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

[Sandisw]

When is this "crackdown" coming?

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

And, because DVC did not include any definition of what actions will be considered "frequent or regular", we are all left to decide what it will look like until they do....

It certainly is interesting that we have had no reports of any crackdown, and maybe it is because the number of owners who they have identified as violating their intepretation of those words is smaller than one thinks it is? And that when the board said it was not widespread, it was an accurate assessment of what they already knew?

To why did they do this? Maybe because of owners complaints and its a way to say "see, we are doing soemthing as best we can" to deal with the large point owners without actually making any operational changes?

Let's be honest, those big time players renting tons who get caught up in this aren't going to be posting all over social media that what reservations were canceled and they got caught....

So, we have to wait to see if actual rule changes are coming to the booking, modifying, or canceling of reservations in the way of HRR changes...which, as I posted above, could have been put in place already if this was such as big of a concern to DVC....

It certainly is odd that the new statement with the check box didn't come with actual rule changes.....especially if they are coming? Why wouldn't DVC do it all at once?

 

[Mouseforward]

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.

We all know that around Walt Disney World (WDW) there are larger, nicer, and less expensive rooms, but they don’t offer the in-park experience. Disney relied on this unique appeal and raised prices on deluxe hotel rooms.

Unfortunately, they set prices higher than the value the public places on the “in-park experience,” so guests began looking elsewhere. Disney Vacation Club (DVC) became one of those alternatives, as buying into DVC is essentially purchasing bulk reservations at a discounted price.

Can Disney now crack down on rentals and raise prices beyond the existing consumer tolerance that already drove customers away? My prediction is no, since doing so would increase both the supply of rooms and the price, without offering any additional value.

The fundamental problem remains: people do not see $810 of value in a Polynesian Studio.

Another important aspect is our rights as DVC owners. Disney sold us these bulk reservations at BoardWalk and other resorts at a fair price in an open market. These reservations were sold with the explicit ability for buyers to use, gift, or occasionally rent them in a non-commercial manner. Disney forfeited the right to additional profit from these DVC rooms when they leased them to Disney Vacation Development (DVD) and DVC sold the points. Essentially, they are not “owed” anything further from us, and we should not surrender our usage rights to help them.

To be clear, commercial renting was never our right and should not be permitted. However, more aggressive measures—such as restricting the ability to change the lead guest on a reservation—are tactics to limit rentals and would represent a fundamental change to our contract.

 

[Sandisw]

To add, there is a standard of notice that DVC, as the management company, must follow if they are making changes to the program, especially with regards to HRR or amendments to the POS that they decide are not material.

So, if any sweeping changes to policy are coming, they are required to directly notify owners of it.

ETA: and those amendment document filed to the state will be included in the Collateral Documents section of our online account…where we find the POS documents….so far, the last one I see is the updated transfer rules ones that was filed in December.

 

[Brianstl]

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.

I don’t think anyone has suggested that brokers or owners using them weren’t following Florida law. What people are saying is Disney has tools available to them to destroy their business.

It will start with letters, because it always starts with letters. Owners will get letters stating something like that their bookings they made have been flagged being flagged as a possible booking for commercial purposes under the T & C and if future bookings are determined to be for commercial purposes further escalation will occur. They will probably even add that if this booking was for personal use please disregard. They can even leave a letter in the guest room stating that the booking was flagged as a possible violation of the T & C and that future attempts to make reservations by the guest determined to violate the T & C may not be successful or honored by DVC.

That is how you start to destroy the faith in third party brokers without even escalating to taking any legal action.

 

[mkatsy]

It certainly is interesting that we have had no reports of any crackdown, and maybe it is because the number of owners who they have identified as violating their intepretation of those words is smaller than one thinks it is?

Or they made them sign an NDA so they don’t have to keep building a better mousetrap? (Pun completely intended)

 

[Judique]

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.

I don't think that's what @TCRAIG is saying. And, she's not out of touch.

Everybody lives in their own world to some degree.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

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

There are many legitimate reasons for a lead name change. If I book two rooms, for us and family. Heck, in the near future when our kids have kids, two rooms will be the only way too book. If at the time, I book one in our name and the second in my son's name but then a few months later he finds he can't make but the kids and his wife will still go. I'll have to take his name off to add hers.

Cancelling it will most likely result in a loss of the room and dates especially if it was booked at 11 months and we're now at say, 6 weeks out.

Maiming the patient to cure the disease hardly seems the best option.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t think anyone has suggested that brokers or owners using them weren’t following Florida law. What people are saying is Disney has tools available to them to destroy their business.

It will start with letters, because it always starts with letters. Owners will get letters stating something like that their bookings they made have been flagged being flagged as a possible booking for commercial purposes under the T & C and if future bookings are determined to be for commercial purposes further escalation will occur. They will probably even add that if this booking was for personal use please disregard. They can even leave a letter in the guest room stating that the booking was flagged as a possible violation of the T & C and that future attempts to make reservations by the guest determined to violate the T & C may not be successful or honored by DVC.

That is how you start to destroy the faith in third party brokers without even escalating to taking any legal action.

That’s a different context then how I interpreted your initial statements so thank you for clarifying.

Here is the thing..if an owner gets a letter from DVC stating their bookings were flagged, they have the right to ask DVC to explain how they determined it and what specifically triggered the membership to be seen as potentially in violation of the commercial purposes policy.

Doesn’t mean the owner has to agree with DVCs definition but they can’t keep it secret from them.

Given that the FL statute 721 now includes the word rent in defining a consumer timeshare purchaser….which must be fairly new because I don’t remember reading that last year…everything comes back to the contract and what was limited and the only limit is renting to a degree it’s now seen as a commercial purpose and enterprise.

Given the passage in 2021 of FL 718.11 that says any attempt to further limit an owner’s rights with renting by amendment must be voted on by owners and owners who don’t agree if it is passed, are not obligated to follow it.

Only those new owners buying after the amendment is passed.

Given that DVC has interpreted the commercial use policy in very specific ways over the years, I think the notion that DVC can amend the POS to consider very narrowly define rentals as a commercial purpose would not be approved by the division if it wasn’t accompanied by the vote of owners.

So, we are back to what was said at the meeting and what actions has the board taken since then.

And so far, nothing they have said or done indicates they plan to approach this in an unreasonable way when it comes to defining commercial.

So, we wait to see if anything else is coming..but as I said, any changes must be submitted to the state, and then approved and then once that is done, owners needs to be given a copy of the amendment..which is typically added to our accounts.

 

[Sandisw]

There are many legitimate reasons for a lead name change. If I book two rooms, for us and family. Heck, in the near future when our kids have kids, two rooms will be the only way too book. If at the time, I book one in our name and the second in my son's name but then a few months later he finds he can't make but the kids and his wife will still go. I'll have to take his name off to add hers.

Cancelling it will most likely result in a loss of the room and dates especially if it was booked at 11 months and we're now at say, 6 weeks out.

Maiming the patient to cure the disease hardly seems the best option.

The more important element to this is that DVC has no reason to go this far.

They can simply monitor the number of lead guest changes owners are making because they don’t allow it online.

It’s tracked already and the system can be set up to flag it.

 

[TCRAIG]

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.

I 1000% did NOT say that I did not acknowledge and understand and sympathize that it was a problem for lots of owners! I was replying to the statement that bots and commercial renting impacted EVERYONE - and using myself as an example of how that’s not quite true.

 

[Genie+]

It certainly is interesting that we have had no reports of any crackdown, and maybe it is because the number of owners who they have identified as violating their intepretation of those words is smaller than one thinks it is? And that when the board said it was not widespread, it was an accurate assessment of what they already knew?

Possibly, but they also said how they hope we wouldn’t need to be having this same conversation next year (when discussing commercial activity at the condo meeting last December).

So far not much has changed. That would lead to having the same conversation come December. Makes me think the entire plan has not been fully executed yet.

 

[Sandisw]

I 1000% did NOT say that I did not acknowledge and understand and sympathize that it was a problem for lots of owners! I was replying to the statement that bots and commercial renting impacted EVERYONE - and using myself as an example of how that’s not quite true.

The reality to this is really that if a majority of owners are not being impacted negatively using their membership then getting them on board to agree to changes that could now impact them negatively is going to be much harder sell.

DVC knows this and regardless of what thinks or feels, whatever potential changes they decide to do will need to be explained to owners that it’s in the best interest of the membership to do so.

 

[Mouseforward]

I 1000% did NOT say that I did not acknowledge and understand and sympathize that it was a problem for lots of owners! I was replying to the statement that bots and commercial renting impacted EVERYONE - and using myself as an example of how that’s not quite true.

I am a 100 point boardwalk owner, it was my first contract, and I was foolish enough to only look at the standard view chart. I will say that I’ve made four reservations and three of them. I got standard view. This is the first year I did not get standard view. So am I affected? who knows? Right now I have a 25% failure rate of getting standard view studios at 8 AM on booking day. Should I expect higher? based on the room counts I think I’m actually one of the lucky ones.

That being said, I may or may not have just committed to paying a very ridiculous price to add on less than 20 BWV points. At least now I won’t have to worry about what view I get from a point perspective.

 

[Sandisw]

Possibly, but they also said how they hope we wouldn’t need to be having this same conversation next year (when discussing commercial activity at the condo meeting last December).

So far not much has changed. That would lead to having the same conversation come December. Makes me think the entire plan has not been fully executed yet.

I believe they said they hope the conversion will be different next year., because they also did say “as best we can”

They gave two examples,,,one of the type of renting that is allowed and then discussed large point owners being the owners commercial renting and that is what they wanted to go after and stop as best they could.

Remember, as someone who was there, it’s not like you had a ton of angry owners…the entire conversation at the VGF meeting…where these quotes come from…revolved around just a few questions and statements.

Matter of fact,..one owner had no idea what walking was and the board had to summarize it for them.

So far, they have done things directly aimed at those owners….enforcing the transfer rules for everyone and adding the words personal use to the check box.

We all have our own view and opinion on what things should be seen by DVC as a violation of the commercial purpose clause but so far, the only group they discussed at the meeting was the large point owners who rent and it’s a frequent occurrence

Things like spec rentals, using brokers, etc have never been addressed by the board.

While it’s possibly they have those things on their radar, and I have no idea, they themselves have said or done nothing that even indicated they view them that way.

Even take the statement in the T & C that said “personal use is not frequently or regularly renting/selling reservations on your membership”.

Why not add something like “ including the frequent or regular us of a third party, or frequent or regular advertising of confirmed reservations” if that was on their radar?

And, for all we know, there could be owners who have been dealt with.

Who knows where we are headed but until the board or DVC comes out with additional statements, I think all we can do is decide our own views based on our own interactions with DVC.

ETA: I can say that I walked away with 100% confidence, based on the answer I was given by the board when I brought up concerns about losing flexibility, that rule changes, should they happen, won’t have an impact on the average owner who is using the membership as intended.

 

[Mouseforward]

I believe they said they hope the conversion will be different next year., because they also did say “as best we can”

They gave two examples,,,one of the type of renting that is allowed and then discussed large point owners being the owners commercial renting and that is what they wanted to go after and stop as best they could.

Remember, as someone who was there, it’s not like you had a ton of angry owners…the entire conversation at the VGF meeting…where these quotes come from…revolved around just a few questions and statements.

Matter of fact,..one owner had no idea what walking was and the board had to summarize it for them.

So far, they have done things directly aimed at those owners….enforcing the transfer rules for everyone and adding the words personal use to the check box.

We all have our own view and opinion on what things should be seen by DVC as a violation of the commercial purpose clause but so far, the only group they discussed at the meeting was the large point owners who rent and it’s a frequent occurrence

Things like spec rentals, using brokers, etc have never been addressed by the board.

While it’s possibly they have those things on their radar, and I have no idea, they themselves have said or done nothing that even indicated they view them that way.

Even take the statement in the T & C that said “personal use is not frequently or regularly renting/selling reservations on your membership”.

Why not add something like “ including the frequent or regular us of a third party, or frequent or regular advertising of confirmed reservations” if that was on their radar?

And, for all we know, there could be owners who have been dealt with.

Who knows where we are headed but until the board or DVC comes out with additional statements, I think all we can do is decide our own views based on our own interactions with DVC.

Since only VGF owners were present , I am not surprised that it was not as large of an issue. Are people walking and spec renting at VGF ? With BPK it seems that there are studios to be had at 7 months ( the expensive ones)

I wish I could attend a BWV meeting ... I also wish they were broadcast so we can actually see them, I think Florida is moving to make that a thing for HOAs .

 

[mkatsy]

Since only VGF owners were present , I am not surprised that it was not as large of an issue. Are people walking and spec renting at VGF ? With BPK it seems that there are studios to be had at 7 months ( the expensive ones)

I wish I could attend a BWV meeting ... I also wish they were broadcast so we can actually see them, I think Florida is moving to make that a thing for HOAs .

Is there any correlation between the points chart and the rack rate on the hotel side. If I were selecting something with the intention of selling it (renting) I would maximize my profit by offing rooms that had the biggest gap between points paid and room rate. VGF might simply have too high of a point chart to reserve regularly. I’ve owned VGF two years and had no issues so far

 

[IMMkXLVI]

I am a 100 point boardwalk owner, it was my first contract, and I was foolish enough to only look at the standard view chart. I will say that I’ve made four reservations and three of them. I got standard view. This is the first year I did not get standard view. So am I affected? who knows? Right now I have a 25% failure rate of getting standard view Studios at 8 AM on booking day. Should I expect higher? based on the room counts I think I’m actually one of the lucky ones.

That being said, I may or may not have just committed to paying a very ridiculous price to add on less than 20 BWV points. At least now I won’t have to worry about what view I get from a point perspective.

Like you, we've had a high success rate in securing the desired room type we were after. Some of what has come up in this thread explains why I see some of the unusual calendar availability. All in all, I've managed around it with the waitlist. The banking deadline is my biggest issue, it effectively limits any waitlist until that date or it forces plan B. I'd like to be able to bank points from reservations released after the banking deadline but want and receive are not the same thing.

The good thing is, we like OKW and it seems not many others do so finding 1 bedroom units there has been easy enough. It is close enough to drive to (yea, I prefer the monorail or skylift but life goes on) and with the AP, for $30 I get to park up front. I even get a little EV juice if I'm lucky. Park hopping is not as simple this way as we have to return to the originating park but it still beats staying at our other TS which is off off site. I thought we'd use that when going to UO but with the Portofino providing the express pass unlimited with rooms and being a 10 minute walk away, it is really no choice at all.

 

[Sandisw]

Since only VGF owners were present , I am not surprised that it was not as large of an issue. Are people walking and spec renting at VGF ? With BPK it seems that there are studios to be had at 7 months ( the expensive ones)

I wish I could attend a BWV meeting ... I also wish they were broadcast so we can actually see them, I think Florida is moving to make that a thing for HOAs .

I attended the SSR one too. But, if you go to DVC news and read the recaps of each of the meetings, you will see the questions and answers from each.

My point was that this topic was not initiated by the board….they only addressed the questions that were asked.

And the VGF meeting appears to be the one that had the most discussion related to it.

The notion that the board is overly concerned about this to the extent that they may radical changes doesn’t match what happened.

As I said, even the statement about “we have a whole team focused on this” was in relation to them stopping large point owners who rent and it’s a frequent occurrence.

Actually, it’s funny you mention about broadcasting because they did get brought up at one with an owner saying they should do it and the answer was “ no plans at this time”.

 

[Mouseforward]

Is there any correlation between the points chart and the rack rate on the hotel side. If I were selecting something with the intention of selling it (renting) I would maximize my profit by offing rooms that had the biggest gap between points paid and room rate. VGF might simply have too high of a point chart to reserve regularly. I’ve owned VGF two years and had no issues so far

yes , credit to @HyperspaceMountainPilot for setting me straight on this about a thousand post back .

BW SV , and AK Value - can be rented at a higher margin than any other resort. So it is reasonable to assume that commercial renters focus on them at a higher rate than any other view

 

[lowlight]

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

I do not agree with this assessment. We were sold a product that was promised to be XY, and definitely not Z. Now it's XYZ. Is material breach of contract not a thing? I remember last year a law firm contacted a bunch of members over a class action lawsuit regarding room availability and third party websites. Obviously nothing came of it, but I don't think it would have gotten to the point of soliciting members to sign on if it was clearly not enforceable.

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...

You know a lot about DVC, so when was the last time DVC formed a special team for anything? Is this a regular thing they do for small issues?

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.

You are glossing over the difference between not being affected at all, and people being affected and not realizing it because they are casual owners.

I 1000% did NOT say that I did not acknowledge and understand and sympathize that it was a problem for lots of owners! I was replying to the statement that bots and commercial renting impacted EVERYONE - and using myself as an example of how that’s not quite true.

You said, and I quote, "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! ".

The single quotation marks are yours, and are clearly meant to imply that you don't believe this 'issue' is an actual issue. It's like opening a $20000 freezer full of 10 dollar a pint ice cream while people are struggling to put food on their table and saying "I don't see what the big 'deal' is with the economy, I'm not affected at all except by the people who keep whining about it!".