Newest MS change and future of dvc Resales

[greenban]

Not entirely, since even one large transfer of points to the commercial renter's account will still result in the same thing by "laundering" the VB points into BCV points. They will just stop accepting small numbers of points in favor of 200+.

What has been changed is the ability to have multiple transfers of a small number of points into one account. Some have been constantly requesting "Transfer Wanted" and then accepting transfers of 8, 12, 20 and 200 points from multiple resorts and multiple owners. That practice is now effectively halted- except for the member who only needs 8, 12, 20 or 200 points since they will still be able to accept that number of points once per Use Year.

True, but the commercial renters are probably looking for 1,000 + point transfers, not just 200 points!

Also, the 'pattern of renting' comment, should hopefully catch those who get by with a 1K transfer each year.

This appears (to me atleast) to be a very serious attempt on Disney's part to stop the commercial renter. I think the recreational renter will be safe, as long as they avoid any transfers.

Again, the question, I'm not sure about, is why now?

We have seen many great suggestions, (Rental gone bad, no 7 month availability, MONSTER 1,600 unit condo style DVC at EP, % of rentals too high, etc.), but will we ever know the reason?

-Tony

I think it might be related to the pool temp issue. All these pool hopping renters!

 

[Cricket2]

This may be a dumb question, but wouldn't preventing name changes on existing reservations be a more effective way of preventing commercial renting?

 

[greenban]

This may be a dumb question, but wouldn't preventing name changes on existing reservations be a more effective way of preventing commercial renting?

First: WebMasters, NEVER ask dumb questions.

Next: If I was booking say three studios for my In-Laws and a 2 Bedroom Villa for my family (heheheheh), I really don't know all the inlaws, and kids full names, and some of them have bizzare spellings as well. So I would like to be able to book em all in my name and when DW is available call and change the others. Or which of 6 brothers and sisters comming, all 14 nephews and nieces, which grandparent.

Short answer, flexibility. What if someone flies over a bike's handlebars and can't come, are we no longer allowed to replace?

But yes, DWMC, no name changes would help prevent speculation renting(4 2 Bedrooms at VWL for Christmas), but not regular renting, some owners might just require full names and addresses before booking.


-Tony

 

[RobDoc]

Slightly tangential question.

Will Disney, or has Disney contacted various sites that promote renting?

Will R/T subs become a thing of the past?

We can all point and state that such and such is an abuser, an eBay renter a commercial renter, but without easy access to points and rental requests, this degree of renting would never have become so common, IMHO.

So are R/T boards safe?
...

To my knowledge, the DIS has not been contacted by Disney regarding our Rent/Trade Board. Until and unless DVC alters the POS to remove the ability to rent (please note that even the email sent yesterday still included verification that renting is allowed by including the word "lessees") I'm sure that this site will continue to provide a medium for owners to rent accommodations to others.

The original intent of our site was to allow members who had a few extra points in their account to have a place to offer those to others and for those who found themselves unable to use a reservation an means to offer that to someone else- usually ion short notice. For the first few years, that was exactly how our R/T Board was used. As it evolved, some naturally pushed that envelope and discovered and utilized the "loopholes" in the DVC system that we have ben discussing in this (and other) threads this week.

As a result of that evolution, we instituted some measures to try to limit the use of our R/T Board as it was originally intended. We placed a limit of two existing reservations per calendar year - so those who had last minute changes in travel plans would not likely be affected. We only allow existing reservations to be offered within 6 months of arrival since prior to that time the reservation could be cancelled and the points fully restored to the account without any penalty. (We had many who would post multiple existing Studio reservations at VWL for the first week in Dec which they "were unable to use" as of the second week in January.

We had many, many, many, many (many) complaints about these practices and also had posters creating havoc by commenting in the R/T threads themselves- contrary to our site guidelines regarding personal attacks.

As a result we implemented a number of changes and may consider others in the future.

At this time, I don't foresee any need to remove the Rent/Trade Board from the DIS. It functions well within DVC guidelines and policies.

Stay tuned!

 

[greenban]

To my knowledge, the DIS has not been contacted by Disney regarding our Rent/Trade Board. Until and unless DVC alters the POS to remove the ability to rent (please note that even the email sent yesterday still included verification that renting is allowed by including the word "lessees") I'm sure that this site will continue to provide a medium for owners to rent accommodations to others.

The original intent of our site was to allow members who had a few extra points in their account to have a place to offer those to others and for those who found themselves unable to use a reservation an means to offer that to someone else- usually ion short notice. For the first few years, that was exactly how our R/T Board was used. As it evolved, some naturally pushed that envelope and discovered and utilized the "loopholes" in the DVC system that we have ben discussing in this (and other) threads this week.

As a result of that evolution, we instituted some measures to try to limit the use of our R/T Board as it was originally intended. We placed a limit of two existing reservations per calendar year - so those who had last minute changes in travel plans would not likely be affected. We only allow existing reservations to be offered within 6 months of arrival since prior to that time the reservation could be cancelled and the points fully restored to the account without any penalty. (We had many who would post multiple existing Studio reservations at VWL for the first week in Dec which they "were unable to use" as of the second week in January.

We had many, many, many, many (many) complaints about these practices and also had posters creating havoc by commenting in the R/T threads themselves- contrary to our site guidelines regarding personal attacks.

As a result we implemented a number of changes and may consider others in the future.

At this time, I don't foresee any need to remove the Rent/Trade Board from the DIS. It functions well within DVC guidelines and policies.

Stay tuned!

DOC:

I hope my thread did not come across as a complaint against the DIS. You guys taught me about the DVC, about resale, and yes about a couple of loopholes. But the clear goal of the DIS and R/T is clearly a love of Disney.

So my questions were merely meant as questions, not accusations or aspersions!

-Tony

 

[LIFERBABE]

This may be a dumb question, but wouldn't preventing name changes on existing reservations be a more effective way of preventing commercial renting?

But that would hurt all of us tremendously. I have no issues with the recent enforcements, but I would take issue with not being able to change a name on a ressie. That would take flexibility to zero! Who would purchase DVC then? I surely would not.

How many times has family flaked out and changes had to be made? These are our homes and we should be able to use them as such.

Doc, I also agree that the recent enforcement has nothing to do with SSR and 7 months. DVC cant control the availability of the smaller resorts to ensure anyone gets anything at 7 months. This will improve things for the smaller resort owners to at least have a fighting chance to book their home resort during the 11 month window.

The transferring allows more points to be used at the resort than were originally sold. It is illegal for DVC to oversell a resort.

When I first purchased DVC, all that was available was BCV. I was told the same thing by my guide. Buy BCV and I could still stay at BWV. This is true of all DVC resort membership. Why is it bad because SSR members were told the same thing that others that purchased were told?

 

[JimMIA]

What if someone flies over a bike's handlebars and can't come, are we no longer allowed to replace?

Hey! Watch out now!

Actually, I didn't know I was invited, but I CAN make it! Is that for Christmas at VWL or F&W at BCV?

 

[Cricket2]

But that would hurt all of us tremendously. I have no issues with the recent enforcements, but I would take issue with not being able to change a name on a ressie. That would take flexibility to zero! Who would purchase DVC then? I surely would not.

Well, I guess I'm the odd one out then. I have never not known who was going with me up front nor would I care if someone 'flaked out". I'm not saying secondary peoples names can't be altered, but having say a "primary" name on the reservation that must be present to get the room would all but eliminate speculative leases.

On the other hand, I have had points transferred in more than one time in a use year on more than one occasion. To me that is a much more limiting factor than any name change situation would ever be because I will ALWAYS make the reservation in my name or know the name of the person going without me but on my points.

Granted, it is simply a enforcement of an existing rule, but I'm betting it will not be upheld over time.

Boo-hoo is me, I guess I need to add on

 

[Cricket2]

The transferring allows more points to be used at the resort than were originally sold. It is illegal for DVC to oversell a resort.

Maybe they could spend a few of the bucks they make off of us on getting the software fixed???

 

[Cricket2]

Hey! Watch out now!

Actually, I didn't know I was invited, but I CAN make it! Is that for Christmas at VWL or F&W at BCV?

Dude, get in line

 

[dianeschlicht]

I think the basic reason for the change is still to slow down the habitual renters, but I'm not sure WHY that matters. I do think it has a lot to do with availability for home resort folks, but I also think it has something to do with the size units and their availability. I think the majority of folks looking to rent are looking for studio rooms. That can be a big problem for members who tend to use larger units.

 

[LIFERBABE]

I think the basic reason for the change is still to slow down the habitual renters, but I'm not sure WHY that matters. I do think it has a lot to do with availability for home resort folks, but I also think it has something to do with the size units and their availability. I think the majority of folks looking to rent are looking for studio rooms. That can be a big problem for members who tend to use larger units.

I agree there also Diane. Right now 1 bdrs have more availability than any other size units. That does indicate that the connected studios and dedicated 2 bedrooms are booked and all that is left are the 1 bdrs with no place to go.

Cricket, for family reunions and weddings, etc. I do see myself making a large amount of ressies in my name and then as we straighten out who will stay where and with whom, changing the names on the units. When I purchased BCV, my guide explained this very scenario to me. A man banked, CY and Borrowed points for his daughters wedding. He booked multiple OKW studios for 2 nights and everyone that came to the wedding was able to stay on him. How many times will I need to do this, I am hoping twice (2 Ds's) but however rare, the POS does allow this.
And I agree that they should fix their system, but obviously it is not that easy or they are challenged in that department.

 

[Beca]

Again, I will state. If DVC merely wanted to control "commercial renters", they could've easily done this by one of two methods that I can think of (I'm sure there are many more):

1) Make a member who is listed on the original contract be listed on the room, and present at check-in anytime points TRANSFERRED IN are used to make a reservation.

2) If an owners transfers in any points during a UY, put into effect limits on how many times he/she can make reservations during the year where they are not listed on the ressie, and present at check-in.

Note: If NO transfers-in of points have been taken place, there should be NO limits on this. Seriously, if one person owns 5,000 points and uses them as "employee rewards" for a personal business, and is therefore sending people all the time where the owner doesn't actually attend...that's his/her business. If someone is investing $$$$$ (i.e. "Big Bucks") in DVC and now owns thousands of points, I don't think DVC ought to be "reviewing" how they, or anyone uses their YEARLY ALLOTMENT of points. But, once you start transferrring in points....then you could be under a different set of rules to abide by.

And also, the question BEGS to be asked, "Why not just fix the computer loophole?" Expensive? Probably. Something that SHOULD be in place anyway? Definitely!!!

But, devious minds like mine have already thought of a way that determined owners who rent could get around this new limitation. It would take a little more effort on their part "initially", but it IS possible, even under the new rules. I'm not going to post that info here...so don't even ask!! But, if DVC really wants to stop renting, they should put a disclaimer like the one mentioned by Crisi on the bottom of every confirmation page. They should try to control the RENTERS, not the RENTEES. A scare tactic in the form of a notice, plus the inability to call MS should do just nicely!! And, if DVC wants to be really nice to the "honest" renter, they should spell out what criteria will be used to decide whether or not a cancellation will be made, so the "honest" owner can show to the renter how he/she does not fit into the category of "pattern". But, as someone mentioned earlier. I do not believe WDW would ever actually risk cancelling someone's reservation, only to have these poor renters come to check-in and find they not only don't have a room, but the entire resort is sold out as well (except for Concierge somewhere ).

And, before I forget....I wanted to say two things to Doc:

1) THANK YOU for controlling the rent ressies (especially the ones more than 6 months out that people just "could not use"....I never thought about it, but it makes TOTAL sense),

2) It is important to remember that, for people like me who did not buy unitl 2003, this IS a change to our POS. I did not know, until this change that transfers were ever limited to one.

While I understand that limits might need to be placed, I do not think it is fair for members who get a yearly allocation of 50 points, to get the same number of transfers per year as members who bought 5,000 points.

Here's two scenarios that I know PERSONALLY where "honest" members will be affected by this:

1) Some friends of mine ran into some financial difficulties. They have 400 DVC points. My friend transferred those points to someone so that he didn't have to sell his DVC. He couldn't find one person to take all 400, so he had to do it a few times. I know transfers for money are not allowed, but seriously.....when has that ever been enforced. Had that not been open to him (he is uncomfortable managing a rental to a stranger), he (and I am sure MANY others) would no longer be members.

2) I have friends who are DVC members, and have moved to a country where there is no Disney park near them for a few years. They own a LARGE amount of points. Thus far, they have been able to transfer points to others, as they are sure they will be returning in a few years and want to keep their points, but cannot make the trip home at this time. My friends will probably be selling their points. I doubt they will ever become DVC members again in the future.

Why doesn't DVC form a "commitee" of owners to bounce stuff off of BEFORE they make these changes that negatively affect the membership? What they are supposedly trying to accomplish (controlling the commercial renting) could've been stopped in much, much less invasive ways to EVERYONE! This is why I question if "controlling renting" is what they are really setting out to do. It sounds much more to me like, "Controlling availability".

And, yet again...with CM's having just been told where the next DVC will be....I have to ask, "Why change the rules NOW?" Sheer coincidence? Maybe. But, I don't find that DVC does many changes by "sheer coincidence"...there always seems to be a "bigger plan."

JMHO,



Beca

 

[Good Ol Gal]

Next: If I was booking say three studios for my In-Laws and a 2 Bedroom Villa for my family (heheheheh), I really don't know all the inlaws, and kids full names, and some of them have bizzare spellings as well. So I would like to be able to book em all in my name and when DW is available call and change the others. Or which of 6 brothers and sisters comming, all 14 nephews and nieces, which grandparent.

-Tony

I have tried to book two rooms for our family, not sure on who for sure it going, and put my name on both rooms to "hold" it until we got all the names down. MS would NOT let me be on both rooms. They said that it is against the rules b/c I can't be in two rooms at once.

 

[kimberh]

I have tried to book two rooms for our family, not sure on who for sure it going, and put my name on both rooms to "hold" it until we got all the names down. MS would NOT let me be on both rooms. They said that it is against the rules b/c I can't be in two rooms at once.

When did this happen? I just did this last week for my family for April in the off season. We are going when Premier season ends and I had no problem what so ever. I have married children and they want their privacy. We need a break at the end of the day from each other. I made my reservations in the same call too. No misleading on my part. I have the rooms in my name until I see which of my kids are actually going. It is 2 rooms, just to be clear.

 

[Good Ol Gal]

When did this happen? I just did this last week for my family for April in the off season. We are going when Premier season ends and I had no problem what so ever. I have married children and they want their privacy. We need a break at the end of the day from each other. I made my reservations in the same call too. No misleading on my part. I have the rooms in my name until I see which of my kids are actually going. It is 2 rooms, just to be clear.

I tried in May when we were booking our OKW ressie. I already had a 2brm for our family, but we wanted to add a studio b/c we're tying to convince MIL/FIL or BIL/SIL to come along too. MS would not let me put my name on the studio. I ended up just putting MIL and BIL down and will have to switch one of the names when we figure out who's going.

 

[LisaS]

When changes are made (even if it's to enforce a rule already in place) I can't help wondering whether lawyers and bean counters are behind it. So I agree with Doc that point laundering is one of the reasons behind this. As he has already stated, there are commercial renters out there who scoop up cheap points on the R/T board and morph them into whatever they need, extending the point expiration dates in the process. I think this puts Disney at some legal risk since they are allowing the number of available BCV, VWL, etc. points to increase. I also think the expansion of commercial renting might make them vulnerable to the IRS and Florida tax officials who, if they suspect those members are not paying the 12% FL taxes and income taxes on those rentals might go after Disney for those tax revenues (just as the IRS has come after firms who hire self-employed contractors if they suspect the contractors are not paying enough income tax).

And the expansion of commercial renting also hurts CRO's bottom line if the renters would have stayed at the value or mod resorts had they not discovered they could "stay at a DVC resort for the price of a value resort" as I read so often on these boards.

And if the point morphing problem increased the competition at the smaller resorts to the point where more and more people are booking day by day right at the 11 month or 7 month window, that means more calls to MS. So maybe they are hoping that by reducing the morphing problem, there will be more availability resulting in fewer day by day bookings.

Yes, point morphers can still make that one transfer per use year, but they won't be able to vacuum up lots of small point transfers at rock bottom prices. Also, with one transfer per year, they will have to transfer 1000+ points in that one transfer to stay in business and there aren't many members with that many points to serve as their suppliers.

Also, perhaps by limiting members to only one transfer per use year, MS can more easily track the origin of transferred points, so maybe it will be possible to stop the morphing for the most part, other than the odd slip up.

 

[castleri]

Again, I will state. If DVC merely wanted to control "commercial renters", they could've easily done this by one of two methods that I can think of (I'm sure there are many more):

And also, the question BEGS to be asked, "Why not just fix the computer loophole?" Expensive? Probably. Something that SHOULD be in place anyway? Definitely!!!

But, devious minds like mine have already thought of a way that determined owners who rent could get around this new limitation. It would take a little more effort on their part "initially", but it IS possible, even under the new rules. I'm not going to post that info here...so don't even ask!!


JMHO,



Beca

Add me to the devious minds group - I posted somewhat the same thing on another thread- where there's a will there's a way for some people. I also won't post my ideas

I just wish they would fix the darn transfer program and that would take care of most of the problem.

Also think that as was stated in another thread awhile ago that small contracts (under the minimum required for purchase by Disney) should maybe have fewer capabilities than large ones for perks etc. and should have a limit as to how many points can be transferred in.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Add me to the devious minds group - I posted somewhat the same thing on another thread- where there's a will there's a way for some people. I also won't post my ideas

I just wish they would fix the darn transfer program and that would take care of most of the problem.

Also think that as was stated in another thread awhile ago that small contracts (under the minimum required for purchase by Disney) should maybe have fewer capabilities than large ones for perks etc. and should have a limit as to how many points can be transferred in.

Yep, I agree. I do agree with you too, Beca. I think there is probably a better way to do what they want to do, but since we aren't sure what it is they want to do.....

 

[Inkmahm]

<snip>
And, before I forget....I wanted to say two things to Doc:

1) THANK YOU for controlling the rent ressies (especially the ones more than 6 months out that people just "could not use"....I never thought about it, but it makes TOTAL sense),

2) It is important to remember that, for people like me who did not buy unitl 2003, this IS a change to our POS. I did not know, until this change that transfers were ever limited to one.

<snip>

I agree. I think it is great that DIS tries to control the rent ressies more than 6 months out. Let those people cancel their reservations and free up the rooms for those who are on waitlists!

I also agree that this is a change for those of us who bought recently. I knew the rule about transfers in OR out but not both in one year. I'm fine with that. But I had no paperwork telling me I'm limited to ONE transfer until the email newsletter that came yesterday. THAT new limit I'm not pleased with.