the POS says.

Even the new RIV language that uses that as an example as something DVC could institute, does use the word "regular use of a third party site"...implying that it has to be more than just once.

I know I have said it a lot and I apologize for repeating, but DVC has to apply the rules based on what an owner does an individual and decide that the level of renting they are dong shifts them into running a commercial enterprise....what any other owner does can not play a role in DVC enforcing a commerical purpose clause violation against an owner.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Just for comparison, you probably do not want to know that this has been going on for a long time with the campsites at Fort Wilderness and DisneyWorld has tried to find a way to end Camp site Flipping Business for these individuals they are making money without the business costs.
Recently my friend had to Disney Rehab and most of the patients were former housekeepers ! The cart is so heavy very dangerous also to change the upper level bunk bed too …
Nobody should be allowed to profit off Disney without the legal responsibilities and we should not participate either . Yes it might be cheaper or more amenity but still
We are part of the problem !
Too …

 

[Sandisw]

Obviously true because Disney is not doing anything about it right now. If we are assuming that they are upholding the contract they wrote, then all the activity we see on rental sites is 100% kosher. Brokers owning thousands of points by putting contracts in employee names to get around maximums, locking up popular room types in walks all year long, booking rooms at the 11 month window and making them available to renters on a speculative basis - all personal use and not commercial use at all.

I think by any reasonable person's definition that is commercial activity, and thus Disney is being derelict in their responsibility to enforce their contract. But they'll never admit to it.

They are only derilict if they have an established policy and ignore it....and who know, maybe they have because the number of owners who fall into the category of breaking their own policy was small enough to ignore.

Remember , DVC sets the standard for what tips the scales, and up until the complaints in December, they have always kept it pretty broad.

They obvisouly can change it and I still speculate that there may be some legal work being done behind the scenes to make sure that however they choose to define and enforce things meshes with their interpretation of the contract and law.

That is why it can be misleading, IMO, when people look at the rental market and all that is being offered as though they all count as one big owner.....rules have to make sense at the individual level because DVC can only go after an owner as an individual.

So, as long as the number of reservations any one of us has in the names of others, whether they are guests or renters, is following the metrics that DVC sets in place, then none of us are renting at a level that is outside our right to rent.

 

[Sandisw]

Bingo … and some of those points are held by multiple LLC’s with an address in the same building as the broker. it’s all public record, but ya gotta dig for it

Which does fit with the boards statements, at least IMO, that this is not a common practice, amongst DVC owners as a whole.

I think this is an example of what they were referring to when they were talking about "large points owners renting thousands of points" who have found ways around the rules....

I stated earlier that this is one of the faults of the way the 2008 policy was written...it was written in a way that had them looking only at a membership and not across memberships with the same owners....and, to be honest, this is how I took the boards statements when they said they had a team of workers who would now be working on this....to find and get all of this information to support the enforcement against those owners who have done it.

 

[lowlight]

Camp site Flipping Business

I've tried to search for this, but can't find anything on it. What is camp site flipping? Someone books a FW campsite, and resells it to someone else for a higher price? So like a campsite spec rental? What do you mean Disney has been trying to figure out how to end it? If they wanted to, couldn't they just apply 3rd party park guide treatment to these people? You have no legal right to be a guest at any Disney park or resort, they can refuse you service, including booking a campsite, at any time, unless it's based on some type of protected status (i.e. we don't want to serve disabled guests, so we banned them).

 

[Sandisw]

Ah, there’s the rub I suppose.

“true commercial renting”

What does that mean to you exactly?

Disney is now saying, DVC is for personal use, and regular/frequent renting is not allowed.

Have you asked DVC to define what "frequent or regular" renting looks like in terms of actions by an owner?

So far, when I have asked, I have been told that this is the same policy that has always been in place and that there have been no new rule changes.

I am hoping that others here will contact DVC to ask and will chime in with their responses.

 

[Sandisw]

If it were 1% or even a single digit percentage, then how could it be such a big issue? From reading this thread, it seems the centerline issue people have with commercial renters is the spec rental for the studio units. Can 1% of total DVC really use up so many studio units that its effect is felt by the remaining 99% of DVC?

Opinion here….

Because I think that there is a difference of interpretation in what the contract restricts and what DVC has the power to stop.

We here on the DIS represent a very small population of the membership and so what may seem like a huge issue to those here, in the larger DVC community, may not, in reality be one.

Even at those December meetings where owners asked about it and the board responded, was attended by a small group.

The two I attended didn’t have more than 50 to 60 people?

I didn’t read all the recaps of all the resorts so this may have not even been discussed at them all since it wasn’t the board presenting it as a topic.

They simply answered questions being asked.

I personally can’t come up with a good reason, why the change that occurred June 1st didn’t come with other rule changes if they are planning on making them?

Unless it is for legal reasons and those are still being worked on?

 

[Cyberc1978]

It will also be interesting to see what info I get from my request.

It also could be that they are trying to find a legal way to enforce without much pushback, given the stance they took with the 2008 policy.

I do think it is interesting that there has been a lack of notification from DVC to owners about anything, including the change to the check box.

What information did you specifically request from DVC?

 

[xdan0920]

which has never included individuals renting in a limited capacity either themselves or via a third party.

Another word to get hung up on. What do you consider limited?

 

[Sandisw]

What information did you specifically request from DVC?

I asked to review the commercial use policy that my SSR and VGF POS says exists and is on file with DVC. I attached the lanauge.

It states they have adopted one and we must request it to review. I attached the contract language I included in my letter…and the specific FL statute lanauge that says I am entitled to a response in 10 days.

I did inform them that I have been trying since January and that my two emails to DVC compliance have been ignored.

Based on tracking, it should be there tomorrow. I still hope others here will call and see what is said, just to see if there is any consistency in messaging!!