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

[muppets3d]

If I remember correctly, Disney does not own/have control of the DVC initials. That's why most sites can have the initials, or can have vacation club in the name, but I don't think I've seen one that has the full "Disney vacation club" in the name. They just say that they help members of Disney vacation club while saying that they are not Disney vacation club

To me that seems sort of like having underglow on your car - sure it's legal (at least in my state) but it brings unwanted attention.

 

[Sandisw]

I went back and read the very first POS for OKW and you had to submit your contract to rent and it had to contain a clause that your guest would be bound by the same T&C as the owner. If your guest arrived without the contract having been submitted, your guest would be required to sign a waiver at the front desk acknowledging that they must follow the same rules as the owner. I’m sure that as the club grew it became cumbersome, especially because internet use was in its early stages. From the first day the doors opened they did allow renting, but not commercial renting, and they get to define commercial.

Since 2009, since I have owned, it’s never been enforced.

But, it goes to support they have a lot already they can implement if they feel it’s necessary.

 

[Sandisw]

I really don’t think they plan to go after people that rent out rooms on their own on boards like this occasionally. I do think that they not only want to stop people who buy contracts as business, but stop anyone from using third party brokers like David’s and the DVC Rental Store. The latter might be hard for them to do, but they hate when companies like those two make money off them. They always come to view them as stealing money that should be theirs.

I do not think they intend to stop people from using brokers to rent their points as long as they do it within the guidelines of personal use rentals.

Nothing they said at the meeting or in the clarification in the T and Cs supports that at this time.

Now, the buy, strip, and flip? Yes, and one move has already been made to impact that. They are now enforcing the one transfer in or out of a membership even to owners with multiple ones.

That was a big loophole for those doing the whole buy, strip, flip contract thing.

 

[muppets3d]

The main reason that Disney clamped down on the third party tour guides was not money, it was because of how adept they became at abusing DAS. So much so that the first port of call on these tours was the "tell them you have IBS, they'll give you a DAS" visit to City Hall, followed by the guide adeptly optimizing DAS reservations throughout the day at the expense of those who truly needed the system. Had the third party guides refrained from doing this and had stuck to helping people navigate the parks, make dining reservations, purchase and use LLMP and give advice on rides, Disney would have loved them, as they would have been helping people spend more money at Disney and still needing to buy park tickets themselves.

That may have been the reason why they started looking into things, but not all tour guides used DAS.

 

[Sandisw]

People need to remember how hard Disney went after 3rd party tour guides, and the money involved there was pennies on the dollar compared to DVC. There's enough lawyers in this thread to comment whether or not it's ok for 3rd party websites to use "DVC XYZ" as part of their name branding, but I'd not feel good about it right now.

But that is completely different because those guides were violating the terms of going into the parks.

To stop an owner from using a third party broker they still need to explain how that action by an owner rises to the level of now being considered using the membership commercially vs under their personal use right to rent.

Not saying they may never try but even the language added to RIV related to this included the word “regular use” which implies a pattern in some way.

 

[Brianstl]

But that is completely different because those guides were violating the terms of going into the parks.

To stop an owner from using a third party broker they still need to explain how that action by an owner rises to the level of now being considered using the membership commercially vs under their personal use right to rent.

Not saying they may never try but even the language added to RIV related to this included the word “regular use” which implies a pattern in some way.

They are engaging with a third party for a commercial activity that not only generates revenue for the member, but creates a profit for the third party.

 

[muppets3d]

But that is completely different because those guides were violating the terms of going into the parks.

To stop an owner from using a third party broker they still need to explain how that action by an owner rises to the level of now being considered using the membership commercially vs under their personal use right to rent.

Not saying they may never try but even the language added to RIV related to this included the word “regular use” which implies a pattern in some way.

I don't think the member using the broker is the issue, I think the broker specifically advertising how much cheaper they are than Disney's rates and making a profit off of it is the issue. So the issue is with the broker, not with the member or guests using them. At least that's my opinion.

It's like when "personal shoppers" buy merch in the parks using their AP discount and then resell for a profit. They get away with it for a while but eventually, Disney trespasses them.

Disney is the only entity that wants to make money in their district.

 

[Sandisw]

They are engaging with a third party for a commercial activity that not only generates revenue for the member, but creates a profit for the third party.

But thats not the standard of the contract when it comes to renting.

It’s whether the owners action rise to the level that the reason or purpose of owning is no longer for personal use,,,vacations for owners, guests, and renters…but for a commercial enterprise or purpose.

The profit for the broker isn’t relevant to the contract. They are middle men.

Now, DVC can try to stretch a definition of commercial purpose but the pre RIv resorts have the term reasonable definition.

And the contracts have an initial definition of what it means. DVC knows that and it’s what framed the 2008 policy to clarify for owners what that clause meant.

I know some think they can define commercial any way they want or they can even just stop renting all together, but even the board member stated that renting is within the rules, gave an example of what could count as okay and that what they want to stop are owners renting commercially.

And he followed up that statement with an example by saying “ those with lots of points and it’s a frequent occurrence” indicating that was the commercial renting they are seeking to stop.

Right now, they have only asked owners to reaffirm they agree to the terms of the contract when it comes to personal use. .which includes infrequent or irregular renting.

And, nothing has changed in terms of booking. It’s been almost 4 weeks and owners are having no issues booking any type of reservation, including rentals.

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think the member using the broker is the issue, I think the broker specifically advertising how much cheaper they are than Disney's rates and making a profit off of it is the issue. So the issue is with the broker, not with the member or guests using them. At least that's my opinion.

It's like when "personal shoppers" buy merch in the parks using their AP discount and then resell for a profit. They get away with it for a while but eventually, Disney trespasses them.

Disney is the only entity that wants to make money in their district.

Well, that’s a different issue because that would be between the hotel division and those businesses.

DVC is not supposed to make rules to limit owners to help the hotels division.

They have an obligation to owners and even if that is behind the scenes goal, they still have to support …or even spin…to owners that the changes they make are for the benefit for the membership.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The required disclosure near the beginning of the POS makes it clear that there should be no expectation that the ownership interest maybe rented.

You must read the whole context of that statement. It continues on in some manner that you will be "competing" with Disney in renting rooms and so shouldn't be expecting you'll be able to find a renter. It is not stating that renting could be disallowed.

 

[Brianstl]

I don't think the member using the broker is the issue, I think the broker specifically advertising how much cheaper they are than Disney's rates and making a profit off of it is the issue. So the issue is with the broker, not with the member or guests using them. At least that's my opinion.

It's like when "personal shoppers" buy merch in the parks using their AP discount and then resell for a profit. They get away with it for a while but eventually, Disney trespasses them.

Disney is the only entity that wants to make money in their district.

Too many of these businesses flew too close to the sun and started generating too much income for Disney not to notice. Their ads pop up everywhere connected to Disney online, they have multiple shows dedicated to their business on YouTube and they are all over on social media.

Disney is determined to make that income for themselves off their own product. You would have to be an idiot to work in the DVC division see all of the above out there and not start planning how you are going to bring all that revenue in house when you have the tools available to force it. Disney is going to do what is best for Disney’s bottom line first and the interest of members will be second. That is exactly what they are supposed to do as a publicly traded company.

 

[Brianstl]

You must read the whole context of that statement. It continues on in some manner that you will be "competing" with Disney in renting rooms and so shouldn't be expecting you'll be able to find a renter. It is not stating that renting could be disallowed.

Which is in a separate sentence which means the statement that there is is no expectation to rent your points stands on it’s own. Any examples of reasons why you shouldn’t expect to be able to rent your points doesn’t change the fact that DVC clearly states that any expectations that you will be able to rent your points throughout your contract should not exist. It doesn’t change the fact they can restrict how you do it or stop it in multiple other legal ways.

That said I doubt the went to stop it completely. They just want to make sure they will be the ones generating the biggest profit from renting in the future. IMO.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

They are engaging with a third party for a commercial activity that not only generates revenue for the member, but creates a profit for the third party.

Last time I checked, making a profit wasn't illegal here.

 

[atthebeachclub]

Which is in a separate sentence which means the statement that there is is no expectation to rent your points stands on it’s own. Any examples of reasons why you shouldn’t expect to be able to rent your points doesn’t change the fact that DVC clearly states that any expectations that you will be able to rent your points throughout your contract should not exist. It doesn’t change the fact they can restrict how you do it or stop it in multiple other legal ways.

That said I doubt the went to stop it completely. They just want to make sure they will be the ones generating the biggest profit from renting in the future. IMO.

Are you versed in reading and interpreting law? I only ask because I am not, but I am also not certain that separate sentences indicate this.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Too many of these businesses flew too close to the sun and started generating too much income for Disney not to notice. Their ads pop up everywhere connected to Disney online, they have multiple shows dedicated to their business on YouTube and they are all over on social media.

Disney is determined to make that income for themselves off their own product. You would have to be an idiot to work in the DVC division see all of the above out there and not start planning how you are going to bring all that revenue in house when you have the tools available to force it. Disney is going to do what is best for Disney’s bottom line first and the interest of members will be second. That is exactly what they are supposed to do as a publicly traded company.

One could (and should as a rightful owner/renter) conclude that Disney proper has already made the money they intended to make on the points rented. Any profit made beyond that, is not in Disney's reasonable purview to stake any claim for it.

All I'm saying is that while they may very well be doing it for this reason, they better be really careful about making that the public face for the reason, because that would make for a very bad look. Just like I don't get to know what they make off their rentals, what we may make off ours isn't any of their business either.

Rentals don't take anything directly from Disney's pockets. At least not any pockets that belonged to them to begin with.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

At least one reservation a year of mine is made in my name and changed to a sister or nephew. And 100% of my reservations are booked at 11 months.. It’s simply too hard at 11 months for my family to commit.
I don’t think this is unusual or uncommon. Frankly when registering at 8 AM who wants to have to fill out lots of names. I think the majority of us just put ourselves on the reservation and worry about that later. This change would not be desirable at all.

Correct me if I am wrong but if you know from year to year the name of at least one family member going to be in attendance on this vacation, their name can be the lead and all of the other metrics can be changed otherwise. Alternately, you could book two reservations. One in the name of your sister, the other in the name of your nephew. As you said, invariably the lead name is changed to one or the other. So, one of the two reservations is just for the first day. The second reservation is for the full stay. If you need the reservation to remain in the name of the single day reservation, Member Services can cancel the one in your sisters name adding the days to the one in your nephews name. This wouldn't involve a lead name change at all.

 

[Brianstl]

Are you versed in reading and interpreting law? I only ask because I am not, but I am also not certain that separate sentences indicate this.

I am not a contract lawyer, but I have been a part of writing many complicated contracts. I have no doubt there are differences in the law from what I have been involved in and a timeshare contract. That said, any time a statement like there there should be no expectation to be able to do something is in the contract, that is exactly what it means. That is the case even if later in contract examples of reasons why are provided unless it is explicitly stated that those are the only reason why or are in someway limited to just those instances.

 

[lowlight]

One could (and should as a rightful owner/renter) conclude that Disney proper has already made the money they intended to make on the points rented. Any profit made beyond that, is not in Disney's reasonable purview to stake any claim for it.

All I'm saying is that while they may very well be doing it for this reason, they better be really careful about making that the public face for the reason, because that would make for a very bad look. Just like I don't get to know what they make off their rentals, what we may make off ours isn't any of their business either.

Rentals don't take anything directly from Disney's pockets. At least not any pockets that belonged to them to begin with.

You're completely right, it will always be framed "for your own good". "For the good of the owners". It just so happens to be good for owners and Disney at the same time.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

They are engaging with a third party for a commercial activity that not only generates revenue for the member, but creates a profit for the third party.

Remember, the issue of commercial vs personal isn't centered on financials. Revenue is immaterial, as is profit.

 

[Mouseforward]

Correct me if I am wrong but if you know from year to year the name of at least one family member going to be in attendance on this vacation, their name can be the lead and all of the other metrics can be changed otherwise. Alternately, you could book two reservations. One in the name of your sister, the other in the name of your nephew. As you said, invariably the lead name is changed to one or the other. So, one of the two reservations is just for the first day. The second reservation is for the full stay. If you need the reservation to remain in the name of the single day reservation, Member Services can cancel the one in your sisters name adding the days to the one in your nephews name. This wouldn't involve a lead name change at all.

It doesn’t work that way. You book the whole week reservation at 11 months. So I booked both in my name. Then I have to take my name off the one room I’m not staying in want to decided who’s staying in that room