Third party commercial renters

Except...we really can't. DVC Management is limited to 12% of dues. Special assements are limited in what they can be used for, and "dues" outside the 12% to Disney managment is limited to actual care serviices,(Transporation, lawn care, normal maintenance), utilities, parking/road upkeep, and common area maintenance of your home resort only. If it is a limited number of hard to get studios is a major problem, dues from Resort A can not be used to correct a problem at Resort B. Thaat is why the different resorts have different dues. The reserve fund is specifically limited to scheduled refurbishments. Now, going to the trust system, like FWC, may allow costs to be spread between resorts that are in the trust, but not the legacy resort system.
You were the one who suggested (repeatedly) there was the potential for a negative financial impact on DVC, or an additional cost to members, even if rhetorically. I'm simply saying I'd be happy to pony up more money to stop it. Whether it is an additional cost per point, a revision to the 12% fee, or something else.
"True, but it would certainly take employee time from a company that is already very short handed. They are probably losing more money by not having enough staff to restart resort delivery of in-park purchases, because people don't want to lug bags around all day."
"To add to this, if DVC were to review every reservation from every member before it is actually approved and confirmed, as we do the rental submissions on the Rent/Transfer board. would be a disaster for members. And with the shear volume of DVC reservations made daily, they'd need to hire an entire staff just to review reservations."
"I still believe that any meaningful proposed solution would be worse for average DVC members than the issue itself, or would be cost prohibitive to implement."
And most specifically, you asked:
"So, again, if you want it adhered to in its entirety, then you do want DVC to take the time and money to review each and every reservation and approve each one?"
Yes, yes I do. And I'd be happy to pay for it. I get that the answer may be “no” for other people, but the question was asked and I answered it. For me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying and I completely agree that something below 20 could indeed be considered commercial, but it only becomes that when DVC decides to add that to its “definition”…if they do, then that is what we all have to accept.

That really has been my point…while some feel commercial purposes needs to be more strictly defined, and want DVC to define it more strictly, it’s not a violation until that change in language occurs.

We do know that they can look for a “pattern of rental activity” which is very broad and why these discussions can become deep because it’s pretty easy for DVC to get around enforcement if it’s not defined.

That’s why I think the 2007 rule helped because DVC made it clear what they would and would not allow you to do with your membership.

The only piece I will disagree with is that the way that 2007 update was written, it did explicitly state that all reservations in excess of the first 20 shall be presumed to be the use for commercial purposes.

View attachment 868397
I'm quoting this part below because I still feel like part of what I'm trying to say isn't coming out clearly.

They did not define "commercial use" in the policy. Commercial use is still defined by what the words literally mean.
They only defined when they will monitor. When you say "only becomes that when DVC decides to add that to its “definition”" nobody at DVC ever said those earlier reservations aren't commercial. They did not say "commercial isn't allowed and it's only commercial past 20". They only clarified we are all on an honor system. They didn't rule out that they are wrong, they just notified us they aren't looking. Nothing anywhere says renting for profit is fine as long as it's a limited number per year.
They have generally approved the idea of renting for people whose primary use is personal. They have never come out and said Mr. Businessguy can buy 8,000 points exclusively to rent out as long as it's under X reservations per year. They said no commercial use... but we aren't going to check until you get flagged for too many. By stating commercial means not allowed to do anything the board could reasonably see as commercial they are also telling us they COULD go in a decide ChuckS's four single night rooms after decades of personal use are commercial. (and I don't think they should, but the board could randomly audit and be within their rules) What we really have is a "clarifying policy" that gives DVC the approval to be completely lax and allow their buddies to muddle up the system.
This was the exact verbiage. It was much more than three years ago, though (but I’m not sure what the significance of three years is):

Commercial Use Policy. The Disney Vacation Club (DVC) Public Offering Statement makes it clear that DVC memberships are intended for personal vacation use. The Declaration of Condominium and the Membership Agreement for the Resort expressly limits the use of Ownership Interests to personal use and prohibits use for "commercial purposes," - a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity.

DVC Members may make as many reservations as they desire. However, if, in any 12-month period, a DVC Member desires to make more than 20 reservations, the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Members family and/or the DVC Members friends (collectively, Personal Use), and not for commercial purposes. If, in any 12-month period in which a DVC Member attempts to make more than 20 reservations but is unable to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes, all reservations in excess of the first 20 reservations shall be presumed to be the use of Vacation Accommodations for commercial purposes in violation of the Declaration and the Membership Agreement (the Multiple Reservation Rule).

Enforcement of this policy will be the responsibility of DVC Member Services as follows. For each reservation made by a DVC Member, Member Services shall determine, before confirming the reservation, the number of reservations made by such DVC Member which are occurring or have occurred in any rolling twelve-month period in which the reservation then being made will occur. If, as a result of Member Services review of the DVC Members reservation history, the reservation the DVC Member is then attempting to make violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the DVC Member has not established, or cannot then establish that all of the DVC Members reservations, including the reservation then being made by the DVC Member, are for Personal Use, DVC Member Services will not honor or confirm the reservation and the DVC Member shall be advised that the reservation violates the Multiple Reservation Rule and the prohibition on use of Vacation Homes for commercial purposes. For reservations canceled for violating this policy, the cancellation shall be deemed to be a cancellation by the DVC Member and the provisions of the Home Resort Rules and Regulations relating to cancellations (including, without limitation, Sections 5(d), 13 and 14) shall apply.
 
I'm quoting this part below because I still feel like part of what I'm trying to say isn't coming out clearly.

They did not define "commercial use" in the policy. Commercial use is still defined by what the words literally mean.
They only defined when they will monitor. When you say "only becomes that when DVC decides to add that to its “definition”" nobody at DVC ever said those earlier reservations aren't commercial. They did not say "commercial isn't allowed and it's only commercial past 20". They only clarified we are all on an honor system. They didn't rule out that they are wrong, they just notified us they aren't looking. Nothing anywhere says renting for profit is fine as long as it's a limited number per year.
They have generally approved the idea of renting for people whose primary use is personal. They have never come out and said Mr. Businessguy can buy 8,000 points exclusively to rent out as long as it's under X reservations per year. They said no commercial use... but we aren't going to check until you get flagged for too many. By stating commercial means not allowed to do anything the board could reasonably see as commercial they are also telling us they COULD go in a decide ChuckS's four single night rooms after decades of personal use are commercial. (and I don't think they should, but the board could randomly audit and be within their rules) What we really have is a "clarifying policy" that gives DVC the approval to be completely lax and allow their buddies to muddle up the system.

Why we differ because I do read that clause as specifically defining when they would see that the membership was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the clauses.

If it says in excess of the first 20 shall be presumed to mean the membership is now being used for commercial purposes, and that is what DVC used to trigger enforcement and the remedy was to cancel those extra rooms..not cancel any of the first 20…only the excess.

If they felt that ones below 20 constituted commercial purposes, why would they not have canceled those as well? With those rules, as they were written, an owners first 20 reservations were not in jeopardy of being canceled.

I know the term “commercial purpose” as a specific definition but this still comes down to the fact that owners can only be found in violation of the contract based on the terms DVC sets in place.

While you or I may think owning 8000 points makes it ripe for someone to use the membership for what a reasonable person would define for commercial purposes, if DVC doesn’t agree and wants to let owners use lots of points to book and call it “personal use” then we are stuck with it unless we fight to replace them and that isn’t going to happen.

But with that, let’s see what ideas are out there that owners should be allowed to when it comes to exercising our right to rent.

ETA. I agree DVC could decide to do a lot if they want to make the rules more strict…they could say it’s a smaller number, they could say we will review more often, etc.
 
Last edited:
You were the one who suggested (repeatedly) there was the potential for a negative financial impact on DVC, or an additional cost to members, even if rhetorically. I'm simply saying I'd be happy to pony up more money to stop it. Whether it is an additional cost per point, a revision to the 12% fee, or something else.



And most specifically, you asked:

Yes, yes I do. And I'd be happy to pay for it. I get that the answer may be “no” for other people, but the question was asked and I answered it. For me.

It would be interesting to see how many owners would vote to increase the % paid to DVC to manage the program to offset this.

What would be more interesting, since each condo association would have to vote for their own resort, is whether some resort owners would vote yes and other resort owners said no.
 
It's the same week I went last year and had my pick of places to stay the previous Fall.
Maybe I picked a bad week to pinpoint, I just went with one I knew wasn't holiday anymore - the general point is still valid regardless of whether you want to nitpick about any random week. It's harder to get anywhere to stay if you aren't online the moment the rooms become available and 7 months is iffy at basically every resort. That wasn't true even 5 years ago. 5-10 years ago I could get a pretty good choice of places to stay for a solid week up until 4-5 months out, the exception being the actual weeks of holidays or the EPCOT resorts in the Fall.

But I can rent anything I want in 2-3 days chunks up through 11 months from today, already booked.
LOL you probably did pick a bad week. 1/8/25 - 1/12/25 is runDisney marathon weekend. Runners should be arriving to pick up bib on 1/11 if they are running the 5K or Dopey. Other races can be later.
 
You were the one who suggested (repeatedly) there was the potential for a negative financial impact on DVC, or an additional cost to members, even if rhetorically. I'm simply saying I'd be happy to pony up more money to stop it. Whether it is an additional cost per point, a revision to the 12% fee, or something else.



And most specifically, you asked:

Yes, yes I do. And I'd be happy to pay for it. I get that the answer may be “no” for other people, but the question was asked and I answered it. For me.
The point is, DVC Management can ONLY get money from the 12% it is entitled to. Which does mean, it would have to shift cast members from phones and member administtration. As they have no other means to get money, it WILL impact all DVC Owners and be reflected in a degradation in services. Period. They can not raise that amount unilaterally, so yes, the cost would be prohibitive. And as Sandi said, if it would go to a vote of the members, and the different resort associations vote differently, how would that be handled? I honestly don't think there is any chance such a proposal would ever make it to the voting stage. Especially since DVC Management doesn't see it as a large problem for the vast majority of members, they will not authorize the expense of sending out ballots to each and every member, then tabulating them which also would need to be taken from their 12%.
 
Last edited:
I'm learning so much from this thread. I've never rented but don't have a problem with an owner listing their points, even on a rental site (I like the idea of a go between and a level of added security). I do wish confirmed reservations could be stopped, but also wonder how.

Do the rules allow for a situation where certain seasons and/or room types can not be occupied by anyone other than the owner of the points? Or at least without triggering a review by Member Services? No CCV studios the last two weeks of December, for example. The person who books three studios for themselves and family would still be safe as the owner is still part of the larger party.

Also, I was watching the DVC Fan YouTube video about rules the other day and it was mentioned DVC could use a minimum night requirement. Would that make a difference? I can feel the blowback from that one especially, lol, but not so much if they said the owner has to be on the reservation in order to book fewer than say 3 nights, for example. So the night I book before a cruise would be safe because it's for me, but I couldn't book and sell a single night in a Value Studio. Sure, you could sell 3 nights in the Value, but it sure seems like those single nights are listed a lot.

Neither of these are particularly convenient and I'm sure would be unpopular. I don't know, it's hard.

The contract is clear…owners do not need the approval of DVD or DVC to rent. So, they can not restrict owners from renting any specific room, and the way I read it, they can’t stop anyone from renting a confirmed reservation either.

The term “personal use” seems to have two different definitions. One is that all owners, guests, and their renters, can only use the rooms, when they are staying at the resort, for personal or recreational activities…it’s for vacation. One would not be allowed to, for example, set up the sale of jewelry while on vacation.

The other definition is that the purpose of DVC is to buy it to use it for its vacation value and not as an investment or business.

An owners membership doesn’t automatically become a commercial one simply because it includes rentals. Rentals have to reach whatever threshold DVC has determined that moves it from personal use one to commercial use one.

Now,, what those thresholds are today? That seems to be unclear because the last real detailed language was in 2007…but words such as “pattern of rental activity, “regularly using rentals sites“ or “maintaining a website “ have shown up in RIV and CFW..maybe even VDH…so we have a clue to what might trigger DVC to determine you have crossed over into “no-no” land.

They can indeed set minimums on how many nights can be in a reservation, but I am not sure if they can have different rules for renters vs. owners..,,good question…if they did, I would think it would have to apply to all room types and not individual ones.

What I do believe is that DVC is not going to set up very complicated rules that are too hard to enforce in order to ensure memberships are being used only for personal use and enjoyment and not a business…

But, what I think is missing from DVC is what does constitute too many, or a pattern and what happens to me, as an owner, if I cross those thresholds.

I can’t stay within the rules if I don’t know what they are. Hopefully I will have something to share in the not so distance future.
 
Last edited:
I have a question that I feel like hasn’t ever really been addressed properly by the regular commenters on this thread that I would like to hear everyone’s take on -

1. DVC allows owners to rent their points out. It is in our contracts that we can rent out our points. Also legally, Florida timeshare law provides the legal right to rent out points. Based in that we know renting will always exist as a part of DVC

2. DVC does not allow owners to to be commercial renters. Commercial renting is prohibited.

My questions is - Since renting out DVC points is 100% allowed, but commercially renting our points is 100% not allowed - how would you define and gives examples of (1) allowable points rentals that are not commercial and (2) non-allowed point rentals that are commercial in nature

Of course it doesn’t help that the only real guidance DVC has ever provided is the 20 reservation limit, but that’s all I think we mostly have to go in at this point…. So I’d be curious to hear how others would make the rules to make sure owners still can utilize their right to rent, while curbing prohibited commercial rentals
 
The point is, DVC Management can ONLY get money from the 12% it is entitled to. Which does mean, it would have to shift cast members from phones and member administtration. As they have no other means to get money, it WILL impact all DVC Owners and be reflected in a degradation in services. Period. They can not raise that amount unilaterally, so yes, the cost would be prohibitive. And as Sandi said, if it would go to a vote of the members, and the different resort associations vote differently, how would that be handled? I honestly don't think there is any chance such a proposal would ever make it to the voting stage. Especially since DVC Management doesn't see it as a large problem for the vast majority of members, they will not authorize the expense of sending out ballots to each and every member, then tabulating them which also would need to be taken from their 12%.

Looks to me like DVCM is already being paid within the 12% to enforce the rules. This snippet is from the Riviera Public Offering Statement. Interestingly, it also says that the purchaser is not provided a copy of the Property Management Agreement but can obtain one at no cost.

1718442166930.png
 
Looks to me like DVCM is already being paid within the 12% to enforce the rules. This snippet is from the Riviera Public Offering Statement. Interestingly, it also says that the purchaser is not provided a copy of the Property Management Agreement but can obtain one at no cost.

View attachment 868419

The property management agreement is the agreement between DVCMC and WDPR to run the properties. T

That is not the agreement we have with DVC to run and manage the operations of the program. The 12% goes only to DVC to cover the costs of such things as implementing the home resort rules and regulations, and all aspects of the vacation plan.
 
I have a question that I feel like hasn’t ever really been addressed properly by the regular commenters on this thread that I would like to hear everyone’s take on -

1. DVC allows owners to rent their points out. It is in our contracts that we can rent out our points. Also legally, Florida timeshare law provides the legal right to rent out points. Based in that we know renting will always exist as a part of DVC

2. DVC does not allow owners to to be commercial renters. Commercial renting is prohibited.

My questions is - Since renting out DVC points is 100% allowed, but commercially renting our points is 100% not allowed - how would you define and gives examples of (1) allowable points rentals that are not commercial and (2) non-allowed point rentals that are commercial in nature

Of course it doesn’t help that the only real guidance DVC has ever provided is the 20 reservation limit, but that’s all I think we mostly have to go in at this point…. So I’d be curious to hear how others would make the rules to make sure owners still can utilize their right to rent, while curbing prohibited commercial rentals

Small , but I think important clarification for number two. The contract prohibits using your membership for a commercial purpose…there is no such language that uses the terms “commercial rental”.

The reason that is important because even one rental will prodxue proceeds, so one could say it’s commercial in the strict sense.

So, it comes back to how you are using your membership. Since, as you said, we can have rentals, those automatically count as part of acceptable reservations for personal use. That only becomes a problem when the rental activity on your membership reaches a level that shifts the purpose of it from one of personal (enjoyment) to commercial (running a business).
 
Last edited:
Small , but I think important clarification for number two. The contract prohibits using your membership for a commercial purpose…there is no such language that uses the terms “commercial rental”.

The reason that is important because even one rental will prodxue proceeds, so one could say it’s commercial in the strict sense.

So, it comes back to how you are using your membership. Since, as you said, we can have rentals, those automatically count as part of acceptable reservations for personal use. That only becomes a problem when the rental activity on your membership reaches a level that shifts the purpose of it from one of personal to commercial.
This is a very important point.

Too many people are of the mindset that 1 rental for profit makes use of the membership ‘commercial’. It absolutely doesn’t. The POS specifically states that a member can rent their points, that Disney doesn’t guarantee the rate you will get and that you will be ‘competing’ with Disney on these rentals. This expressly falls with the ‘personal use’ definition.

As above, it is only when the level of these types of rentals shifts above a certain level (presumed to be 20), that this morphs into using the membership for a commercial purpose.
 
This is a very important point.

Too many people are of the mindset that 1 rental for profit makes use of the membership ‘commercial’. It absolutely doesn’t. The POS specifically states that a member can rent their points, that Disney doesn’t guarantee the rate you will get and that you will be ‘competing’ with Disney on these rentals. This expressly falls with the ‘personal use’ definition.

As above, it is only when the level of these types of rentals shifts above a certain level (presumed to be 20), that this morphs into using the membership for a commercial purpose.
In a prior post I remember reading that, if you exceed 20 reservations, you must provide proof that all 20 were for your personal use or friends/family. Is that correct?

If non-personal use is allowed in any amount, why must all 20 reservations be demonstrated to be personal?
 
Dis tends to ignore issues not to rock the boat.
Commercial purpose is a judgement of intent, and rather than start judging they're ignoring it and brushing it aside. They really should be designating a portion of your point value that needs to be for personal use. It could be a smaller or larger number, I would be content with placing that around 50%. Number of reservations is nonsensical, because a person who has 4,000 points and a person who has 150 points are not looking at the same frequency of reservation.

I believe that personal could include friends and family. I think we could all agree there is a very big difference between someone who occasionally has too many points so rented out some extra they couldn't use that year, or a person whose account is primarily being used to rent the points.
 
The problem is, how would DVC legally prove intent at time of booking, if they are questioned and it goes to litigation? Having a set rule for number of reservations that triggers a review would stand up in litigation far easier than trying to prove intent at time of booking.

And what level of intent would be required? As most existing reservation rentals are initially made in the names of the owner, family members, or friends and changed to the name of the renter at a later date.

You have to look at what is practical to enforce. Look at all the archaic criminal laws on the books that are no longer practical to enforce, so are ignored. It is illegal to frown in Pocatello, Idaho. When is the last time someone was arrested for that?

DVC could make a rule that says you must stand on your head for the 15 minutes immediately prior to getting on the website to book a reservation, but again, enforcing it would be another story.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, how would DVC legally prove intent at time of booking, if they are questioned and it goes to litigation? Having a set rule for number of reservations that triggers a review would stand up in litigation far easier than trying to prove intent at time of booking.

And what level of intent would be required? As most existing reservation rentals are initially made in the names of the owner, family members, or friends and changed to the name of the renter at a later date.

You have to look at what is practical to enforce. Look at all the archaic criminal laws on the books that are no longer practical to enforce, so are ignored. It is illegal to frown in Pocatello, Idaho. When is the last time someone was arrested for that?

DVC could make a rule that says you must stand on your head for the 15 minutes immediately prior to getting on the website to book a reservation, but again, enforcing it would be another story.
Obviously it would be something that would have to be reviewed with a history. If a person is changing the names on reservations and using over a certain ratio of their points for "not themselves", that should trigger some sort of review process.
It makes more sense for this to be done with a ratio of points than with the quantity of reservations.
 
In a prior post I remember reading that, if you exceed 20 reservations, you must provide proof that all 20 were for your personal use or friends/family. Is that correct?

If non-personal use is allowed in any amount, why must all 20 reservations be demonstrated to be personal?

What it said is that you can make as many reservations as you want, but once you reach 20, DVC will step in and review the first 20. If any of those first 20 are rentals, they will not let you make a 21st one because they believe that would be deemed shifting you from using your membership for commercial purposes.

If they find more than 20 reservations on your membership, and you have at least one rental in the first 20, they would cancel only the ones in excess of 20...the rentals below 20 were left in tact.

The intent was, at the time, that the 20 reservation limit was a reasonable interpretation between using your reservation for personal use, which includes some level of rental activity, and moving into commercial purposes.

The purpose of having to establish to DVCs satisfaction that the first 20 were only for owners and their guests was to allow you to book more. If you couldn't do that, then you got capped at 20. So, if they review your account and you had say, 15 reservations in the name of yourself and five in the name of renters, then you can't book another one, until all five of those rentals are gone. But, if all 20 are indeed for only the owner and their guests, then they allowed the cap to go up.

Again, the definition of "personal use" in our contract applies to owners, guests of owners. and leasees (which can be strangers or family/friends). I think sometimes people see the word "personal use" and assume that it only includes and owner and their family/friends...in the case of the DVC contract, it does not.

If any rental within the first 20 was deemed by DVC to be proof the membership was being used for commercial purposes, above the limits, then not only would excess be canceled, but so would all the rentals.
 
And yes, that would require reviewing multiple years. There are going to be people who have a fluke year where they rent out more points because they couldn't go.
 
Dis tends to ignore issues not to rock the boat.
Commercial purpose is a judgement of intent, and rather than start judging they're ignoring it and brushing it aside. They really should be designating a portion of your point value that needs to be for personal use. It could be a smaller or larger number, I would be content with placing that around 50%. Number of reservations is nonsensical, because a person who has 4,000 points and a person who has 150 points are not looking at the same frequency of reservation.

I believe that personal could include friends and family. I think we could all agree there is a very big difference between someone who occasionally has too many points so rented out some extra they couldn't use that year, or a person whose account is primarily being used to rent the points.

These are all good points and there is nothing stopping DVC from putting in place stricter thresholds to shift a membership from personal use to commercial use. They absolutely could say its a % of points you must use...they could lock owners out from online booking once the computer sees reservations on a membership above a certain number and the only way to make one is call....lots that COULD be done.

But, the fact remains, that DVC is the only one who gets to define when a membership crosses a line...and while many think DVC is ignoring rules that are in place, we don't know that because we really don't have a clear understanding, other than from back in 2007, what DVC now uses to say a membership has violated the commercial use clause.

Hypothetically, a membership with 100 reservations in the names of others could be one a reasonable person sees as a violation, but if DVC looks at it and says, "nah, most of those are single night reservations, the membership has 4000 points, so, its fine", then that owner has been cleared. That is not DVC ignoring it, its DVC defining that level of activity falls under "personal use", no matter how far fetched it sounds.

You and I and every other owner can, and should, send feedback to them on what they think those thresholds and rules should be and based on member feedback, they very well could change them. But, changing the rules means they have to now enforce them.

I shared yesterday that the entire 20 reservations threshold that was put in place in 2007 may have made sense because the volume of rentals was small. Fast forward to today and how much easier it is to advertise and rent reservations, they may need to go back and revisit what and how they define a membership being used for anything but for personal use...with personal use including at least some rentals.

I know you believe that they ignore the rules, but it is possible that what DVC has decided to do is set the threshold so high when they see a "pattern" that is is hard to cross it. DVC could say the rule is that you can book 50 rentals a year on your membership, and if you own more than one it is 50 per each. You will only be considered in violation if you go above 50. They could say that in a rolling 12 month period, you must book at least one reservation for yourself or family/friends, and the rest, up to the remainder of your points can be rentals. All of those would be allowed because while commericial purpose is a real term, its enforcment within the context of DVC memerships is what they determine. Even if you and I as owners think its silly to set those rules, and that it pretty much means they are condoning it, they could. The only recourse owners would have, at that point, would be to file a complaint...just like we would have to do if they tried to make rules so strict that renting, even one, was impossible.

Because FL timeshare law and our contract allows for rentals, the rules that they use, and enforce, have to be seen as reasonable. Now, they can do what they want and then owners might be forced to file a complaint that our right to rent is being violated...but I just don't see DVC doing that.

What I think, right now, is that DVC has set up rules that allow them to be wishy washy and/or don't care to define the use of a membership as commercial until someone reaches an unlikely threshold.

Plus, I do think that DVC is only going to set rules they can and want to enforce. There is no sense in setting them if they can't enforce them and like it or not, at least the 2007 language made it clear when you would be in violation and when you would not and at what point would you have reservations canceled.

To be fair, I think there should be a reasonable threshold in place, whether its # of reservations, % of points, etc. But, I also think that once that is determined, enforcement has to happen. The problem with enforcement, which is what we see today, is that DVC tells us that they do indeed monitor and hold memberships accountable...well, that is what they have told me....

But if I think a membership being used for commercial purposes means one thing, and you believe it to be another, then the whole system doesn't work.

DVC should be accountable to owners to be clear on what standards are in place that define a membership as being used for personal use (enjoyment) and what one is not, and what consequences we would face if we violate those rules.
 
Last edited:
Imposing limits on members making rental reservations by using their points to make reservations requested by the renter is almost impossible to enforce. Even if someone makes 25 reservations in a year in the name of others, and Disney flags them, they can say I don’t get to go much these days, and all of those reservations are for friends of mine, because I’m a nice guy. And in these days of people having hundreds of Facebook friends and thousands of Instagram followers, where you can be friends with people you never meet in real life, it is extremely difficult for Disney to prove that someone is not your “friend”. And Disney is not the IRS; lying to Disney is not a crime, and they have no power to examine your bank or Venmo accounts. Disney could try a “sting operation” where they have employees pretend to be vacationers requesting rentals on places like DVC Rental Store, David’s, or DIS, and this would give them the member information of anyone who responded. But the problem there is that renting points is explicitly permitted, and it is highly unlikely that any member would respond to a large enough number of these “sting operation” requests to prove that they were engaged in “commercial” renting. So this would be a huge amount of work and expense resulting in very little (and quite possibly zero) payoff.

The lowest-hanging fruit here is spec rentals advertised publicly on the internet, which are unambiguously rentals as opposed to reservations for “friends”. Disney could monitor these listings and use their database of room reservations and knowledge of guest name change requests to see which accounts are listing these rentals and getting paid for them. And if they find a membership account dominated by this kind of activity, then that’s a clear case of violating the “commercial use” clause and they can take action.
 
Last edited:














DIS Tiktok DIS Facebook DIS Twitter DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Top