Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[Sandisw]

One thing is clear to me--I bet Disney wishes they never allowed any renting of DVC points.

Maybe I am being a little cynical, but I would be super surprised if the latest actions against commercial renters will yield a lot more availability of high demand reservations. The reason is that some reservations have always been hard to get--even at the 11 month booking window. Even before we had online booking. (But, who knows, maybe next year at this time I will be singing Disney praises for their successful campaign...)

I don’t think FL condo laws for those that are condo associations would have allowed that.

 

[Girlstar30]

I think they might just be doing a basic letting everyone know so that the offenders can't say they were singled out or discriminated against.

It reminds me of a time that I was walking my 5 dogs on leash through a park that we walked through just about every day. An animal control officer was there and asking a woman about her dog's license and wanted the women's name and information. The woman had her dog running off leash, which is illegal where we were. The lady never gave her info. She just kept yelling at the officer and pointing at me and demanding that the officer ask me about my dogs and for my name and address. She was hollering that the officer was picking on her and that the officer should be going after me because I had more dogs than she did.

Wow you weren't doing anything illegal and she was, people are too much

 

[Brian Noble]

In the past, I believe the DVC board has mentioned on multiple occasions a “is the estimated rental income more than the cost of the dues” test.

I'm sure they have.

But, I also do not see "generated revenue beyond dues" as any of the possible Reasons in this new enumeration. I think they might consider that, but I don't see anything in writing that says they will consider it.

Again, I'm really trying to tease out the difference between Rules and Reasons. A large swath of this thread consists of people trying to figure out how to stay within The Rules. There are no Rules, there are only Reasons, and not all of the possible Reasons are in writing.

 

[Girlstar30]

I need to look into this. I don't want my kids on the hook while I'm still alive, but also want to make it easier for them to use it when I die so they can decide if they want to keep it or not.

Based on the description of a commercial enterprise, I believe both World of DVC and David's are at risk. I was under the impression that The Timeshare Store also rents points as a middleman, but maybe since they don't film DVC it won't be a problem?

Their FAQ makes me feel like the rental companies are not at risk for the time being because theyre saying "members who use it" and not "members cant use it" but also trying to scare people from not using it by warning about consequences so I believe whenever they're vague like this to me it means theyre not doing anything for the time being. Rental stores will always say they are a middle man and not an owner so they probably feel protected in that.

Q8: Can a Member rent out Points using a third-party website?

Frequently or regularly renting/selling reservations is strictly prohibited. DVC is not affiliated with any third-party rental websites. Members who use third party websites assume responsibility for any resulting consequences.

 

[DonMacGregor]

There are FAQs that seem to indicate using brokers is allowed.

To identify frequent or regular, I would think they can require rental contracts since the POS requires them.

Except that the plain-English reading of the newly released language speaks directly to using brokers (“third party service provider” is about as unambiguous as you can get). That whole section is almost, without exception, addressing brokers.

Plus, if this is the FAQ you are referring to, then I’ll just point out the last sentence:

Q8: Can a Member rent out Points using a third-party website?

Frequently or regularly renting/selling reservations is strictly prohibited. DVC is not affiliated with any third-party rental websites. Members who use third party websites assume responsibility for any resulting consequences.

I’ve never seen the word “consequences” used in a positive light, and they’ve now delineated what those “consequences” may entail.

 

[PolyRob]

Based on the description of a commercial enterprise, I believe both World of DVC and David's are at risk. I was under the impression that The Timeshare Store also rents points as a middleman, but maybe since they don't film DVC it won't be a problem?

Maybe not or maybe not at first if it goes by size or volume? Just seems like a lot could get swept up in these scenarios.

I don’t think monera gets defaulted contracts back. They assign those loans in batches over to Liberty Bank in Connecticut. Liberty holds the collateral as the wholesale lender. Wouldn’t Liberty get the contract?

Maybe it doesn't, but I would still consider the other points not to mention gifting vloggers stays on sponsored videos? Wouldn't that be filming rentals? Where are the points coming from

 

[disneylandtour]

How so? Renting is not forbidden. And what if points are gifted? My aunt gifted my sister a reservation at the GF as a wedding present. Is my aunt supposed to travel 1500 miles and go on the honeymoon with my sister and her husband? That's ridiculous.

This clause was for renters who were keeping reservations in their name and (I assume) using the app to check in, thereby skirting the rules. Anyone can give points as a gift to a friend or family member and put their name on the reservation.

 

[Tatebeck]

Except that the plain-English reading of the newly released language speaks directly to using brokers (“third party service provider” is about as unambiguous as you can get). That whole section is almost, without exception, addressing brokers.

Plus, if this is the FAQ you are referring to, then I’ll just point out the last sentence:



I’ve never seen the word “consequences” used in a positive light, and they’ve now delineated what those “consequences” may entail.

The alluded consequences would be consequences from using an unaffiliated third party (if something goes wrong with the rental or the payments from the rental from the third party) and the consequences from Disney if the renter rents too often or too much, not for just using the third party to do a singular rental.

It clearly reads to me that using a third party is 100% allowed, just not encouraged or endorsed. It would be how many points or how many reservations are rented that would put the member in trouble with DVC, not from simply using a third party when they wanted to do a rental

 

[disneylandtour]

I wonder what “an exceptional number of points” means.
Is that 500, 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 points.

My guess - 2,000 and up would be the minimum.

 

[disneylandtour]

I wondering what people thought about the multiple rooms across overlapping dates.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this portion

A majority of reservations or Points owned or controlled by an Owner (which may take into account all Points owned or controlled by an Owner across all Resorts at any given time) are made or use respectively at Resorts with overlapping room types and/or dates, regardless of whether the Owner or Associate is named as a guest on said reservations;

My guess: this was poorly worded. I have two rooms booked at VGC later this year, same dates, because we're bringing family. Clearly this isn't a problem. Commercial booking would be having rooms booked at Poly, VGC, and AUL on the same dates--that's probably a tell-tell sign of commercial renting.

 

[Wedgeout]

I don’t think it should matter much on number of points. 50 or over 3,000. I’d start with any membership that has two or more UY’s worth of point reservations, with no parties listed matching the membership. (Especially on lead). Bet could find at least one out there. After that first domino falls, the rest will follow as they squeeze in on the rules.

 

[disneylandtour]

I personally wish that warnings would have been sent out already to people who are obvious commercial renters that have broken a majority of their guidelines.

If this is like last year, almost surely, an entirely separate conversation is happening with known brokers and commercial renters. Remember when all of those AUL, BW, and SSR resale contracts magically showed up for sale within a couple weeks of each other (and it was hundreds of contracts), no doubt this was due to a separate conversation with known offenders. Now the rules are being publicly posted for all. I'm in favor of the rules. But also, I recognize that rules mostly tend to scare people who are rule followers and shouldn't be too concerned about a company further defining and clarifying its rules. The flagrant rule breakers are already scheming for some new way to skirt the rules. Those people are the problem.

 

[atthebeachclub]

Commercial booking would be having rooms booked at Poly, VGC, and AUL on the same dates--that's probably a tell-tell sign of commercial renting.

Or someone indecisive. I have rooms booked on two coasts at my home resorts for next year on the same dates. Not sure what my plan is yet. Will free one of those up closer to the dates.

 

[Girlstar30]

If this is like last year, almost surely, an entirely separate conversation is happening with known brokers and commercial renters. Remember when all of those AUL, BW, and SSR resale contracts magically showed up for sale within a couple weeks of each other (and it was hundreds of contracts), no doubt this was due to a separate conversation with known offenders. Now the rules are being publicly posted for all. I'm in favor of the rules. But also, I recognize that rules mostly tend to scare people who are rule followers and shouldn't be too concerned about a company further defining and clarifying its rules. The flagrant rule breakers are already scheming for some new way to skirt the rules. Those people are the problem.

Do you think Disney is talking to the brokers?

 

[VGCgroupie]

There’s a person on FB that seems to post a new reservation everyday. Guessing we won’t be seeing that anymore lol.

Thede people honestly think they are above the rules. They wont stop until DVC forces them to stop.

 

[disneylandtour]

We will all find out soon enough if any real action has been taken once renters post that their reservations have been cancelled and are upset. Right now there hasnt been any real action harming anyone and when there is people will post about it.

This has always been the problem - DVD/DVC gets no additional income if the rules are or are not followed. So this is about making members happy and making the system work better. But in looking at the rules, I gotta say that they are so vague in many areas that I don't think they'd stand up in court, if someone (or more likely, some company) sued them because "a consequence" denied them part of their rights as an owner. Maybe under the new Trust, Disney has more leeway. But for timeshare owners whose ownership is tied to an actual unit, I think Disney has a difficult road if someone (or again, some company) gets litigious. And how much is DVD willing to shell over for legal fees for an issue in which they receive no meaningful financial benefit? I think generally Disney is making a smart move: trying to scare most people into acting in a respectful way. But again, will this truly dissuade the big schemers (i.e. the big commercial renters) out there? And the big renters is where the problem is, IMO.

 

[disneylandtour]

Do you think Disney is talking to the brokers?

To the ones that also own and rent their own points? Absolutely.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I think the most interesting part of the announcement is the penalties. They don’t just say cancellation of reservations. They list items like only being able to make reservations at your home resort, not being able to modify reservations and not being able to book online reservations. All of these sound good overall for owners.

I love this since I do think cancelling reservations and having unsuspecting guests show up is unfair. Disney doesnt need to put those people out in order to enforce their rules.

edited my typo that completely changed this sentence. It previously said "dont" think

 

[disneylandtour]

Or someone indecisive. I have rooms booked on two coasts at my home resorts for next year on the same dates. Not sure what my plan is yet. Will free one of those up closer to the dates.

yeah, I've done that, too. "What are we doing next summer? I'm not sure. Let's put in a couple of reservations and decide later." But I mean when those reservations are actually used in those two different locations. That would be the tell-tale sign. I would imagine nothing is actionable (in terms of consequences) until the reservations are used.

 

[disneylandtour]

I think the most interesting part of the announcement is the penalties. They don’t just say cancellation of reservations. They list items like only being able to make reservations at your home resort, not being able to modify reservations and not being able to book online reservations. All of these sound good overall for owners.

In terms of being enforceable in court--from my above post--this is where Disney is kinda thinking through some of what may be legally/contractually required in terms of timeshare laws. I think it would be difficult to deny an owner reasonable access to their own home resort, as they are a co-owner in it. But I'm not sure some of those other elements would stand up in court either. I'm assuming the Trust is arranged--without specific ownership--so that Disney has more control than a traditional timeshare system. But the vast majority of DVC are traditional timeshare / leasehold / condo arrangements. Again, I'm in favor of removing commercial renting. But I'm also seeing some fairly large holes in this presentation--which means it's more about shaping attitudes of owners than anything else.