Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[Sandisw]

I can answer this. So most people automatically talk about the brokers when commercial renting comes up. They way the brokers work is acting as a middle man with an owner so I dont think they fall under this. (I will say I am only talking about when they act as a broker with a member, I am not talking about when the broker themselves is the owner of the points, thats different and can put them in trouble with these rules)

There are many people who post regularly on social media sites the reservations they have for rent. They post every day. They use AI or Canva to create cute little IP violating pictures to advertise said reservations.

Next there are also owners who have actual websites advertising their DVC for rent. I cant post any of the websites since I think it violates the rules here..

I think what they did supports this thought. It’s not about all or nothing. It’s not you can’t use a broker but the more you use one, the more it looks like you may be renting to a degree that is problematic

Obviously brokers who use their own business to rent their own points, or owners who have private sites would fall under actions now specifically identified as moving you away from using the membership as intended.

While, some of these were listed in the RIV and beyond resorts, this new policy document applies them to all resorts.

I personally think that being as detailed as they were puts owners on notice to not have to guess as much.

 

[Girlstar30]

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.

The problem to me with the one that theyre saying that everyone is freaking out about and thinking they cant travel with their family now in the same room types is someone can be renting out those room types for less than what theyre paying in dues and mortgage because theyre desperate or just want to swap maybe or gifting them to people.

Maybe theyre choosing popular room types because they know theyll rent faster and renting is allowed. Disney has no way of knowing how much money theyre making and if theyre even making a profit which is why no one should be worried except true huge commercial types that when challenged in court, Disney will have a ton of proof by their behaviors and high dollar amounts for rent posted on Facebook for all to see and these will be people that truly bought it for commercial purposes, not us that want to rent here and there to do other things or because we got sick or whatever.

 

[Girlstar30]

Closing and having points loaded are also two very different things. Direct points are loaded the day you agree to the sale well before you close. Resale points can't be loaded until you close. Apples and oranges.

Still can't use them for vacation until you close (unless short trips less than your deposit)

 

[PolyRob]

Still can't use them for vacation until you close (unless short trips less than your deposit)

You can absolutely book with them including Welcome Home stays and use your home resort advantage for 7-11 month bookings. You just can't travel on them immediately without paying which is outlined in the contract.

 

[Sandisw]

How is this doable with the BVTC rules? I was surprised to read this one.

The rest I completely support - especially prohibiting modifications, making them call, their loss of privileges of Membership Extras, but this one I take issue with

Because BVTC is an exchange system. They can’t set the rules and if they decide that owners who have violated this policy will lose privileges, they can do that.

It’s why IMO they gave as many examples as they did because it alerts everyone if clear consequences of what could happen.

It means as an owner we have a much clearer picture of it all and where DVCs position on this lies.

 

[Tatebeck]

Actually, if you go back and actually read what I've written, I've now stated at least three times, without ambiguity, that I don't think normal people using their points for personal use, or even using a broker to rent their points every so often has anything to worry about. In my second post on where I lean, I literally said I have used the forum sponsor on a number of occasions. I honestly don't know how I can be any more clear on that. I've never said anyone will be getting into trouble, I'm just not of the opinion that assuming the rules are only designed for someone who can't possibly be me, doing something that I couldn't possibly be doing. Better to assume every rule applies to you, rather than be surprised when you find out later that one does. Maybe they ARE only for the big, bad commercial renters, and that's great. However, if they are written such that they CAN apply to everyone if DVC is so inclined to enforce them, better to adjust your behavior accordingly proactively.

I'm just not of the belief that 95% of the counterarguments made here, most of which seem to relate to curiously specific situations that affect the poster or a tiny minority or owners, carry any weight when compared to a plain-English reading of the newly defined rules. You, and many others on here prefer to read the rules and assume that they will only be utilized to combat the most egregious offenders and that the "little guy" (which is always subjective and seems to always favor the person interpreting them, to their benefit) will always fly under the radar. I prefer to read rules and accept them at face value and in their most restrictive interpretation. That way, I don't need to worry, and I'm not surprised/disappointed/injured if my interpretation was wrong. Even if I'm not planning to be in a situation where the new rules may apply to me.

I also encourage a plain-english-reading of the rules, which is what I am applying. I apologize if I misstated your point, but it appeared to me that you were saying at one point that using a third party broker/advertising a rental was simply not allowed (which would be incorrect).

Your words: "By that logic, there would be no prohibition on advertising, which is what a broker site does, no prohibition on the use of a dedicated website, which is exactly what a broker's site is, and no prohibition on using a third-party provider, which is what a broker is. In other words, that whole paragraph means literally nothing."

And yes, my logic was correct, there is not a prohibition (total ban) on doing those things per the rules. You can do them some, up until Disney feels it is too much and becomes regular or frequent (according to their discretion).

If you agree with that and I misread what you were trying to imply before, then we are in agreement.

 

[Girlstar30]

You can absolutely book with them including Welcome Home stays and use your home resort advantage for 7-11 month bookings. You just can't travel on them immediately without paying which is outlined in the contract.

You can travel immediately you just have to have enough money put in escrow as a deposit in case you back out. And thats not really outlined in the contract clearly, just that youll be on the hook if you back out and use them before, not that you cant use them before. I had this conversation with QA when I was doing just that.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

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 am ok with not being able to rent points, but I was aghast when I started hearing members say that their DVC guides recommended buying twice the points that needed so they could rent half to cover dues and loan payments. We bought long ago and were never told this, actually were told we could never take money for our points because of the commercial clause. Then when island tower opened and we toured, the guide that toured us made the buy twice rent half pitch. He had no response when I quoted back the commercial clause.

I note this because I don’t think it’s fair if members bought under this advice and are now penalized for what DVC guides told them. Not the big commercial renters, happy to see them go, but the average members who were told to buy double and rent half.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I would love to see DVC publish the number of times they did any of the above. Maybe not the member names, but just a tally of what action they have taken. In the past it has been all rhetoric and no visible results or actions. Post/publish the actions and maybe that would give commercial folks pause. As it is right now, rules without enforcement or consequences is no rule at all.

I would log on and check those stats DAILY. Man I would love that.

 

[Cyberc1978]

what was the "something wrong"?

I only talked to a CM which was given the information that something was wrong with the reservation. I also asked but didn’t push it any further.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Fair point, I guess we wouldn't know one way or the other...

I would at least know if there was a date I wanted to go and there was no availability and then I see it up for rent from someone who also has 15 other reservations for rent.

 

[Tatebeck]

I am ok with not being able to rent points, but I was aghast when I started hearing members say that their DVC guides recommended buying twice the points that needed so they could rent half to cover dues and loan payments. We bought long ago and were never told this, actually were told we could never take money for our points because of the commercial clause. Then when island tower opened and we toured, the guide that toured us made the buy twice rent half pitch. He had no response when I quoted back the commercial clause.

I note this because I don’t think it’s fair if members bought under this advice and are now penalized for what DVC guides told them. Not the big commercial renters, happy to see them go, but the average members who were told to buy double and rent half.

Interestingly the guidelines they posted would just barely allow that. Only if you rented more than half you points would you be on their radar. I wonder if they chose over half for that reason. Or it could be just because points typically rent for around 2x the dues

 

[DonMacGregor]

I can answer this. So most people automatically talk about the brokers when commercial renting comes up. They way the brokers work is acting as a middle man with an owner so I dont think they fall under this. (I will say I am only talking about when they act as a broker with a member, I am not talking about when the broker themselves is the owner of the points, thats different and can put them in trouble with these rules...

See, I tend to disagree because that bullet point specifically states that if you regularly advertise contracts for rent on a "dedicated website" or use a "third-party service provider" on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised", you run afoul of the rules.

That very clearly states that simply listing a confirmed reservation on ANY website (or apparently anywhere else for that matter), even if it's just an electronic want ad board, your local community forum, a Facebook page, a Reddit page, whatever, you're in violation of the rules. Obviously, it's still a matter of how much or how often. The broker doesn't even need to act as an intermediary. They are providing a service (a webpage) where owners seeking to rent out confirmed reservations can list (advertise) them.

Now, obviously, DVC isn't going to be trolling my local community message board looking for DVC contracts for rent, but a site dedicated to listing points and reservations for rent with "DVC" in its name? That's some obvious and low hanging fruit. Again, Disney has no control over the broker (unless they are an owner as well), but they DO have control over the owner advertising their points for rent on that website. I don't think the "intermediary" part even comes into play (although you just have to know that some lawyer somewhere explicitly told them to use that term for some very obvious reasons). They're soliciting DVC owners to advertise their contracts that they want to rent on their website (providing a service), and advertising is specifically what that bullet point addresses.

The only ambiguity is, again, the use of the term "regular".

 

[VGCgroupie]

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.

100% to all of this

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.

I do also. But there is still a way to discern commercial vs non commercial for these instances.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

"Hmm it seems you have a lot of overlapping reservations.
Oh and it seems it is always for you and the same few other people. Are they your family?"

"Yes"

"Oh okay, and do you charge them for any of the reservations?"

"No."

"Ok, thank you and have a magical day!"

__________________

It's possible if this doesn't do enough that they could continue to address the points charts over time in a way that makes studios less desirable and 2BR/1BR more desirable. I would be okay with that as well.

I would like to see the points charts adjusted for this also, but need to add to keep this on topic that it will be interesting to see which room type could be most affected by a crackdown on commercial renting. My bet is that studios will become easier to book.

 

[Sandisw]

This is not true. Non-regular, non-commercial renting is allowed in the ownership terms. And "personal use" is different than "I'm staying there myself." It may have been a better plan, 35 years ago, to set up DVC with no renting. But that's not how it was arranged. The problem is: the rules remain fuzzy without actual quantities.

They are not cut and dry but I really do think the intent of the policy is much clearer in that it is about rising to the commercial enterprise level n

All the actions individually or collectively can make the case it’s reasonable for DVC to conclude that.

So, yes, frequently or regularly is vague, the policy itself as to what they are looking for is not that vague.

And with all the actions they did include, IMO is substantive and so is the list of enforcement.

For me, I think they came up with a common sense policy that does alert owners that making reservations for others, including renting is allowed but not to a degree you’ve turned yourself into a business.

And, speculation here, I think the enforcement will be aimed at the key players who are clearly doing some or even all of the things mentioned.

 

[Tatebeck]

See, I tend to disagree because that bullet point specifically states that if you regularly advertise contracts for rent on a "dedicated website" or use a "third-party service provider" on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised", you run afoul of the rules.

That very clearly states that simply listing a confirmed reservation on ANY website (or apparently anywhere else for that matter), even if it's just an electronic want ad board, your local community forum, a Facebook page, a Reddit page, whatever, you're in violation of the rules. The broker doesn't even need to act as an intermediary. They are providing a service (a webpage) where owners seeking to rent out confirmed reservations can list (advertise) them.

These two things are not the same. Regularly does not equal one-time

Another way to think about it is that it is against the rules only if you do it regularly, not banned outright.
Which would mean that you are allowed to do it irregularly

 

[VGCgroupie]

I understand that. But the problem now is that the terms are so vague, I'm not sure how enforceable they'd be in court. A definition of "regular" and be very different than another. The only quantity now is 51% or more of 20+ reservations.

The thing is like another smart disboarder pointed out, if you aren't in this as a commercial renter how are you justifying spending thousands and thousands of dollars to take DVD to court? Next, DVD has to have legal on retainer Im not sure they would be spending much more to go to court.

 

[disneylandtour]

I also encourage a plain-english-reading of the rules, which is what I am applying. I apologize if I misstated your point, but it appeared to me that you were saying at one point that using a third party broker/advertising a rental was simply not allowed (which would be incorrect).

Your words: "By that logic, there would be no prohibition on advertising, which is what a broker site does, no prohibition on the use of a dedicated website, which is exactly what a broker's site is, and no prohibition on using a third-party provider, which is what a broker is. In other words, that whole paragraph means literally nothing."

And yes, my logic was correct, there is not a prohibition (total ban) on doing those things per the rules. You can do them some, up until Disney feels it is too much and becomes regular or frequent (according to their discretion).

If you agree with that and I misread what you were trying to imply before, then we are in agreement.

This is another area that I'm confused about. If a broker site owns no points, from a contractual standpoint, what sway does Disney have over them? They are facilitating the re-sale of a product offered by Disney, but not working directly with Disney. They are essentially an eBay-like entity.

And this bring me back to: it would be so much clearer to have quantified rules that are applied to each owner.

 

[Sandisw]

See, I tend to disagree because that bullet point specifically states that if you regularly advertise contracts for rent on a "dedicated website" or use a "third-party service provider" on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised", you run afoul of the rules.

That very clearly states that simply listing a confirmed reservation on ANY website (or apparently anywhere else for that matter), even if it's just an electronic want ad board, your local community forum, a Facebook page, a Reddit page, whatever, you're in violation of the rules. The broker doesn't even need to act as an intermediary. They are providing a service (a webpage) where owners seeking to rent out confirmed reservations can list (advertise) them.

Now, obviously, DVC isn't going to be trolling my local community message board looking for DVC contracts for rent, but a site dedicated to listing points and reservations for rent with "DVC" in its name? That's some obvious and low hanging fruit. Again, Disney has no control over the broker (unless they are an owner as well), but they DO have control over the owner advertising their points for rent on that website. I don't think the "intermediary" part even comes into play (although you just have to know that some lawyer somewhere explicitly told them to use that term for some very obvious reasons). They're soliciting DVC owners to advertise their contracts that they want to rent on their website (providing a service), and advertising is specifically what that bullet point addresses.

The only ambiguity is, again, the use of the term "regular".

This is where my reading differs. Yes, doing all those things on social media can be seen as proof DVC can reasonably conclude you are a commercial enterprise.

But that is not to say that any use rises to the commercial enterprise level and it certainly appears that is what they are defining as not allowed.

Is it reasonable to say that an owner who rents one or a few confirmed or on demand reservations a year, even if it is every year is running a commercial enterprise?

Or is it reasonable to conclude they are renting in a way that is allowed under both the contract and the law?

That reasonable standard is part of not only this new policy document but the POS.