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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you’re already verifying deeds for rentals (wow!) then you can already see the fixed week. It’s zero extra steps.

They only have them at those four resorts in Orange County, so it’s easy to pull it.

Charge money to verify it. Don't do it for free.
 
Last edited:
If you’re already verifying deeds for rentals (wow!) then you can already see the fixed week. It’s zero extra steps.

They only have them at those four resorts in Orange County, so it’s easy to pull it.

Charge money to verify it. Don't do it for free.

Again, moderators do not have access to your user profile to access your real name. We encourage renters to do their due diligence and check deeds while negotiating with the owners. Checking deeds would be an added step, and one to which we do not currently have access.

The fixed week owner, if they can not keep the reservation, has the very same options on the DIS as everyone else, cancel the fixed week, and either rent the points, or book a reservation within our posting requirement...they can even book a speculative rental and post it using the Platinum or Premium plan...but like all other allowed rentals, it simply can't be for exactly 7 nights starting on a weekend.
 
When the rental forums were originally created, there were no fixed week products. Now they have been in place for at least seven years and are continuing to be offered for purchase. As with all things, I feel the rental forum also needs to evolve with the new DVC products being offered for purchase. It would be a rare occasion for a fixed week owner to offer those weeks as a “ points” rental. That was not the intent of the purchase in the first place. It was to ensure a given reservation at a given timeframe for an “ up charge” in price. The current rules leave out a segment of the DVC owners. I think there could be some change to the rules to include such owners and provide access to the rental community who actually want to rent a DVC fixed week.
 
You say the current rule leaves out a segment of DVC owners...when it actually treats them exactly like every other DVC owner, with the same restrictions. If someone without a fixed week reserved a 7 night reservation starting on a weekend, we also prohibit them from renting it on the R/T Board.
 

You say the current rule leaves out a segment of DVC owners...when it actually treats them exactly like every other DVC owner, with the same restrictions. If someone without a fixed week reserved a 7 night reservation starting on a weekend, we also prohibit them from renting it on the R/T Board.
Understand. But the whole nature of restricting the seven day reservations starting Fri, Sat, Sun is to prevent renting out RCI reservations. Now another DVC product has evolved that is not tied to RCI. This is how I am interpreting it anyway.
 
Understand. But the whole nature of restricting the seven day reservations starting Fri, Sat, Sun is to prevent renting out RCI reservations. Now another DVC product has evolved that is not tied to RCI. This is how I am interpreting it anyway.

Yes, we now have both RCI and fixed weeks that it could be for the reservation

But I think the liability for ensuring it’s not an RCI is just as great as it was when the initial rule went into place.

So I am not sure how you make sure it’s one vs the other without having to get real owner info, then adding all the extra work.
 
But wasn't the reason the product evolved was to guarantee families that absolutely wanted to or had to travel the same week annually a way to guarantee them that week? If the family does not want to, or is unable to, travel that week, they do have the ability to change the reservation to points, and rent them. Or they could change them to points and travel themselves another time during that year. Treating them like every other DVC Owner is not a punishment.
 
/
Because they are special products, usually the most peak times and rooms. This is valuable to owners and renters.
When the rental forums were originally created, there were no fixed week products. Now they have been in place for at least seven years and are continuing to be offered for purchase. As with all things, I feel the rental forum also needs to evolve with the new DVC products being offered for purchase. It would be a rare occasion for a fixed week owner to offer those weeks as a “ points” rental. That was not the intent of the purchase in the first place. It was to ensure a given reservation at a given timeframe for an “ up charge” in price. The current rules leave out a segment of the DVC owners. I think there could be some change to the rules to include such owners and provide access to the rental community who actually want to rent a DVC fixed week.
The other side of that argument is that fixed weeks reduce the inventory available for other DVC Members to book those "peak times and rooms".

If the owner doesn't want to use the fixed week, it would seem to be in the best interest of the whole that everyone have the same opportunity to book it, whether it's to use themselves or offer to a renter.
 
The other side of that argument is that fixed weeks reduce the inventory available for other DVC Members to book those "peak times and rooms".

If the owner doesn't want to use the fixed week, it would seem to be in the best interest of the whole that everyone have the same opportunity to book it, whether it's to use themselves or offer to a renter.
But that is not the discussion. It’s not about the “intent” to use. It’s about the type of DVC product that has emerged versus the original
criteria from which the original rules were based on. Not trying to have a debate here.
 
But that is not the discussion. It’s not about the “intent” to use. It’s about the type of DVC product that has emerged versus the original
criteria from which the original rules were based on. Not trying to have a debate here.
I wouldn't call it a "product." It's a new feature of the same product. I don't see any reason to come up with some complicated authorization scheme for the mods to allow a handful of DVC owners to capitalize on an in-demand week a year in advance just because they don't want to cancel and rent their points.
 
The Silver Plan fee will be waived for posters who meet the following requirements:
The Silver Plan seems like it's an answer to a problem, but I'm worried it introduces more problem; or, at least, allows for a loophole.

The plans are good for a year, right? The way this is written, it appears that the intent is to provide a member who meets the requirements with the silver plan for free. Is that free plan good for a year? Can they meet the requirements, apply for the plan, and then disappear for several months, only to return to make use of the R/T board? At first glance, this seems like a way for mods to reduce the validation effort; qualify a member for a year instead of having to check each time they post.
 
The Silver Plan seems like it's an answer to a problem, but I'm worried it introduces more problem; or, at least, allows for a loophole.

The plans are good for a year, right? The way this is written, it appears that the intent is to provide a member who meets the requirements with the silver plan for free. Is that free plan good for a year? Can they meet the requirements, apply for the plan, and then disappear for several months, only to return to make use of the R/T board? At first glance, this seems like a way for mods to reduce the validation effort; qualify a member for a year instead of having to check each time they post.
No, the free version is like the free plan we use today for the gold plan. A poster is requalified by post count for each submission, with a limit of 3 free posts for the year.
 
The Silver Plan seems like it's an answer to a problem, but I'm worried it introduces more problem; or, at least, allows for a loophole.

The plans are good for a year, right? The way this is written, it appears that the intent is to provide a member who meets the requirements with the silver plan for free. Is that free plan good for a year? Can they meet the requirements, apply for the plan, and then disappear for several months, only to return to make use of the R/T board? At first glance, this seems like a way for mods to reduce the validation effort; qualify a member for a year instead of having to check each time they post.
It's no different than the current Gold plan except it only allows 3 total threads, including only one confirmed reservation no more than 30 days away. Gold allows 6 total with 2 included reservations no more than 30 days away.

All who initially qualify for a fee waiver must continue to meet the posting requirements to post each thread allowed for the year. As 1st post said, almost 80% of R/T posters only post one thread for their year. The Silver Plan is a less expensive option for them than the Gold.
 
As usual I'm confused again .....

I thought the reason for the Rental Plan fees were to cover the expenses of maintaining the R/T board.
Thus higher fees for allowing one to have multiple posts.

Learning that the moderators voluntarily maintain the R/T board while it is generating in excess of $7,500 yearly in fees is .... well .... Surprising.
And now hearing that those fees are going to increase because of the amount of "volunteer work" required for all the non-conforming posts??
Guess I'm missing something.

Thanks Moderators!!

Been on these boards since year one and I truly appreciate everything you do, but this one has me shaking my head.

You're a Better Man Than I Am ......

Hmmm . In hindsight, maybe I'm really just disappointed and not confused after all.
 
As usual I'm confused again .....

I thought the reason for the Rental Plan fees were to cover the expenses of maintaining the R/T board.
Thus higher fees for allowing one to have multiple posts.

Maintaining the overall DISBoards website has costs. Technicians, servers, maintenance, board software, virus protection and crash/attack recovery costs are not inexpensive. The R/T Board fees have been the same for the last 10 years. Costs have risen during that time. And you are still able to avoid any fee by meeting the posting prerequisites---8 posts in at least 4 of the last 6 months with an overall total of at least 50. If those 50 posts are spread evenly over the last 6 months, that's an average of just over two posts per week.
 
Last edited:
DISboards.com is a business. It has sponsors who contribute to financially maintain the site (which is a considerable expense).

The DVC Rent/Trade Board has been around for over 20 years now and its original intent was to allow active members of the DISboards community a resource to use reservations and DVC points which would otherwise go to waste.

Over time, the "free" resource grew, was suggested as resource for DVC Members on other sites and expanded well beyond the original "community". As we grew, so did the issues of that growth when a number of DVC Members (and non-Members posing as Members) took advantage of the trust of those seeking DVC reservations.

In spite of warnings posted regarding due-diligence, precautions to take, etc. we have learned that few read the advice and warnings pinned at the top of Rent/Trade Board. This failure includes both potential renters and DVC Members and we see this daily as regular occurrence.

Many of the lessons learned over the past 20+ years have resulted in the Rent/Trade Board policies now required in order to participate.

By 2010, those actively participating on the DVC discussion Forums here on the DIS made it abundantly clear that there was growing frustration when Members were unable to secure reservations at certain times of the year (early December, Spring Break, October, etc.) but were seeing 'Reservation for Rent' opportunities on the sites (including the DIS) offering the ability for Members to make and offer reservations at DVC Resorts. Around that same time there were also rental broker sites popping up to provide rental opportunities for Members, including the rental of existing reservations.

In late 2010, we had earnest discussion on the DVC forums about what policies should be implemented to continue to allow DVC Members to benefit from points they would be unable to use and allow potential members a safe place to look for DVC reservations.

Those discussions resulted in the early policies where DVC Members needed to be registered for 6 months have at least 50 posts over that timeframe in order to participate on the DVC Rent/Trade. Potential renters have never had any restrictions placed on participation. Existing reservations would only be allowed within 30 days of arrival - which supported the concept that this was truly for Members with a reservation (or points) they were unable to use. It eliminated, at that time, the opportunity to make speculative reservations for popular times.

When those basic policies began in early February, 2011 the silence on the Rent/Trade Board was deafening (cue the crickets) and the complaints began immediately. We had posters making fifty one-word posts over the course of an hour to meet the "letter of the law" and others who just went elsewhere to rent their points.

After a few weeks of almost dead-silence on the Rent/Trade Board, we consulted with a "behind-the-scenes" DIS Webmaster who rarely posts but has a number of very critical responsibilities and he suggested a monetized option and emphasized that, in addition to what was referred to as the "Gold" plan, he wanted a "Premium" option which could still allow existing reservations more then 30 days before arrival. That concession was reluctantly agreed to and the Gold ($24.95) and Premium ($199.95) rental plans were born and offered. The Gold plan was quickly embraced and the Rent/Trade Board became a vibrant option once again. The Premium plan was rarely used and even then found resistance to acceptance of reservations for inflexible specific dates - especially when theses reservations were often priced well above what "point" rentals were going for.

In early 2011, DVC rentals typically ranged from $7 to $11 per point. DVC itself had priced OTU points for $10/pt and few members ventured much beyond that price. Annual maintenance fees at that time ranged from $3.89 (BLT) to $6.78 (VB) and direct purchases were in the $130 range.

Fast forward over 10 years and rental prices have soared with the abundance of broker sites and other resources for DVC rentals, events of the past year have significantly reduced financial support from DIS advertisers, the cost of the software and servers to run the DIS has increased greatly and, even though all of the Rent/Trade moderators are
volunteers the true beneficiaries have been, as always, those who use this resource - both DVC Members and potential renters.

Most (almost 80%) use only a single rental thread to rent the extra points they have for their current Use Year and they will benefit from "only" a $5 increase per year - to a total of $29.95, even if they end up needing 3 rental threads. Those offering to rent more points (some are offering north of 1500) points will need to find a way to afford an increase of $15 for their six rental threads. The Silver plan is being considered for those who may only need a couple of rental threads to use their points. The Platinum plan was added last year as an option for those with unusable reservations due to the pandemic.

We have had DVC Members using multiple usernames (NOT allowed) and purchasing multiple rental plans a few months apart to increase their ability to use up to 6 rental threads per year per account. When those cases are identified, they permanently lost access to the Rent/Trade. Fortunately it does not happen often, but it has happened several times in the past year and also in prior years. We have several behind-the-scenes tools to assist in locating and confirming those situations.

Essentially, it is time to modestly increase the cost to use this resource or it could just be lost completely. What services have you used over the past 10 years which have not increased in cost?
 
  • There were almost 40 DVC Members who met the requirements for a fee waiver and were able to use the Rent/Trade Board

Only 40? I'm a bit surprised, I would have said it were many more.
As one of those 40, I would like to thank the moderators for providing this service that helped me greatly in the past.
I usually post one or two threads max for rental and not even every year. But with the pandemic I had to use all 6, not for me, but because I have re-rented points for people who got a reservation from me and couldn't travel anymore. I didn't profit from those extra threads, just helped people to recover most of what they spent on reservations they couldn't use anymore.
So I would suggest to wait to apply the new rules until the situation is back to normal, in order to allow a bit more flexibility in those troubled times.
 
One thing I would like to see changed is the 50 posts spread evenly over the last 6 months. I recently had a post on the Rent/Buy board rejected because while I have way more than 50+ posts over the last 6 months, they weren’t spread evenly and the first 2 months I had no posts. So it was rejected. Even though I have been a member since 2008. Some people go away for awhile and come back and believe me if I was looking to scam someone I wouldn’t be cruising the boards for 13 years. I understand the requirement but there should be some logic when looking at all the factors.
 
One thing I would like to see changed is the 50 posts spread evenly over the last 6 months. I recently had a post on the Rent/Buy board rejected because while I have way more than 50+ posts over the last 6 months, they weren’t spread evenly and the first 2 months I had no posts. So it was rejected. Even though I have been a member since 2008. Some people go away for awhile and come back and believe me if I was looking to scam someone I wouldn’t be cruising the boards for 13 years. I understand the requirement but there should be some logic when looking at all the factors.

Even you have no posts in two months, it would still be approved, as long as you had over 50 total AND at least 8 posts in each of the remaining 4 months.
 
Even you have no posts in two months, it would still be approved, as long as you had over 50 total AND at least 8 posts in each of the remaining 4 months.
Is that the new rules or the current rules? Also I misspoke I had no post for the first 3 months. Sorry for the misinformation
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.















New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top