New rule enforcement on points

[Steamboat Bill]

If you have been a member for six years the ONE Transfer per year rule, recently outlined by DVC, was the exact rule when you purchased. It is not in the fine print, but is clearly stated in your POS. The wording was apparently changed 3 years ago and has now been changed back to the original statement. The current policy has now been in place for 12 of the 15 years DVC has been in existence. It is interesting how the "flexibility" was not an issue when you originally purchased, but is so important at this time?

Well...I guess I have found a solution. I will probably sell one of my 250 point SSR contracts and then rent points if I am ever short. I know people do not feel sorry for other DVC members with TOO many points as I started with 1,000 (500 VWL and 500 SSR) and am down to 500 SSR and will reduce it to 250 SSR only...but then I will probably add on when CRV or a new resort is announced.

This issue is important to ALL of us as it discriminates against current DVC owners from renting points (via a transfer) and favors non-DVC owners to rent points.

Let's not repost any more rules about not accepting payment for points. Give me a break....if I paid for them, I am not gonna just give them away for free....I will now rent them for whatever the market will bear.

 

[chainkid]

I have been a member since 1999 with 502 pts at BWV and 102points at HH. as a rule I bank and borrow my points for a trip every three years in which I invite family and friends free to share a couple of grand villas for a week. I made several other trips in which I rent points as needed. I have no desire to buy more points as I don't want to be saddled with the dues. It;s call managing my money. However I found that after buying my HH points I hate it there and will never go so I usually transfer those points to a DVC member who wants to go there in exchange for either BWV points or cash. I could sell this contract and buy a BWV add on but that would be a foolish waste of my money. Sometimes we would make reservations for each other and we had the ability to check on those with member services but as I understand the new rules you can't check on these reservations now. This is too much blind faith for me.

I use to like the flexibility of my DVC and I don't feel I ever abused it. In fact I am the disney commercial for treating people to a wonderful memory that they would otherwise not be able to afford. If they allowed a transfer in and a transfer out in one calendar year per separate contract then this would be a much fairer application. I don't ask for approval from members of this board, and the live within your means comments while insulting is one of the reasons I stopped posting a year ago. Everyone's situation is different. I only need a very small contract for my immediate needs but I keep the extra point ONLY for my family to enjoy too. When they stop making it possible for me to bring the people I love then I will sell. I'll see how it works out in 2007 when I'm planning my next big trip...it could be my last I guess. I'll be the one NOT upset when they limit you to your own resort because I love BWV and don't care to stay anywhere else. I hope someone will then post you should only have bought where you intended to stay...it can happen its in the contract. LOL

 

[OneMoreTry]

Sad but true. I wish DVC would enforce ALL the rules (including occupancy) and do so consistently without regard to sob stories, number of points owned, etc. The only exceptions should be system wide issues like a hurricane that has direct effect on the resort and as such it's in the resort's best interest to cut people lose as well.

Strict enforcement would be great and I have no problem with DVC going by the book. It's the book after all and isn't that what you go by?

But is it better to completely eliminate all abuse or to have some room for compassion when dealing with members? Ie. Isn't the difference between a real hardship and a sob story just the difference between an honest person and a liar?

Because discernment will never be completely accurate, you can't allow the compassion AND eliminate all abuse. So:
If there are too many abusing the system, then martial law is needed to protect all and is the lesser of two evils. But otherwise I have no problem with having a little leeway built in. I'm a compulsive point-manager -- booking and banking on the first day of the window, and keeping my eye on the 30 days -- and I've never transferred. I just hope that if I'm in a bind due to illness or other hardship, DVC will be able to bend a little to accomodate me.

 

[CarolMN]

....(snip)....... I'll be the one NOT upset when they limit you to your own resort because I love BWV and don't care to stay anywhere else.........

If that ever happens, there will be two of us, LOL. I feel the same way.

FWIW, if I were Queen of DVC, I would allow unlimited transfers as long as the use year and home resort matched. In fact, that would be the only kind of point transfers allowed (matching home resort and use year).

I'm sure there are multitudes of people out there who are very glad I am not the Queen!


Best wishes -

 

[Deb & Bill]

If that ever happens, there will be two of us, LOL. I feel the same way.

FWIW, if I were Queen of DVC, I would allow unlimited transfers as long as the use year and home resort matched. In fact, that would be the only kind of point transfers allowed (matching home resort and use year).

I'm sure there are multitudes of people out there who are very glad I am not the Queen!


Best wishes -

All Hail, Queen Carol of MN. Queen of DVC.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

If that ever happens, there will be two of us, LOL. I feel the same way.

FWIW, if I were Queen of DVC, I would allow unlimited transfers as long as the use year and home resort matched. In fact, that would be the only kind of point transfers allowed (matching home resort and use year).

I'm sure there are multitudes of people out there who are very glad I am not the Queen!


Best wishes -

No... I wish you were the Queen. I agree completely...

MG

 

[dianeschlicht]

If that ever happens, there will be two of us, LOL. I feel the same way.

FWIW, if I were Queen of DVC, I would allow unlimited transfers as long as the use year and home resort matched. In fact, that would be the only kind of point transfers allowed (matching home resort and use year).

I'm sure there are multitudes of people out there who are very glad I am not the Queen!


Best wishes -

I totally agree! I would have NO PROBLEM staying in my home resort only, since that is mostly what I do anyway. As for the transfers, if it's limited to same home resort and use year I see no problem, but I think maybe an owner who owns two different resorts might disagree with that.

By the way, you ARE queen of DVC here on the Tundra!

 

[Jacky]

My guide told me that we could rent or transfer our points for $$$ should we not be able to use them. It was a sellling point that he used.

We bought in October 2004.

Jacky

 

[Steamboat Bill]

Finally....and intellegent post to my OP....

I have been a member since 1999 with 502 pts at BWV and 102points at HH. as a rule I bank and borrow my points for a trip every three years in which I invite family and friends free to share a couple of grand villas for a week. I made several other trips in which I rent points as needed. I have no desire to buy more points as I don't want to be saddled with the dues. It;s call managing my money. However I found that after buying my HH points I hate it there and will never go so I usually transfer those points to a DVC member who wants to go there in exchange for either BWV points or cash. I could sell this contract and buy a BWV add on but that would be a foolish waste of my money. Sometimes we would make reservations for each other and we had the ability to check on those with member services but as I understand the new rules you can't check on these reservations now. This is too much blind faith for me.


I use to like the flexibility of my DVC and I don't feel I ever abused it. In fact I am the disney commercial for treating people to a wonderful memory that they would otherwise not be able to afford. If they allowed a transfer in and a transfer out in one calendar year per separate contract then this would be a much fairer application. I don't ask for approval from members of this board, and the live within your means comments while insulting is one of the reasons I stopped posting a year ago. Everyone's situation is different. I only need a very small contract for my immediate needs but I keep the extra point ONLY for my family to enjoy too. When they stop making it possible for me to bring the people I love then I will sell. I'll see how it works out in 2007 when I'm planning my next big trip...it could be my last I guess. I'll be the one NOT upset when they limit you to your own resort because I love BWV and don't care to stay anywhere else. I hope someone will then post you should only have bought where you intended to stay...it can happen its in the contract. LOL

 

[keishashadow]

Strict enforcement would be great and I have no problem with DVC going by the book. It's the book after all and isn't that what you go by?

But is it better to completely eliminate all abuse or to have some room for compassion when dealing with members? Ie. Isn't the difference between a real hardship and a sob story just the difference between an honest person and a liar?

Because discernment will never be completely accurate, you can't allow the compassion AND eliminate all abuse. So:
If there are too many abusing the system, then martial law is needed to protect all and is the lesser of two evils.

But otherwise I have no problem with having a little leeway built in. I'm a compulsive point-manager -- booking and banking on the first day of the window, and keeping my eye on the 30 days -- and I've never transferred. I just hope that if I'm in a bind due to illness or other hardship, DVC will be able to bend a little to accomodate me.

hmmm...so it's okay to break the rules (occasionally, as long as your heart is pure

and you're not a liar & don't abuse the systems). First you'd have to define abuse, which could be any & all of the following:

*many hapless members, who purchased in last few years, who discovered the ability to transfer points and structured their membership around it, assuming it wouldn't become a limited usage?

*Is it the member who deliberately morphs SSR points to BCV?

*How about the one who scarfs up several reservations over holidays w/the intent to sell @ a profit?

*Or, variation of above, holding concurrent ressies @ different resorts until 1st choice @ 7 month window comes through.

These can get members' blood boiling but, no consistent enforcement is in evidence...along w/policies on refillable mugs, phantom children on DP & unauthorized pool hopping.

Mickey Mouse & martial law (distrubing image) ...what would walt do? Who should judge:

*Member Services

*Dis Board Members

Seems to me flawed thinking to advocate compassion only to the "good" mousketers. Why make this a morality issue? DVC just needs to state the rules (& deliver copy of same to all members) & enforce them equally, across the board.

 

[mello]

If that ever happens, there will be two of us, LOL. I feel the same way.

FWIW, if I were Queen of DVC, I would allow unlimited transfers as long as the use year and home resort matched. In fact, that would be the only kind of point transfers allowed (matching home resort and use year).

I'm sure there are multitudes of people out there who are very glad I am not the Queen!


Best wishes -

I'm happy to stay anywhere at all at Disney, but especially at the two places we own!

I think your Queenly Policy sounds fair enough. If I were the Queen I'd allow a moderate amount of transfers, say 4 in and 4 out (that should allow for decisions made quarterly or at banking deadlines), but there would be NO morphing of either resort or use year. I would also allow one transfer of banked points per year, under 10 points only, just so that people could donate their leftover 2 points here and there (waste bothers me lol). If I were trying to regulate the big profiteers, I'd put a limit on either A: How many points anyone can transfer in or have in their account, relative to how many they own, or 2. The number of reservations that anyone can hold at one time. Or both.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I'm happy to stay anywhere at all at Disney, but especially at the two places we own!

I think your Queenly Policy sounds fair enough. If I were the Queen I'd allow a moderate amount of transfers, say 4 in and 4 out (that should allow for decisions made quarterly or at banking deadlines), but there would be NO morphing of either resort or use year. I would also allow one transfer of banked points per year, under 10 points only, just so that people could donate their leftover 2 points here and there (waste bothers me lol). If I were trying to regulate the big profiteers, I'd put a limit on either A: How many points anyone can transfer in or have in their account, relative to how many they own, or 2. The number of reservations that anyone can hold at one time. Or both.

Whoa, you are pretty generous with your transfer policy. That's way too many for the Queen and I. I think transfers should only be for exact same resort and use year and only one in or out a year. No banked points, no borrowed points.

 

[OneMoreTry]

hmmm...so it's okay to break the rules (occasionally, as long as your heart is pure

and you're not a liar & don't abuse the systems). First you'd have to define abuse.....
[examples snipped]
.....

These can get members' blood boiling but, no consistent enforcement is in evidence...along w/policies on refillable mugs, phantom children on DP & unauthorized pool hopping.

.......
Seems to me flawed thinking to advocate compassion only to the "good" mousketers. Why make this a morality issue? DVC just needs to state the rules (& deliver copy of same to all members) & enforce them equally, across the board

Do you think sending out a copy of the rules is going to make a difference now when it didn't before?

This is definitely an ethical issue, even if we don't all agree on where the line is. Anyone who uses or implies the word "should" is making it one, and I'm not the first. BTW, if there is no right or wrong why would we need "enforcement???"

Second, I completely agree the line should be drawn where the written agreement and rules say it should be. That's where we all AGREED the line SHOULD be. DVC SHOULDN'T change it on you, me or anyone.

My whole point was that, in a system where the rules are being properly enforced, I think an allowance should be permissible for a situation where a death or other tragedy causes cancellation of a reservation just prior to a use year. Not that the allowance should always be made. But that the CM at MS should have the ability with approval of a suitable authority to allow banking in rare cases. (A bad mousketeer would be one who lies about grandpa dying to abuse this.)

(FWIW, my definition of a BAD mousketeer for practical purposes would have to be one who LIES or DECEIVES to sidestep enforcemtn of the written rules. )

On a personal note, I am shocked that some members would make dozens of transfers knowing they are not officially permissible. But that's neither here nor there in the real world. Maybe I'm too idealistic. so be it. That's why I'm a DVC member.


PS

Mickey Mouse & martial law (distrubing image) ...what would walt do? Who should judge:

WDW is incredibly totalitarian. You and I would never want to live in a society so restrictive. I submit myself only for the temporary illusion that people and the world are better than they seem on the outside.

 

[Doctor P]

Second, I completely agree the line should be drawn where the written agreement and rules say it should be. That's where we all AGREED the line SHOULD be. DVC SHOULDN'T change it on you, me or anyone.

What many people forget is that the original CHANGE was to allow more than one transfer per year. The original language (or at least the earlier language) was one transfer per year.

 

[keishashadow]

As for sending out a copy of the rules--couldn't hurt, cannot be a matter of postage/materials (they send out lots of goofy marketing mailings

). Everything I know about DVC I learned from the sage experts here, including the ability to transfer points into my member account.

Perhaps because we initially bought resale, then added on thru DVC but, other than the closing papers, never got anything other than the large Vacation Planner.

I've asked MS a couple of times for a copy, but it must have gotten lost in the mail

.

Any other members short one too?

 

[OneMoreTry]

As for sending out a copy of the rules--couldn't hurt, cannot be a matter of postage/materials (they send out lots of goofy marketing mailings

). Everything I know about DVC I learned from the sage experts here, including the ability to transfer points into my member account.

Perhaps because we initially bought resale, then added on thru DVC but, other than the closing papers, never got anything other than the large Vacation Planner.

I've asked MS a couple of times for a copy, but it must have gotten lost in the mail

.

Any other members short one too?

I have to admit that I don't have a copy either -- I bought resale, too. After thinking about it this morning, I agree it would help to send out copies of the rules -- for the sake of the majority of owners who are NOT out to abuse the system, which I think/hope would include everyone here.

I think the abusers would just use the copy to look for more loopholes. ::evildvcabusers::

Doctor P, I guess I'm not exactly clear on when and what the change was, although I've read about it a lot in this thread. If I bought with the written understanding i could transfer, and then was not allowed, I would be upset.

 

[Deb & Bill]

We made five purchases. Every purchase save the one resale that we purchased provided a copy of the Public Offering Statement along with the closing materials. So I have four POS. Every purchase from Disney should have provided these in your box of materials. When you purchase a resale, the owner should provide these materials to you through the reselling company.

 

[Doctor P]

I have to admit that I don't have a copy either -- I bought resale, too. After thinking about it this morning, I agree it would help to send out copies of the rules -- for the sake of the majority of owners who are NOT out to abuse the system, which I think/hope would include everyone here.

I think the abusers would just use the copy to look for more loopholes. ::evildvcabusers::

Doctor P, I guess I'm not exactly clear on when and what the change was, although I've read about it a lot in this thread. If I bought with the written understanding i could transfer, and then was not allowed, I would be upset.

First of all, I find it shocking that ANYONE would buy real estate in a condominium association/timeshare without seeing a copy of the covenants and rules/regulations (though you are certainly not the only person who has done so). IMHO, that is not very responsible (though a lot of people apparently have done so) or prudent. Second of all, if one does not know when or what the change was, then I would gently suggest that that disqualifies one from commenting on any change that might or might not have occurred. BTW, there has not been any POS that explicitly states that one can make more than one transfer in one direction in a year (that has only been inferred by a few people who saw a lot in a minor language change and apparently play lawyers on television ) and there has apparently been no POS that has ever allowed transfers in two directions in one year.

 

[Dean]

Doctor P, I guess I'm not exactly clear on when and what the change was, although I've read about it a lot in this thread. If I bought with the written understanding i could transfer, and then was not allowed, I would be upset.

It changed late 2002 or early 2003 and changed back this summer.

 

[Dean]

My whole point was that, in a system where the rules are being properly enforced, I think an allowance should be permissible for a situation where a death or other tragedy causes cancellation of a reservation just prior to a use year. Not that the allowance should always be made. But that the CM at MS should have the ability with approval of a suitable authority to allow banking in rare cases.

I would disagree. Anytime you give flexibility, you create chaos. The appropriate supervisor can always override where appropriate regardless. Personally I don't see where anyone's personal situation should enter in to enforcement of a system with over 100K members. Call me cold if you want but anytime you introduce this type of "flexibility", you create the potential for chaos.