Third party commercial renters

But it wouldn't be a fee to the renter. It would be a fee to the owner for DVC to add a guest name. How the owner passes that fee on to a renter is up to the owner. They wouldn't be requiring the owner to charge the renter a fee.

Any fee DVC requires to be charged to a renter IS DVD setting a condition to rentals, when the POS gives the right to set any terms they want.

Owners would now have to consider that use that to determine rental rate, so it appears to me it is in direct conflict since that fee would still be the responsibility of the owner.
 
Certainly larger rooms should cost more points. I don't think it would be realistic that a studio costs the same as a 1BR. If that were the case then it would just be the 1BR units that are hard to reserve instead of the studios. I think what some are saying is that the disparity between a 1BR and a studio that have the same occupancy could be less than it is today. Right now someone doesn't want to spend 100% more points to book a 1BR over a studio, but perhaps they would be willing to spend 25-50% more, which could help even out demand.
Yes. The premium charged for a 1BR compared to a studio should be set so that studios and 1 BRs get reserved at roughly the same rate. When studios are snapped up and 1 BRs languish, that tells us that the premium is too high.
 
Yes. The premium charged for a 1BR compared to a studio should be set so that studios and 1 BRs get reserved at roughly the same rate. When studios are snapped up and 1 BRs languish, that tells us that the premium is too high.
That and too many people bought studio only contracts, IE they literally don't have the points to stay in a 1br.
 
Any fee DVC requires to be charged to a renter IS DVD setting a condition to rentals, when the POS gives the right to set any terms they want.

Owners would now have to consider that use that to determine rental rate, so it appears to me it is in direct conflict since that fee would still be the responsibility of the owner.
I don't even think you read my post. Or if you did you don't comprehend it. It isn't a fee that they would be requiring to be charged to the renter. It may not even apply only to rentals. It could apply to any guest name change.
 
I don't even think you read my post. Or if you did you don't comprehend it. It isn't a fee that they would be requiring to be charged to the renter. It may not even apply only to rentals. It could apply to any guest name change.
So, if iI have a family reservation, and my cousin changes their mind and can;t go, I need to pay a fee to remove hem from the reservation. And another fee to add another cousin later on, if one can go?

First, there is nothing in the POS that allows for that.
Second, it kills the flexibility of DVC, which is why most people purchased it compared to other timeshares.
 
Literally every “solution” that has been suggested so far would result in vastly more complaints from members than we are seeing now about the “problem” of points rentals. “OMG I forgot to include Aunt Edna in the list of family members and friends I have to send to DVC every two years and now I can’t make a reservation for her- what can I do?”
First of all, how dare you forget Aunt Edna?

Second, as long Aunt Edna is with you or someone else in your family, she’s good to go. And I don’t think she likes Disney anyway.

Third, I never said I thought this through. I’m just spitballing possible ways to address an annoying issue.
 
So, if iI have a family reservation, and my cousin changes their mind and can;t go, I need to pay a fee to remove hem from the reservation. And another fee to add another cousin later on, if one can go?

First, there is nothing in the POS that allows for that.
Second, it kills the flexibility of DVC, which is why most people purchased it compared to other timeshares.
It would depend on how the fee is implemented. Wyndham charges for any guest name change. So if you add the name and later want to change it to someone else, another fee is charged. DVC wouldn't have to do that. DVC could probably more easily add a fee as part of the terms of BVTC reservations (those made at 7 months ) vs. home resort point reservations.

I also suspect most people bought DVC because it gives them access to DVC resorts, not necessarily so they can send guests. What percentage of owners send guests on their reservations vs using it themselves? It does nothing to change the flexibility. You could still add guests to a reservation.
 
It would depend on how the fee is implemented. Wyndham charges for any guest name change. So if you add the name and later want to change it to someone else, another fee is charged. DVC wouldn't have to do that. DVC could probably more easily add a fee as part of the terms of BVTC reservations (those made at 7 months ) vs. home resort point reservations.

I also suspect most people bought DVC because it gives them access to DVC resorts, not necessarily so they can send guests. What percentage of owners send guests on their reservations vs using it themselves? It does nothing to change the flexibility. You could still add guests to a reservation.
A LOT of perple bought with the idea of sharing their DVC with family and friends, that is EXACTLY the way the program was and is marketed. Multiple generations of family and friends spending time at Disney together.
 
A LOT of perple bought with the idea of sharing their DVC with family and friends, that is EXACTLY the way the program was and is marketed.
But "A LOT" doesn't really give any context. Was it 100%, 5%, twenty? It still doesn't change the flexibility and it helps cover the costs for the additional work that the management company has to do in order to facilitate name changes.
 
But "A LOT" doesn't really give any context. Was it 100%, 5%, twenty? It still doesn't change the flexibility and it helps cover the costs for the additional work that the management company has to do in order to facilitate name changes.
It doesn't matter how many. It was a major part of the marketing and the POS, and could amount to a legally substantial change to what you purchased. And there is still no clause in the POS to allow it. Plus, would the internal "club" trade agreement between the individual DVC resort associations allow it? Apparently they are difficult if not impossible to amend, unless the resort withdraws from DVC and then reassociates. That is why the legacy resorts, even to this day, do not prohibit new resale purchasers from trading between them like the newer resorts do. DVC would have implemented a similar "buy resale, stay only at the home resort" tactic for the legacy resorts years ago, if they could have.
 
Last edited:
I don't even think you read my post. Or if you did you don't comprehend it. It isn't a fee that they would be requiring to be charged to the renter. It may not even apply only to rentals. It could apply to any guest name change.

I thought you were referring to rentals. If you mean can they make a condition of the home resort rules and regulations that all name changes will be a fee?

I am not really sure but I lean toward no. As I mentioned, the contract states in our DVC Resort agreement that BVTC can charge for trades, but nothing in the DVC Membership agreement says a fee could be added. Here is the clause:

1718646723393.png

It says changes would be for the purpsoe of improving the quality and operation of it and mentions that special seasonal preference list or use demand management vehicles. I don't see how a fee for a name change does that and if the fee is paid, who is entitled to it? I would guess it has to go back to the owners of the resort.

So, while other timeshares may have the fee, you'd have to read their contracts to see if it indicated from the start that those were something the management company could institute.

I think we have to be careful, as owners, to not wish for changes that we think would do one thing, only to find out that DVC did it differenlty and it is not good.

I just can't see the majority of the owners wanting a fee. So many do indeed use it with family and friends and having to pay when things happen, would not be seen as an enhancement for I bet, by a great deal of owners.

ETA: There is no cost to the management company to change the name on reservations. We can do it ourselves, outside the lead guests....I contend it would cost more to run a fee based program like this because they would now have to set up a system to accept payments and as I indicated above, I don't see anything that allows them to do it and not give it back to owners of that resort as a credit against dues. DVC gets paid 12% straight fee for all the work they do and if they want to charge for a name fee, the cost implement that program is already covered in that fee.
 
Last edited:
A decent way around the family and friends rentals could be to have a list of family and friends with DVC. Changing that list would have a fee associated with it, with 1 free list change a year. Adding, removing or creating a reservation with someone on the list would be free. Adding, removing or creating a reservation with someone not on the list would have a fee. You might also add that adding any DVC member is free, as they're likely renting because they're out of points.

This doesn't stop people that rent to the same family year over year, as they could just put them on the list, but it does stop some forms. Additionally, maybe a rule could be added saying someone on the list can only be on X number of friends and family lists before potentially being marked a pattern renter.
 
A decent way around the family and friends rentals could be to have a list of family and friends with DVC. Changing that list would have a fee associated with it, with 1 free list change a year. Adding, removing or creating a reservation with someone on the list would be free. Adding, removing or creating a reservation with someone not on the list would have a fee. You might also add that adding any DVC member is free, as they're likely renting because they're out of points.

This doesn't stop people that rent to the same family year over year, as they could just put them on the list, but it does stop some forms. Additionally, maybe a rule could be added saying someone on the list can only be on X number of friends and family lists before potentially being marked a pattern renter.

Again, the contract allows for owners to use their membership for personal use and that includes family and friends. The only thing owners can not do is turn their memberships into a commercial enterprise (I have changed the word "business" here because it was not the correct one...thank you to @lowlight for finding it).

Jumping through all these hopes to make owners 'prove' who are their friends and family and charge them to update a list is not only silly, but nothing in the contract would even allow them to do that.

DVC has full authority to do one thing...and that is define what a personal use membership looks like and how it operates and define what a commericial membership would look like and what it takes to shift an owners use from personal to commercial.

Just because some has a business and rents, does not make the membership a commerical one. Businesses can own contracts and they can rent the reservations made on them, just like you or I.

What you or I or any business can not do is turn their DVC into a business. By technical terms, "commercial" can be defined as to make money, and one rental alone will make an owner money.

But, that is not what it means in relation to our contract...it means that DVC can tell you how many rentals you are making in a year is too many and that based on that, your intent appears to have changed from personal use to commercial use.

All this other stuff is irrelevant. Nothing in the contract gives them the legal power to force an owner to have to disclose who their family and friends are and I seriously doubt DVC would every ask owners to do that.
 
Last edited:
What you or I or any business can not do is turn their DVC into a business. By technical terms, "commercial" can be defined as to make money, and one rental alone will make an owner money.

But, that is not what it means in relation to our contract...it means that DVC can tell you how many rentals you are making in a year is too many and that based on that, your intent appears to have changed from personal use to commercial use.

It doesn’t mean DVC can only tell you how many rentals you can have- “Commercial purpose includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by a Member that the Board of Condominium Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice.”

It doesn’t just say business, it says “practice”. Not limited to pattern of rental activity, but included. They are very careful to leave the phrasing broad and encompassing instead of narrow and specific.
 
It doesn’t mean DVC can only tell you how many rentals you can have- “Commercial purpose includes a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by a Member that the Board of Condominium Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or practice.”

It doesn’t just say business, it says “practice”. Not limited to pattern of rental activity, but included. They are very careful to leave the phrasing broad and encompassing instead of narrow and specific.

I should have been clearer and use the words "commercial enterprise" instead of business...so thanks for that correction. The language you use has been updated and is more specific in the RIV, CFW and I assume the VDH POS.

It still uses "pattern of rental activity" and to become a pattern, it has to be at least more than one that they find are too many to be seen as the membership being used for personal use. So in that sense, there will be a number that is used....ie: the pattern on your account is we see you are renting 90% of your points every year, or we see that you are renting 50 reservations every three years, etc. or as strict as a pattern being you have been renting one reservation every single year for the last 3 years....though I doubt that saying one reservation per year can be in violation since we are allowed to rent, so it would need to be higher than that....

That is why the 2007 language I keep going back to (which we don't know if it is still what is used) in the background, was good because it did give you specifics as to when DVC was determining a membership had shifted and what enforcement would be used to stop the shift from continuing

Now, I don't think you or I or any other person here has the specific critieria that DVC is using to determine a membership is being used as a commercial enterprise, and without that, it doesn't matter what any of us think the definition of "commercial enterprise is" (unless I missed it)..

As an owner, we should have the right to have the specifics, if we ask for them because their has to be consistent rules so enforcement can be consistent....so, while the old language was broad, they still need to define it for us.

As I have said many times, I can't follow the rules to keep my membership out of the "commercial enterprise" area if I don't know what those rules are. And, it is about the activity in making reservations to be rented on the membership (or possibly memberships in aggregrate) that count.
 
It still uses "pattern of rental activity" and to become a pattern

I agree we should know and am glad you asked for clarification. However, in legal terms, “includes” does not mean “is limited to”. It says “includes a pattern of rental activity OR other occupancy by a member”. That’s my non lawyer take anyhow. I’m curious to see what they tell you.
 
I actually believe that these rental broker sites own dvc contracts purely to make spec reservations and then rent the points. I believe they do so with impunity and the belief that there is little that dvc will do to stop them. I believe it is as simple as that.

I believe this to be true, but what I would add is that these larger owner/renters have set things up with their memberships to stay within the rules and law that were in place on the contracts that they bought.
 
… Here is the clause:

View attachment 869038

Doesn’t Wyndham have owners priority seasons at certain high demand resorts/seasons & isn’t Bonnet Creek one of those high demand resorts? I believe the way they police it is to limit the number of free guest certificates an owner is allowed & you cannot buy any at all, although I think if the owner is staying at the resort concurrently w/ the guests in other rooms it’s ok 🤷‍♀️ but I’m not sure, maybe a Wyndham owner knows?
Based on the above quoted language in DVC’s documents, I think DVC could institute a special seasons preference list giving special reservation priority to reservations made in the owner’s name w/ no ability to remove the owner’s name thereafter w/out a cancel/rebook during certain seasons. They could even allow concurrent reservations in non owners names as long as the owner has a reservation for the same time to accommodate extended family/group holidays.
From what I’ve read Wyndham can be pretty aggressive in ferreting out, canceling, & freezing accounts of those they deem to have stepped over the line. I’ve seen little evidence that DVC has done so, their enforcement seems lackadaisical, no one has reported receiving a cease & desist letter, for example, nor have I read of any rentals being cancelled or accounts locked. So far the words of DVC’s contracts are worth no more than the paper they’re written on because DVC is not shutting down even blatant commercial point renting/spec reservation enterprises. Until Disney sees an uptick in hotel occupancy overall I doubt we will see a crackdown on commercial rentals because having DVC rooms booked ups their occupancy numbers which looks good on their financials & right now that’s probably a higher priority than enforcing DVC’s contractual provisions.
 
This happened before I was a member but wasn't there a company doing rentals a long time ago that basically got shut down by DVC. Does anyone remember this or do I have this completely wrong.
 














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

Top