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

[Mouseforward]

I’m only dealing with this ‘issue’ because of the current conversations from some on the chat who I think are proposing onerous solutions to many members like me who really aren’t impacted by bots or commercial renting…Or walking for that matter. None of these impact me at all. And although I may not be representative of the bulk of members, I don’t think I’m such a ‘rare’ find that the Smithsonian wants to put me on display!

I would say people who don't own at BW or want the special rooms at AK really don't have the issue to the same degree. BW is just cursed by the lock-off situation and odd point charts. I hear BC is not nearly as bad as BW for owners but only having one view probably helps.

I assume SSR owners and Poly owners never really have studio issues. If you don't mind resort studios even VGF seems to have plenty.

I go early May , and December which are popular but not like event weekends or some holidays so I don't get hit with the spec rental issue. If it is a blackout day or that popular I would not enjoy the parks anyway as I hate excessive crowds.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I think with bots it's easy to stalk the website and catch all cancellations too. This change wouldn't block that.
Also, any member who votes no wouldn't be affected by the new rule, so it would stop future purchases, but it would do nothing for current commercial renters.

I think this is a misunderstanding of relevant law. They can stop spec renting by stopping name changes without rebooking without triggering the material rental rights clause.

The fact they can’t fill their deluxe hotel rooms is exactly why they are going to do it.

Yes, I don’t understand why this isn’t more obvious to people on the thread. While not everybody is comfortable renting, a lot of people are going to chose to stay at BWV for $450 a night renting points instead of $650 direct to Disney. Disney could demand increasingly huge premiums on Crescent Lake hotel rooms and the for profit rental industry was born.

It’s true that if Disney buys back a ton of points through trade in or ROFR they still need to fill the rooms…but if they don’t buy/trade anything and just tell owners that there are limits on renting, it’s not coming out of Disney’s pocket — either the owner travels more or they let the points go, and most of the would-be renters takes a room from hotel inventory.

 

[Cyberc1978]

How was is that place ?

The rooms are nice or at least they were.

However the annual maintenance fee aka dues were high I think something like $1,200 we only stayed at VVP a few times but exchanged with RCI a lot. It was through them I came a cross DVC and started to look into it some more.

 

[MyDogTink]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...-club-changes-commercial-renters/84372282007/

Sorry if this was already posted. This thread is moving too fast for my level of reading comprehension. lol.

This is also posted on the Budget board.

Appears there a typo in the section “Can I still book through a third-party companies”.

 

[muppets3d]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...-club-changes-commercial-renters/84372282007/

Sorry if this was already posted. This thread is moving too fast for my level of reading comprehension. lol.

This is also posted on the Budget board.

Appears there a typo in the section “Can I still book through a third-party companies”.

When is this "crackdown" coming?

Making us click a checkbox to book a room isn't a crackdown...

 

[Cyberc1978]

When is this "crackdown" coming?

Making us click a checkbox to book a room isn't a crackdown...

If the assumption holds true that with the new T&C DVC have done a reset and now starts to look for frequent and regular renters then it will take some time to establish something is regular and frequent.

I guess depending on the amount of points or reservations you rent it could be anywhere from 6 months to 1,2,3 years.

 

[Brianstl]

I think this is a misunderstanding of relevant law. They can stop spec renting by stopping name changes without rebooking without triggering the material rental rights clause.

Yes, I don’t understand why this isn’t more obvious to people on the thread. While not everybody is comfortable renting, a lot of people are going to chose to stay at BWV for $450 a night renting points instead of $650 direct to Disney. Disney could demand increasingly huge premiums on Crescent Lake hotel rooms and the for profit rental industry was born.

It’s true that if Disney buys back a ton of points through trade in or ROFR they still need to fill the rooms…but if they don’t buy/trade anything and just tell owners that there are limits on renting, it’s not coming out of Disney’s pocket — either the owner travels more or they let the points go, and most of the would-be renters takes a room from hotel inventory.

I don’t understand why people don’t get this. They wouldn’t have made a change to the language they knew would cause a huge hub if they didn’t plan on doing something big. They have to the tools available to them to kill what they view as the competition. They are going to do that.

I think way to often people think language in a contract says what they want it to mean instead of what it actually says.

 

[mkatsy]

They have to the tools available to them to kill what they view as the competition. They are going to do that.

I said the same thing about a hundred posts ago … squash ‘em like a bug. I just don’t see spending years in court arguing over two sentences in a contract the only people that benefits are the attorneys getting paid to be there.

 

[lowlight]

I’m only dealing with this ‘issue’ because of the current conversations from some on the chat who I think are proposing onerous solutions to many members like me who really aren’t impacted by bots or commercial renting…Or walking for that matter. None of these impact me at all. And although I may not be representative of the bulk of members, I don’t think I’m such a ‘rare’ find that the Smithsonian wants to put me on display!

Right, DVC is a microcosm of Disney at large. In Disney, you can buy your way out of just about any problem or inconvenience, but surely you aren’t so out of touch as to believe that problem doesn’t exist for others. This is the clearest example of “it doesn’t affect me so it’s not real” I’ve seen in awhile.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I don’t understand why people don’t get this. They wouldn’t have made a change to the language they knew would cause a huge hub if they didn’t plan on doing something big. They have to the tools available to them to kill what they view as the competition. They are going to do that.

I think way to often people think language in a contract says what they want it to mean instead of what it actually says.

I said the same thing about a hundred posts ago … squash ‘em like a bug. I just don’t see spending years in court arguing over two sentences in a contract the only people that benefits are the attorneys getting paid to be there.

If they have the tools already why did they change the wording and more importantly why haven’t they done something about the mega renters already

 

[muppets3d]

If they have the tools already why did they change the wording and more importantly why haven’t they done something about the mega renters already

I don't think they've changed any wording have they? If they did it wasn't in any major way. The only difference is we now have to click a checkbox.

As to why are they now paying attention to it, I think it's because cash bookings (and DVC sales) are slowing and Disney is now looking under couch cushions for pennies they've left behind.

 

[mkatsy]

If they have the tools already why did they change the wording and more importantly why haven’t they done something about the mega renters already

I can’t answer that … but we have seen electronic acknowledgements used previously. The Disney + acknowledgement was used to try and force arbitration. That was a disaster because a super sweet, benevolent doctor had died, and it became a public relations nightmare. Under different circumstances that argument might have had a chance. Luxury timeshare owners, most of whom have not paid their sales tax & bed tax, will never gain the public’s support. Personally, I believe that check box is the next iteration of the “you clicked the box” strategy.

 

[Brianstl]

I don't think they've changed any wording have they? If they did it wasn't in any major way. The only difference is we now have to click a checkbox.

As to why are they now paying attention to it, I think it's because cash bookings (and DVC sales) are slowing and Disney is now looking under couch cushions for pennies they've left behind.

I think this is the biggest part of it. I, also, don’t think they really paid attention to brokers until the issue be came to big to ignore. This stuff that is online centered, is not part of Disney’s Experiences regular business model and can be viewed as generating revenue that Disney thinks could or should be their revenue appears to have become a focus item for Josh. This can be viewed in the same light as how they just now are doing other things like producing their own ride through videos.

 

[Brianstl]

I can’t answer that … but we have seen electronic acknowledgements used previously. The Disney + acknowledgement was used to try and force arbitration. That was a disaster because a super sweet, benevolent doctor had died, and it became a public relations nightmare. Under different circumstances that argument might have had a chance. Luxury timeshare owners, most of whom have not paid their sales tax & bed tax, will never gain the public’s support. Personally, I believe that check box is the next iteration of the “you clicked the box” strategy.

And on this Disney doesn’t need to catch everyone or even 20% percent of the transactions to effectively kill the broker market. They just need to interrupt enough of those bookings for people to lose faith in going through a third party broker as a reliable way to rent points or rent out points. Once that faith is gone the brokers business is dead.

 

[muppets3d]

And on this Disney doesn’t need to catch everyone or even 20% percent of the transactions to effectively kill the broker market. They just need to interrupt enough of those bookings for people to lose faith in going through a third party broker as a reliable way to rent points or rent out points. Once that faith is gone the brokers business is dead.

From your lips to God's ear.

 

[Sandisw]

Just some interesting info found in FL Statute 721 that governs timeshares...

FL 721.05 (46) " Consumer timeshare reseller” means a purchaser who acquires a timeshare interest for his or her own use and occupancy and later offers the timeshare interest for resale or rental.

This is how owners are referenced in the statute....and includes reference to rentals....

FL 721.205 Resale Service Providers; disclosure obligations - which governs the actions of brokers in assisting owners, aka Consumer timeshare resellers"...one example of references to rentals.

Section 2(a) - State or imply that the resale advertiser will provide or assist in providing any type of direct sales or resale brokerage services other than the advertising of the consumer resale timeshare interest for sale or rent by the consumer timeshare reseller.

Further sections of this statute (too many to post) also mention brokers resonsiblitities in helping owners rent their timeshares.

This certainly appears that FL Statute 721 recognizes the right of a purchaser to resell or rent their interest...

Given it also governs the brokers, I think would support that DVC going after them for helping owners rent would be a very uphill legal battle.

From an owner's standpoint, for me, its enough to back up that the only enforcement DVC can take against me would be my ability to rent to the degree that my purpose has shifted to a commerical one.

 

[Sandisw]

It seems to me that the easiest way to attack commercial rentals is through the reservation system. Lots of how that works is not covered by the POS. As an example I think they could immediately say all lead guest name changes required a cancellation and rebook.

I am aware that this would hurt some members, but I think it would hurt commercial renters more and I don’t think as members we would have any rights to complain.

Removing the ability of bots to access the site by placing in automatic delays in the system is easy so bots would have no advantage would also be something we couldn’t complain about.

Changes like this though all remove DVC from having to determine what is or isn’t commercial activity. Instead it blocks the behaviours commercial renters have around using the booking system that normal users do not have.

Placing

I know I have shared this but I brought up this point at the December meeting and that one of the biggest benefits of DVC is lead guest name changes....the good news is that their responses, for this topic, and rule changes to do with walking, were very pro owner and that any attempt at rule changes would not be taken lightly.

I hope they don't try to eliminate lead guest changes because again, instead of making it that rigid, they can simply use a metric to monitor how many times it happens....those renting to the degree that makes it obvious they are in it for commercial purposes would be doing them at an above average rate.

They still have to decide what patterns of rentals rise to the level of a commercial purpose in order to enforce because the lead guest name changes only occurs when you do a spec rental...if owners are renting on demand then the name of the guest doesn't get changed....so, sure, this would stop spec rentals, but it certainly wouldn't reduce the number of rentals some of these large point owners are doing if they simply go back to on demand rentals.

And, I think there are a lot more owners out there who need lead guest changes then one might think....

 

[Sandisw]

Are you actually saying if owners aren't active in online forums, they aren't experiencing issues with spec renting/walkers/bots? The reality is everyone is dealing with this issue, just many don't realize it. It's why I always pipe in on these threads, to get the awareness out there before people try to steer the narrative towards "it's a small issue, nobody does it". If DVC is actually moving their butts to do something about it, it's not small. They aren't going to say "yeah it's a huge issue please sue us for not protecting your memberships".

Yes, that is what I am saying and if an owner isn't being impacted by what is going on, then I don't agree its an issue for that owner.. and if the vast majority of owners aren't experiencing difficulties, then it simply may not be as big of an issue as one thinks.

If you are going to say that DVC's comment regarding it not being a widespread issue wasn't accurate, then what evidence is there that they are even doinging anything about this, other then telling owners they are and adding a check box to make owners think twice about renting to scare people into believing they are not allowed to rent?

Bill D. simply said "we have a whole team focused on this"....didn't say that they were a new team or indicate that the size of this team either....its an assumption that the statements were more than to appease the owners at the VGF meeting, where the statement was made in response to an owner asking the question.

For all we know, the team focusing in on this is the lawyers who are looking at what legal rights DVC has when trying to define commerical purpose and enterprise, without violating the owners right to rent...

Its not like they said this at every meeting to owners....the SSR owners didn't hear it because I attended both.....the point is that the message from the board was "we hear you and we will always take feedback from owners in making potential rule changes".

They also stated that they would be stopping those renting commerically...who they defined at the meeting as large point owners and its a frequent occurence"....and then added "Looking to stop that as best we can." "As best we can" certainly can be taken as "yeah we will try to do something about it"...

And, they are not legally obligated to enforce any clause of the contract....you are aware of that right?

They have done two things....simply enforcing the one transfer rule in/out of membersihps for all owners, and they have updated the terms & conditions to say the same thing they have always said....personal use is not frequent or regular renting...it never has been so this is not new policy....its just a newly added sentence to the T & C.

Sorry, but given we are more than 6 months since the meeting, and there has been no statement from the board or DVC about any official policy changes......the most obvious answer to all of this coulver still be because its not as huge of a deal to DVC as some believe that it is? Or, that the number of memberships or owners actually rising to the level of commercial purpose is indeed smaller than some would like it to be?

 

[Sandisw]

I think this is a misunderstanding of relevant law. They can stop spec renting by stopping name changes without rebooking without triggering the material rental rights clause.

Yes, I don’t understand why this isn’t more obvious to people on the thread. While not everybody is comfortable renting, a lot of people are going to chose to stay at BWV for $450 a night renting points instead of $650 direct to Disney. Disney could demand increasingly huge premiums on Crescent Lake hotel rooms and the for profit rental industry was born.

It’s true that if Disney buys back a ton of points through trade in or ROFR they still need to fill the rooms…but if they don’t buy/trade anything and just tell owners that there are limits on renting, it’s not coming out of Disney’s pocket — either the owner travels more or they let the points go, and most of the would-be renters takes a room from hotel inventory.

Yes, they can absolutely make all lead changes a cancel and rebook.....as that is part of the HRR.....but what I don't believe they can do...is make the HRR different for owners depending on who the guest is....so, its either all lead changes are a cancel or rebook, or none of them are....I do not believe they can make different HRR for owners who are the guest vs. family/friends/renters who are guests.

So, that chance can happen and have nothing to do with the commercial purpose language of the contract....no different than changing the home resort windows, the holding period, etc...

Changes like that could have been made and be in place within a month or two after the meeting....all they need to do is file the amendment with the division that oversees timeshares...which is what they did with the updated transfer rules amendement for the HRR.....

Making this type of change though would have far greater impact on the membership as a whole and why I personally am not worried it will happen....because that is one message that came out clear at the meeting.....rule changes with unintended consequences for the average owner would not be done lightly unless they felt it was a better way...hence, why I believe there has been no attempt at rule changes.....they don't yet have ones they feel are better....

In terms of impact on the hotel division? That is not the job of DVC to make rules against owners to help TWDC's sell rooms to cash guests....and that is one area that I would hope owners would all agree.

DVC should never attempt to limit our rights to rent (or any rights we have as owners) based on the goal of increasing hotel occupancy....doing so would certainly fall under a failure to meet their fiduciary responsbility to act on what is in the best interests of the membership....there is no way to spin that helping the hotel division sell more cash rooms is a benefit to us, as owners.

All DVC is responsible for doing is setting up a commercial use policy and then enforcing it when they have evidence that an owner is violating that policy...it really is that simple in what their resposnbility is.

The big grey area is what definition will the adopt, does it rise to the level that one would see as reasonable (which is what owners at the pre RIV resorts are entitled to) and what will enforcement look like.

While DVC has certainly attempted over the years to stretch thier interpretation of the contract when doing some things, they have always at least had an explanation as to how their interperation fit...I just don't see them attempting to put in some such limiting rules for a problem that they stated is not "widespread"

I get people can say they were not telling the truth, but it doesn't really matter because that is the message that was sent to owners at the VGF meeting...those commerically renting is not a widespread issue...but that yes, they would be actively working to stop the ones who were doing it...

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t understand why people don’t get this. They wouldn’t have made a change to the language they knew would cause a huge hub if they didn’t plan on doing something big. They have to the tools available to them to kill what they view as the competition. They are going to do that.

I think way to often people think language in a contract says what they want it to mean instead of what it actually says.

That is the thing...there was no language charge....they simply added the statement that personal use is not frequent or regular renting....that has always been the case...its not new....they simply brought it forward into the T & C so that when owners are agreeing to it when making a reservation.

And, they didn't define what actions fall under 'frequent and regular"....so nothing has changed because even the 2008 policy that is the last one anyone can point to matches the statement added.

What I do agree with is that just this simply action has been enough to have people question themselves when renting points or potential renters feeling less sure about going that route..