Exploiting the Market - PIT Rentals

[bbeagle]

Couldn’t you argue that your intent is commercial if you just bought into the PolyTower and your first move as an Owner is to get a coveted room during a desirable time frame during the Poly Owner exclusive window?

Exactly.

If someone was an existing DVC member and bought a new Poly contract on October 1, and then used all their points on October 15 for a new Poly Tower reservation.... and then immediately put it on sale.... those people should have their contracts revoked.

They'll give excuses like, 'We don't need the points the first year.... so we needed to sell' ... well don't buy the points until next year!

 

[disneylandtour]

If DVD were to enforce a rule such as no person or entity (LLC) or a group of related entities can rent more than 20 confirmed reservations in a year, that would more than solve 90% of the problems. Anyone who has an emergency can rent out all of their personal reservations and any personal overage in points, while LLCs could not longer incentivize or pay people to nab prime rooms, sit on them, and then rent. I have 800 points, and even if I had to rent out a full year of points (let's say, medical emergency), I'd probably be looking at 10 trips to various places, at most, likely less.

 

[JackosinDIS]

Exactly.

If someone was an existing DVC member and bought a new Poly contract on October 1, and then used all their points on October 15 for a new Poly Tower reservation.... and then immediately put it on sale.... those people should have their contracts revoked.

They'll give excuses like, 'We don't need the points the first year.... so we needed to sell' ... well don't buy the points until next year!

Should the same apply to someone who does Magical Beginnings? They are selling the exact same unwanted points back to DVC to rent out..

 

[Hubalorian]

Should the same apply to someone who does Magical Beginnings? They are selling the exact same unwanted points back to DVC to rent out..

They aren’t selling a confirmed reservation back to Disney…..

 

[mistysue]

Being legal doesn't make something right. I think it's shoddy behavior for a person to do things like this, and intentionally using DVC for the primary purpose of making money is absolutely commercial use and should be against the rules, but it's not enforced so some people argue that if DVC allows it to happen there's nothing wrong with it.
Just because nobody is enforcing me not being an *ss to my neighbor doesn't make it right for me to be one. Some people do not differentiate something being legal and something being wrong. To me the shining example is how tax evasion (especially via ridiculous small business ideas) is so rampant in some social circles.

 

[StarCruzer]

I'm ok with it for the occasional owner rental and I think I'm even comfortable with an owner who buys extra points to subsidize their DVC dues on a regular basis. In full transparency, this benefitted us this year as we had to rent out a large chunk of points we had saved, used to reserve a Grand Villa for a week and then had "life" require us to abandon our plans.

And for this type of thing, I don't mind. If we're talking 50% of DVC reservations being under the owner's name, event that I don't really have a problem with.

Because full disclosure: we bought DVC years back and now we're moving overseas (military, so can't dodge it). We'll have three years where we have to rent out our points. (Granted, our plan isn't to make big profits either--we were looking at renting out points to friends and family for a few bucks over MFs).

Those situations happen, and they don't bother me at all. Our situation happens to be extremely easy to verify as well, if asked (military orders are made for these situations).

But if 9 out of your last ten DVC reservations don't have the member name on them...now we're seeing non-owners start to outnumber the people who paid into DVC for personal vacations. Not illegal by any means, but annoying, and having really negative effects overall on the reservation system.

As many have said, it's likely a small number of owners with huge contracts/total points breaking the system for everyone else; I doubt anyone here is in that category. It is not my *job* to make reservations with my points, and I am never going to beat out someone who is making reservations as their full time work in getting the exact reservation I want for my measly one week per year.

 

[Sandisw]

Couldn’t you argue that your intent is commercial if you just bought into the PolyTower and your first move as an Owner is to get a coveted room during a desirable time frame during the Poly Owner exclusive window?

Not IMO. Commercial purpose has a definiton of being run as a business and I just don’t see now one rental, regardless of what it is, means you turned your membership into a business.

There certainly are people who think renting a confirmed reservation should be treated differently than renting on demand. Some think that the specific room should matter. Would thst mean renting a confirmed at SSR should be okay but Poly tower is not?

That is why it may not be that simple in how to implement the rules regarding rentals in what and what is allowed. If you look back at DVC and definitions it has always been around repeated behavior regarding rentals via, a specific type of rental.

I thunk DVC using that pattern definition, it does allow the, to have consistent rules for all owners.

If someone bought PVB tower, with a Feb UY, and don’t need the 2024 points, why should they not be able to rent a reservation at the tower booked with those points?

If they don’t intend to rent after this, but did it to help lower their buy in price, I just don’t see how people can say it all of a sudden I changes the use of the membership.

Again, I at least for me, it’s not about confirmed vs. not confirmed, which room vs another, it’s about someone who is using their membership outside the terms of DvC, that repeated pattern and honestly, it’s up to DVC to decide to define and enforce, not me, which is why I don’t really care

 

[CastAStone]

Then again, I'm also ok with them shortening the 7 month window to extend an owner's booking advantage at their own resort

I think shortening that window would help Disney sell resorts like Poly and VDH.

I’m not sure a change to like 6 months or 5 months would appreciably impact non-home resort availability. Maybe a little. But I’d guess the owners of rooms at popular resorts who book elsewhere (thus creating availability) are generally doing so on purpose, not because their home window closed.

Now change it to 2-3 months, yes, then you’ll have a big impact. Suddenly people who make last minute plans can book at their home resorts, at least at less popular times of year. But I think everyone would hate it.

 

[bbeagle]

Should the same apply to someone who does Magical Beginnings? They are selling the exact same unwanted points back to DVC to rent out..

Of course not. They're not selling to a third party - Disney approves of this.

 

[bbeagle]

If someone bought PVB tower, with a Feb UY, and don’t need the 2024 points, why should they not be able to rent a reservation at the tower booked with those points?

In what case would this ever be true? Just bank the 2024 points to 2025. Or rent a reservation out later, not Day 1. Buy the points in January 2025, and you'll still get 2024 points.

It's just scummy behavior. The intention is known.

In California, you can choose to book handicapped rooms at Grand Californian or the Disneyland Tower at the 7-month or 11-month mark if the regular rooms are already booked. (California treats those rooms as different, Florida doesn't) Most people don't this as they think it's scummy behavior if they're not handicapped.

 

[Sandisw]

In what case would this ever be true? Just bank the 2024 points to 2025. Or rent a reservation out later, not Day 1. Buy the points in January 2025, and you'll still get 2024 points.

It's just scummy behavior. The intention is known.

In California, you can choose to book handicapped rooms at Grand Californian or the Disneyland Tower at the 7-month or 11-month mark if the regular rooms are already booked. (California treats those rooms as different, Florida doesn't) Most people don't this as they think it's scummy behavior if they're not handicapped.

Because maybe the reason they were able to add on was by taking into considering what they could get for a confirmed rental to reduce that costs? Renting a room is renting a room, whether it’s popular or no.

Why should any other owner be the one that decides which rooms a different owner gets to book? Or, tell them now to use their membership?

Sounds like you’d have been okay for someone to rent an SSR room but not PVB tower? I just don’t see the difference.

Again, if someone is renting within the rules, then I have no issue with them using the membership the way they want, and not the way, I or you, or anyone else wants them to.

 

[Sandisw]

Of course not. They're not selling to a third party - Disney approves of this.

To be fair. DVC and the contract permits the renting of confirmed reservations, as long as it is not a pattern of activity that moves it from renting thst is allowed to renting thst is not.

So, in this case booking Poly tower and renting it is also permitted by DVC, just like MB is.

 

[bbeagle]

Sounds like you’d have been okay for someone to rent an SSR room but not PVB tower? I just don’t see the difference.

SSRs aren't generally coveted. Nobody is making a business from buying SSR rooms the moment they go on sale, and trying to sell them right away. Of COURSE they're different.

But either one I disagree with if it's primarily what the person is doing with their points.

 

[disneylandtour]

To be fair. DVC and the contract permits the renting of confirmed reservations, as long as it is not a pattern of activity that moves it from renting thst is allowed to renting thst is not.

This is 100% the problem right here. Disney is not enforcing its rules about "a pattern of activity" related to commercial renting. And because they aren't enforcing this, it places typical DVC owners who primarily (or solely) use their points for personal vacations at a disadvantage, which often leads to frustration or disappointment. The problem here is that existing rules are not being enforced, even when it's clear that very large rental companies flagrantly disregard these rules to create for-profit businesses renting confirmed reservations and points, which includes from DVC contracts that they own (or that their partner LLCs technically own).

 

[disneylandtour]

SSRs aren't generally coveted. Nobody is making a business from buying SSR rooms the moment they go on sale, and trying to sell them right away. Of COURSE they're different.

But either one I disagree with if it's primarily what the person is doing with their points.

It's not "where" this is happening, it's the "scale" of the operation that's the primary problem.

 

[Sandisw]

This is 100% the problem right here. Disney is not enforcing its rules about "a pattern of activity" related to commercial renting. And because they aren't enforcing this, it places typical DVC owners who primarily (or solely) use their points for personal vacations at a disadvantage, which often leads to frustration or disappointment. The problem here is that existing rules are not being enforced, even when it's clear that very large rental companies flagrantly disregard these rules to create for-profit businesses renting confirmed reservations and points, which includes from DVC contracts that they own (or that their partner LLCs technically own).

And having the discussion around the rules DVC uses to determine a pattern or use for commercial purposes is a fair one and maybe needs to be updated by DVC with the ease of renting now given social media.

This thread started though about whether it’s okay for PVB owners to rent out confirmed reservations for the tower, even if it is new and popular.

And, while I get that some don’t like it when owners do it, I think it’s fair game because we bought something that allows us to rent reservations within reason, regardless if resort or demand for a specific room type or resort.

 

[lilsonicfan]

Even smarter than the owners who buy extra points to rent out are the agents who have cornered the market on rentals, who get literally pure profit, say $7-10 per point that is rented out with zero obligation to pay MFs.

 

[Joroc0801]

And having the discussion around the rules DVC uses to determine a pattern or use for commercial purposes is a fair one and maybe needs to be updated by DVC with the ease of renting now given social media.

This thread started though about whether it’s okay for PVB owners to rent out confirmed reservations for the tower, even if it is new and popular.

And, while I get that some don’t like it when owners do it, I think it’s fair game because we bought something that allows us to rent reservations within reason, regardless if resort or demand for a specific room type or resort.

My original intent for the thread was focused on the exorbitant price some were charging which was a clear premium over normal rental price per point. I completely understand someone leverage their asset to rent points at THEIR home resort. I believe the structure of posting your available points and finding a willing renter with a specific timeframe need is great. It's the targeting of specific hard to get dates with the intention of renting at a premium that gets under my skin.

I myself gained interest in purchasing my first contract only because we tried out renting points for a trip two years ago. I completely understand the benefit of the system. It's the exploitation of club rules for personal gain that gets under my skin.

I do appreciate where this conversation has gone though because it's making my opinion more well rounded.

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

I actually don’t rent, and have probably done it with strangers two to four times in my 15 years of ownerships.

So ‘my point of view isn’t based on that. It’s simply that I am not bothered by the rental market, don’t care what other owners do with the points they own and who they do or don’allow in their rooms.

What I love about DVc is the ability to use my point a how I want and for who I want. If that means a robust rental market that has hard to get rooms rented, that is okay.

I can control me and only me and not others. Every time this subject comes up, my opinion is the same…it’s not a big deal to me and I go with the flow when I book my trips.

I do get so e people don’t like it and that is okay too.

Not IMO. Commercial purpose has a definiton of being run as a business and I just don’t see now one rental, regardless of what it is, means you turned your membership into a business.

There certainly are people who think renting a confirmed reservation should be treated differently than renting on demand. Some think that the specific room should matter. Would thst mean renting a confirmed at SSR should be okay but Poly tower is not?

That is why it may not be that simple in how to implement the rules regarding rentals in what and what is allowed. If you look back at DVC and definitions it has always been around repeated behavior regarding rentals via, a specific type of rental.

I thunk DVC using that pattern definition, it does allow the, to have consistent rules for all owners.

If someone bought PVB tower, with a Feb UY, and don’t need the 2024 points, why should they not be able to rent a reservation at the tower booked with those points?

If they don’t intend to rent after this, but did it to help lower their buy in price, I just don’t see how people can say it all of a sudden I changes the use of the membership.

Again, I at least for me, it’s not about confirmed vs. not confirmed, which room vs another, it’s about someone who is using their membership outside the terms of DvC, that repeated pattern and honestly, it’s up to DVC to decide to define and enforce, not me, which is why I don’t really care

If thst is true then any rental would have to be defined that way and the contract is simply not that.

We can not use our membership for a commercial purposes, which is defined as running a business

The contract says we don’t need permission to rent..and DVc telling us which reservations count and which don’t IMO is a way of asking permission.

Also, since we are expressly allowed to rent, it would be hard pressed legally to say that a confirmed reservation in and of itself violates the terms…and why I don’t ever see DVC take this one because just advertising it doesnt count…its only when the name is changed that DVC can classify it as something else.

I know…people don’t like it…but one rental does not make it a commercial membership.

I am simply not bothered by it because I much prefer the flexibility we currently enjoy in ways we use our membership.

What I can say is that the one thing that might help cut the rates in rentals it is if WDW decides and continues to offer good discounts on cash rate to make the risk not as worth it and for these prices to not be such a great deal.

The occasional rental by members is understandable. But that always brings up the larger issue & will continue unless DVC addresses it (& yes, I was a member back when DVC invited up to become a "Member of the Disney Family.) Yes. Times change. But I do think that those with sufficient pts, many points or more flexible schedules are less impacted. When the Ticket*astard & bots model is permitted, it seems DVC is ignoring entirely their prohibition on commercial renters.
Hope it's ok to share this as a possible example:
https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...500-wl-br-19-75pp-160-aulani-19-75pp.3954882/

 

[Mai Ku Tiki]

SSRs aren't generally coveted. Nobody is making a business from buying SSR rooms the moment they go on sale, and trying to sell them right away. Of COURSE they're different.

But either one I disagree with if it's primarily what the person is doing with their points.

That may be changing. Sept resales showed a few SSR in the 500-1000 pt range.
Much of DVC availability at 7-mos is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for standard & studio villas at lower-point resorts.