Heads Up for DVC Rent/Trade Board Users - an open discussion

[Lorana]

Help me understand how a fixed week is different than any other 7 day reservation that is booked on points at 11 months for purpose of R/T thread.

If someone has a FW at CCV the first week in December and someone else is able to book that same week just using points, I am not sure why the FW reservation should treated any different.

I think if we want to develop a plan for FW, then it has to apply to all 7 day trips as well...which gets us back to the concern of RCI trades being offered.

Does it make sense that those that own at resorts without FW or ones that see more rooms go to RCI be prohibited from trying to rent the same 7 day confirmed week during a high demand time simply because it’s not a FW?

I'm coming to this late, so apologies if this is answered later as I'm answering as I read through the thread.

One difference is that FW owners paid for the privilege of that week, by both purchasing direct AND paying a premium on their FW contract. Unlike any other DVC owner who would book a week for the express intent of holding that inventory to rent, a FW owner has purchased the "right" to have that week. They aren't taking up inventory from other DVC owners because their contract comes with that week reserved for them.

Yes, I do understand that if the FW owner wasn't going to use their week and would cancel the reservation, then technically that week would be available to other DVC owners. But, the point is that with the FW, that week was guaranteed to the owner and not to any other DVC member.

In full disclosure, I am a FW owner, so having an option to rent out my week if I do not wish to use it would of course be beneficial to me. That being said, generally speaking, if I'm not going to CCV during my FW, it's because I've used the points for another time, but I also paid the premium cost to ensure guarantee of those in-demand weeks. However, I also understand and accept if it is too much effort to make a system to support FWs (though I feel that any system you put into place should put the burden of proof on the FW owner to minimize the work for the volunteer staff moderating the R/T boards).

Just want to add that I appreciate all the work that goes into maintaining the R/T boards for when us owners do need to rent points. I've made use of the boards both ways (rented out points and purchased transfer points), so I truly appreciate this service.

 

[zavandor]

The problem is. they really ARE three separate reservations. Each can be cancelled or rented separately from the others. You could rent it to three different renters, in three distinct transactions.

I understand, that's applying the rule to the letter. But it's still one vacation that it's ruined.
Why do you limit to one or three rentals? It's because you don't want this to become a way to book desirable reservations to re-rent. But in case of a split stay, having 3 consecutive reservations means one had booked that reservation for himself and he had an emergency and cannot travel.
So if the interpretation switch to the technicality of the number of reservations to the spirit of the number of vacation ruined, a split stay could be allowed to be rented as one.
Your decision, of course and I'll accept the rules in any case.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm coming to this late, so apologies if this is answered later as I'm answering as I read through the thread.

One difference is that FW owners paid for the privilege of that week, by both purchasing direct AND paying a premium on their FW contract. Unlike any other DVC owner who would book a week for the express intent of holding that inventory to rent, a FW owner has purchased the "right" to have that week. They aren't taking up inventory from other DVC owners because their contract comes with that week reserved for them.

Yes, I do understand that if the FW owner wasn't going to use their week and would cancel the reservation, then technically that week would be available to other DVC owners. But, the point is that with the FW, that week was guaranteed to the owner and not to any other DVC member.

In full disclosure, I am a FW owner, so having an option to rent out my week if I do not wish to use it would of course be beneficial to me. That being said, generally speaking, if I'm not going to CCV during my FW, it's because I've used the points for another time, but I also paid the premium cost to ensure guarantee of those in-demand weeks. However, I also understand and accept if it is too much effort to make a system to support FWs (though I feel that any system you put into place should put the burden of proof on the FW owner to minimize the work for the volunteer staff moderating the R/T boards).

Just want to add that I appreciate all the work that goes into maintaining the R/T boards for when us owners do need to rent points. I've made use of the boards both ways (rented out points and purchased transfer points), so I truly appreciate this service.

I certainly understand that it was paid for differently and that it is different than someone who gets it for points.

But, I think when deciding on the rules, shouldn't they be applied consistently for the purposes of this thread and rentals?

One reason that was given was it being for a popular time so someone who snagged it the old fashioned way does have the same product.

So, why should the same exact product be treated any differently when both owners have the same ability to cancel it under the same rules?

IMO, I think for consistency and fairness, they should.

 

[Lorana]

I certainly understand that it was paid for differently and that it is different than someone who gets it for points.

But, I think when deciding on the rules, shouldn't they be applied consistently for the purposes of this thread and rentals?

One reason that was given was it being for a popular time so someone who snagged it the old fashioned way does have the same product.

So, why should the same exact product be treated any differently when both owners have the same ability to cancel it under the same rules?

IMO, I think for consistency and fairness, they should.

Perhaps this is just a matter of perspective, but contractually, it's NOT the same product. A Fixed Week is literally that, and per the contract signed, the owner of a Fixed Week has a guaranteed right to that week. Other owners do not; they have guaranteed points to use in a year, but no guarantee that they can book any particular week in any particular category during that year. In the case of renting a fixed week, a FW owner is renting the week in the category they were guaranteed as part of their contract -- just as any other owner might be renting the points they had contractually been granted.

That said, I'm just trying to answer the question as to what makes a FW different than any other 7 week rental. As much as I'd love a means of being able to rent out my FW if I ever needed to on the Disboards, I also understand why others may not see the difference/distinction and why moderators may not want to take on the hassle of trying to support it.

 

[Chuck S]

One difference is that FW owners paid for the privilege of that week, by both purchasing direct AND paying a premium on their FW contract. Unlike any other DVC owner who would book a week for the express intent of holding that inventory to rent, a FW owner has purchased the "right" to have that week. They aren't taking up inventory from other DVC owners because their contract comes with that week reserved for them.

You paid Disney a premium to reserve the same week/accommodation type year after year for your family to enjoy. But once you decide to not use the reservation for your family, it really is basically treated like any other pre-existing reservation. There is no benefit to the renter whether it is a fixed week or a regular reservation that is made by them requesting those dates on the boards, and again, the main issue is the weekend start days, like RCI. Verifying otherwise takes moderator time, and I think most people would be surprised how much time we spend on the boards as is. You don't see how many threads we decline for various reason, or how many posts are removed from threads for posting things they should not, and so forth. Add to that all the required steps of approving a thread that does follow the rules and closing threads at 30 days, updating the data lists, and so forth.

 

[Chuck S]

Perhaps this is just a matter of perspective, but contractually, it's NOT the same product.

Contractually to the owner it isn't the same product, to the renter it is identical to any other.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I certainly understand that it was paid for differently and that it is different than someone who gets it for points.

But, I think when deciding on the rules, shouldn't they be applied consistently for the purposes of this thread and rentals?

One reason that was given was it being for a popular time so someone who snagged it the old fashioned way does have the same product.

So, why should the same exact product be treated any differently when both owners have the same ability to cancel it under the same rules?

IMO, I think for consistency and fairness, they should.

I pointed this out earlier but will emphasize again that it is a different product for those with fixed weeks vs reserving the nights with points because the points can cancel 1 or 2 nights or half the reservation and retain half. The fixed week owner it's all or nothing. If it's not identical terms then they are not identical products. And also the point owner can book Mon-Mon, Tue-Tue. Other than the race weeks the fixed weeks from DVC were Sun-Sun I understand the original intent of prohibiting 7 night rentals with Fri-Sun arrival was to prevent illegal rentals of RCI but the criteria to try and protect against that is sucking in those who have reservations they can rightfully rent.

 

[Chuck S]

I understand, that's applying the rule to the letter. But it's still one vacation that it's ruined.
Why do you limit to one or three rentals? It's because you don't want this to become a way to book desirable reservations to re-rent. But in case of a split stay, having 3 consecutive reservations means one had booked that reservation for himself and he had an emergency and cannot travel.
So if the interpretation switch to the technicality of the number of reservations to the spirit of the number of vacation ruined, a split stay could be allowed to be rented as one.
Your decision, of course and I'll accept the rules in any case.

And how would the mods have any way of verifying that it will definitely be rented as one stay? The only way would be to have the owner submit a copy of the rental contract after the rental, and then possibly have the person responsible process a refund from the more expensive plan to a gold or platinum plan...again taking more DISBoard staff time.

 

[Chuck S]

I pointed this out earlier but will emphasize again that it is a different product for those with fixed weeks vs reserving the nights with points because the points can cancel 1 or 2 nights or half the reservation and retain half. The fixed week owner it's all or nothing. If it's not identical terms then they are not identical products. And also the point owner can book Mon-Mon, Tue-Tue. Other than the race weeks the fixed weeks from DVC were Sun-Sun I understand the original intent of prohibiting 7 night rentals with Fri-Sun arrival was to prevent illegal rentals of RCI but the criteria to try and protect against that is sucking in those who have reservations they can rightfully rent.

But again, the difference is to the owner, and the owner only. To a renter, it is exactly the same as any other rental, and actually puts more constraints on them if the renter should need to cancel a day or two after the rental. In most point rentals, there can be some adjustments if the renter has an emergency if it is within the owners banking borrowing timeframe and at least 31 days prior to arrival...they can often rebook at another time with the owner. For fixed weeks, if a renter has to cancel, even 10 months out, that really isn't an option for the owner, who would need to cancel the week to rebook, if possible.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But again, the difference is to the owner, and the owner only. To a renter, it is exactly the same as any other rental, and actually puts more constraints on them if the renter should need to cancel a day or two after the rental. In most point rentals, there can be some adjustments if the renter has an emergency if it is within the owners banking borrowing timeframe and at least 31 days prior to arrival...they can often rebook at another time with the owner. For fixed weeks, if a renter has to cancel, even 10 months out, that really isn't an option for the owner, who would need to cancel the week to rebook, if possible.

My point really goes back to the reason for the prohibition which is RCI rentals. It's stuck on that when the DVC product moved on to selling fixed weeks and there are valid rentals that can be offered that are not RCI weeks but they are weeks and can't be shortened.

Yes, it's a difference to the owner but the responses were that there is no difference between the two and that isn't correct as you outline in a different way.

If the DVC boards continue to apply the RCI protection for the renter via the date the week reservation starts that's the choice but at least a review that there is now an actual product that is available and doesn't allow the dropping of a day or two and seeing if there's another way to prevent RCI rentals is just being suggested. I personally think the fact that getting RCI weeks at the resorts with fixed weeks offerings is now a zero to none chance is a factor that could apply if the boards wanted to. Also there are so many other ways to rent I doubt they'd bother here anymore. It may simply be a time to stop worrying about the RCI weeks.

 

[zavandor]

And how would the mods have any way of verifying that it will definitely be rented as one stay? The only way would be to have the owner submit a copy of the rental contract after the rental, and then possibly have the person responsible process a refund from the more expensive plan to a gold or platinum plan...again taking more DISBoard staff time.

Not saying it should be rented only to one person.
I'm proposing that one continuous split stay could be offered in one thread.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

As a new DVC owner it does seem to me like the proliferation of dedicated reservations for rent is really bad for owners who are not going to be able secure high demand weeks basically ever. Regardless of what Disboards does on this issue, it seems to me that eventually some website or broker is going to pop up that is going to end up making this into a commercial venture, really hurting owners who are just trying to use their points to book for themselves. It's too bad that DVC can't institute some kind of rule globally that essentially mirrors the DVC rule here, that while it's fine to rent points it's not fine to rent reservations (unless we're talking about a reservation that would go into holding).

 

[Chuck S]

As a new DVC owner it does seem to me like the proliferation of dedicated reservations for rent is really bad for owners who are not going to be able secure high demand weeks basically ever. Regardless of what Disboards does on this issue, it seems to me that eventually some website or broker is going to pop up that is going to end up making this into a commercial venture, really hurting owners who are just trying to use their points to book for themselves. It's too bad that DVC can't institute some kind of rule globally that essentially mirrors the DVC rule here, that while it's fine to rent points it's not fine to rent reservations (unless we're talking about a reservation that would go into holding).

I think we're seeing more reservations vs points for rent this year because of COVID, owners have a glut of points, non-US owners can't travel. and are booking what they can because availability is so tight for point rental request dates. They're trying to at least recoup their dues, which can be hard with a lot of fragmented reservations instead of being able to book 5 to 7 nights on a points rental request.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'm coming to this late, so apologies if this is answered later as I'm answering as I read through the thread.

One difference is that FW owners paid for the privilege of that week, by both purchasing direct AND paying a premium on their FW contract. Unlike any other DVC owner who would book a week for the express intent of holding that inventory to rent, a FW owner has purchased the "right" to have that week. They aren't taking up inventory from other DVC owners because their contract comes with that week reserved for them.

Yes, I do understand that if the FW owner wasn't going to use their week and would cancel the reservation, then technically that week would be available to other DVC owners. But, the point is that with the FW, that week was guaranteed to the owner and not to any other DVC member.

In full disclosure, I am a FW owner, so having an option to rent out my week if I do not wish to use it would of course be beneficial to me. That being said, generally speaking, if I'm not going to CCV during my FW, it's because I've used the points for another time, but I also paid the premium cost to ensure guarantee of those in-demand weeks. However, I also understand and accept if it is too much effort to make a system to support FWs (though I feel that any system you put into place should put the burden of proof on the FW owner to minimize the work for the volunteer staff moderating the R/T boards).

Just want to add that I appreciate all the work that goes into maintaining the R/T boards for when us owners do need to rent points. I've made use of the boards both ways (rented out points and purchased transfer points), so I truly appreciate this service.

Nicely said . I too am a fixed week owner and agree with everything you’ve said. Again, thanks to the DIS and mods for the opportunity to rent our points.

 

[Sandisw]

Perhaps this is just a matter of perspective, but contractually, it's NOT the same product. A Fixed Week is literally that, and per the contract signed, the owner of a Fixed Week has a guaranteed right to that week. Other owners do not; they have guaranteed points to use in a year, but no guarantee that they can book any particular week in any particular category during that year. In the case of renting a fixed week, a FW owner is renting the week in the category they were guaranteed as part of their contract -- just as any other owner might be renting the points they had contractually been granted.

That said, I'm just trying to answer the question as to what makes a FW different than any other 7 week rental. As much as I'd love a means of being able to rent out my FW if I ever needed to on the Disboards, I also understand why others may not see the difference/distinction and why moderators may not want to take on the hassle of trying to support it.

I was strictly talking about it in terms of it being something offered here on the DIS as a rental and whether or not the rules should allow some 7 day rentals and not others.

 

[Lorana]

I was strictly talking about it in terms of it being something offered here on the DIS as a rental and whether or not the rules should allow some 7 day rentals and not others.

Fair enough!

I guess I just don't see it the same as someone booking a 7-day rental with the intent to not use it and rent it and therefore preventing owners who might want to stay that time from booking a stay, as an owner has bought that fixed week, and so that room category and week is literally reserved for that owner to use. That inventory is not available to anyone, unless I decide to cancel, and then it's a bonus to other owners. That's the whole point of me purchasing a FW over just purchasing points.

But, all this said, I can see the argument that if you were to allow one type of week long rental, you should allow the other, and I'm not necessarily arguing for allowing it, just that I do see it as different. And as someone else pointed out, a regular DVC rental of 7 days could be shifted to Mon-Th and get around the restriction; likewise you could drop a day, and get around the restriction. You cannot do that with FW, so FW owners can never rent their FW on Disboards despite it being a legitimate DVC "product."

Also, if you did allow FW rentals, it would need to be very clear to renters that it's a FW, given the restrictions around it (you cannot drop a day, for example, and it's only Sun-Sun).

 

[Noodlez]

I have never found myself with even ONE existing reservation that I couldn't use within 30 days of the arrival date in almost 28 years of being a DVC Member - let alone reservations more than 30 days ahead of arrival when Members are able to cancel without penalty (unless it is also within the ability to bank).

Neither have I, previously, but nor have I been stuck in a global pandemic where I haven't been allowed to enter the US for well over a year! Although I can cancel and try to rebook for a renter, Chuck S described exactly why I am reluctant to do so!

I think we're seeing more reservations vs points for rent this year because of COVID, owners have a glut of points, non-US owners can't travel. and are booking what they can because availability is so tight for point rental request dates. They're trying to at least recoup their dues, which can be hard with a lot of fragmented reservations instead of being able to book 5 to 7 nights on a points rental request.

 

[The DVC R/T board]

Thanks to all for the discussion and feedback.

A link to this thread has been provided to those considering any changes to the DVC Rent/Trade Board for their consideration.

Your input is greatly appreciated!