Rented points problem

[RobDoc]

I don't see it as assissting with a rental transaction. It is simply a reservation that is in my name and as such I should have the discretion as to whether I want room charging to be allowed. This is not a perk like pools or park transportation, which are given to everyone without opt-out options. I have never been asked at check-in if I want pool privelages and if so, which members of my party would I like to extend those privelages to.

In any other other reservation (ie cash) room charging is offered to the person who has made the reservation (and is responsible for it), who then decides who if anyone will have such privilages.

To me, this is a no-brainer. It is irresponsible for Disney to allow this to occur. For the record, I have never rented my points and at this time have no plans to do so. I just think this is wrong and could be easily prevented by a simple, common sense change in policy.

If the reservation is in your name (and only your name), you will have the opportunity to decline charging privileges on the KTTW cards. If there are others on the reservation and they are the ones who check into the resort and provide a credit card, the charging privileges are provided unless declined by the guest on the reservation. If you are renting the reservation to someone else, you presumably will not also be on the reservation and not the one to check-in at the resort.

Regardless, the entity who controls the reservation will be held responsible if there are irrgularities with the account attached to the account. If the reservation had been made thru DRC, Disney Resorts would bear the responsibility if the account were not collectible. In this case, the reservation was provided using DVC points, and the member providing that reservation is being held ultimately responsible. Please note that the member is not being forced to make the account good, they are just being held hostage by DVC until the account has the zero balance. The same thing could happen if a room was significantly damaged by a guest in the room.

As for changing the policy, while some might seem it to be common sense to change it, Disney Resorts have no incentive to do so since they don't care if DVC members rent to others or not. While renting is prefectly legal and expressly allowed in our documents, there are responsibilities that go with the practice that members need to be aware of. Those responsibilities are spelled out in our documents and have been there since 1991. Why should it be changed now? As for "doing the right thing", DVC does have the responsibility to uphold the terms of the contract they have with each of us - including holding members responsible when their guests/renters have not been.

 

[Reaseyann]

As far as Disney finding a way to hold the renter responsible...why should they? They didn't make the profit on the room rental, the DVC owner did.

But they did make a profit on the points! They are the ones who sold them in the first place and they do have an obligation to their original customer, right?

 

[JBx3]

I Do not disagree that Disney can do this as a result of the contract language. And, as I said, I have no intention of renting my points. However, the right thing to do would be to change the policy placing the repercussions of this behavior where they belong, or not allowing the situation to occur in the first place. The policy as it stands is ripe for misuse and fraud. One could argue culpability on Disney's part as they are obviously aware that this happens, yet have taken no steps to prevent it.

Would a change cost Disney a few bucks? Probably, although most people recognize that there is no fiducairy difference between charging your credit card through your room key or simply charging your credit card. My point is it is not ethical to hold the owner resposible in this situation, when a change in policy could prevent it.

What ever happened to doing the right thing?

And the commen demonitor in this whole thing is exactly what you just said "What ever happened to doing the right thing"

Sorry other posters enjoy falling back on the old contract thing, and I do understand "you signed the contract thing basic reply" is not what really is being discussed....it is about if Disney really cares, they would reach out and assist their customer with a fix. However, as I said before, and the proof is in the pudding...so many others that have replied seem to side and defend Disney and the "contract" and that is why the DVC owner will continue be on the the end of the short stick here!

My customers seem to fight me tooth and nail for what they feel is right! Disney is so lucky to have customers who argue for them! Wow...

 

[Chuck S]

But they did make a profit on the points! They are the ones who sold them in the first place and they do have an obligation to their original customer, right?

Nope, not contractually. Contractually, DVC Owners accepted the responsibility for their renters. I would expect Disney to live up to their contractual obligations, just as owners should live up to theirs.

 

[CarolAnnC]

But they did make a profit on the points! They are the ones who sold them in the first place and they do have an obligation to their original customer, right?

As WebmasterDoc pointed out above, all obligations and responsibilities are clearly spelled out in the contract we all signed and agreed to at purchase.

 

[Chuck S]

And the commen demonitor in this whole thing is exactly what you just said "What ever happened to doing the right thing"

Sorry other posters enjoy falling back on the old contract thing, and I do understand "you signed the contract thing basic reply" is not what really is being discussed....it is about if Disney really cares, they would reach out and assist their customer with a fix. However, as I said before, and the proof is in the pudding...so many others that have replied seem to side and defend Disney and the "contract" and that is why the DVC owner will continue be on the the end of the short stick here!

My customers seem to fight me tooth and nail for what they feel is right! Disney is so lucky to have customers who argue for them! Wow...

The "old contract thing" is really all that matters in court. Disney has a fiscal obligation to their stockholders to collect any debt as cheaply as legally possible. Putting a hold on point use costs them nothing, no collection agency fees, no filing fees...nada. If Disney were to spend time and money collecting a debt for whom another, the DVC owner, has agreed to take responsibility, it is not showing fiscal resposibility to the stockholders. Remember, owning DVC is a timeshare, it is not a legal financial interest in Disney Corp. The stockholders have that stake.

If Disney were to modify the contractual agreement, chances are they would want something from DVC in return...maybe $$. Why should everyone's dues increase to protect an owner that choses to rent their points?

 

[RobDoc]

And the commen demonitor in this whole thing is exactly what you just said "What ever happened to doing the right thing"

DVC IS doing the right thing. They have the responsibility to abide by the contract we all have with them.

It sounds as though you are suggesting that unpaid accounts should be an added responsibility in our Annual Fees. I'd rather see the party responsible for the unpaid account have to take care of seeing that the account is paid. That's just part of the risk of renting. I sure don't want my dues to be higher because you, your guest or your renter did not pay your room account (and I don't think it's fair for any other member to be ressponsible for me or my guests either).

 

[Chuck S]

As this thread has taken a turn from an inquiry about a policy, to a discussion of that policy, it has been moved from Ops to the Mousecellaneous board.

 

[ftballfan7]

DVC IS doing the right thing. They have the responsibility to abide by the contract we all have with them.

It sounds as though you are suggesting that unpaid accounts should be an added responsibility in our Annual Fees. I'd rather see the party responsible for the unpaid account have to take care of seeing that the account is paid. That's just part of the risk of renting. I sure don't want my dues to be higher because you, your guest or your renter did not pay your room account (and I don't think it's fair for any other member to be ressponsible for me or my guests either).

I have never suggested that anyone pay higher dues to address the problem, or that Disney not abide by the contract. My suggestion is that Disney allow an owner to disallow charging to a room that was booked with their points. An easy fix with minimal implications other than giving the owner a chance to protect themselves. Will it cost Disney a little in lost sales? Possibly, but it would help to prevent fraud. And make no mistake about it, Disney is well aware that these fraudulent acts are being committed. That is why the have developed a process to limit "their" damages when they occur.

That being said, let's not forget who the real "bad guys" are in these situations. It is the scumbags who purposely steal by making purchases they have no iuntention of ponying upn for. It is a criminal act that should be prosecuted. Unfortunately in our society these situations are called civil matters (even though they are criminal) and the perpetrators are rarley if ever held accountable.

 

[crisi]

From a shareholders' perspective, that is the wrong thing. Disney exists to maximize profit. DVC owners have a contractal responsibility for the behavior of their guests. That money that you so casually say Disney should pass up in order to "do the right thing" is my kid's college fund (ok, a miniscule part of it).

As a shareholder, if I had my way, Disney would make it as painful as possible for owners to rent their points and compete with Disney for room revenue. As an owner, I appreciate that they don't make it more painful - there may be a point in the future where I can't use my own points.

There are multiple sides to every story.

 

[RobDoc]

I have never suggested that anyone pay higher dues to address the problem, or that Disney not abide by the contract. My suggestion is that Disney allow an owner to disallow charging to a room that was booked with their points. An easy fix with minimal implications other than giving the owner a chance to protect themselves. Will it cost Disney a little in lost sales? Possibly, but it would help to prevent fraud. And make no mistake about it, Disney is well aware that these fraudulent acts are being committed. That is why the have developed a process to limit "their" damages when they occur.

That being said, let's not forget who the real "bad guys" are in these situations. It is the scumbags who purposely steal by making purchases they have no iuntention of ponying upn for. It is a criminal act that should be prosecuted. Unfortunately in our society these situations are called civil matters (even though they are criminal) and the perpetrators are rarley if ever held accountable.

Disney (Resorts) would have to do that by holding DVC responsible and DVC would have to pass that expense along to members via Annual Fees. Since those rooms are NOT being rented thru Resorts (DRC), Disney (Resorts) is getting no income from DVC reservations and is unwilling to accept any responsibility for unpaid accounts - unlike when the same room was rented thru DRC and Resorts got all of the money paid for the reservation.

The choice is to either accept that there is some risk for members who rent points (and that fact is made clear in our documents) or decide not to rent. Again, the same issue could result if a member provided a reservation for a family member or friend, but hopefully the member would have better success with the account being paid under those circumstances. We, as members, can't have it both ways. Resorts has a contract with DVC about financial responsibility for resort charges. DVC either has to accept that responsibility (via all members) or hold only the members who made the reservation responsible (and, in this case, who also financially benefitted from the rental).

In your post above it seems to are not willing to separate Disney from DVC. We, as DVC members have no contract with Disney Resorts. We do have a contract with DVC regarding who will be held responsible for actions involving DVC reservations - and that responsibility is borne by the member who made the reservation. My understanding is that this is the contractual agreement DVC has with Disney (Resorts) and, in turn, had included in the contract it has with every DVC member.

 

[ftballfan7]

Disney (Resorts) would have to do that by holding DVC responsible and DVC would have to pass that expense along to members via Annual Fees. Since those rooms are NOT being rented thru Resorts (DRC), Disney (Resorts) is getting no income from DVC reservations and is unwilling to accept any responsibility for unpaid accounts - unlike when the same room was rented thru DRC and Resorts got all of the money paid for the reservation.

The choice is to either accept that there is some risk for members who rent points (and that fact is made clear in our documents) or decide not to rent. Again, the same issue could result if a member provided a reservation for a family member or friend, but hopefully the member would have better success with the account being paid under those circumstances. We, as members, can't have it both ways. Resorts has a contract with DVC about financial responsibility for resort charges. DVC either has to accept that responsibility (via all members) or hold only the members who made the reservation responsible (and, in this case, who also financially benefitted from the rental).

In your post above it seems to are not willing to separate Disney from DVC. We, as DVC members have no contract with Disney Resorts. We do have a contract with DVC regarding who will be held responsible for actions involving DVC reservations - and that responsibility is borne by the member who made the reservation. My understanding is that this is the contractual agreement DVC has with Disney (Resorts) and, in turn, had included in the contract it has with every DVC member.

I fully understand the distinction between DVC and Disney. My belief is that Disney should allow an owner who is responsible for a reservation to block room charging. This would not result in DVC being responsible for fraudulant charges because in the instances where that room charging was blocked, the fraudulant charges would be eliminated. The system as it stands now creates an environment where this fraud is too easy. Such a thing would cost DVC nothing and therefor would not affect anyone's dues. Sustaining a system where a party is held responsible for charges that Disney refuses to allow them to block is irresponsible.

Nowhere in my contract does it guarantee room charging privilages to anyone I may allow to use my points (rented or not). Therefore, allowing those privilages to be blocked is not violating the contract.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree (I read on these boards recently that this phrase really annoys someone, so my appolagies to them). I doubt that I am going to convice you, or the others who have made up their minds similiar to yours, that the right thing for Disney to do would be to allow owners to block this privilage in order to insulate themselves from fraud. And it is highly unlikely that you will convince me that my opinion that they shouold is incorrrect.

 

[ftballfan7]

From a shareholders' perspective, that is the wrong thing. Disney exists to maximize profit. DVC owners have a contractal responsibility for the behavior of their guests. That money that you so casually say Disney should pass up in order to "do the right thing" is my kid's college fund (ok, a miniscule part of it).

As a shareholder, if I had my way, Disney would make it as painful as possible for owners to rent their points and compete with Disney for room revenue. As an owner, I appreciate that they don't make it more painful - there may be a point in the future where I can't use my own points.

There are multiple sides to every story.

This is not about whether Disney should allow renting by DVC owners or not. Taht is another topic entirely.

This is about acting ethically to minimize fraud when it is relatively simple to do so. Disney could make more money for their shareholders by paying 8 year olds in a developing country to work 18 hours a day making their t-shirts. This, however would not be ethical. Surely you would not want Disney to do that, college fund or not.

 

[Chuck S]

Again, though, you seem to be confusing the difference between DVC and Disney.

At the top of the heap is Disney Resorts. Resorts has a resort management contract with the DVC Management Corp. As part of the contract, Disney Resorts will offer DVC point reservation guests the same onsite resort amenities it offers cash guests. In exchange for their management and onsite amenties, the contract holds DVC Management Corp. responsible for any billings.

DVC Management Corp., in turn, has a contract with individual members that states we are responsible for any omissions or damages done by our guests or renters.

So a renter bounces a bill. That bill is then sent to DVC Management Corp. for payment. DVC Management Corp. can then either pay that bill using members dues, as it is it their sole source of funding, or pass that bill on to the individual DVC owner that rented the reservation.

There may even be another layer, DVD, between DVC Managment and Disney Resorts, but that is the basics of how it works. Our individual contract as a DVC Owner is with DVC Management, who has a master contract with Disney Resorts.

There is no reason for Disney to allow an individual owner or their guest to not charge if they present a Credit Card, their contract (Disney Resorts) is with DVC Management, not the individual owner, guest or renter.

Disney Resorts is not "allowing" an owner to rent out their points, DVC and likely Florida timeshare law, allows it. Disney Resorts can not forbid it, they are only a contracted resort manager.

Like the difference between Alamo and National rental cars, same top ownership, two separate operating companies.

 

[JBx3]

DVC IS doing the right thing. They have the responsibility to abide by the contract we all have with them.

It sounds as though you are suggesting that unpaid accounts should be an added responsibility in our Annual Fees. I'd rather see the party responsible for the unpaid account have to take care of seeing that the account is paid. That's just part of the risk of renting. I sure don't want my dues to be higher because you, your guest or your renter did not pay your room account (and I don't think it's fair for any other member to be ressponsible for me or my guests either).

No that is not what I was suggesting in quoting the above. "What ever happen to doping the right thing"

A more clear response is my thoughtds that having a $1,500.00 line before a card is actually charged is just nuts, regardless of high cost of disney prices or not. Disney could simply have a $1,500.00 limit on owners of DVC but perhaps $500.00 limits before the first charge is run and cleared on disneys end for all Guests (non-owners). This would stillallow disney to profit by capturing KTTW dollars yet protected DVC owners by not letting those dollar amounts get out of control.

Would this be fair or wouldn't something like this be doing the "right thing" to prevent fraud or discouraging it?

I get the contract thing and am not debating that. But items in contracts can and should change from time to time to make sure all parties, Disney, DVC, and DVC owners have a mutual happy partnership, which only keeps and increases sales.

Not running a firm charge before surpassing $1,500.00 to me is simply a non-caring system set up.

 

[Chuck S]

No that is not what I was suggesting in quoting the above. "What ever happen to doping the right thing"

A more clear response is my thoughtds that having a $1,500.00 line before a card is actually charged is just nuts, regardless of high cost of disney prices or not. Disney could simply have a $1,500.00 limit on owners of DVC but perhaps $500.00 limits before the first charge is run and cleared on disneys end for all Guests (non-owners). This would stillallow disney to profit by capturing KTTW dollars yet protected DVC owners by not letting those dollar amounts get out of control.

Would this be fair or wouldn't something like this be doing the "right thing" to prevent fraud or discouraging it?

I get the contract thing and am not debating that. But items in contracts can and should change from time to time to make sure all parties, Disney, DVC, and DVC owners have a mutual happy partnership, which only keeps and increases sales.

Not running a firm charge before surpassing $1,500.00 to me is simply a non-caring system set up.

Again, the $1500 limit applies to all, owners, guests and renters. No doubt under a master resort management contract between DVC and Disney. Changing that contract and lowering limits for "some" would likely require a cost, as there is no advantage to Disney...a cost passes on through dues to all owners.

Then again, owners are required contractually to inform DVC reservationCM if the reservation is for an owner, guest or a renter, and they would have to do so for a tiered system to work. Do you see that happening, honestly? Owners are quite lax in doing so, I think. "Doing the Right Thing" works both ways. I don;t see owners telling MS that the reservation is it specifically limits the renter, and thus can make the reservation less attractive to potential renters.

 

[disneynutz]

I am having a hard time understanding how this can happen?

If we have a CC on file, our room charges are closed out and charged to the card the night before our check out. We receive a zeroed out statement under our door on the morning of check out. The only charges that show up later is anything charged to the KTTW card after check out.

Is it possible that Disney didn't close out the room charges until later or that the Guest denied the charges and they were charged back to Disney?

Bill

 

[RobDoc]

No that is not what I was suggesting in quoting the above. "What ever happen to doping the right thing"

A more clear response is my thoughtds that having a $1,500.00 line before a card is actually charged is just nuts, regardless of high cost of disney prices or not. Disney could simply have a $1,500.00 limit on owners of DVC but perhaps $500.00 limits before the first charge is run and cleared on disneys end for all Guests (non-owners). This would stillallow disney to profit by capturing KTTW dollars yet protected DVC owners by not letting those dollar amounts get out of control.

Would this be fair or wouldn't something like this be doing the "right thing" to prevent fraud or discouraging it?

I get the contract thing and am not debating that. But items in contracts can and should change from time to time to make sure all parties, Disney, DVC, and DVC owners have a mutual happy partnership, which only keeps and increases sales.

Not running a firm charge before surpassing $1,500.00 to me is simply a non-caring system set up.

Once again, you are trying to include DVC and it's members with Disney (Resorts) and that is not the case at all. Resorts has the $1500 limit for all WDW guests at Deluxe Resorts (I'm not sure if there are different limits for Moderate and Value Resorts). The system is what it is. When DVC started this was the policy negotiated and included in the DVC contracts. DVC is "doing the right thing" as it has agreed to this stipulation and has included it in the documents for all DVC members so that they are aware of it before they even purchase. It is the responsibility of each member to understand the contents of that contract. If renting is an important component of your membership, thsn it's your responsibility to be aware of this risk and protect yourself before renting (You could require a $1500 deposit from your renter) or just decide not to rent if you feel the risk is too great. Suggesting that the system is not "doing the right thing" after already agreeing to those terms is a bit ingenuous IMO. If it was considered a problem, the time to deal with it (and express the concern) was before purchase. Did you express your concerns before purchase or have a legal review of the documents before purchase? It's fine to say "do the right thing" but it would be wise to have that in writing before agreeing to what is included in the documents you agreed to at the time of purchase.

 

[Chuck S]

I am having a hard time understanding how this can happen?

If we have a CC on file, our room charges are closed out and charged to the card the night before our check out. We receive a zeroed out statement under our door on the morning of check out. The only charges that show up later is anything charged to the KTTW card after check out.

Is it possible that Disney didn't close out the room charges until later or that the Guest denied the charges and they were charged back to Disney?

Bill

I don't think the CC transactions are batched out to the CC company the night before, I think they go the morning of check-out, when the resort computers are reset for the new day. And having worked as a bookkeeper for a small business, yes, sometimes the charges do bounce back after approval, though new technology has decreased this.

 

[ftballfan7]

Again, though, you seem to be confusing the difference between DVC and Disney.

At the top of the heap is Disney Resorts. Resorts has a resort management contract with the DVC Management Corp. As part of the contract, Disney Resorts will offer DVC point reservation guests the same onsite resort amenities it offer cash guests. In exchange for their management and onsite amenties, the contract holds DVC Management Corp. responsible for any billings.

DVC Management Corp., in turn, has a contract with individual members that states we are responsible for any omissions or damages done by our guests or renters.

So a renter bounces a bill. That bill is them sent to DVC Management Corp. for payment. DVC Management Corp. can them either pay that bill using members dues, as it is it sole source of funding, or pass that bill on to the individual DVC owner that rented the reservation.

There may even be another layer, DVD, between DVC Managment and Disney Resorts, but that is the basics of how it works. Our individual contract as a DVC Owner is with DVC Management, who has a master contract with Disney Resorts.

There is no reason for Disney to allow an individual owner or their guest to not charge if they present a Credit Card, their contract (Disney Resorts) is with DVC Management, not the individual owner, guest or renter.

Disney Resorts is not "allowing" an owner to rent out their points, DVC and likely Florida timeshar law, allows it. Disney Resorts can not forbid it, they are only a contracted resort manager.

Like the difference between Alamo and National rental cars, same top ownership, two separate operating companies.

Again, I fully understand the distinction between DVC and Disney. That distinction does not preclude a change in policy that would minimize this problem.

Perhaps the problem is that I am a firefighter, not a businessman. I don't really get the whole "It's not my problem so I am not going to solve it, even though it would be easy to so" mentality. I understand that is the way of most businesses, but I choose not to live my life that way or give others a free pass on it without voicing my displeasure.

I also understand that neither DVC or Disney can prohibit renting altogether. Another poster referenced how Disney should do every thing they can to prevent renting. I was merely pointing out that I don't feel that is what this topic is really all about and is a can of worms I don't really want to get into.