Occupancy Thread

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by Desperado
[...]I don't believe nor have I heard of any reports of any guides saying "Cram as many in as you want - it's your timeshare." It makes your analogy absurd, and inconsequential.

Well, let me see if the analogy is truly absurd. Has anyone ever actually had DVC/MS apply a limit to the number that can occupy a room? We've heard that they have allowed groups of 5 and 6 people over age 3 into a unit meant for 4 plus one under age 3. If the premise is that there are no real occupancy limits because DVC/MS does not enforce them, doesn't that really mean that they are implicitly saying "You can have as many occupants as you want"? Or is everyone in this discussion in agreement that putting a family of 7, or a family of 8, into a 1BR is inappropriate?

 

[jarestel]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
Well, let me see if the analogy is truly absurd. Has anyone ever actually had DVC/MS apply a limit to the number that can occupy a room? We've heard that they have allowed groups of 5 and 6 people over age 3 into a unit meant for 4 plus one under age 3. If the premise is that there are no real occupancy limits because DVC/MS does not enforce them, doesn't that really mean that they are implicitly saying "You can have as many occupants as you want"? Or is everyone in this discussion in agreement that putting a family of 7, or a family of 8, into a 1BR is inappropriate?

Dr T, I can't believe I'm disagreeing with you so much lately, since I usually tend to see things the way you do. BUT, I would say that nobody is advocating unlimited occupancies for any type of unit. If a family has 3 younger age children, a studio or 1-BR is entirely appropriate. If you have 3 teenagers, then it may not be. Each family has to apply a bit of common sense to their particular situation to determine what works for them. Bottom line is, if MS accepts a reservation for 5 in a 1-BR, it matters not a whit what we say here. Rules are rules, but common sense rules above all.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Originally posted by jarestel
Dr T, I can't believe I'm disagreeing with you so much lately, since I usually tend to see things the way you do.

Hey, if I was right all the time, there'd be no living with me.

BUT, I would say that nobody is advocating unlimited occupancies for any type of unit. If a family has 3 younger age children, a studio or 1-BR is entirely appropriate. If you have 3 teenagers, then it may not be. Each family has to apply a bit of common sense to their particular situation to determine what works for them. Bottom line is, if MS accepts a reservation for 5 in a 1-BR, it matters not a whit what we say here. Rules are rules, but common sense rules above all.

Well, as they say, the trouble with common sense is that it ain't all that common. The issue I have with the "no enforcement = no limit" theory is that it does indeed support an unlimited number of residents. I really have no problem with the fifth person being a child; for that matter, if you want to put two teens in the fold-out and a third teen on an air bed, go for it. But "no enforcement = no limit" also opens the door for someone to book a studio for a college-aged son and put five or six buddies on the ressie. To be honest, jarestel, once upon a time I would have probably agreed with you to leave it up to common sense. However, after a year or so on these boards - and longer on some Las Vegas ones - I've seen way too many things happen that common sense should have prevented.

And I really am curious: has anyone ever, in the whole history of the DVC, had a ressie officially turned down because of an attempt to exceed stated occupancy limits?

But hey, in December we'll be at SSR with only 4 adults in a 2 BR - maybe this will even things out....

 

[jarestel]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
And I really am curious: has anyone ever, in the whole history of the DVC, had a ressie officially turned down because of an attempt to exceed stated occupancy limits?

DrTomorrow, sometimes it DOES seem that common sense isn't distributed evenly, but I refuse to lose hope...

Anyway, I'll confess that I have "crammed" my 3 younger aged grandchildren into a 1-BR and when I made the ressie, MS did ask the ages of everyone who would be staying. From that conversation, I suspect that they would indeed refuse a reservation from someone who, for instance, would be trying to put 5 or more adults or teenagers in the 1-BR. But since I haven't ( just my own personal preference, not judging anyone that does ) and wouldn't want to put DW and me and 3 teenagers in a studio or 1-BR, I don't have any first hand experience, just a suspicion about what MS would allow. Maybe someone else could shed some light on the subject.

 

[pplasky]

I think they ask everyone the age of their children when making ressies. I seem to recall always being asked the age of children when booking.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by jarestel
Dr T, I can't believe I'm disagreeing with you so much lately, since I usually tend to see things the way you do. BUT, I would say that nobody is advocating unlimited occupancies for any type of unit. If a family has 3 younger age children, a studio or 1-BR is entirely appropriate. If you have 3 teenagers, then it may not be. Each family has to apply a bit of common sense to their particular situation to determine what works for them. Bottom line is, if MS accepts a reservation for 5 in a 1-BR, it matters not a whit what we say here. Rules are rules, but common sense rules above all.

Thank you, some common sense and realistic posting. I get so tired of the old "the sky is falling" routines on this subject.

7 or 8? If your raising the question, yes 7 or 8 is inappropriate. Occasionally bending the 4 person guideline to 5 isn't unreasonable or warrant the tired old "the sky is falling" scenarios and soap boxing we must endure..... It's between a family and MS.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by DrTomorrow
.... in December we'll be at SSR with only 4 adults in a 2 BR - maybe this will even things out....

Exactly, that's the whole point. Not every room is completely filled to capacity all the time. DVC has more trouble with pool crashers and parking lot crashers than the occasional member having and extra son or daughter in a one bedroom.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by pplasky
If MS allows you to make a reservation for 5 in a room, than compliance is certainly not required or expected. If they put 5 on a reservation than they are aware you are putting 5 in your room. Period.

That's true today MOST of the time. No reason it has to be true tomorrow and legally they can start enforcing the rules more stringently anytime they want.

jarestel, guides have routinely told people it's OK to exceed the occupancy limits though likely not as drastically as in DrTomorrow's example.

Well, let me see if the analogy is truly absurd. Has anyone ever actually had DVC/MS apply a limit to the number that can occupy a room? We've heard that they have allowed groups of 5 and 6 people over age 3 into a unit meant for 4 plus one under age 3. If the premise is that there are no real occupancy limits because DVC/MS does not enforce them, doesn't that really mean that they are implicitly saying "You can have as many occupants as you want"? Or is everyone in this discussion in agreement that putting a family of 7, or a family of 8, into a 1BR is inappropriate?

We've had reports before on this board on similar thread's where people were required to reserve a 2 BR for 5 or 6 people. Admittedly it was the minority and it's been more than a year since I've seen any such posts, but it has been reported to have happened. We've also had reports where the question was asked of a supervisor at MS and the person asking the question was told MS would enforce it and suggested that enforcement would become MORE stringent. I believe the person quoted was the one before Jackie (Stephanie?), my memory fails me at this time on her name.

As I've said many times, I have no problems with an extra person here and there. The problem I have is with MS not enforcing the rules in many areas. I am a rule follower. Of course the problem with bending the rules is that it's hard to know where the breaking point is. If 4 plus a 2 y/o is OK, how about 5 adults or 2 adults with 4 kids, the progression could go on and on to a whole fraternity in a studio.

Exactly, that's the whole point. Not every room is completely filled to capacity all the time. DVC has more trouble with pool crashers and parking lot crashers than the occasional member having and extra son or daughter in a one bedroom.

Actually this situation is assumed in the capacity issues. Neither the resorts nor parks would be able to handle all the people if every room were t capacity. The question is whether overstuffing the units was factored into the equation. My guess is it was do a minimal extent at most. Thus other rooms not being at capacity does not necessarily give free space. As for soap boxes and sky is falling scenarios, I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And as I've stated I have no problem with a stretch here and there, I do feel MS should enforce the rules and will continue to say so. Thus you may want to put me on your ignore list.

 

[dis-happy]

Has it been brought up that MS has its rules so they can use them when necessary? For example, when they ask the ages of the 5 people who are in a 1 bedroom or studio, Disney is fine when it's a family with children. Where they would get their hackles up, and start brandishing their "Occupancy Limits" is when it's spring break and a bunch of college kids want to stuff into someone's parents' DVC unit. Just a thought....


Personally, I would feel more uncomfortable and crowded in a studio with 4 unrelated adults than in a room with 1 extra child.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by dis-happy
Has it been brought up that MS has its rules so they can use them when necessary? For example, when they ask the ages of the 5 people who are in a 1 bedroom or studio, Disney is fine when it's a family with children. Where they would get their hackles up, and start brandishing their "Occupancy Limits" is when it's spring break and a bunch of college kids want to stuff into someone's parents' DVC unit. Just a thought....

It is not their rule but ours. We own the resort and it is in writing. The only thing to bring up to MS would be if anyone wanted to insist they enforce our rules.

 

[Desperado]

Originally posted by Dean
And as I've stated I have no problem with a stretch here and there, I do feel MS should enforce the rules and will continue to say so. Thus you may want to put me on your ignore list.

Ignore? Nahhhhh. But you'll need to excuse me if I occassionally jump in and point out how some things you state emphatically as facts are really just your opinion without supporting evidence. Many times you share good information, not every time, but many times. Hate to miss out on those 80% or so times when your right.

Happy posting.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by Desperado
Hate to miss out on those 80% or so times when your right.

You underestimate me. Besides my posts are always my opinion, period, no matter how strongly I may come across.

 

[Doctor P]

I don't think the point has been made, except in an indirect way, that, given that the occupancy limits are in the legally binding documents, it would seem that DVD could be compelled to enforce them upon legal action by members but could NOT be compelled to allow more than the occupancy limits under a legal action (contrary to the claims by many on this thread). Members are entitled to what is in the documents, nothing more and nothing less. That said, I really don't have the problem with the occasional fifth person under most of the circumstances described, but I would hope for consistency and I would also hope that it would be limited to members staying on points and that extra charges would be applied (like at other resorts) for extra persons on cash reservations and on rentals (and I am not saying it is realistic, just a theoretical hope).

 

[Dean]

As I noted in another thread, I spent a hour talking to two DVC execs today about several issues I wanted more info on. One of the items I added to the agenda was the occupancy limit issue. According to them, and this includes the compliance officer, the official stance is that the limits are what's posted in the POS though they will not stand at the door and count heads. They seemed surprised that MS was condoning the issue including going as far as to put the party size at over the stated limit. So don't be surprised if you see some changes in this area in the next few months.

 

[rinkwide]

Originally posted by Dean
So don't be surprised if you see some changes in this area in the next few months.

I think I can speak for all families of five when I say:

Thanks alot Dean.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by rinkwide
I think I can speak for all families of five when I say:

Thanks alot Dean.

Sarcasm, what a wonderful thing. But how can you be upset at someone for pointing out what the rules are already? Actually, just asking what DVC's position is then pointing out that MS, etc are violating that position.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

So I guess my 06 Dec trip when I have my family of 5 and my sister and my mother with us in our 1 bedroom may be a bad idea eh. Like it will matter LOl.

 

[pplasky]

Originally posted by Dean
As I noted in another thread, I spent a hour talking to two DVC execs today about several issues I wanted more info on. One of the items I added to the agenda was the occupancy limit issue. According to them, and this includes the compliance officer, the official stance is that the limits are what's posted in the POS though they will not stand at the door and count heads. They seemed surprised that MS was condoning the issue including going as far as to put the party size at over the stated limit. So don't be surprised if you see some changes in this area in the next few months.

Maybe the wording of the contracts should change. Maybe all of us who have a family of 5 should call the DVC execs and complain that the one bedrooms do not have a higher occupancy limit. Than the few people who really seem to have a problem with "the rules" won't care any longer?

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by pplasky
Maybe the wording of the contracts should change. Maybe all of us who have a family of 5 should call the DVC execs and complain that the one bedrooms do not have a higher occupancy limit. Than the few people who really seem to have a problem with "the rules" won't care any longer?

It's a nice thought but would not be legally possible for many reasons including the info registered with the state (POS, etc) or the fire codes. IMO as always (Desperado disclaimer) To be clear, my purpose wasn't to effect change, I simply asked the question for informational purposes while I was talking anyway. Had I wanted to ask for enforcement I would have contacted MS directly. But if the end result is closer enforcement, so be it.

 

[lenshanem]

Oh, Dean...
You are reminding me of Paul? when he tried so hard to increase the dues for us BCV owners!