Third party commercial renters

[Chuck S]

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.

Assuming you mean the listings show rental prices of $39.95 per point? I doubt too many savvy renters would pay that kind of price per point, it would just about be cheaper to rent direct from Disney, especially if there is a promotional package of some sort going on. But even so, there is no evidence that the broker owns those reservations, and the broker isn't operating like other brokers, listing reservations (or points) owned by other DVC members, taking a cut, and forwarding payment to the individual DVC Owners. We don't control the rental prices here on the DISBoards, nor do we act as a middle man for the payments, they are private transactions between the DVC Owner and the Renter, so if an owner wanted to ask $39.95 per point here, they are certainly welcome to do so. But as I said, I doubt they'd get many takers given most other brokeragers and rental sites ask far less than that. Think of the DISBoard more like taking out a newpaper advertisement to offer your points or reservations.

 

[Chuck S]

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.

In fact, DVC HAS already addressed the question with individual owners as much as they are going to...by saying they take the issue seriously, and review questionable owners/reservations. Even large stock companies and financial institutions do not answer such questions by individuals. That would be handled by a formal inquiry from the respective regulatory body responsible for that type of business. In the case of DVC, for Florida resorts, that would be the The Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes and the Florida State Legislature.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

Not to be snarky, but you don't how many memberships exist to hold those 700 reservations, do you?. If the rule is 20 reservations in a 12 month period that triggers the review, then it takes just over 36 owners to have reserved all of those, who contacted this broker to find renters to stay below the threshold

Do you really believe that any of the brokers out there who offer DVC rentals are dealing with less than 36 owners? I certainly don't.. Heck, we have over thirty different owners offering points here just on the first page of the DISboards.

In terms of payments, when I rented my points out via a broker, the renter paid the broker and the broker paid me...so, not sure how paying a broker via that site means that they are indeed the owner of all of those reservations.

There is nothing illegal about a business who connects owners with renters, because we, as owners, get to rent out reservations and so far, DVC has not put limits on how we can go about doing that.

In this day and age, with how much using the internet is part of our daily lives, I simply do not believe that DVC is going to go after the average owner for using a third party broker to rent out reservations....or the DISboards, FB, email, etc.

Now, are there enhancements to the current guidelines that DVC could adopt now that there are so many more owners renting? Maybe, but I personally don't believe that using a broker, the DISboards, etc. to find renters should ever be part of it.

 

[smileyanna]

In fact, DVC HAS already addressed the question with individual owners as much as they are going to...by saying they take the issue seriously, and review questionable owners/reservations.

If Disney wanted to enforce rental limits beyond these words, can't they just cancel a rented reservation or two of the most egregious 20+ renters at check-in every once in a while? It would immediately be in the interests of the rental sites (or individual renters) to require some reimbursement in the case that Disney cancels the reservation because the owner has broken the terms of POS. It doesn't impact those owners that are renting less than 20 reservations a year.

Disney doesn't need to devote teams of people to follow the reservations. Just cancel a few reservations, every once in a while.

There is nothing illegal about a business who connects owners with renters, because we, as owners, get to rent out reservations and so far, DVC has not put limits on how we can go about doing that.

Agree! That's why I like the idea of adding risk/consequence to those that are confirmed to have violated the terms instead of adding cumbersome steps to the rental procedure (which hurts everyone).

 

[lowlight]

There is nothing illegal about a business who connects owners with renters, because we, as owners, get to rent out reservations and so far, DVC has not put limits on how we can go about doing that.

The POS states, or at one time did, "rent them solely through the Club Members' own efforts". A third party rental site posting and soliciting rentals does not square with that entry.

 

[Chuck S]

The POS states, or at one time did, "rent them solely through the Club Members' own efforts". A third party rental site posting and soliciting rentals does not square with that entry.

I think that is open to legalese interpretations. Engaging the broker or rental site to act as a monetary middle man or simply posting the rental on a site like the DIS, technically is the Club Members' own effort. Different brokers and sites offer different levels of services, just as we are basically bare bones here on the DIS and are not involved in the transaction, other sites may give full brokerage services for additional fees for each reservation....but still making the decision how to offer the points/reservations IS the demonstrable reasonable effort of the Club Member.

 

[Sandisw]

The POS states, or at one time did, "rent them solely through the Club Members' own efforts". A third party rental site posting and soliciting rentals does not square with that entry.

My interpretation of that clause is to let owners know that DVC or Disney would not help an owner rent their points. It is up to the owner to do it through their own efforts, and I maintain that my contacting a broker to advertise my willingness to rent my points in exchange for a fee is my doing it through my own efforts since I initiated the process.

Matter of fact, they have gotten even stronger in their language that no owner should expect any level of rental rate and that they will be competing directly with Disney....so, it meshes with that above line that we are "on our own" if we need or want to rent reservations to others.

 

[lowlight]

The purpose of that clause was to let owners know that DVC or Disney would not help an owner rent their points. It is up to the owner to do it through their own efforts, and I maintain that my contacting a broker to advertise my willingness to rent my points in exchange for a fee is my doing it through my own efforts.

That’s up to interpretation, if it doesn’t say it outright in the contract. In fact, it further says that non members are only eligible for certain privileges if the member didn’t charge them a rental or other fee. It doesn’t mention what in mine though.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s up to interpretation, if it doesn’t say it outright in the contract. In fact, it further says that non members are only eligible for certain privileges if the member didn’t charge them a rental or other fee. It doesn’t mention what in mine though.

Exactly and if as an owner, I interpret that to mean no help from Disney (and how it was explained to me when I first bought), then I think its a fair way to look at the intent of that clause when DVC first started.

I think the clause you are referring to is that guests of owners who are not renting may be eligible for certain DVC perks...but, in reality, DVC has never allowed anyone but owners to do things like pool hop, etc....at least in the 14 years I have been an owner.

 

[Genie+]

Assuming you mean the listings show rental prices of $39.95 per point?

It’s $39.95 for each post that advertises a rental (not the per point cost to renter).

 

[Sandisw]

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.

There is something in the contract between the assocations and the actual DVCMC contract to provide managment of the program that says we are not entitled to know how they run their day to day operations, so something to that effect.

For example, we pay them 12% management fee to run the program...they do not have to show us how they spend that 12% to do the things they do.

That actual management agreement may be one of the documents you have to request directly from them. I think I had it years ago but no longer have it. I know that is how you get the property management agreement between DVCMC and Disney to provide services to run the resorts.

But, as I said, we have the right to ensure that they are doing their job and if we feel they are not, we can try to replace them. That is our remedy...and as Chuck state, we can also file a complaint with the FL timeshare board that they are in violation....

We certainly should be entitled to an explanation of the process, but if they say "We review memberships regularly and we monitor the rental market that is out there. If we feel there is an owner who is in violation of the contract, we take steps to address that with those owners and the remedies would be XYZ",

Beyond that? No, they don't have to provide specifics as to which memberships were in violation, especially since they get to determine the rules of what the definition is of "renting for commercial purposes". That 20 reservations threshold in a rolling 12 month period is something that DVC can change at anytime, whether that were to lower it or make it higher if they wanted to.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Denying the efficacy of commercial renting and its overall impact on DVC has become a true art form here on the Dis. The back and forth on these types of threads can be both entertaining and frustrating but rarely satisfying.

 

[Sandisw]

Denying the efficacy of commercial renting and its overall impact on DVC has become a true art form here on the Dis. The back and forth on these types of threads can be both entertaining and frustrating but rarely satisfying.

Gong to speak for myself, but I don’t deny that brokers have gotten into the rental market.

And, that it can appear that owners are in violation, but no one knows for sure that it is actually happening against the current thresholds because the current rules state it is per membership, and until DVC changes the actual terms and conditions they use to define what violates the commercial renting clause, everything should be applied to those rules.

And, the only one who has access to how many of those reservations on the same membership, is DVC.

As I posted above, 700 reservations being advertised by the same broker doesn’t mean a thing if those are owned by at least 36 owners..which certainly is possible…so, it’s not denying that the rental market has exploded, just denying that the number of owners out there violating the clause may not be as big as some believe it is.

Could the brokers be in violation? Sure, but so could any owner who is renting points.

That is why I think the issue may be more about how many owners rent vs. any one owner renting too much.

 

[lowlight]

As I posted above, 700 reservations being advertised by the same broker doesn’t mean a thing if those are owned by at least 36 owners..which certainly is possible…so, it’s not denying that the rental market has exploded, just denying that the number of owners out there violating the clause may not be as big as some believe it is.

At $39.95 a listing, that would be...around $28000 USD to list these confirmed reservations on behalf of their clients. They would be the nicest rental company in the world.

 

[Chuck S]

It’s $39.95 for each post that advertises a rental (not the per point cost to renter).

$39.95 per post isn't awful, but for the same price we allow 6 posts total (following our rules) over the course of a year. Or $29.95 for 3 posts, or 3 FREE posts if you meet the posting pre-requisite.

 

[Sandisw]

At $39.95 a listing, that would be...around $28000 USD to list these confirmed reservations on behalf of their clients. They would be the nicest rental company in the world.

If advertising there means more get rented, and the broker is making more than the $40 on the rental, it’s a win for them, isn’t it?

Again, you assume they’d only do it if they own them all and I say, maybe it’s simply built into their advertising budget and they get it back when it rents?

 

[mistysue]

The sad part is these companies who do nothing but own and rent DVC are smart enough to buy the contracts under a bunch of little sub-businesses. So you can have owner A with 19 listings, B with 19 listings, C with 19 listings, etc. It takes me $25/year to register an LLC for my state, that is nothing with the amount they can make by spending 10 minutes a day keeping their bots updated.

 

[Sandisw]

The sad part is these companies who do nothing but own and rent DVC are smart enough to buy the contracts under a bunch of little sub-businesses. So you can have owner A with 19 listings, B with 19 listings, C with 19 listings, etc. It takes me $25/year to register an LLC for my state, that is nothing with the amount they can make by spending 10 minutes a day keeping their bots updated.

The sad part is these companies who do nothing but own and rent DVC are smart enough to buy the contracts under a bunch of little sub-businesses. So you can have owner A with 19 listings, B with 19 listings, C with 19 listings, etc. It takes me $25/year to register an LLC for my state, that is nothing with the amount they can make by spending 10 minutes a day keeping their bots updated.

And as long as DVC has set the terms and conditions to allow this, then the rules are ot being broken.

 

[DougEMG]

My 1st assumption is that DVC is logging and auditing owners reservations to see if they are exceeding 20 reservations in a 12 month period. This is extremely easy to do and then have form letters sent out every month to violators. I know for a fact they did this in the past (since I got one) and see no reason why they would have stopped this.

My 2nd assumption is that Disney doesn't like to lose money to anyone else and so if there was a way for them to legally have changed the rules around "Commercial Renting" they would have done it by now. What they did instead was setup a new trust system for Fort Wilderness where basically they get to have any type of rule changeable at any time for what "Commercial Renting" is defined as.

My conclusion is that the situation at the 'legacy' resorts will not ever change because the rules are being followed. So if you want to avoid commercial renters blocking off your rooms go buy a Fort Wilderness contract at least there Disney has the power to do something about a complaint about this.

As a long time owner of BWV that use to book studios, even 10+ years ago when there were a lot less points up for rent it was a huge pain to book the standard studios. Even then I always had to walk to book my trip.

 

[mistysue]

And as long as DVC has set the terms and conditions to allow this, then the rules are ot being broken.

Sad but true. I hate how many people will do things they clearly aren't really supposed to because they aren't illegal.