No availability in a Copper Creek studio at 11 months

[M:SpilotISTC12]

I’m sure they have plenty of data on booking patterns that would show room size and length of stay preference. A 1 night stay in a 2 BR happens, but it is not likely to be their typical booking pattern.

But is there a law that says they have to sell contract sizes or base the charts upon that data? To me it seems like a convenient loop hole that Disney can exploit.

 

[DVCsloth]

Considering the resort is not sold out, it will probably get even harder to book. One of the reasons I purchased CCV was because of the points charts copied BRV. I plan to mostly go there every other year and use it for 1 bedroom stays though. It is a great resort in my opinion, we just returned from a stay and our 1 bedroom was upgraded to a dedicated 2 bedroom for the 3 of us. However, it would be nice to have the option to add a few nights in a studio every now and then.

 

[drusba]

If DVC designed the point charts at CC with the cabins allowing them to sell more points, and then knowingly sold a large number of small contracts, fully aware that it would create an inventory problem, could that be considered fraudulent? Are there any requirements that they balance the structure of the contracts they sell with what they can reasonably accommodate?

A very difficult case to assert and the reason is the statutes that apply to timeshares. As long as Disney could show it is in compliance with the timeshare statutes addressing occupancy of rooms, it would have a strong argument against any claim of wrongdoing.

A key statute is the one-to-one ratio rule in creating a timeshare resort, Fl Stats 721.05 (26):

“’One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio’ means that the sum of the nights that owners are entitled to use in a given 12-month period shall not exceed the number of nights available for use by those owners during the same 12-month period. No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period or more than 366 use nights per 12-month period that includes February 29. The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner’s use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise."

The problem with the one-to-one rule is that it creates an overall rule applicable to the resort as to the "availability" not actual use of rooms for an entire year, and does nothing to address variances in actual occupancy, room sizes, or seasons. The probable reason none of those issues are addressed in that particular one-to-one rule is that it was created when timeshares were all sold as set weeks in a particular unit and thus there was no issue of variances in demand for room sizes or times of year. At the time, each room would have 51 owners each owning a different week.

Disney’s point system, under which the total points applicable to the resort do not exceed those that could be used to reserve every room for the entire year, technically complies with the “availability” concept of the statute even if there are large variances in demand for each size room and time of year.

To add to the defenses that DVD would assert are the warnings it gives in the POS documents. It tells purchasers about the point system, that all reservations are done on a first-come first-served basis, and due to variances in demand that may occur during the year, there is no guarantee the purchaser will actually be able to get the reservation he wants.

That does not necessarily rule out a possible claim, including because it appears no one has ever actually pursued a claim of a developer’s knowingly setting up a resort and sales program to effectively oversell studios, and thus the outcome is unknown, but a stronger claim would be one with more definite claims of misrepresentation, such as the sales force actually telling low-point purchasers that they could easily get studios year-round at the 11-month window.

 

[Lisa_M]

I was very surprised to read this thread because just a month ago, we were pricing out different direct options with DVD and they offered us a fixed week contract in a standard studio for the week after Thanksgiving. We declined because we didn't want to pay that much per point and the studios were not our style, but given the challenges in booking studios here for non-fixed week owneres, I am surprised that was even an option.

 

[EM Lawrence]

I think the fixed weeks exacerbates the problem of availability for small point contract owners for sure.

 

[EM Lawrence]

A very difficult case to assert and the reason is the statutes that apply to timeshares. As long as Disney could show it is in compliance with the timeshare statutes addressing occupancy of rooms, it would have a strong argument against any claim of wrongdoing.

A key statute is the one-to-one ratio rule in creating a timeshare resort, Fl Stats 721.05 (26):

“’One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio’ means that the sum of the nights that owners are entitled to use in a given 12-month period shall not exceed the number of nights available for use by those owners during the same 12-month period. No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period or more than 366 use nights per 12-month period that includes February 29. The use rights of each owner shall be counted without regard to whether the owner’s use rights have been suspended for failure to pay assessments or otherwise."

The problem with the one-to-one rule is that it creates an overall rule applicable to the resort as to the "availability" not actual use of rooms for an entire year, and does nothing to address variances in actual occupancy, room sizes, or seasons. The probable reason none of those issues are addressed in that particular one-to-one rule is that it was created when timeshares were all sold as set weeks in a particular unit and thus there was no issue of variances in demand for room sizes or times of year. At the time, each room would have 51 owners each owning a different week.

Disney’s point system, under which the total points applicable to the resort do not exceed those that could be used to reserve every room for the entire year, technically complies with the “availability” concept of the statute even if there are large variances in demand for each size room and time of year.

To add to the defenses that DVD would assert are the warnings it gives in the POS documents. It tells purchasers about the point system, that all reservations are done on a first-come first-served basis, and due to variances in demand that may occur during the year, there is no guarantee the purchaser will actually be able to get the reservation he wants.

That does not necessarily rule out a possible claim, including because it appears no one has ever actually pursued a claim of a developer’s knowingly setting up a resort and sales program to effectively oversell studios, and thus the outcome is unknown, but a stronger claim would be one with more definite claims of misrepresentation, such as the sales force actually telling low-point purchasers that they could easily get studios year-round at the 11-month window.

I’ve heard others on this board say that they were sold a 90 point contract at AKV after the sales guide showed them that they could use it for 9 nights in a value studio, so it is not a stretch to think that the studios were used to sell small point contracts. Whether easy availability was ever mentioned is an interesting question. I’m sure that DVC must have felt they had the legal grounds to do what they did, but it is noteworthy that there has not been a case with these circumstances already decided. Either way, buyer beware. My opinion is that DVC certainly knew they were creating an availability issue with a low volume of studios and a high volume of points tied up in the cabins, and decided to do it anyway, at the expense of buyers.

At some point they will lose the goodwill of the public with moves like these.

DVC has a good reputation even among buyers that would never normally consider a timeshare. But public sentiment is fickle.

 

[Lorana]

I was very surprised to read this thread because just a month ago, we were pricing out different direct options with DVD and they offered us a fixed week contract in a standard studio for the week after Thanksgiving. We declined because we didn't want to pay that much per point and the studios were not our style, but given the challenges in booking studios here for non-fixed week owneres, I am surprised that was even an option.

Admittedly, though we are likely to often switch out to a 1BR, we bought fixed weeks at CCV for exactly this reason - to guarantee we could get a studio if we wanted one.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Admittedly, though we are likely to often switch out to a 1BR, we bought fixed weeks at CCV for exactly this reason - to guarantee we could get a studio if we wanted one.

And so far, if one is ok with staying at BRV, there is availability to use those CCV there if one can’t book at CCV. I am fine with that and just did this with my canceled fix week points. But, I guess if people wanted to stay at BRV, they would have bought points there.

 

[drusba]

And so far, if one is ok with staying at BRV, there is availability to use those CCV there if one can’t book at CCV. I am fine with that and just did this with my canceled fix week points. But, I guess if people wanted to stay at BRV, they would have bought points there.

That option has itself continuously gotten worse since CCV started to develop availability issues three years ago. In 2017, the annual reservation pattern for BRV is that at 7-months out, there were many times (but not all) when studios (and as a result 2BR lock-offs) were not available during the high demand times in the fall season (late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan) but were usually open at 7 months out the entire rest of the year. But the progression of CCV's lack of avialability has apparently also resulted in the progression of more an more BRV owners reserving rooms in the 11-month window, possibly out of fear that CCV owners and others would quickly take all the rooms as soon as the 7-month window opened. Now during the entire fall season studios at BRV are difficult to get at 7 months out, and they have become difficult to get at 7 months out the rest of the year, mid-Jan to late Sep, about 60% of the time.

 

[SL6827]

I forgot about the WL already having two different DVCs, so I could not see them adding a third DVC there either. They would probably make it part of the CCV as they are. But at the same time I think they have no intention of ever having a new DVC not be in the "DVC-2 club" so that makes me wonder if they would even convert the rest of the lodge at all?

 

[SL6827]

And I am sure Disney knew all to well what would happen with the point situation with the cabins vs. the studios. Those extra points with the cabins go into breakage a lot, correct?

 

[drusba]

And I am sure Disney knew all to well what would happen with the point situation with the cabins vs. the studios. Those extra points with the cabins go into breakage a lot, correct?

For the high demand fall season, late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan, the cabins (before Covid) were seldom available at 60 days out. During the moderate demand season from mid-Jan to late Sep, Cabins were open at 60-days out about 80% of the time. Its patterns have been similar to the Poly bungalows, although bungalow availability has had even higher percentages of availability at 60-days out, but Disney could likely generally predict at time that CCV went on sale that there would likely be a lot 60-day availability for the cabins based on the already existing patterns of the bungalows.

 

[jennypenny]

I forgot about the WL already having two different DVCs, so I could not see them adding a third DVC there either. They would probably make it part of the CCV as they are. But at the same time I think they have no intention of ever having a new DVC not be in the "DVC-2 club" so that makes me wonder if they would even convert the rest of the lodge at all?

They sold additional points at SSR when they converted the treehouses, so there's precedent for reopening sales at an existing resort. I think converting the rest of the lodge would be a good thing because it would add to the studio inventory relative to the cabins. It would probably also be appealing to DVC at the moment with Reflections mothballed. They wouldn't even have to change the website or promotional materials. The only bad point is that members would then be solely responsible for transportation at WL which would increase dues.

On the other point, I'm not sure why everyone thinks the plan is a DVC2 club. The impression I've gotten from my guide and the front end people I spoke with touring the different resorts last month was that from RR forward, all resorts will have the same resale restriction -- home resort only -- and that sleeping around would be reserved for direct buyers ("including resale" I was told twice, implying that DVC plans to get into the resale business at some point or ramp up ROFR to accomplish the same thing). IMO the only 'club' going forward will be the direct-buy club.

 

[SL6827]

They sold additional points at SSR when they converted the treehouses, so there's precedent for reopening sales at an existing resort. I think converting the rest of the lodge would be a good thing because it would add to the studio inventory relative to the cabins. It would probably also be appealing to DVC at the moment with Reflections mothballed. They wouldn't even have to change the website or promotional materials. The only bad point is that members would then be solely responsible for transportation at WL which would increase dues.

On the other point, I'm not sure why everyone thinks the plan is a DVC2 club. The impression I've gotten from my guide and the front end people I spoke with touring the different resorts last month was that from RR forward, all resorts will have the same resale restriction -- home resort only -- and that sleeping around would be reserved for direct buyers ("including resale" I was told twice, implying that DVC plans to get into the resale business at some point or ramp up ROFR to accomplish the same thing). IMO the only 'club' going forward will be the direct-buy club.

So resale buyers in the future would only be able to stay at their home resort? I am sure Disney would love that. It will be interesting to see how Disney combats these evil resale purchasers in the future.

 

[jennypenny]

I don't know if they're viewed as 'evil resale purchasers' ... Disney has to justify the higher direct cost somehow. It might also balance out desirability because people might be willing to pay higher direct prices for less popular resorts so they aren't 'stuck' there every trip whereas resale might flourish at more popular resorts, closing the overall gap in pricing.

I don't know, and this seems OT anyway. But I think it would make perfect sense to convert the rest of WL to CCV, and it would benefit owners as well.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

That option has itself continuously gotten worse since CCV started to develop availability issues three years ago. In 2017, the annual reservation pattern for BRV is that at 7-months out, there were many times (but not all) when studios (and as a result 2BR lock-offs) were not available during the high demand times in the fall season (late Sep to marathon weekend in Jan) but were usually open at 7 months out the entire rest of the year. But the progression of CCV's lack of avialability has apparently also resulted in the progression of more an more BRV owners reserving rooms in the 11-month window, possibly out of fear that CCV owners and others would quickly take all the rooms as soon as the 7-month window opened. Now during the entire fall season studios at BRV are difficult to get at 7 months out, and they have become difficult to get at 7 months out the rest of the year, mid-Jan to late Sep, about 60% of the time.

That might be although BRV studios started to have availability problems after they added the murphy bed and 5th occupancy to them while leaving 1BR's at 4.

 

[Lorana]

That might be although BRV studios started to have availability problems after they added the murphy bed and 5th occupancy to them while leaving 1BR's at 4.

It kills me that the 1BRs don’t have a 3rd sleeping surface. I am hoping when they do the full refurb that they’ll add that 3rd bed somewhere!

 

[SL6827]

I don't know if they're viewed as 'evil resale purchasers' ... Disney has to justify the higher direct cost somehow. It might also balance out desirability because people might be willing to pay higher direct prices for less popular resorts so they aren't 'stuck' there every trip whereas resale might flourish at more popular resorts, closing the overall gap in pricing.

I don't know, and this seems OT anyway. But I think it would make perfect sense to convert the rest of WL to CCV, and it would benefit owners as well.

The "evil resale purchasers" comment was me just being funny, sarcastic, not serious at all. But yes I do think Disney should convert the rest of the lodge as well to benefit the owners.

 

[M:SpilotISTC12]

What is availability like for the studios in January and February at the 11 month mark? I’ve never looked so I honestly have no clue. If availability is better then maybe we’ll start planning to go in January. Could definitely escape NJ in January for some Florida sun.

 

[CarolMN]

What availability like for the studios in January and February at the 11 month mark? I’ve never looked so I honestly have no clue. If availability is better then maybe we’ll start planning to go in January. Could definitely escape NJ in January for some Florida sun.

This has been the traditional/historical experience:

Predicted DVC booking patterns - Studios, 1-BD & 2-BD charts (September 2019 2-BD added!)

But 2020 & the pandemic has impacted everything - it may take some time for the effects to return to some semblance of "normal". All you can do is book, check back often, and waitlist as needed. Good luck!