Third party commercial renters

[CastAStone]

Not only the level of enforcement needed, but how would they determine, say, if you have more than one room reserved for a group trip, and the primary in the second room had to cancel 6 months out and you wanted to change the primary to another occupant?
Innocent DVCers are really not going to want to put up with that level of scrutiny to change room occupants, if something comes up and they need to change a primary.

I wouldn’t enforce it on that end.

I would enforce it by requiring the timeshare rental sites to get a free license from DVC to use Disney’s IP, such as the term “DVC” and “Walt Disney World”, and that license comes with certain Terms and Conditions.

 

[CastAStone]

And if you just make it a published rule “a booked reservation with an existing confirmation number may not be rented for compensation of any kind outside of a 60 day window prior to check in. This does not preclude members from using their points to book reservations on request at any point in their 11 month window”, it would cut back the commercial confirmed reservations drastically, even if enforcement is spotty at best. People know that breaking the rules set by giant corporations has severe downside risk.

 

[muppets3d]

Disney could just revoke the memberships of the brokerages and employees of brokerages. And a member that owns points but never uses them and just rents them out every year is a brokerage, yes. I don't think the small potatoes ad hoc rentals of DVC points by individual members (I booked this but can't go and it's past my banking deadline, or I have 15 points that I can't bank and I'm just going to book a night at Saratoga and rent it out) are that big of a deal. Besides, once the business model of the brokerages collapses those ad hoc rentals will be even less frequent.

 

[Chuck S]

I would enforce it by requiring the timeshare rental sites to get a free license from DVC to use Disney’s IP, such as the term “DVC” and “Walt Disney World”, and that license comes with certain Terms and Conditions.

I doubt it could be enforcable, rental brokers are not disallowed under the POS, and I doubt the Florida Timeshare Commission would be on board with that.

Disney could just revoke the memberships of the brokerages and employees of brokerages. And a member that owns points but never uses them and just rents them out every year is a brokerage, yes. I don't think the small potatoes ad hoc rentals of DVC points by individual members (I booked this but can't go and it's past my banking deadline, or I have 15 points that I can't bank and I'm just going to book a night at Saratoga and rent it out) are that big of a deal. Besides, once the business model of the brokerages collapses those ad hoc rentals will be even less frequent.

I also doubt they could revoke the memberships of brokerage employees, how can they legally discrimate a real estate ownership based upon where someone works? Real estate laws come into play, as it is a legally deeded interest.

 

[BuzzLightyr]

A wonder if these commercial brokerages pay the hotel tax for renting out these units.

Disney could always run the a search with the largest number of nights (or points) where the owning person/entity is not occupying the unit. This could be similar to a 1099 receipt which lists out the rental nights, given to both the LLC owning the points and to the local tax agency. Not only does this serve as a reminder to pay the tax but reminders the commercial renters that Disney sees what they are doing.

 

[muppets3d]

I also doubt they could revoke the memberships of brokerage employees, how can they legally discrimate a real estate ownership based upon where someone works? Real estate laws come into play, as it is a legally deeded interest.

It's not about where they work, you're focusing on the wrong detail. The point is they own points purely to rent them out.

 

[Chuck S]

It's not about where they work, you're focusing on the wrong detail. The point is they own points purely to rent them out.

And a simple work around would be for them to actually use their points for their own stays for a night or two now and then right?

 

[muppets3d]

And a simple work around would be for them to actually use their points for their own stays for a night or two now and then right?

If their membership survives, sure. Remember when Disney tapped on the shoulder of all the underground tour guides last year? They didn't get any warning, it happened all at once. I hope the same thing happens to the brokers soon.

 

[lowlight]

Can I post a Saturday to Saturday confirmed rental on the Disboards? Why not? How is it enforced and by whom? Does the enforcing of that rule mean mods have no time to do other enforcing?

 

[CarolMN]

Can I post a Saturday to Saturday confirmed rental on the Disboards? Why not? How is it enforced and by whom? Does the enforcing of that rule mean mods have no time to do other enforcing?

No. Those Saturday to Saturday confirmed reservations are not permitted on the DISboards.

7 night reservations that begin on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday are often booked via II, RCI or other such system. Those systems do not allow these bookings to be rented and thus they are subject to cancellation from their end. We mods have no easy way to determine the difference between those reservations and those made by a DVC member.

Chuck & I are doing just fine enforcing the DISboards Rent/Transfer rules. We spend the most time declining submissions (& informing the poster why). It appears to us that most of those submissions occur because posters do not read the Required Reading thread before posting. Many of them have no posting history here, either.

 

[Chuck S]

Can I post a Saturday to Saturday confirmed rental on the Disboards? Why not? How is it enforced and by whom? Does the enforcing of that rule mean mods have no time to do other enforcing?

No, you may not post 7 night rental that begins on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. All threads submitted to the Rental Board go into a holding queue to be reviewed by the Rent/Board mods before being approved, so that particular aspect takes no more mod time, in fact less since it would be declined, than logging approved threads. The reason for the rule is that RCI/II trade ins are generally 7 night rentals, beginning Friday, Saturday or Sunday...and renting those out it against the trading companies rules. Unfortunately, it also blocks DVC Owners with fixed weeks from offering their full weeks our Rent/Transfer board, but it is what it is.

 

[Chuck S]

If their membership survives, sure. Remember when Disney tapped on the shoulder of all the underground tour guides last year? They didn't get any warning, it happened all at once. I hope the same thing happens to the brokers soon.

The difference is that the tour guides were offering a service INSIDE the Disney Parks, and Disney already has VIP Tour Guide services. And remember, while under the Disney umbrella, the Parks and DVC are separate operating entities. Disney Resorts, pretty much controls the physical DVC Resorts, by contract. But, DVC does not provide a rental service to the DVC Membership that conflicts with brokers, in fact DVC will NOT even answer a renters questions, our tell them what may be available. That is left to the brokers, and until there is hard evidence that the brokerage sites ARE violating the exisiting rental rules (20 reservation per rolling year per membership) I doubt DVC can do much of anything. Under law, corporations have the same rights as everyone else for property ownership, including DVC. And each corporation, much like DVC and DIsney, is a separate legal entity.

 

[Sandisw]

Disney could just revoke the memberships of the brokerages and employees of brokerages. And a member that owns points but never uses them and just rents them out every year is a brokerage, yes. I don't think the small potatoes ad hoc rentals of DVC points by individual members (I booked this but can't go and it's past my banking deadline, or I have 15 points that I can't bank and I'm just going to book a night at Saratoga and rent it out) are that big of a deal. Besides, once the business model of the brokerages collapses those ad hoc rentals will be even less frequent.

The POS allows for business to buy points. They can not legally stop anyone from owning contracts.

Again, the only thing DVC can do legally is go after memberships in which they feel are being used to rent for commercial purposes.

They do have limits on how much one can own and they do have a definition of what they believe is the trigger point. People just are not fans of that definition.

Now, DVC has the power to lower the threshold and has language in the POS they can enforce and for all we know, they do and that what is happening out there, right or wrong, is happening within the rules…whether it is a bunch of owners who have created a way to rent without breaking their contract.

 

[lowlight]

Chuck & I are doing just fine enforcing the DISboards Rent/Transfer rules. We spend the most time declining submissions (& informing the poster why). It appears to us that most of those submissions occur because posters do not read the Required Reading thread before posting. Many of them have no posting history here, either.

I was supposed to be quoting in my post, but I forgot to attach it. The assertion was made that having MS enforce the rules of the POS would mean less staff to assist with things that are more important to some, my point was that rules are only rules if there is a punishment for not following them, and Disboards does just fine enforcing their rules with unpaid staff. I would go so far as to say that having rules that are never enforced creates far more work than harshly enforcing rules for a bit after they're made, and periodically for upkeep afterwards. You harshly punish the first few offenders and it sets a precedent, and every so often you remind people it wasn't just a one time thing. It's very easy to know that Disney is not, in fact, enforcing any of their rules besides a sternly written letter here or there- the extent to which third party commercial spec renting is happening is testament to that fact.

 

[lowlight]

Now, DVC has the power to lower the threshold and has language in the POS they can enforce and for all we know, they do and that what is happening out there, right or wrong, is happening within the rules…whether it is a bunch of owners who have created a way to rent without breaking their contract.

With the way the POS is written, it seems DVD has the sole authority to determine what constitutes commercial renting, but they do in fact have to have a standard and actually enforce it. There is liability on the developer side if their POS is found to be false or misleading. This enforcement and the results of it should be information available to membership at meetings, should it not?

 

[Sandisw]

I was supposed to be quoting in my post, but I forgot to attach it. The assertion was made that having MS enforce the rules of the POS would mean less staff to assist with things that are more important to some, my point was that rules are only rules if there is a punishment for not following them, and Disboards does just fine enforcing their rules with unpaid staff. I would go so far as to say that having rules that are never enforced creates far more work than harshly enforcing rules for a bit after they're made, and periodically for upkeep afterwards. You harshly punish the first few offenders and it sets a precedent, and every so often you remind people it wasn't just a one time thing. It's very easy to know that Disney is not, in fact, enforcing any of their rules besides a sternly written letter here or there- the extent to which third party commercial spec renting is happening is testament to that fact.

Except, the difference is, that the DISboards does not have a legal contract with the DVC owner. It is a private site and can make any rules it wants for those that submit requests to rent.

The DISboard mods are not going through every DVC account looking for confirmed reservations to see if they are in violation of the renting for commerical purposes rule.

So, if people want MS to devote CMs to searching through every membership every day and checking to see if the name on a reservation is different, and then trying to search online to see if that reservation was advertisted anywhere, it is going to reduce the number of CMS to do other things.

In terms of third party reservations, until someone has actual proof (and so far, I have never seen it) that those confirmed reservations are on the same membership, by the same owner, and they are exceeding the 20 in a rolling 12 month period, and DVC is ignoring, it is not a fact. It is a fact that we have several online brokers who list a lot of reservations. It is a fact that people have found that brokers have their own memberships, and may have memberships in the names of LLCs, trust, etc. But, it is not a fact that every reservation being offered by brokers are in fact ALL owned by them.

 

[Sandisw]

With the way the POS is written, it seems DVD has the sole authority to determine what constitutes commercial renting, but they do in fact have to have a standard and actually enforce it. There is liability on the developer side if their POS is found to be false or misleading. This enforcement and the results of it should be information available to membership at meetings, should it not?

Yes, it is up to DVC to enforce the rules of their contracts. And, what the contract says is that you can't use a membership to rent for commercial purposes and that DVC, and DVC alone, gets to determine what that is.

If we feel that they are not meeting their responsibilities as a management company, our rights as owners is to vote to replace them. And, with the way it was set up, that is pretty much impossible.

If you contact DVC and say that you do not feel they are enforcing their own rules when it comes to reviewing memberships that have more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period, and they say they are, that is all you are entitled to because you are not legally entited to the information that is happening on any other membership but your own.....

This is why this topic is always one where I don't think there will be middle ground. As I have shared, I do think the rental market in general has exploded in recent years, and the renting of confirmed reservations has become a popular way to rent....and that there are even more and more third party businesses out there for owners to use to rent reservations. I think the fact that you have so many know tells you that there are more and more owners who have taken to renting out points regulary, who may not have before.

If DVC has not yet come out and changed their definition of what they feel is a red flag for renting outside the rules...although, the language of the Resort Use Plan for CFW seems to tighten them...then, maybe, just maybe, they are not seeing a large enough % of the rental market that is in violation to change that standard.

 

[lowlight]

In terms of third party reservations, until someone has actual proof (and so far, I have never seen it) that those confirmed reservations are on the same membership, by the same owner, and they are exceeding the 20 in a rolling 12 month period, and DVC is ignoring, it is not a fact. It is a fact that we have several online brokers who list a lot of reservations. It is a fact that people have found that brokers have their own memberships, and may have memberships in the names of LLCs, trust, etc. But, it is not a fact that every reservation being offered by brokers are in fact ALL owned by them.

Verifiable evidence as follows:

1) The third party renter has several hundred (likely near 700) confirmed rental listings on Redweek.com.
2) These rental listings are all listed under the same third party renter business name. When you rent them, the payment goes to this third party business.
3) These rental listings cost a minimum of $39.99 each.

Do pimps go to jail for soliciting of prostitution even when they didn't do the act themselves? That's pretty much what these third party rental sites are- they are soliciting rentals, whether it is for themselves or "clients". They are engaging in a practice forbidden by the POS, whether they are on the periphery or not.

 

[Chuck S]

Except, the difference is, that the DISboards does not have a legal contract with the DVC owner. It is a private site and can make any rules it wants for those that submit requests to rent.

The DISboard mods are not going through every DVC account looking for confirmed reservations to see if they are in violation of the renting for commerical purposes rule.

So, if people want MS to devote CMs to searching through every membership every day and checking to see if the name on a reservation is different, and then trying to search online to see if that reservation was advertisted anywhere, it is going to reduce the number of CMS to do other things.

In terms of third party reservations, until someone has actual proof (and so far, I have never seen it) that those confirmed reservations are on the same membership, by the same owner, and they are exceeding the 20 in a rolling 12 month period, and DVC is ignoring, it is not a fact. It is a fact that we have several online brokers who list a lot of reservations. It is a fact that people have found that brokers have their own memberships, and may have memberships in the names of LLCs, trust, etc. But, it is not a fact that every reservation being offered by brokers are in fact ALL owned by them.

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 shere volume of DVC reservations made daily, they'd need to hire an entire staff just to review reservations. Imagine thinking you snagged a reservation, and were making flight arrangements, only to be told your resort reservation was being declined. Or that your DVC Account was "on hold" for further review with a much wanted reservation booking window fast approaching. Or if the human factor kicks in and a CM declines/deletes a reservation by mistake (and yes, we do occasionally make mistakes here on the DIS Rental Board, but those are generally easily corrected).

 

[lowlight]

If you contact DVC and say that you do not feel they are enforcing their own rules when it comes to reviewing memberships that have more than 20 reservations in a 12 month period, and they say they are, that is all you are entitled to because you are not legally entited to the information that is happening on any other membership but your own.....

Where does it say that we, as owners, are not entitled to the proof that the developer/management company is maintaining the terms of their own POS? I'm not being argumentative, I just haven't seen that and would love to read more on it. It'd be like DVC saying "trust us, we spent our whole renovation budget" without having to prove it. Now if you say it would take a legal case to make them show you, I can agree that might be what's necessary, but I don't think they can just outright not ever have to prove it.