Exploiting the Market - PIT Rentals

[Hubalorian]

According to DVC, they are. That is why I always point out that because enforcement is by membership and we have no idea how many memberships are involved in the number of points offered or confirmed reservations offered by a specific owner, it’s too hard to say something would or would not be seen by DVC as having crossed from personal use to commercial…especially since personal use is defined in the contract to encompass owners, friends, family, and renters

Isn’t DVC required to say that, because if not, wouldn’t they be admitting to not upholding our contracts?

 

[Sandisw]

Isn’t DVC required to say that, because if not, wouldn’t they be admitting to not upholding our contracts?

Say what? They say they monitor and take action. They don’t have to provide owners with proof because they csnt legally disclose what is happening with another owners membership.

Our recourse, as owners, would be to file a complaint that they are not managing the program correctly.

Here is the wrinkle…since DVC gets to define the threshold and the rules, and can amend them as they see fit, the ball is always in their court.

That is why the current language says “pattern” which is pretty general.

For example, they could tell us tomorrow that they dont deem a membership as commerical use until there hasn’t been a reservation with the owner as a guest in over 5 years…far fetched, maybe, but you get the idea.

ETA. We have to remember that our contract with DVC is a personal one so enforcement of the rules is really between the owner and DVC, not really other owners.

 

[disneylandtour]

Disney is essentially a collection of twenty or so companies arranged as a conglomerate: from what I can tell, there's not a lot of coordination between them. DVD is separate from Parks and Resorts. Renting points (especially commercially renting point) takes nothing away from DVD. In fact, they likely profit from it by selling more points to people who rent. However it does take money away from Parks and Resorts, which manage the hotels, as potential guests are ending up in DVC villas with rented points. DVD and Parks and Resorts are both under Disney Experiences. What it would likely take is a manager from Parks and Resorts to complain to Josh D'Amaro (who oversees Experiences) that another division (DVD) is allowing unchecked commercial activity to significant decrease revenue at their (Parks and Resorts) hotels. That's likely is what it would take. And I'm guessing it hasn't happened yet. It probably will happen at some point. But the signs are all VERY CLEARLY THERE, as multiple people have pointed out, that commercial activity is regularly happening, including with brokers who also act as renters.

 

[Hubalorian]

ETA. We have to remember that our contract with DVC is a personal one so enforcement of the rules is really between the owner and DVC, not really other owners.

I understand that, but how could they enforce something against me but have a completely different interpretation 2 months later for another member? If they’ve ever taken action against any member, that sets a precedent on how they should respond to others? If they don’t treat members equally, it becomes a slippery slope?

 

[Sandisw]

Disney is essentially a collection of twenty or so companies arranged as a conglomerate: from what I can tell, there's not a lot of coordination between them. DVD is separate from Parks and Resorts. Renting points (especially commercially renting point) takes nothing away from DVD. In fact, they likely profit from it by selling more points to people who rent. However it does take money away from Parks and Resorts, which manage the hotels, as potential guests are ending up in DVC villas with rented points. DVD and Parks and Resorts are both under Disney Experiences. What it would likely take is a manager from Parks and Resorts to complain to Josh D'Amaro (who oversees Experiences) that another division (DVD) is allowing unchecked commercial activity to significant decrease revenue at their (Parks and Resorts) hotels. That's likely is what it would take. And I'm guessing it hasn't happened yet. It probably will happen at some point. But the signs are all VERY CLEARLY THERE, as multiple people have pointed out, that commercial activity is regularly happening, including with brokers who also act as renters.

As pointed out, the commercial activity that one is seeing doesn’t mean that commercial activity is above the threshold of what DVC says it is.

So, outside of DVC, sure, it’s easy to say that is someone renting commercially. But, it’s only the DVC definition of what makes a membership commercial is all that matters.

 

[New Mouse]

Is Disney enforcing their own definition? If not, isn’t it our responsibility to advocate DVC does so?

I mean yes if you feel strongly about it, you should report those individuals to Disney directly, not to the unaffiliated Disney message board.

 

[Sandisw]

I understand that, but how could they enforce something against me but have a completely different interpretation 2 months later for another member? If they’ve ever taken action against any member, that sets a precedent on how they should respond to others? If they don’t treat members equally, it becomes a slippery slope?

I agree that if an owner is penalized that it would seem that they’d want to know if that is applied to all.

When I inquired last year the bottom of it is is it is up to each individual owner to interpret what the contract says and make their owner decisions.

But, yes, DVC can look at each situation and evaluate it for what they think is going on. I thought too it had to be a set number but the more I thought about it the more I realize why what they told me makes sense because I do believe that the language DVC has used implies a pretty high threshold…the 8000 point limit gives us insight into that.

So, the average owner who rents in a reasonable way shouldn’t even worry that you might be flagged for review.

Obviously reasonable is subjective but I think that is why DVC does that. And so far, the remedy for a membership that seems to be in violation is simply the canceling of reservations that DVC determined are above and beyond what they should be.

They can’t do anything more than that.

 

[Hubalorian]

I mean yes if you feel strongly about it, you should report those individuals to Disney directly, not to the unaffiliated Disney message board.

So I should not raise awareness about a potential issue?

 

[Chuck S]

I understand that, but how could they enforce something against me but have a completely different interpretation 2 months later for another member? If they’ve ever taken action against any member, that sets a precedent on how they should respond to others? If they don’t treat members equally, it becomes a slippery slope?

Except, by our contracts, DVC can change their criteria, without notice, at any time. That in itself negates any possible perception of a set precedent.

 

[Hubalorian]

Except, by our contracts, DVC can change their criteria, without notice, at any time. That in itself negates any possible perception of a set precedent.

Just because it’s in the contract does not mean it’s legal. While it gives DVC leeway, under certain circumstances that would not be held as a reasonable defense.

 

[Sandisw]

So I should not raise awareness about a potential issue?

The biggest problem though with all these threads is that some have decided that what they are seeing must be a violation of the contract and it’s not that cut and dry.

Reason being is that it is only an violation if DVC determines it is. Now, if an owner wants to share their beliefs with DVC thst one thinks there are owners out their potentially violating the contracts, you should.

IMO, the explosion of the rental market is due to a lot more owners who do casual renting than owners who really have turned it into the business. Not saying there are none, I just believe that they are a very small % of the total number of owners renting reservations yearly.

Even if every membership rented two reservations a year….and we assume 50k memberships we would see 100k rentals a year!

 

[Sandisw]

Just because it’s in the contract does not mean it’s legal. While it gives DVC leeway, under certain circumstances that would not be held as a reasonable defense.

That is true but remember since renting is our right and FL timeshare law is pretty pro owner when it comes to that, DVC is and has been more apt to have generous guidelines that are pro owner.

So, if someone wants to challenge DVC for changing the definition after they have been penalized, they could, but I can’t imagine many owners at this point would since as I said, very pro owner.

 

[Hubalorian]

So, if someone wants to challenge DVC for changing the definition after they have been penalized, they could, but I can’t imagine many owners at this point would since as I said, very pro owner.

Wouldn’t this mean Disney shouldn’t change definition because the courts would side with the owner who was unfairly penalized?

 

[Sandisw]

Wouldn’t this mean Disney shouldn’t change definition because they would side with the owner who was unfairly penalized?

No, I don’t think they would because the penalty is canceling reservation that the owner booked in a manner that makes the membership move to commercial.

Again, I get the whole just because it’s there doesn’t make it legal…but I also think that you would have to say that you were unduly harmed and you’d have no idea if others have been penalized in the same way.

Right now, owners are responsible for following the rules and they know they should not be using for commercial purposes.

So, it really is up to us as indivuals to do that.

Personally. I don’t worry about what other owners do and if they want to risk having reservations canceled because they rent a lot, that’s on them and between them and DVC.

All I know is if I ever decide I need to rent, then I know I won’t be doing it as a business so there is no need for me to worry, especially, as I said, DVC seems to have always had a high threshold.

 

[ocdb8r1]

IMO, the explosion of the rental market is due to a lot more owners who do casual renting than owners who really have turned it into the business. Not saying there are none, I just believe that they are a very small % of the total number of owners renting reservations yearly.

Even if every membership rented two reservations a year….and we assume 50k memberships we would see 100k rentals a year!

I think you're underestimating the amount of points flowing through people/companies who rent nearly 100% of the points every single year. Regardless, it's not purely the volume of overall rentals that is concerning. I would be much more comfortable if the situation was simply every member renting a couple of reservations a year. Those are normal people using normal resources to try to find a way to rent their points. I don't think many such casual (a couple of times a year) renters are going to go through the effort to systematically grab the prime rooms and periods and try to extract the maximum dollar from each of those reservations (some, yes...but the majority, no - and I think the rental board here bares that out). However, someone doing it with 100% of their points every year is focused on one thing and is doing sufficient volume to invest the time and resources to extract every penny from their points. That, over time, becomes a problem (even if they are the minority in the grander scheme of the overall "market"). It doesn't take very many bad apples to spoil the bunch.

 

[Sandisw]

I think you're underestimating the amount of points flowing through people/companies who rent nearly 100% of the points every single year. Regardless, it's not purely the volume of overall rentals that is concerning. I would be much more comfortable if the situation was simply every member renting a couple of reservations a year. Those are normal people using normal resources to try to find a way to rent their points. I don't think many such casual (a couple of times a year) renters are going to go through the effort to systematically grab the prime rooms and periods and try to extract the maximum dollar from each of those reservations (some, yes...but the majority, no - and I think the rental board here bares that out). However, someone doing it with 100% of their points every year is focused on one thing and is doing sufficient volume to invest the time and resources to extract every penny from their points. That, over time, becomes a problem (even if they are the minority in the grander scheme of the overall "market"). It doesn't take very many bad apples to spoil the bunch.

The hard part with that is that the rules for owners being allowed to rent their timeshares or allow families and friends to use them do have to appear reasonable.

IMO, that is why DVC has always taken a more generous approach to this…especially since they have the data of what happens on every membership.

And, while you don’t think the casual renter grabs high demand rooms, I think it happens more now because that is what is pushed.

I said I certainly would if I ever found myself in the position of needing to rent to strangers.