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

[TCRAIG]

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.

I love OKW - but I need an elevator and since I can’t be guaranteed one there - I have to pass… I think OKW has the best rooms and the best balconies of any DVC!

 

[lowlight]

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.

How many people have we found that attended the last board meeting a few weeks ago? Are the board meetings typically filled with owners? I do agree that the majority of owners have no idea what is going on. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just means they are low information owners.

You state the board didn't volunteer this information, so is it safe to assume that DVC took it upon themselves to initiate this new team and go after commercial renters entirely on their own? To me, that means it's more serious than simply responding to owners. They got off their own butts to do it without anyone forcing them to.

 

[Sandisw]

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

Supposedly all the point charts take that in consideration.

Just to clarify, the VGF owner who asked the question may have been an owner at one of the resorts based on how he phrased it…

So, the answers were not specific to issues with VGF bookings…but rather about renting in general and how it applies to the membership as a whole.

You bring up a good point though about how every resort and its owners are being impacted differently and I just have to believe that part of DVCs evaluation of the situation is based on that.

Obviously, just based on the confirmed reservations out there that BWV and AKV owners are impacted more often than other resorts.

But, they have always had one set of HRR that apply the same to all the resorts in the program so unless they plan to make individual ones for specific resorts, it seems unlikely to me they would make sweeping changes for all owners because a few resorts are experiencing something at a higher level than others.

Which is why something like the special seasons list coild be done as a drastic move to address this without impacting the whole program in a negative way.

 

[CarolynFH]

Is there any correlation between the points chart and the rack rate on the hotel side.

Well, remember that the points charts are pretty well set when the resort opens and can't be changed, other than moving points costs around from one season to another. So that's why the BWV points costs, especially for SV studios, are such a bargain relative to the newer resorts - BWV's charts were set in 1996, and the villas there were more expensive than the same size at OKW, but they're cheap now in relation to VGF and later resorts. Rack rate at BWV isn't dependent on what it was in 1996.

 

[Genie+]

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

DVC and Disney know how to redirect touchy subjects. They could’ve left it at ‘not widespread; we’re looking into it.’ They went beyond and went on record that they created a team and implied something would change between Dec 2025 and Dec 2026.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Well, I agree with @TCRAIG, from a booking perspective, it is not an issue that affects me other than for BWV standard view rooms. I have always got one when I wanted it, but admittedly you do have to mess around with walking.

I don’t think they are saying that it’s not an actual issue for some people, and it is unfair to suggest that’s what is being said.

But there are a significant number of owners (probably the majority) who this does not affect at all. It’s an illogical argument to say that they ARE being affected and that they just don’t know about it. If an owner doesn’t see any issues and doesn’t know about it, then they are NOT being affected.

 

[TCRAIG]

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.



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?



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.



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!".

WRONG - my ‘I’m only dealing with this issue…’ statement was in response to your ‘The reality is EVERYONE is dealing with this issue, just many don’t realize it‘ statement you made (post #3079). Well, I’m not everyone but I sure am someone and this someone is NOT impacted by renting or commercial bots…which absolutely, 1000% does NOT mean that I don’t understand and sympathize with the members who can’t book the rooms they want at the 11 month mark. I do….I own at BWV so I see the the availability chart…I truly do empathize with those who want/need a SV studio there.
I just don’t see this as a universal issue that impacts everyone (again, your statement not mine) cause it doesn’t.

 

[lowlight]

It’s an illogical argument to say that they ARE being affected and that they just don’t know about it. If an owner doesn’t see any issues and doesn’t know about it, then they are NOT being affected.

That is illogical to me. If I have no idea about walking or commercial spec renting and I notice it’s suddenly hard to get BWV studios in may, maybe I think it’s because there’s some special event or people are flocking to the off season or whatever reason that seems normal. They don’t realize it’s an issue, but it is.

 

[lowlight]

I just don’t see this as a universal issue that impacts everyone (again, your statement not mine) cause it doesn’t.

Don’t you mean ‘issue’?

 

[Sandisw]

DVC and Disney know how to redirect touchy subjects. They could’ve left it at ‘not widespread; we’re looking into it.’ They went beyond and went on record that they created a team and implied something would change between Dec 2025 and Dec 2026.

Remember, they were asked a direct question about DVC making rule changes to impact the commerical renting, and walking practices...that is how it started...

As someone who was there, they definitely said they had a team focused on it, but it followed the statement about who they were referring to....and to be honest, the way the statement about it not being widespread was shared, definily alluded to the fact that there is a small set of owners out there doing things in a way they should not.

And, that is my point...they also went on record stating that the flexiblity of the program is important and that any rule changes would be carefully considered and that they would want to avoid unintended consequences.

People are free to interpret what they said at the meeting to mean they see this as a big issue, but they didn't say that, and didn't even imply it when they mentioned the team....it was more of a reassurance to the owners that they were looking in to it.

And so far, the lack of actions would certainly appear to support their statements that this is not a widespread issue, and that the reservations being impacted represent a small % of the overall ones by the membership....

Obviously, more could be coming, but some of the ideas here that people hope to see could have been done already, really simply....so far, DVC has shown no indication policy change is afoot..

 

[TCRAIG]

Don’t you mean ‘issue’?

Universal as in ‘affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases’ - not Universal as in the parks down the street.

 

[mkatsy]

But there are a significant number of owners (probably the majority) who this does not affect at all. It’s an illogical argument to say that they ARE being affected and that they just don’t know about it. If an owner doesn’t see any issues and doesn’t know about it, then they are NOT being affected.

I don’t think it’s illogical at all. I don’t typically rent at the properties where this occurres, am I still affected? Absolutely! If the practice of commercial renting is not nipped in the bud, it could easily shift to my preferred property. All it would take is for public interest in the property to swell and the owners that participate in this practice will start booking my reservations out from under me. So I don’t think it’s wise for anyone to assume that they are safe from commercial spec renting in perpetuity just because your property is not popular right now. These people just book what their customers are willing to buy

 

[Cyberc1978]

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.

Curious how they can monitor a name change. I understand if my name is not on the reservation I must have changed it. But one thing is to change it after the fact and another is to change it while making the reservation. The latter is hardly a name change.

 

[IMMkXLVI]

If I have no idea about walking or commercial spec renting and I notice it’s suddenly hard to get ___ studios in may, maybe I think it’s because there’s some special event or people are flocking to the off season or whatever reason that seems normal. They don’t realize it’s an issue, but it is.

This was me. I just assumed all lack of availability, even in off seasons was due to someone (another DVC family, not an LLC) beating me to the punch and booking it first.

I was unaware of walking and spec renting until this thread. I had known of commercial owners but only because of an earlier thread.

Because our other TS is soooo restrictive, I never gave it a moments thought that there could be entities making it a business to rent DVC.

 

[Sandisw]

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.



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?



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.



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!".

Read the contract....it expressly gives them the right to fail to enfoce elements of the contract....given they decide the commercial use policy, they can make it whaever they want.....and thus, they are not in breach of anything.....there is no set standard to define it.

You feel they have not enforced the commerical use clause of the contract but you yourself have admitted that all that matters is DVC's definition of it and right now, the only written policy that can be found in the 2008 one...

Context matters and what the board identified at the meeting of commerical renting was only "large point owners who rent and its a frequent occurence" and that they were working to stop that....as best they can.

It was then added that they were devoting resources to that, and that they had a whole team in Yvonne's department focused on going after them....they DID NOT say or even imply this was a new team.....but rather that they would be working to curb commerical renting against those owner who were doing it.

And yes, over the years, DVC has devoted resources to the program in making sure that it functions well...I'd bet this team was also the one who worked on the new rules for transfers, and possibly the ones who came up with the idea about the check box.

So, DVC has defintiely said that they want to stop commerical renting, but they have only publicly identified commerical renters as "large point owners".

Even the the statement "personal use is not...." in the T & C fits against large point owners.

As I have said, I am basing all my opinions on what the board said at the meeting, as someone who was there and engaged with them personally about the issues....and nothing stated in that meeting by the board implied that their definiton of commerical renting applies to anyone but large point owners, or that the resources or teams focus would be against anyone than that.

Could they decide something different? Of course they can...never said they could not....but what they did address, on the record, at the meeting was the group they would be targeting for commerical renting were the "large point owners....frequent occurence" and since then, they have done nothing to indicate the targeted group for enforcement is different.

So, I am basing my position on what was actually stated at the meeting, and the conttext in which it happened and when, or if, they come out and state something different, then my position will definitely change.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone should take my position as their position because DVC has specifically stated in the past that owners are responsible for interpreting the rules of the contract, and with the lack of clarity for what it means to rent "frequently or regularly", it certainly appears to me that they still believe this.

But, if someone else has been in contact with DVC and they have gotten clarity beyond what was actually stated at the meeting, I would love for them to share it here.

I respect that you and I have difference of opinion on what makes something commerical and but the statements made, were the statements made, and I am choosing to take the board statements as fact in terms of where they see this current issue....until they tell us something different.

 

[Sandisw]

That is illogical to me. If I have no idea about walking or commercial spec renting and I notice it’s suddenly hard to get BWV studios in may, maybe I think it’s because there’s some special event or people are flocking to the off season or whatever reason that seems normal. They don’t realize it’s an issue, but it is.

That is a fair statement, but if someone is an owner at a different resort and never had trouble booking what they want, then they are not impacted.

But, on the other hand, not every time an owner has an issue booking a room is it because its walking, or a commerical rental and I do think that sometimes that is the first response given. Demand plays a role in all of this and no one can say with 100% what reason it was that any owner lost a room.

We all agree that using bots should be addressed by DVC, irrespective of its use in by those large point owners renting for commercial purposes.....

If DVC believes, based on their own data, that the bulk of the owners seem happy with how the program is functioning, then they should act based on that.....if their own data backs up the concerns or complaints of owners that the membership as a whole is being negatively impacted, then they should act accordingly.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t think it’s illogical at all. I don’t typically rent at the properties where this occurres, am I still affected? Absolutely! If the practice of commercial renting is not nipped in the bud, it could easily shift to my preferred property. All it would take is for public interest in the property to swell and the owners that participate in this practice will start booking my reservations out from under me. So I don’t think it’s wise for anyone to assume that they are safe from commercial spec renting in perpetuity just because your property is not popular right now. These people just book what their customers are willing to buy

But, here is lies the difference....we all don't have to care about things the same way and are allowed to be okay with things that don't impact us if we don't agree that what is happening is a problem

I personaly do not care if other owners rent because it is allowed and spec renting, in and of itself is not something I consider against the contract....and nothing from DVC has ever said it was.

What I do believe the contract prohibits is renting to the degree that one is a commerical enterprise and that DVC should enforce that clause of the contract, if they decide its impacting the program in a degree that is no longer acceptable.

But, that doesn't mean we all need to be okay with DVC coming out with all these rule changes that DO impact the average owner who is using the program as intended under the wide level of flexiblity it offers. That is a big selling point of DVC over traditional timeshares.

DVC can absolutely make the HRR rules more difficult....but many of us simply don't want them to do something to prevent spec renting when we all don't agree that is or should be an action by an owner identified as violation of our right to rent.

DVC has the power to adjust the point charts to deal with excessive demand, and institute the special seasons preference list to cut down on owners renting hard to get rooms....and, those are the kinds of changes to the program that I think match the concerns....

Obviously, we will all have to accept whatever commericial use policy the board decides to adpot, but I don't think its wise for anyone to assume that the policy of the past won't play some role, or that when the board said they wanted to go after commerical renting, it means they themselves see spec renting as contract violation.....or have a plan stop owners from doing a host of other things we are currently allowed to do that have nothing to do with us renting out reservations.

 

[Mouseforward]

We all agree that using bots should be addressed by DVC, irrespective of its use in by those large point owners renting for commercial purposes.....

Two areas that I have not seen anyone take opposition to even on this diverse forum are :

1. Bots
2. Commercial sites using LLC's to skirt max point rules to create an unfair advantage in spec renting.

I have a feeling DVC will feel the same and attack those 2 areas.

 

[Sandisw]

Two areas that I have not seen anyone take opposition to even on this diverse forum are :

1. Bots
2. Commercial sites using LLC's to skirt max point rules to create an unfair advantage in spec renting.

I have a feeling DVC will feel the same and attack those 2 areas.

I think you are correct and one of my speculations is that part of the team being tasked to deal with this issue include lawyers who are working to ensure that whatever commerical use policy is in place and will be used for enforcement matches all the legal standards it needs to meet.

The 2008 policy, as it was written, is what allowed #2, to occur, because it stated it was based on a membership....and DVC's enforcement looked only at the individual membership level and not across all memberships that an owner has access to.

I think we all need to remember that DVC, if it chooses to enforce something, will have to define it specifically at the time of enforcement for the owner who is targeted.

So, at some point, examples of what triggers enforcement will be known, assuming those targeted report it on social media.....

 

[Sandisw]

I know I asked this the other day, but has anyone else talked with MS to ask for clarification about this? I am still curious to hear if others responses from MS are consistent to the answers I have gotten.