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

[Matty B13]

I just want to say thank you! to the Mods for all there time on the R/T Board I appreciate the opportunity whether I have to pay or it's free to rent out my spare points.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yes, the fixed week matches the Sunday to Sunday like RCI. We do allow confirmed reservations outside of 30 days but under other plans, but not start with Friday, Saturday, or Sunday

So, any plan that allowed a FW Sunday to Sunday would also have to allow any trip booked Sunday to Sunday by any owner regardless of whether it was a FW to be a fair rule to all owners,

While most RCI trades tend to be SSR or OKW, it could be any resort, Should someone who owns either of those simply be kept out of Sunday to Sunday for a premium week simply because it’s not an official FW? Or how about an owner who owns at BLT or BCV? Those can be pretty high demand resorts, An owner could certainly book a 7 day trip there to try and rent at a premium and capitalize on it like a FW owner is trying to do.

Just think these are all situations that need to be considered when changing the rule for fixed weeks to ensure the boards are consistent and fair. I am not sure it’s as simple as it seems.

Mods please keep in mind I'm just bringing up points and nothing is at all about what is ultimately decided as it does feel uncomfortable to try and establish a point or raise a question. Might be why others aren't even trying.

But onward......As I understand it the issue is RCI and not actually about fairness to all owners. Instead it is done as a protection to renters since RCI trades cannot be rented and the renter could find it cancelled upon arrival. The decision to allow Mon-Thur already isn't necessarily fair to other owners who have Fri-Sun, just a choice of the DIS. And it's understandable to many in the context to protect from RCI rentals. BCV, BLT and all the rest don't have fixed weeks and so they also can come in with a reservation they made for themselves that was 7 nights, Sun-Sun and then shorten it if they determine it was best to try and rent a reservation. So the point I'm going at about what does show up on RCI means the concern to protect the renter isn't what it once was and increases the fairness to more owners even if it can't encompass them all.

Now I may get my head taken off but prohibiting 1 & 2BR SSR & OKW 7 night reservations starting Fri-Sun would probably cover RCI rentals under my supposition. If someone pops up saying that other resorts and villas regularly show up then of course the basis doesn't work.

I for one wouldn't care if there were some criteria that allowed a fixed week owner to rent their fixed week. I think they otherwise are hindered because they have different DVC policies than pure point reservations as it's cancel all or nothing and on a closer in reservation neither probably help them. What I'm bringing up easily might not be a basis to allow it but just throwing it out there.

 

[Sandisw]

Mods please keep in mind I'm just bringing up points and nothing is at all about what is ultimately decided as it does feel uncomfortable to try and establish a point or raise a question. Might be why others aren't even trying.

But onward......As I understand it the issue is RCI and not actually about fairness to all owners. Instead it is done as a protection to renters since RCI trades cannot be rented and the renter could find it cancelled upon arrival. The decision to allow Mon-Thur already isn't necessarily fair to other owners who have Fri-Sun, just a choice of the DIS. And it's understandable to many in the context to protect from RCI rentals. BCV, BLT and all the rest don't have fixed weeks and so they also can come in with a reservation they made for themselves that was 7 nights, Sun-Sun and then shorten it if they determine it was best to try and rent a reservation. So the point I'm going at about what does show up on RCI means the concern to protect the renter isn't what it once was and increases the fairness to more owners even if it can't encompass them all.

Now I may get my head taken off but prohibiting 1 & 2BR SSR & OKW 7 night reservations starting Fri-Sun would probably cover RCI rentals under my supposition. If someone pops up saying that other resorts and villas regularly show up then of course the basis doesn't work.

I for one wouldn't care if there were some criteria that allowed a fixed week owner to rent their fixed week. I think they otherwise are hindered because they have different DVC policies than pure point reservations as it's cancel all or nothing and on a closer in reservation neither probably help them. What I'm bringing up easily might not be a basis to allow it but just throwing it out there.

Thanks. I personally think the points are relevant because it does help the ones making the decision to have more people’s thoughts!

My own opinion would be to limit the confirmed reservations to 31 days or less, regardless, but I know the current plans offer it with success.

 

[RobDoc]

...

Again I was surprised to learn that the R/T board is maintained by volunteers, and I just found it odd how these changes were being presented. ...

All DIS forums are moderated by volunteers and we all do this because we love Disney.

This discussion was offered since we did the same thing over 10 years ago before changes were made to the DVC Rent/Trade Board.

...
Quite honestly, I got lost trying to read through all the rules in order to do so, and find these potential changes only adding to that confusion. ...

To view a summary, you might want to review the 5th (final) post in the REQUIRED READING thread - https://www.disboards.com/threads/r...es-updated-august-2020.3734006/#post-60835065

I too am surprised by the lack of participation in this thread by the R/T regulars.
My only suggestion would be to consider cross-posting somehow on the R/T board.
After all, 88% of them are not "active contributors" to the boards.

The DVC Rent/Trade Board is not a discussion forum as noted in the REQUIRED READING thread. That policy was instituted because some posters were commenting in existing rental threads that "the asking price was too high", "the asking price was too low", among other comments unrelated to the rental process.

We do often have posts on the Rent/Trade asking about the rental process (from both DVC Members and potential renters), asking about making a transfer, etc. We typically move these to the appropriate DVC Forum or just respond privately to the poster. Again, all part of the responsibility we all accepted when we became moderators.

The Rent/Trade discussions in 2010 were not conducted on the Rent/Trade Board either but I am still surprised at the lack of participation at this time when there are so many more people using the forum.

 

[Traveling on cc points]

I have no real skin in this game as I am a renter, not an owner.

I would suggest confirmed reservations be allowed at 60 (or better yet 61 days) so out of state people who would need to make flight reservations, get time off work & most importantly have full availability to fastpasses if/when they return.

This timeline would still prevent most of the people that were booking popular times just to rent them out.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I think many rental posters ( owners and renters) have moved over to Facebook. There are a couple of Facebook rental sites that many are posting on. And since they are free, may just not be on the DIS that much. Thus the lack of comments?

 

[Marionnette]

.

I have no real skin in this game as I am a renter, not an owner.

I would suggest confirmed reservations be allowed at 60 (or better yet 61 days) so out of state people who would need to make flight reservations, get time off work & most importantly have full availability to fastpasses if/when they return.

This timeline would still prevent most of the people that were booking popular times just to rent them out.

I may be wrong but the reason for the "30 days or less" rule is because any owner with a reservation that begins in that time frame will have their points go into holding if they cancel. This allows members to list and hopefully get something back instead of dealing with holding or losing their points completely. Chances are very good that a reservation listed under those circumstances is not a spec ressie.

 

[Chuck S]

.

I may be wrong but the reason for the "30 days or less" rule is because any owner with a reservation that begins in that time frame will have their points go into holding if they cancel. This allows members to list and hopefully get something back instead of dealing with holding or losing their points completely. Chances are very good that a reservation listed under those circumstances is not a spec ressie.

Yes, you beat me to it. I was typing when your post popped up. That is correct.

 

[Lva5]

I was curious about why the R/T board restrictions were so onerous but this does clear some of that up so thank you for clarifying.

What is the thought process behind the post requirements? Just to prevent people from using the website solely for that reason? I browse a fair amount and don't post that much so it's hard for me to meet the requirements to post if I ever find myself needing to rent out points, but them's the breaks I suppose.

Thank you to the volunteer moderators; this website overall is a great resource.

 

[Chuck S]

I was curious about why the R/T board restrictions were so onerous but this does clear some of that up so thank you for clarifying.

What is the thought process behind the post requirements? Just to prevent people from using the website solely for that reason? I browse a fair amount and don't post that much so it's hard for me to meet the requirements to post if I ever find myself needing to rent out points, but them's the breaks I suppose.

Thank you to the volunteer moderators; this website overall is a great resource.

Two reasons. One is to encourage people to post on the DISBoards in general. The other reason is renters were wanting a bit of posting history of the DVC Owners, as a way to sort of see their overall posting style/personality. If they could see an owner was being kind of a jerk on the boards, they may choose a different owner to rent from. While we don't see much of that on the DVC Boards anymore, there were issues at one time.

 

[Lva5]

Two reasons. One is to encourage people tp post on the DISBoards in general. The other reason is renters were wanting a bit of posting history of the DVC Owners, as a way to sort of see their overall posting style/personality. If they could see an owner was being kind of a jerk on the boards, they may chose a different owner to rent from. While we don't see much of that on the DVC Boards anymore, there were issues at one time.

I see. Thank you!

 

[JC1984]

Thanks to all the mods for the info and history. I just want to clear the air as I feel like my post was taken as I am entitled to have my fee waived. I was just asking about the policy. When my post was declined I didn’t argue in the PM I actually told you I understood and apologized for not understanding the lengthy policy. I saw this thread and figured I could at least ask the question. I have no problem renting my points elsewhere but since I like this message board and trust the people on here I figured I would give it a shot. No hard feelings. I rented my 191 on FB in less than a day and saved myself the money.

 

[Evita_W]

First - I appreciate the rent/trade boards 1000%! I have not used it often but I've been very grateful to have it especially this past year.

Only 40 regulars? Surprising. Were there previous limitations for regulars on the number that could be done? I should probably just go look myself but since it's being discussed that was just what popped into my head.
(So I checked and it looks like there were no limitations for regulars on the number of posts as long as it wasn't a confirmed reservation so now it will go to the most limiting option if I understand correctly? It was a nice "perk" indeed for regular contributions. With only 40 who took advantage it becomes more tracking to verify how many they have done and seems like it could be more work than it might be worth. Of course any free posts are still nice. I guess all of the plans add more work in that regard though.)

Overall it's very nice to ask for feedback because your boards, your rules. I understand the comments about the fixed week ownership as it has become a product offered by DVC since the implementation of the rules but also see the other hand. Are people even regularly getting trades thru RCI anymore? I see so little about it now other than that the offers are limited to larger Villas and it seemed like mostly SSR. We also know what resorts even offered fixed weeks - Aulani, VGF, PVB, CCV and Riv and I cannot say when I last saw a post about an RCI trade into any of those if ever in the case of the newest resorts. It does almost seem like there's a screening option that is happening automatically just by the fact of resorts that fixed weeks are available at.

When we first joined DVC, we did a few rent and transfer posts to cover some expenses, cruises or other hotel stays occasionally, but we are now in a lot different position both in terms of finances and amount of vacation time available and while the RCI exchange fee is waived, we have taken advantage of that as well, so we don't really have points to rent out anymore. My guess is there used to be more regulars.like us whose circumstances have changed in various ways that may make renting on a regular basis no longer a good fit for them.

 

[Tiggerette]

I find the fixed week discussion fascinating, and thinking through it out loud a bit:

I don't quite understand why there isn't a solution to fixed weeks. It's a deeded/contracted DVC ownership model. Isn't the RCI concern similar to other rules, where people are told "don't do X" if you "do X" you will be removed? I'm confused why there is extreme rule-making in this case, and implicit trust elsewhere in the rental options/process? If you tell people that cannot rent RCI reservation, that consequences will be severe when discovered, then the onus is on the renter to adhere to the risk management controls set forth in the rules. Just like if a person "rents points" they don't actually own, (the R/T board doesn't verify point ownership as part of its risk management controls), liability rests with the person committing the subversive act against the terms of use for the R/T board.

If a fixed week is for a highly desirable time, then it's not so easy to convert the points to book that same timeframe like any other point booking. I would be giving up a guaranteed booking for the lottery whether I can book before other members do so.

If my goal is to rent with the least amount of hassle, I would not convert the points simply to be allowed to use this R/T board to rent. Considering the low number of resorts that have fixed weeks, and that not all owners at those resorts have fixed weeks as their contracted ownership model, then perhaps these owners are best served to use other rental sites. It also sounds like there would be minimal impact to the R/T forum to lose those owners. So all in all a win-win for the R/T not to change its policies regarding fixed weeks if it's determined that not changing is in the best interests for board management, and for the owner who would have a better situation to rent the fixed week as-is.

 

[Tiggerette]

I also wanted to give a separate post on the professionalism of the mods. Firsthand I've seen their work, and it is profound. Thank you mods for all you do, and especially for all the behind-the-scenes work that keeps this community going.
Thank You!!

 

[Sandisw]

I find the fixed week discussion fascinating, and thinking through it out loud a bit:

I don't quite understand why there isn't a solution to fixed weeks. It's a deeded/contracted DVC ownership model. Isn't the RCI concern similar to other rules, where people are told "don't do X" if you "do X" you will be removed? I'm confused why there is extreme rule-making in this case, and implicit trust elsewhere in the rental options/process? If you tell people that cannot rent RCI reservation, that consequences will be severe when discovered, then the onus is on the renter to adhere to the risk management controls set forth in the rules. Just like if a person "rents points" they don't actually own, (the R/T board doesn't verify point ownership as part of its risk management controls), liability rests with the person committing the subversive act against the terms of use for the R/T board.

If a fixed week is for a highly desirable time, then it's not so easy to convert the points to book that same timeframe like any other point booking. I would be giving up a guaranteed booking for the lottery whether I can book before other members do so.

If my goal is to rent with the least amount of hassle, I would not convert the points simply to be allowed to use this R/T board to rent. Considering the low number of resorts that have fixed weeks, and that not all owners at those resorts have fixed weeks as their contracted ownership model, then perhaps these owners are best served to use other rental sites. It also sounds like there would be minimal impact to the R/T forum to lose those owners. So all in all a win-win for the R/T not to change its policies regarding fixed weeks if it's determined that not changing is in the best interests for board management, and for the owner who would have a better situation to rent the fixed week as-is.

I have not done a lot with RCI but from what I have researched, since they can not be rented per their rules, if they find out it’s in violation they will cancel it out from under the renter. The owner won’t have a say.

So, the consequences would be big. Now, it comes down to how much additional behind the scenes work the boards want to ask mods to do to allow it.
Are people going to want to give up their real names and info because that is the only way to verify it. Screenshots don’t work IMO.

But this certain product does add something new for those deciding to consider.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I find the fixed week discussion fascinating, and thinking through it out loud a bit:

I don't quite understand why there isn't a solution to fixed weeks. It's a deeded/contracted DVC ownership model. Isn't the RCI concern similar to other rules, where people are told "don't do X" if you "do X" you will be removed? I'm confused why there is extreme rule-making in this case, and implicit trust elsewhere in the rental options/process? If you tell people that cannot rent RCI reservation, that consequences will be severe when discovered, then the onus is on the renter to adhere to the risk management controls set forth in the rules. Just like if a person "rents points" they don't actually own, (the R/T board doesn't verify point ownership as part of its risk management controls), liability rests with the person committing the subversive act against the terms of use for the R/T board.

A good point as just renting in itself comes with a rule - don't cancel a reservation that's been bought and paid for by someone. It doesn't mean that it can't happen or can't be done. A rule of no renting RCI exchanges doesn't seem very dissimilar and in all cases the renters do need to do their due diligence. The boards cannot promise anything about a rental and are nice just providing a section that allows owners and renters to get in contact.

 

[DougEMG]

It is extremely unlikely that a R/T Board category/plan will be made for fixed week owners, or that fixed week rentals will be allowed on the R/T Board, at least at this time. Fixed week owners have the ability to receive points and rent them if they can not use their week. DVC Mods are quite busy as it is. Remember we are all volunteers, doing this in our spare time. Let me share with you the general steps involved in approving each Rent/Trade thread that is submitted into the approval queue.

1) If a poster has not purchased a plan, we have to manually count their posts on the boards for the last 6 months, seeing if there are at least 8 threads in at least 4 of those months, with an overall total of 50. If not, the thread is declined and a notification sent. If the thread passes, then on to the next step. 2) It is then reviewed to make sure the title and content comply with the board rules. If not, it is declined and a notification sent detailing why it was declined. 3) We then have to add the approved thread to a master alphabetized list for the year, that includes the user name, date, link to thread, post type (ie, Points for Rent #1) whether or not they have a paid plan, what kind of plan, and the expirations date of the plan...again all a manual process. The entry looks something like this:

MickeyMouse 04/18/21 Thread Link inserted here PR#1 No PLAN 03/21/2022

Note that if it is the poster's 2nd, 3rd, and so forth R/T thread, the entry is then copied one more time into a page listing 2nd, 3rd and so forth entries.

4)Copy this entry into a list of threads for the month in which it is posted. 5) Thread is approved and made visible to everyone. 6) A notification PM is sent to the poster and the DVC Mod team informing them the thread has been approved, and reminding the poster to follow all board rules or the thread will be removed and still counted against the total number of threads their plan allows for the year.

This is all done manually. As you can see, it can be time consuming.

Lather, rinse and repeat for each submission. Allowing for fixed weeks and verifying the poster is indeed a fixed weeks owner would add several additional steps to verify the owner has a fixed week. It would mean getting the posters real name, which mods currently have no access to, going to a county comptroller website, entering the info, finding the contract, reading the sales agreement,

And what if the county doesn't allow access to the documents? As far as I can tell, not all counties let you read the actual document, as they do in Florida.

Add to that, we DVC R/T Mods also have mod duties on the general DVC Boards, but we do also have a wonderful mod specifically for the general DVC Boards, @Sandisw, that does not have R/T mod duties.

Just want to say that I appreciate all the work the mods do here.

 

[zavandor]

A question about renting an existing reservation.
In the last few years I've discovered I like split stays the most, so it's like multiple vacations in one and I can book different resorts that are near different parks.
I hope it'll never happen, but if I need to cancel my trip, would I be able to rent something like: "one split stay, starting at BLT for 4 nights, then BWV for 4 nights and AKV for 4 nights" or would they be considered 3 reservations to rent?

 

[CarolMN]

A question about renting an existing reservation.
In the last few years I've discovered I like split stays the most, so it's like multiple vacations in one and I can book different resorts that are near different parks.
I hope it'll never happen, but if I need to cancel my trip, would I be able to rent something like: "one split stay, starting at BLT for 4 nights, then BWV for 4 nights and AKV for 4 nights" or would they be considered 3 reservations to rent?

It would be considered three separate reservations, each requiring its own thread.