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

[xdan0920]

Did

Yes but I had to ask to be escalated to a supervisor because as I mentioned in an earlier post, the CM tried to say the whole "family and friends" line for renting, and when I further inquired, I was sent to a supervisor.

She answered all my questions, ans confirmed it was a recorded line so everything I was told is on record...

What I can say, based on the times I have now called is that the front line CM's appear to have been trained to be as vague as possible, and in times, even IMO, misleading, if the person calling doesn't necessarily push it.

And how many rentals are you allowed?

 

[IMMkXLVI]

I know they can cancel reservations they believe exceed the threshold

I know they can lock someone out of their membership until they feel they are in compliance.

Someone here said they can initiate proceedings to force a sale…I’m not sure about that one but it’s certainly possible.

But, they can definitely stop an owner from making more reservations by freezing their memberships…until the reservations in question have happened if they decided not to cancel them outright.

How would that work, locking someone out of their DVC? I get the actual locking part. Just disable their online account. Wouldn't that also lock them out of other Disney products like the streaming service?

I think it would raise questions about DVC dues for the period of inaccessibility.

I shudder at the thought! Being cut off from my Disney fix!

 

[Sandisw]

How would that work, locking someone out of their DVC? I get the actual locking part. Just disable their online account. Wouldn't that also lock them out of other Disney products like the streaming service?

I think it would raise questions about DVC dues for the period of inaccessibility.

I shudder at the thought! Being cut off from my Disney fix!

No, this is strictly in relation to the use of your DVC membership....its the same way they can lock or freeze an account if someone is delinquit in dues or loan payments.

Bascially, you can't access your online account and if you call to use it, the system will show the CM the account is frozen.....

 

[DougEMG]

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.

I am aware that such a change would hurt some members and stated that. What I was trying to do was highlight ways to identify commercial renters by there booking behaviours that are different from regular members. I personally have never needed to make a name change, so have no real idea if that type of change would affect a lot of members or not. Perhaps it would effect a lot of members and that is why DVC hasn’t done it.

Certainly introducing a throttling system though would slow down bots but not humans.

 

[Chuck S]

Innocent families showing up to find their reservations had been canceled would be an absolute PR nightmare for Disney. And there is no need to do this as preventing commercial operators from making further reservations would be just as effective in curtailing their activities.

It has happened before. Usually when a member was behind in their dues, or has sold the contract thinking the reservation would still be in place. I doubt it would be the PR nightmare you think it is, since the renter CHOSE to rent from an owner and not from Disney, they assume the risk.

 

[Sandisw]

And how many rentals are you allowed?

I was planing to wait to share this until I had my response from my certified letter from the board, but since this was a recorded line and the MS supervisor confirmed it was so that what I was being told was accurate....she was very knowledgable in explaining it so I am confident I have been given accurate information.

DISCLAIMER: This is being shared for information purposes only....and it is still up to each individual owners to make decisions about their own situation....

There is no new policy in place but rather DVC, based on membership feeback, is enhancing the enforcement of current policies....owners may continue to make reservations for themselves, and "gift" reservations to family/friends (no money).

Owners are sitll allowed to rent points and if they do, as long as their gross rental income does not exceed the cost of their annual dues (for all points owned, not just the ones rented), then DVC will consider that a "no profit" situation. **this has nothing to do with tax implications or how the word "profit" is being used in other contexts.

If, however, an owner rents their points and rental income exceeds the annual dues, then that is not allowed.....

Two examples - owner has $1K in dues, and rental income is $1500, that is not allowed becaue there is "profit",.

My personal situation....if I have 900 points and dues around $7K, then I can rent reservations that would cover all $7K of my dues....this is what would allowed since they consider this "no profit".

She does not know how it will be flagged....but as I have reported, memberships that are will be referred to the business division for review.

I have my own theories on how they will determine profits to flag accounts, but since they are simply that, I will keep that to myself and I doubt DVC will be disclosing that...

I also asked about changes to policy and the HRR and she said nothing is changing in terms of bookings, modifications, and lead guest changes....we will still be allowed to do that, but reminded me that every change will require an owner to agree that they are following the personal use T & C.

To be transparent, this is the third time a CM has indicated that renting for the amount of dues would be fine, and that we know, that policy has been allowed in the past and guides have told owners as such....so it does match the notion this is not new, but rather enhanced enforcement.

What I did infer, but did not ask specifically, is that this would be confirmation that that the 2008 policy isn't going to be used any more.....

I am still expecting my response from the board and I still expect to be able to view an offiicial record..,.,.but for now, I have contacted MS enough times to feel I have accurate information.

ETA: Since owners are required to have rental agreements, which do spell out the terms, including rental rate, if one was to be flagged by DVC, that could be used by an owner

 

[CarolynFH]

I think it would raise questions about DVC dues for the period of inaccessibility.

DVC dues are for operations and maintenance of the resort as a whole. Only a small part goes to fund the website. So it's doubtful that the period of the owner couldn't access the website would be relevant.

 

[Brianstl]

It is not Disney's product nor do they have a right to payment- Disney leased the property to DVD who sold it to Mary Jones .... Mary Jones owns the vacation ( but potentially broke DVCs rules)

Disney has no horse in the race other than their image. They sold off right to payment when the leasehold to DVD was created.

Semantic point : but I think we overestimate Disney Hotels involvement past the PR and Image concerns.

Disney has a huge horse in the race. It is hurting their hotel bookings and that is the reason they taking action, IMO.

 

[lowlight]

I was planing to wait to share this until I had my response from my certified letter from the board, but since this was a recorded line and the MS supervisor confirmed it was so that what I was being told was accurate....she was very knowledgable in explaining it so I am confident I have been given accurate information.

DISCLAIMER: This is being shared for information purposes only....and it is still up to each individual owners to make decisions about their own situation....

There is no new policy in place but rather DVC, based on membership feeback, is enhancing the enforcement of current policies....owners may continue to make reservations for themselves, and "gift" reservations to family/friends (no money).

Owners are sitll allowed to rent points and if they do, as long as their gross rental income does not exceed the cost of their annual dues (for all points owned, not just the ones rented), then DVC will consider that a "no profit" situation. **this has nothing to do with tax implications or how the word "profit" is being used in other contexts.

If, however, an owner rents their points and rental income exceeds the annual dues, then that is not allowed.....

Two examples - owner has $1K in dues, and rental income is $1500, that is not allowed becaue there is "profit",.

My personal situation....if I have 900 points and dues around $7K, then I can rent reservations that would cover all $7K of my dues....this is what would allowed since they consider this "no profit".

She does not know how it will be flagged....but as I have reported, memberships that are will be referred to the business division for review.

I have my own theories on how they will determine profits to flag accounts, but since they are simply that, I will keep that to myself and I doubt DVC will be disclosing that...

I also asked about changes to policy and the HRR and she said nothing is changing in terms of bookings, modifications, and lead guest changes....we will still be allowed to do that, but reminded me that every change will require an owner to agree that they are following the personal use T & C.

To be transparent, this is the third time a CM has indicated that renting for the amount of dues would be fine, and that we know, that policy has been allowed in the past and guides have told owners as such....so it does match the notion this is not new, but rather enhanced enforcement.

What I did infer, but did not ask specifically, is that this would be confirmation that that the 2008 policy isn't going to be used any more.....

I am still expecting my response from the board and I still expect to be able to view an offiicial record..,.,.but for now, I have contacted MS enough times to feel I have accurate information.

So you couldn’t rent out all your points for even 1 year?

 

[CarolynFH]

as I have reported, memberships that are will be referred to the business division for review.

IOW, owners whose accounts are flagged might be contacted by the business division and asked to explain, just like those who violated the 20 reservation rule might be contacted and asked to explain. Right? That sounds reasonable to me and reinforces my thought that DVC won't be canceling reservations without notice but will instead be in contact with the owner and give them a chance to come into compliance on their own.

 

[CarolynFH]

So you couldn’t rent out all your points for even 1 year?

Sure you could, as long as you didn't collect much more than the dues cost for that one year. So if dues are $7,000, and you collect $7,500, then DVC might be sending you a letter asking for an explanation.

 

[tx911]

I was planing to wait to share this until I had my response from my certified letter from the board, but since this was a recorded line and the MS supervisor confirmed it was so that what I was being told was accurate....she was very knowledgable in explaining it so I am confident I have been given accurate information.

DISCLAIMER: This is being shared for information purposes only....and it is still up to each individual owners to make decisions about their own situation....

There is no new policy in place but rather DVC, based on membership feeback, is enhancing the enforcement of current policies....owners may continue to make reservations for themselves, and "gift" reservations to family/friends (no money).

Owners are sitll allowed to rent points and if they do, as long as their gross rental income does not exceed the cost of their annual dues (for all points owned, not just the ones rented), then DVC will consider that a "no profit" situation. **this has nothing to do with tax implications or how the word "profit" is being used in other contexts.

If, however, an owner rents their points and rental income exceeds the annual dues, then that is not allowed.....

Two examples - owner has $1K in dues, and rental income is $1500, that is not allowed becaue there is "profit",.

My personal situation....if I have 900 points and dues around $7K, then I can rent reservations that would cover all $7K of my dues....this is what would allowed since they consider this "no profit".

She does not know how it will be flagged....but as I have reported, memberships that are will be referred to the business division for review.

I have my own theories on how they will determine profits to flag accounts, but since they are simply that, I will keep that to myself and I doubt DVC will be disclosing that...

I also asked about changes to policy and the HRR and she said nothing is changing in terms of bookings, modifications, and lead guest changes....we will still be allowed to do that, but reminded me that every change will require an owner to agree that they are following the personal use T & C.

To be transparent, this is the third time a CM has indicated that renting for the amount of dues would be fine, and that we know, that policy has been allowed in the past and guides have told owners as such....so it does match the notion this is not new, but rather enhanced enforcement.

What I did infer, but did not ask specifically, is that this would be confirmation that that the 2008 policy isn't going to be used any more.....

I am still expecting my response from the board and I still expect to be able to view an offiicial record..,.,.but for now, I have contacted MS enough times to feel I have accurate information.

ETA: Since owners are required to have rental agreements, which do spell out the terms, including rental rate, if one was to be flagged by DVC, that could be used by an owner

I think that's pretty impressive that they are allowing all dues to be covered by rentals every year.

 

[Brianstl]

Did you ask to have them clarify what the definition is that is being used for enforcement? You may need to call and talk to a supervisor, but they are letting owners know that when asked "So, tell me what I can do as an owner when renting"...

I will admit that I have been told the same thing know a few times as to how this is playing out.

It looks like they supplied it:

“Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for personal or commercial purposes in its sole discretion.”

Whatever actions they decide are commercial purposes is definition. I think that will be the best answer anyone will get in writing because they don’t want to box themselves legally. Now you may get a bunch of differing things told verbally, but the documents make clear in anything you are told verbally doesn’t count.

 

[Mouseforward]

I can add from my call since they were willing to discuss a specific example from my membership, nothing they said contradicted what was reported above.

You can occasionally rent points if you have a canceled reservation but if you do it every year with most of your points they may determine your intent is commercial. ( We had a death in the family and I rented a 285 point reservation on a 100 point BW account (I owned 450 points total and used that and the next years RIV points for myself the same week))

 

[Sandisw]

IOW, owners whose accounts are flagged might be contacted by the business division and asked to explain, just like those who violated the 20 reservation rule might be contacted and asked to explain. Right? That sounds reasonable to me and reinforces my thought that DVC won't be canceling reservations without notice but will instead be in contact with the owner and give them a chance to come into compliance on their own.

Yes, that is how it was explained.....basically, if it looks like what owners are doing is offsetting the cost of dues, then the owner will be okay...but, if they think that there is a chance it is more than that, then it sounds like the system will flag it and the business division gets involed.

I just posted that owners are required to have rental contracts, which would include the rates being charged...

OPINION HERE: If I am an owner who needs or wants to rent, I'd be making sure that the income I am getting never exceeds my annual dues for that year.

But, this definition seems very reasonable to me, allows owners to rent in a way that matches the contract and the law, and will definitely stop those who bought DVC to make money because they will be capped to renting only to a level that covers the dues for the contracts they are part of.

And, for those who are attached to lots of LLCs, but also have personal memberships? This will make a big dent to them because it sounds like this goes to the owner....across all memberships, based on the way it was answered when I shared my own situation.

 

[Mouseforward]

So you couldn’t rent out all your points for even 1 year?

From my post above - you may be flagged but a human will review. I would not advise renting all your points multiple years in a row.

 

[Sandisw]

It looks like they supplied it:

“Disney Vacation Club Management, LLC reserves the right to interpret personal use and determine if reservations are booked for personal or commercial purposes in its sole discretion.”

Whatever actions they decide are commercial purposes is definition. I think that will be the best answer anyone will get in writing because they don’t want to box themselves legally. Now you may get a bunch of differing things told verbally, but the documents make clear in anything you are told verbally doesn’t count.

They do, and the POS documents say that a written policy exists and that owners have the right to review it....that is what my certified letter asked for and the FL statute says I need a response in 10 days or they would be seen as ignoring and then could end up owing me $50/day for being late.

However, based on my conversation last night, on a recorded line, the threshold that will be used is offsetting dues....if it looks like that is all you are doing, you will be considered having 'no profit" which means, not a owner in it for commerical reasons.

At this point, I have talked to them enough, and will have further confirmation to my letter, that I am confident this is accurate.....and it fits with the policies that have been in place prior to the June 1st updated language....which, as I have said, I have been told multiple times there is no new policy but rather an enhanced level of enforement by DVC.

 

[Brianstl]

Yes, that is how it was explained.....basically, if it looks like what owners are doing is offsetting the cost of dues, then the owner will be okay...but, if they think that there is a chance it is more than that, then it sounds like the system will flag it and the business division gets involed.

I just posted that owners are required to have rental contracts, which would include the rates being charged...

OPINION HERE: If I am an owner who needs or wants to rent, I'd be making sure that the income I am getting never exceeds my annual dues for that year.

But, this definition seems very reasonable to me, allows owners to rent in a way that matches the contract and the law, and will definitely stop those who bought DVC to make money because they will be capped to renting only to a level that covers the dues for the contracts they are part of.

And, for those who are attached to lots of LLCs, but also have personal memberships? This will make a big dent to them because it sounds like this goes to the owner....across all memberships, based on the way it was answered when I shared my own situation.

The thing about LLCs is that just officers need to be listed and not the actual owners of the LLC. So if I’m an owner of several LLCs I just make sure I’m just listed as a owner on one or none.

 

[Sandisw]

So you couldn’t rent out all your points for even 1 year?

You could, but you would have to set a rate low enough that your rental income doesn't exceed your dues....and since you'd need a rental agreement, if you were flagged, you'd have documentation that you did not charge more than dues.

Take my situation as an example...if I had a year where I could not use any of my 900 points, and needed to rent them all, and my dues are $7K, I'd have to rent for approximately $7/point..

 

[Sandisw]

The thing about LLCs is that just officers need to be listed and not the actual owners of the LLC. So if I’m an owner of several LLCs I just make sure I’m just listed as a owner on one or none.

Very true, but LLC's are also not allowed to rent to people other than the owners, board of directors, or employees. So, DVC can look at those situations differently, even using the same metric.

But, for those owners out there who have created multiple LLCs, many also have personal accounts....so, now, if one has both, the amount of dues would be pooled.

Again, people bent on finding ways around the rules, will try to find them, but IMO, this is a pretty reasonable way to stop who should be stopped...owners who bought with the pure intent to make money....and if profit will be be seen as anything above your annual dues for the year, then it makes owning DVC for anything other than vacations, useless.

IMO, it is a pretty brillant way to do it and those of us who wanted to ensure that our right to rent was protected, I think this does that....and its impact on owners who truly need or want to rent to make owning DVC more affordable, won't really be there.