Member Services Breaking 11 Month Rule!

[CarolMN]

If you book a room at 11 months, the room can’t be taken out for booking by anyone but Disney.

Now, if Disney has decided to start the lock off on a certain day, that may be what Dean was referring to?

I interpreted Dean's post to mean that DVC may have decided that a certain number of the value lock off units could only be reserved as two bedrooms, and that would begin effective xx/xx/xx. Unfortunately, that effective date stopped someone's walk.

This is the only explanation that I can think of (other than a system glitch or rooms removed for maintenance or MS "cheating") that could explain what's going on.

 

[sethschroeder]

I interpreted Dean's post to mean that DVC may have decided that a certain number of the value lock off units could only be reserved as two bedrooms, and that would begin effective xx/xx/xx. Unfortunately, that effective date stopped someone's walk.

This is the only explanation that I can think of (other than a system glitch or rooms removed for maintenance or MS "cheating") that could explain what's going on.

I just don't see where this is allowed to change a lockoff basically in to a dedicated 2BR or removing a 2br from the inventory.

 

[sethschroeder]

Yes, both are possible but it was Disney deciding how many for the period that I was specifically referring to.
Yes, it says they have complete control over the reservation procedures plus they've done so in the past. And there's nothing that says they can't.

I can't imagine every imaginable thing needs to be written to exclude it. It seems like being able to change room quantities would need to be written in not the other way around.

Otherwise what's to stop them from removing all lockoffs from inventory hence forth and collecting all the extra rooms unable to be used to rent for cash.

IDK seems like crossing a line I just don't know all the legal docs that apply to membership.

 

[Sandisw]

I interpreted Dean's post to mean that DVC may have decided that a certain number of the value lock off units could only be reserved as two bedrooms, and that would begin effective xx/xx/xx. Unfortunately, that effective date stopped someone's walk.

This is the only explanation that I can think of (other than a system glitch or rooms removed for maintenance or MS "cheating") that could explain what's going on.

Thanks! That is what is was thinking too. It really is a mystery and I don’t think there is much that guides it specifically in terms of the way they decide to classify.

 

[Sandisw]

I can't imagine every imaginable thing needs to be written to exclude it. It seems like being able to change room quantities would need to be written in not the other way around.

Otherwise what's to stop them from removing all lockoffs from inventory hence forth and collecting all the extra rooms unable to be used to rent for cash.

IDK seems like crossing a line I just don't know all the legal docs that apply to membership.

I believe things are declared as 2 bedroom lock off units so I would say that allows them to split or not. Only dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms are specifically mentioned.

I mean it benefits them to keep as many split as possible given the lock off premium but I don’t think they have to keep a certain number. It may be why we have heard reports in the past year or so of MS allowing people to drop part of a 2 bedroom and keep the other part.

That was never allowed years ago and it’s still not a consistent policy

 

[CarolMN]

I just don't see where this is allowed to change a lockoff basically in to a dedicated 2BR or removing a 2br from the inventory.

AFAIK, it's not EXPRESSLY allowed. However, DVC is charged to look after the membership as a whole, and it could be argued that reserving a certain number of lock off villas to be booked as a 2 bedroom is in the best interest of the membership, especially if there are no dedicated villas.

I know that at the BWV, dedicated studios and dedicated 1 bedrooms are assigned before any of the lock off units are separated into studios and 1 bedrooms. Since there are so few value units, perhaps DVC decided that reserving a few for 2 bedroom bookings at 11 months was the right thing to do. I'm quite sure if no one books them as a 2 bedroom, at some point, they would be separated in inventory.

 

[sethschroeder]

I believe things are declared as 2 bedroom lock off units so I would say that allows them to split or not. Only dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms are specifically mentioned.

I mean it benefits them to keep as many split as possible given the lock off premium but I don’t think they have to keep a certain number. It may be why we have heard reports in the past year or so of MS allowing people to drop part of a 2 bedroom and keep the other part.

That was never allowed years ago and it’s still not a consistent policy

Ya I was more so thinking the opposite. Disney excludes the lockoffs from being booked as a 2br and exclusively as a studio and 1br.

AFAIK, it's not EXPRESSLY allowed. However, DVC is charged to look after the membership as a whole, and it could be argued that reserving a certain number of lock off villas to be booked as a 2 bedroom is in the best interest of the membership, especially if there are no dedicated villas.

I know that at the BWV, dedicated studios and dedicated 1 bedrooms are assigned before any of the lock off units are separated into studios and 1 bedrooms. Since there are so few value units, perhaps DVC decided that reserving a few for 2 bedroom bookings at 11 months was the right thing to do. I'm quite sure if no one books them as a 2 bedroom, at some point, they would be separated in inventory.

I know Disney's system is fairly simplistic but it would seem the system automatically would grab a 2br lockoff and split it if all the studios are booked and someone is trying to book one.

Could be wrong though I have zero clue.

I just find these theory holes interesting hahaha.

 

[Sandisw]

Ya I was more so thinking the opposite. Disney excludes the lockoffs from being booked as a 2br and exclusively as a studio and 1br.



I know Disney's system is fairly simplistic but it would seem the system automatically would grab a 2br lockoff and split it if all the studios are booked and someone is trying to book one.

Could be wrong though I have zero clue.

I just find these theory holes interesting hahaha.

I do know that I have never seen a 2 bedroom lock off available when a studio was not..at least at BWV when searching.

So, I assume those show up as bookable when search and if someone grabs a piece of it, then the next search it would be gone.

But, as mentioned, I don’t think there is anything to prevent them to set it up differently.

 

[zavandor]

AFAIK, it's not EXPRESSLY allowed. However, DVC is charged to look after the membership as a whole, and it could be argued that reserving a certain number of lock off villas to be booked as a 2 bedroom is in the best interest of the membership, especially if there are no dedicated villas.

I know that at the BWV, dedicated studios and dedicated 1 bedrooms are assigned before any of the lock off units are separated into studios and 1 bedrooms. Since there are so few value units, perhaps DVC decided that reserving a few for 2 bedroom bookings at 11 months was the right thing to do. I'm quite sure if no one books them as a 2 bedroom, at some point, they would be separated in inventory.

But that would violate the first come first serve nature of DVC. If a room is declared as a lockoff and a member wants to books it as a studio and arrives before a member willing to book it as a 2BR, he should be allowed to.

 

[zavandor]

Thank you for the information. I'm not sure the CMs at MS would even know what this means. It's so frustrating that most of them don't even understand how the product works. Nothing I could say could convince the one that it's impossible that someone who booked days earlier would move into my room halfway through their trip. All I kept getting was "It's entirely possible."

Send an email, better chances that, since it's trackable, it'll be handled accordingly. This is a question for the regulatory affaires office.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I bet they decided to limit the number of studios vs 2 BR for this time thus making more studios available earlier and less later.

Since the advent of online booking I have never ever seen evidence of them setting aside 2BR's lockoffs. If the studios are gone so are the 2BR's.

 

[Dean]

I just don't see where this is allowed to change a lockoff basically in to a dedicated 2BR or removing a 2br from the inventory.

The 100% control of the reservation process without input would specifically allow this but the way a POS works is something has to be allowed within the general wording and not specifically excluded just like state and federal laws work.

I can't imagine every imaginable thing needs to be written to exclude it. It seems like being able to change room quantities would need to be written in not the other way around.

Otherwise what's to stop them from removing all lockoffs from inventory hence forth and collecting all the extra rooms unable to be used to rent for cash.

IDK seems like crossing a line I just don't know all the legal docs that apply to membership.

I do know that I have never seen a 2 bedroom lock off available when a studio was not..at least at BWV when searching.

So, I assume those show up as bookable when search and if someone grabs a piece of it, then the next search it would be gone.

But, as mentioned, I don’t think there is anything to prevent them to set it up differently.

As I stated previously, they did used to do this routinely. I think it changed with online bookings. But by the nature of what they're taken to do they would need to do so if things were obviously too far out of balance with orphaned 1 BR's.

But that would violate the first come first serve nature of DVC. If a room is declared as a lockoff and a member wants to books it as a studio and arrives before a member willing to book it as a 2BR, he should be allowed to.

I'm not sure that's so, the first come component is probably more in our minds than DVCMC's. Plus they are specifically tasked with reallocation when needed under the POS and this is effectively the same thing.

 

[zavandor]

The 100% control of the reservation process without input would specifically allow this but the way a POS works is something has to be allowed within the general wording and not specifically excluded just like state and federal laws work.

As I stated previously, they did used to do this routinely. I think it changed with online bookings. But by the nature of what they're taken to do they would need to do so if things were obviously too far out of balance with orphaned 1 BR's.
I'm not sure that's so, the first come component is probably more in our minds than DVCMS's. Plus they are specifically tasked with reallocation when needed under the POS and this is effectively the same thing.

I do not remember the POS allowing to reallocate between lockoff and not lockoff, if that is what you mean.

 

[Dean]

I do not remember the POS allowing to reallocate between lockoff and not lockoff, if that is what you mean.

What it does it give DVCMC 100% control of the reservation system without input. This allows them to limit how the reservations are available. As I noted, they have done this in the past though they stopped doing so around the time of online reservations likely because of the IT requirements to designate the units differently. So it would absolutely give them the right to designate some lockoff's to only be reserved as 2 BR, whether that's in play here, who knows. It seems clear that either they have blocked them for some reason or the 2 BR reservations took over at least one room locking the OP out of that next day.

 

[DaveNan]

It is either an IT glitch, rooms taken out of service for Scheduled maintenance, or rooms taken for non dvc purposes ahead of the 11 month window, which many of us feel violates the POS because Disney is not honoring the 11 month booking rule. The frustrating this is MS will not acknowledge one of these things is going on and claims “someone else booked the room within the rules first” when it is not possible by the rules themselves.

 

[Dean]

It is either an IT glitch, rooms taken out of service for Scheduled maintenance, or rooms taken for non dvc purposes ahead of the 11 month window, which many of us feel violates the POS because Disney is not honoring the 11 month booking rule. The frustrating this is MS will not acknowledge one of these things is going on and claims “someone else booked the room within the rules first” when it is not possible by the rules themselves.

In this case the 2 BR vs studio booking are also a possibility. I'm not sure I agree that it's not honoring the 11 month booking rule, it may be that it's not honoring the ability to walk the reservations. It's also possible, and within their right as I read it, to hold reservations if they want past the 11 month window in some cases. What's not within the prevue of the POS is to block them for non DVC reservations like a VIP but they've done this as well in some cases in the past.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

It is either an IT glitch, rooms taken out of service for Scheduled maintenance, or rooms taken for non dvc purposes ahead of the 11 month window, which many of us feel violates the POS because Disney is not honoring the 11 month booking rule. The frustrating this is MS will not acknowledge one of these things is going on and claims “someone else booked the room within the rules first” when it is not possible by the rules themselves.

Yep - IT glitch is by far and away the most likely IMO. It seems to happen over and over with the Values in the past 2 years or so.

 

[Sandisw]

It is either an IT glitch, rooms taken out of service for Scheduled maintenance, or rooms taken for non dvc purposes ahead of the 11 month window, which many of us feel violates the POS because Disney is not honoring the 11 month booking rule. The frustrating this is MS will not acknowledge one of these things is going on and claims “someone else booked the room within the rules first” when it is not possible by the rules themselves.

I think you have to remember that frontline CMs will not have information as to specific reasons a room is not there and my guess is the common answer is that someone else must have booked it.

Unless it is a major loss of rooms, I doubt that is info given to them from management.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think you have to remember that frontline CMs will not have information as to specific reasons a room is not there and my guess is the common answer is that someone else must have booked it.

Unless it is a major loss of rooms, I doubt that is info given to them from management.

Do you think they can even see that type of info? I think it's more a standard answer that if they can't pull it up as available then it's got to be booked and not that they actually see anything specific to reference. And I should say at a glance vs doing some more in depth investigation.

 

[Sandisw]

Do you think they can even see that type of info? I think it's more a standard answer that if they can't pull it up as available then it's got to be booked and not that they actually see anything specific to reference. And I should say at a glance vs doing some more in depth investigation.

Things like last year when AKV value were taken out because of the hotel renovations may be shared with them, but other than that, I don’t thinK they know anything.