Experience with MS Phone or Chat for Reservations

[ML_LovesDisney]

I called Member Services to modify a reservation in my 20yo daughter's name because she wanted to leave a day earlier from the trip, and website was giving me the fun Seven Dwarves error. I called in to MS to modify and they asked at the end if the reservation was for personal use. She almost seemed sheepish about it tbh.

 

[bluecruiser]

I chatted with MS yesterday to put in a request to merge 2 reservations. Here's what I was asked during the chat:

"Prior to modifying this reservation, please note, by confirming this reservation, you are agreeing to the Disney Vacation Club's Terms and Conditions. Do you confirm that this reservation is for your personal use only?"

 

[Simba's Mom]

What's strange is that when I called today to add a request to an upcoming reservation, for once they didn't ask me. Now I wonder whether the request was actually added.

 

[Tatebeck]

What's strange is that when I called today to add a request to an upcoming reservation, for once they didn't ask me. Now I wonder whether the request was actually added.

They don't ask when you are just adding a request. Just when making a reservation or modifying (names/dates/different resort, etc) on a reservation

 

[Sandisw]

What's strange is that when I called today to add a request to an upcoming reservation, for once they didn't ask me. Now I wonder whether the request was actually added.

They don’t ask you when you put in requests because you are not asking them to do anything to the reservation.

Any modifications or changes is when you are asked.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

They don’t ask you when you put in requests because you are not asking them to do anything to the reservation.

Any modifications or changes is when you are asked.

I was asked today when swapping out points used for an existing booking via chat. I thanked the CM for asking— probably a surprise for her.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

They don’t ask you when you put in requests because you are not asking them to do anything to the reservation.

Any modifications or changes is when you are asked.

I was asked twice during the same phone call. Once when I requested for two reservations to be treated as a continuing stay and then again when I asked that it be noted that we were traveling with my sister's family and we wanted to be on the same upper floor. That was shortly after the change was made but I also think it depends on the CM you get.

 

[AnnaS]

My cousin recently decided to join me on my trip next month. I tried to add her as a guest through their on-line email. I received email saying I had to call.

This reservation was made last November before this new rule. I had to agree to the new terms. I was very nice and mentioned how I thought it was silly that I am the member, the lead name and I am asked if it's for my personal use. She made no comment. Since calls are recorded, as a CM, I would not comment either.

My son had to do the same when he added his wife's name and kids. He has a habit of booking the reservation while at work and to save time, he does not add all the guests information (they are 5) when booking.

I wonder how many members says "no".

 

[Willow Ufgood]

I wonder what the response would be if someone answered, "No, this is a rental and I don't personally know the renters."

 

[zavandor]

I wonder what the response would be if someone answered, "No, this is a rental and I don't personally know the renters."

The right answer would be: "yes, this is a rental and I don't personally know the renters". Because personal use includes renting.

Answering no the member would admit that, for whatever reason, they think it's not personal use, so MS would be right to cancel the reservation.

 

[Tatebeck]

Easiest answer to get them off your back will usually be:

"Yes, I agree that this reservation is for personal use according to the Home Resort POS, the Multi Site POS, and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations"

 

[Sandisw]

I wonder what the response would be if someone answered, "No, this is a rental and I don't personally know the renters."

And this is why, IMO, that the question can be misleading because some owners hear "personal use" and may interpret that to mean they are agreeing that the guest is an owner.

Renting to strangers is allowed (see one of the old threads where I get that in writing from DVC management) under the rights of the contract and so, when you are agreeing that the reservation is for personal use, it means you are agreeing that you are still using it for personal use and not using your membership in violation of the commericial pupurpose policy that DVC has in place

 

[stat]

Easiest answer to get them off your back will usually be:

"Yes, I agree that this reservation is for personal use according to the Home Resort POS, the Multi Site POS, and the Home Resort Rules and Regulations"

I mean I usually just go with "yes" but to each his own

 

[Cyberc1978]

And this is why, IMO, that the question can be misleading because some owners hear "personal use" and may interpret that to mean they are agreeing that the guest is an owner.

Renting to strangers is allowed (see one of the old threads where I get that in writing from DVC management) under the rights of the contract and so, when you are agreeing that the reservation is for personal use, it means you are agreeing that you are still using it for personal use and not using your membership in violation of the commericial pupurpose policy that DVC has in place

I have no doubt that what they are doing they are doing on purposes.

What I don't understand. is this what they promised on the meeting in December that they would do, so we wouldn't have the same conversation on the next annual meeting? - Everyone knows that doing something, without actually doing anything at all is the same as wetting your pants - it feels warm for like 5 seconds and then the reality hits you.

We all signed away our voting rights away to DVC, this means whatever DVC do they need to do for the better of the membership as a whole. Maybe far fetched, but could it be that by getting just some members to not rent anymore with this new wording starting June 1st, DVC could implement new rental restrictions? Restrictions require a vote, since we gave all of that power away to DVC, they get to vote for us. By getting fewer owners to rent, any new restrictions would impact less members and would therefore be seen as "better as a whole for the membership" - at least in the eyes of DVC.

If only 1%-5% of the members were renting prior to June 1st, then by lowering that number they could claim that what they are doing are for the greater good.

Just a thought.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

I have no doubt that what they are doing they are doing on purposes.

What I don't understand. is this what they promised on the meeting in December that they would do, so we wouldn't have the same conversation on the next annual meeting? - Everyone knows that doing something, without actually doing anything at all is the same as wetting your pants - it feels warm for like 5 seconds and then the reality hits you.

We all signed away our voting rights away to DVC, this means whatever DVC do they need to do for the better of the membership as a whole. Maybe far fetched, but could it be that by getting just some members to not rent anymore with this new wording starting June 1st, DVC could implement new rental restrictions? Restrictions require a vote, since we gave all of that power away to DVC, they get to vote for us. By getting fewer owners to rent, any new restrictions would impact less members and would therefore be seen as "better as a whole for the membership" - at least in the eyes of DVC.

If only 1%-5% of the members were renting prior to June 1st, then by lowering that number they could claim that what they are doing are for the greater good.

Just a thought.

I’m not following… how did we sign our voting rights away?