Third party commercial renters

[DonMacGregor]

Interestingly, the POS for BCV has the following wording after the usual paragraph on commercial purpose:

“The Association has adopted a policy regarding what constitutes a commercial enterprise, practice or purpose, which policy is a record of the Association and may be reviewed upon request”

I’m going to ask for a copy of this policy.

That kinda supports my theory that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see. Sounds like it doesn't need to be produced and filed with any of the condominium documents either as then it would be a matter of public record and you could get it yourself without asking DVD.

 

[Sandisw]

That kinda supports my theory that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see. Sounds like it doesn't need to be produced and filed with any of the condominium documents either as then it would be a matter of public record and you could get it yourself without asking DVD.

That language is not in all the resorts. though…each resort says something different and the newest ones give an example of what it could be, but do not say anything that other documents exist.

So, it will be interesting as to what is received since an owner of BCV does have the POS document that gives them the right to request it.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

That language is not in all the resorts. though…each resort says something different and the newest ones give an example of what it could be, but do not say anything that other documents exist.

So, it will be interesting as to what is received since an owner of BCV does have the POS document that gives them the right to request it.

Is it correct to assume the specific POS for the points being rented should apply vs any other POS? So if you rent BCV points for a VGF reservation, the BCV POS applies?

 

[Sandisw]

Is it correct to assume the specific POS for the points being rented should apply vs any other POS? So if you rent BCV points for a VGF reservation, the BCV POS applies?

The MS POS applied to all resorts so whatever is in there…currently just the language about personal use and not to buy as investment or expect rental income.

All POS documents I have reviewed and now with the BCV language , have somehting that addresses it.

In this case and similar language in my SSR and VGF, tell people to contact DVC for the specific documents

RIV, CFW and I presume VDH have examples of what they could be.

So, my take is that the rules are the same for everyone. It’s just how one can go about getting them.

All give DVC the right to make the definition whatever they decide fits and change it at will.

 

[crisi]

That kinda supports my theory that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see. Sounds like it doesn't need to be produced and filed with any of the condominium documents either as then it would be a matter of public record and you could get it yourself without asking DVD.

They may have to publish policy that affects membership and make it available - but they don't need to make it easy to get. Moreover, they don't ever need to publish their process, those sorts of details are likely to be considered "confidential" and "granting competitive advantage."

As Brian said, developers hold the cards. When push comes to shove, through all the talk about "membership" and "ownership" we get little say or access to information.

 

[tx911]

It seems they are essentially using an "I'll know it when I see it" philosophy when it comes to commercial renting vs. personal use.

By the same token, I'm sure the owners that are renting have a pretty good idea of when they've crossed that line.

Personally, I'll keep renting to a minimum, and not every year, if ever.

 

[DonMacGregor]

They may have to publish policy that affects membership and make it available - but they don't need to make it easy to get. Moreover, they don't ever need to publish their process, those sorts of details are likely to be considered "confidential" and "granting competitive advantage."

As Brian said, developers hold the cards. When push comes to shove, through all the talk about "membership" and "ownership" we get little say or access to information.

What I'm saying is that the specific internal process for enforcement, once a rental pattern meets the criteria for "commercial renting", may not need to be disclosed, only the threshold that triggers a review (which I agree they probably need to make publicly available). Certainly, I would expect that the criteria/threshold itself would need to be disclosed (however hard they might make that), as well as any opportunity to respond on the part of the owner, would also require disclosure.

The comment thread goes back to DVD removing this specific paragraph from the POS at some resorts. Language that provided a bit more detail on how enforcement would be carried out:

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 Member’s 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 Member’s 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.

My comment that "that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see" related only to that paragraph and its removal.

 

[Sandisw]

What I'm saying is that the specific internal process for enforcement, once a rental pattern meets the criteria for "commercial renting", may not need to be disclosed, only the threshold that triggers a review (which I agree they probably need to make publicly available). Certainly, I would expect that the criteria/threshold itself would need to be disclosed (however hard they might make that), as well as any opportunity to respond on the part of the owner, would also require disclosure.

The comment thread goes back to DVD removing this specific paragraph from the POS at some resorts. Language that provided a bit more detail on how enforcement would be carried out:


My comment that "that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see" related only to that paragraph and its removal.

I forgot to ask...where did you find that specific language...the one that I have from 2007, which was the one published by DVC News, was more detailed in the thresholds...it detailed that only those in excess of 20 would be canceled...this seems to just say the one above trying to be made.

Granted, this was written when there was no online booking, so is probably why the report we have that someone had them canceled had 5 that met that threshold...just wondering, though, when the language is updated.

And, I did try to read back all the POS inserts for the resorts I own...those are done yearly with the updated budget....but I don't see anything back more than 5 years.....I wonder if an owner could request access to all of them because when those amendments happen, they stay as inserts, so if one is reading the original POS, it may not contain any updated language....

The only one that seems to is the MS POS...

 

[crisi]

What I'm saying is that the specific internal process for enforcement, once a rental pattern meets the criteria for "commercial renting", may not need to be disclosed, only the threshold that triggers a review (which I agree they probably need to make publicly available). Certainly, I would expect that the criteria/threshold itself would need to be disclosed (however hard they might make that), as well as any opportunity to respond on the part of the owner, would also require disclosure.

The comment thread goes back to DVD removing this specific paragraph from the POS at some resorts. Language that provided a bit more detail on how enforcement would be carried out:


My comment that "that they don't actually have to publish the policy or process in the POS, and would rather make you ask for it than leave it out there for everyone to see" related only to that paragraph and its removal.

Yep, I'm agreeing with you. We often think we are entitled to, as members, a lot of information that we are not entitled to - at least not unless someone starts issuing subpoenas. And while consistency in policy enforcement is a good thing to reduce legal risk, policy enforcement can be flexible. They don't need to "big bang" everyone who has made more than twenty reservations not in their own name (or whatever criteria their policy currently is) as long as their decisions are defensible in court (we went after bigger fish, we went after contracts where we had complaints against them from renters.....).

 

[Judique]

IMO, the easiest and least expensive way to minimize spec renting is to make each change of lead guest be a cancel and rebook. This would work even better if the waitlists were checked before any cancelations went back into inventory.

MS could make exceptions to the above if the lead guest change was between owners or if an owner was staying in another villa at same time (to help with multi-family trips).

While it is nice to be able to stay at non- home resorts, I have little sympathy for anyone who blames rentals for not being able to book something at 7 months or closer to check in. I believe in "buy where you want to be or at least don't mind staying if there aren't alternatives" and also in booking early. First come, first served.


It seems to me that quite a few of the multiple spec reservations offered by various brokers were probably NOT booked during the first few seconds of the 11 month window. That said, I am definitely NOT a fan of bots if they are grabbing up popular dates/villas. If that is happening, then I wish DVC would stop that method of booking. Again IMO, there wouldn't be much incentive for the bots to do that if changing the lead name was a cancel & rebook as described above.

If DVC gets enough complaints or thinks spec renting is significantly impacting its bottom line, I expect they will just change the booking rules and update the waitlist software. Easiest to do, easiest to explain. JMHO.MMV.

I'd absolutely support 'cancel and rebook'. Mostly because I suspect bots are the reason behind at least some of this.

 

[Sandisw]

Yep, I'm agreeing with you. We often think we are entitled to, as members, a lot of information that we are not entitled to - at least not unless someone starts issuing subpoenas. And while consistency in policy enforcement is a good thing to reduce legal risk, policy enforcement can be flexible. They don't need to "big bang" everyone who has made more than twenty reservations not in their own name (or whatever criteria their policy currently is) as long as their decisions are defensible in court (we went after bigger fish, we went after contracts where we had complaints against them from renters.....).

After my chat, I have amended a bit of my thinking in terms of having to know ahead exact thresholds.

The key to that is that if one’s knows they might look for patterns, which the RIV POS says they might, then as an owner I need to decide what would be seen as reasonable and make choices there.

Now, if compliance is going to cancel reservations, then I think owners have the right to now what that is, and why…

And I still believe that DVC is always going to set rules that are broader vs stricter just based on the 2007 rules and where they were set. I personally think that’s a reasonable threshold to review memberships.

 

[Ginger03]

I know this has been discussed, tangentially, in other threads recently, but I want to make a direct thread to really highlight what myself, and some others, perceive as a growing issue that is detrimental to the average DVC member. I'm attaching the names of the website to make sure it is allowed by the filter, no intent to step on mods toes. On Redweek.com, a popular timeshare rental site, a separate third party commercial rental site has an exhausting list of rentals. There are 1175 current rentals listed on Redweek.com for Disney World, as well as a hundred more for HH/DL/Aulani. Sorting by date, on the first page of 48 listings, this third party site owns 35 of those (paid, as in costs money to list) listings, which is roughly 73%. I don't have the time to count all 1175 listings for WDW, but glancing at most pages, I believe that percentage won't change much when applied to all 1175 listings + 100 for offsite. Some of these listings are busy weeks in hard to get rooms, but we've discussed this ad nauseum. The concerning part is that many of these listings are single day stragglers, and it appears that the company is going through and booking every last minute room availability and selling it at inflated prices. We all know that DVC last minute availability is slim pickings, but I've noticed in the past few years it has gotten harder to add on a day here or there when plans change. When I started using Redweek a few years ago, this third party site had no listings on Redweek.com that I can recall, and now they are likely at ~70% of the entire website. This is one website, there are plenty more, in addition to their own website. These listings cost money, so I doubt they are "ghost listings", or even listed on behalf of their clients. Does anyone else have a serious problem with this, and what can be done? This problem seems to get worse by the week, it honestly boggles my mind that Disney has not stepped in so far.

Totally agree- a owner occasionally renting out reservations or points is one thing- commercial business is another.

 

[crisi]

After my chat, I have amended a bit of my thinking in terms of having to know ahead exact thresholds.

The key to that is that if one’s knows they might look for patterns, which the RIV POS says they might, then as an owner I need to decide what would be seen as reasonable and make choices there.

Now, if compliance is going to cancel reservations, then I think owners have the right to now what that is, and why…

And I still believe that DVC is always going to set rules that are broader vs stricter just based on the 2007 rules and where they were set. I personally think that’s a reasonable threshold to review memberships.

We may think that, but I'm not 100% sure we do have that right - in a legal sense. The contract says "commercial" which gives Disney a wide leeway to define it. In an ethical sense, perhaps Disney owes us guidance, but we also have to understand policy changes - and policy isn't rigid.

Let's take for instance the case where Disney decides its defensible to go after an owner where they get a lot of complaints from renters - its someone who defrauds people - cancelling reservations after half the payment, using those points to rinse and repeat until maybe the fifth guest actually gets to check in. They may never have 20 reservations in a year (certainly not in trips taken) - but three or four complaints might be enough to trigger Disney going after them with the "commercial" clause even if they are below whatever threshold Disney has in place that defines "commercial" renting in policy. I would personally want Disney to have that sort of flexibility - as long as they can defend their decisions.

 

[DougEMG]

Under Florida law we have the right to rent out our timeshare.

Disney has the power to place some sort of limit on that renting. I have no problems with that, but I would like to know what the rules are to make sure I'm not breaking them. And the guideline that DVC published around commercial renting is useless, otherwise we wouldn't be going in circles here with some people saying even 1 rental means you are commercial when that is clearly allowed.

Renting allowed -> renting is commercial -> commercial not allowed

Given 3 statements:
a) Renting is allowed
b) Renting is commercial
c) Commercial renting is not allowed

All 3 cannot be valid.

Given that Disney has the power (legal or not) why do they not just say all spec rentals are not allowed, any reservation made or advertised in that manner will be cancel with no prior warning. Would that make everyone here happy?

 

[lowlight]

Let's take for instance the case where Disney decides its defensible to go after an owner where they get a lot of complaints from renters

would personally want Disney to have that sort of flexibility - as long as they can defend their decisions.

At that point, the fraud becomes a criminal and civil matter for the courts, handled by the victims. DVC is probably very limited to the penalties they can impose, and I don’t think contracts can include forfeiture of property or usage rights as a penalty. So a serial abuser really just faces canceled reservations, which is alluring enough for many to say “catch me if you can”.

As for a right to know, I believe there is a concept in contract law that basically says if terms of a contract are unclear, they default to the other persons interpretation. I tried googling for the term, but can’t find it. A lawyer explained it to me one time that you can’t put a bunch of ambiguous legalese in a contract to dazzle and dumbfound the person signing it- they shouldn’t need a law degree to sign it in other words. One of these hidden lawyers here will pop up and say it because they love showing their knowledge of obscure Latin phrases.

 

[tx911]

Under Florida law we have the right to rent out our timeshare.

Disney has the power to place some sort of limit on that renting. I have no problems with that, but I would like to know what the rules are to make sure I'm not breaking them. And the guideline that DVC published around commercial renting is useless, otherwise we wouldn't be going in circles here with some people saying even 1 rental means you are commercial when that is clearly allowed.

Renting allowed -> renting is commercial -> commercial not allowed

Given 3 statements:
a) Renting is allowed
b) Renting is commercial
c) Commercial renting is not allowed

All 3 cannot be valid.

Given that Disney has the power (legal or not) why do they not just say all spec rentals are not allowed, any reservation made or advertised in that manner will be cancel with no prior warning. Would that make everyone here happy?

I don't think all renting is commercial renting, so the crux of the issue is, when does it become commercial?

I think as an owner you know whether you are using your points primarily to make money (commercial) or using them for vacations.

Personally I would put the limit at 40% of your points. Renting any more than that and your are doing it first and foremost to make money.

And, if you're wondering "Am I renting so much that I'm breaking the rules?", you probably are

I agree it would be nice if they would give specific guidelines.

 

[lowlight]

I don't think all renting is commercial renting, so the crux of the issue is, when does it become commercial?

There’s really only two ways to define it- legally, or intent. Legally, if you’ve profited off of renting, you’ve commercially rented right? The less clear standard is intent. “I bought my points to rent them”. Nobody is going to admit to intent, so what other choice is there except legal definition of a commercial activity? Selling something on Facebook is a commercial activity if you made above a certain amount. Of course DVC can use whatever standard they want, but they’ve been unclear about it and I don’t think they have the legal right to sell a contract that is stated as for personal use only with the “right to rent” without spelling out exactly, to the letter, what that encompasses. It’s not fair to those who want to rent and it’s even less fair to those of us who didn’t realize we would be competing with LLC’s third party renters while trying to secure a reservation. I would go back in time and unwind my purchase if that was acceptable use. It wasn’t presented that way. I still haven’t gotten my first week of December reservation from the waitlist, but I can go rent it if I want to. Ridiculous.

 

[JackosinDIS]

At that point, the fraud becomes a criminal and civil matter for the courts, handled by the victims. DVC is probably very limited to the penalties they can impose, and I don’t think contracts can include forfeiture of property or usage rights as a penalty. So a serial abuser really just faces canceled reservations, which is alluring enough for many to say “catch me if you can”.

As for a right to know, I believe there is a concept in contract law that basically says if terms of a contract are unclear, they default to the other persons interpretation. I tried googling for the term, but can’t find it. A lawyer explained it to me one time that you can’t put a bunch of ambiguous legalese in a contract to dazzle and dumbfound the person signing it- they shouldn’t need a law degree to sign it in other words. One of these hidden lawyers here will pop up and say it because they love showing their knowledge of obscure Latin phrases.

Contra proferentem

Do I get a point?

 

[Stormalong Smiths]

You know what could be a really easy solution to this for Disney? (Not advocating, just positing an idea…)

Disney says, “you can rent your points, but you have to rent them to us.” Then, the following:

1. Owner rents points to Disney (at a set price, likely equal to MB, reducing as the points’ expiration date nears),
2. Disney sells a cash reservation using the points, and
3. Points rentals outside this infrastructure are disallowed (much like transferring points for $ is disallowed).

I’m by no means an expert, but it seems to me that this would satisfy the timeshare regulations on renting, kill the secondary rental market, greatly reduce the financial benefit for commercial renters, and provide a simple way for Disney to monitor owners’ rental habits. This would fairly quickly eliminate commercial memberships—as well as competition for Disney’s own cash rentals—plus give the Mouse a big revenue boost. Win-win-win-win-win for Disney, and members concerned about the abuse of commercial renting.

I’ve got to be missing something that explains why this isn’t already happening. 1, 2, 3… Poke holes in my theory!

 

[GoingSince1990]

Given that Disney has the power (legal or not) why do they not just say all spec rentals are not allowed, any reservation made or advertised in that manner will be cancel with no prior warning. Would that make everyone here happy?

Nope. Take someone who has owned points for over a decade and always used them for personal stays, never renting them. Then one day a couple of weeks before a trip they get into an accident and decide to rent out the reservation instead. This is clearly not a “commercial” rental and is explicitly permitted, so even though it might be considered a “spec” rental, it should not be banned. I think what would make everyone here happy would be Disney cracking down on owners of huge numbers of points who consistently list multiple reservations for rent on internet sites.