Third party commercial renters

[Genie+]

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

That is not necessarily legal in my contact. My contract purchased in 2023 says nothing about allowing 19 rentals per year, or the ability to hold multiple LLCs o anything else that could surpass 19 rentals per year. Instead it is plastered with ‘for personal use only’ throughout, and of the 5 things my guide legally had to read out to me during our phoned in purchase… ‘for personal use only’ was one.

 

[Chuck S]

That is not necessarily legal in my contact. My contract purchased in 2023 says nothing about allowing 19 rentals per year, or the ability to hold multiple LLCs o anything else that could surpass 19 rentals per year. Instead it is plastered with ‘for personal use only’ throughout, and of the 5 things my guide legally had to read out to me during our phoned in purchase… ‘for personal use only’ was one.

They can not prohibit LLCs or other type of Corporations or Trusts from purchasing. Legally they have the same rights as individuals. I don't think the 19/20 rental limit was ever included in the documents, it either came from a post on the member website, or perhaps an annual member meeting. It does seem to continue to be the criteria they are using for the legacy resorts.

 

[Genie+]

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.

I think the situation is well in their radar. What to do about it complex because while they do have a responsibility to the membership where impact from confirmed and commercial rentals are concerned, they also need consider impact to DVC values and brand. My guess is they already have a multistep path underway to implement as DVC continues to evolve.

 

[Sandisw]

That is not necessarily legal in my contact. My contract purchased in 2023 says nothing about allowing 19 rentals per year, or the ability to hold multiple LLCs o anything else that could surpass 19 rentals per year. Instead it is plastered with ‘for personal use only’ throughout, and of the 5 things my guide legally had to read out to me during our phoned in purchase… ‘for personal use only’ was one.

IIRC, The contract gives the board of each association and DVCMC the right to define what it means to rent for commercial purposes.

The contracts do actually define “personal use” and that definition includes owner, guests and leasees. So, having a renter definitely falls within the guidelines of personal use.

So, if DvCMC has defined that having 20 or more reservations in a 12 month rolling period as the trigger threshold to have a membership to be reviewed for potential violations, then that is what “renting for commercial purposes” is currently defined as by DvC. And only their definition matters.

Owners may not like it, but we don’t have the right in our contract to define it, only they do. So, while some may think that 20 reservations limit is too high, some do not.

That’s not saying any owner who feels it should be defined differently shouldn’t share thoughts With DVC. But, it does seem that there are a few different areas that get discussed.

Owners being allowed to rent using a third party business or website like the DiS, FB, etc,

Owners of a third party business renting points they own. And, then owners being allowed to rent confirmed reservations.

 

[RescueRanger]

They have defined commercial renting many years ago as 20 or more reservations per year per membership, without an owner being the primary. None of us have access to see if these reservatons violate that policy.

And assuming all of the reservations being offered are actually in the name of the owner, until such a time as the primary name is changed AFTER it is rented, it would be difficult to legally prove the intent of the owner with a check-box at the time of reservation. All the owner has to say is, "Yes, I intended to use that resservation, but something came up, and I could not go." It would then be upon DVC to prove otherwise. Adding those lawyer and legal fees to our dues.

Remember, offering reservations in a post like "XYZ Resort studio, December 1 to 10, $2,500, payment due upon proof of name change" IS, legally speaking, a contract when the renter accepts those terms and makes a payment.

They could easily stop the biggest problem without detriment to the membership as a whole. I am referring to spec rentals. Disney could send out a letter to all members stating that speculative rentals are considered commercial and are therefore banned. They could further warn that if a members spec rental is found, they will reserve the unit themselves. The owner will then have to reimburse Disney for their costs and the rental cancelled. They will then be placed on a watch list. Any further spec rentals by this owner will result in nullification of their membership. The way Disney could do this is go to the problem rental sites and purchase random rentals. Then they could take their confirmation numbers and see who the owners are. Then when owners are placed on a watch list, their memberships could be flagged for further scrutiny.

 

[Sandisw]

They could easily stop the biggest problem without detriment to the membership as a whole. I am referring to spec rentals. Disney could send out a letter to all members stating that speculative rentals are considered commercial and are therefore banned. They could further warn that if a members spec rental is found, they will reserve the unit themselves. The owner will then have to reimburse Disney for their costs and the rental cancelled. They will then be placed on a watch list. Any further spec rentals by this owner will result in nullification of their membership. The way Disney could do this is go to the problem rental sites and purchase random rentals. Then they could take their confirmation numbers and see who the owners are. Then when owners are placed on a watch list, their memberships could be flagged for further scrutiny.

Just not sure how one can say a spec rental makes something "renting for commercial purposes" vs. just renting out points. If I rent one reservation a year, and it is a spec rental, but you rent 15 reservations, all made on demand, do you really believe my action is violates the contract and your action does not?

You still have to look at what DVCMC can and can not do to based on our contract if they feel someone is violating the commercial clause...plus, a FW would be a spec rental and banning any spec rental would prevent someone from renting what they own.

Again, I get the frustration with spec renting, but not sure how many owners would want to see DVC define things this way when we have the right to rent reservations on our membership..

 

[xdan0920]

Round and round we go. Trying to loophole our way through what constitutes “commercial.” If a broker is renting the points and making money, that my dear friends, is commercial. We can play semantics with it all we want, but it’s a commercial enterprise.

 

[Sandisw]

.

 

[Chuck S]

Round and round we go. Trying to loophole our way through what constitutes “commercial.” If a broker is renting the points and making money, that my dear friends, is commercial. We can play semantics with it all we want, but it’s a commercial enterprise.

Actually, no. What constitutes "Commercial Rentals" is what DVC defines as commercial rentals, not what an individual member may personally believe is a commercial rental. It is not a "loophole" it is the way the system is designed. Having a broker to help an owner rent a reservation is no more a "commercial renter" than using a broker to sell your home is a commercial sale.

 

[muppets3d]

Frankly if we as members just stuck to 1 bed and larger villas, our frustrations with walking and renters would be gone. By and large the renters and walkers want the studios. So the answer to all DVC questions is always - just buy more points!

 

[MillauFr]

Disney won't make any changes until it is in their financial interests to do so.

 

[lowlight]

Just not sure how one can say a spec rental makes something "renting for commercial purposes" vs. just renting out points. If I rent one reservation a year, and it is a spec rental, but you rent 15 reservations, all made on demand, do you really believe my action is violates the contract and your action does not?

You still have to look at what DVCMC can and can not do to based on our contract if they feel someone is violating the commercial clause...plus, a FW would be a spec rental and banning any spec rental would prevent someone from renting what they own.

Again, I get the frustration with spec renting, but not sure how many owners would want to see DVC define things this way when we have the right to rent reservations on our membership..

I think there’s a lot of muddied water around this topic. I don’t want to get rid of renting, as I believe it’s a nice benefit and it keeps the value of the contract higher. I want to see the wholesale, complete and utter annihilation and dismantling of every single broker on the market. As a wise man once said, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” They are quite literally everything that is wrong with DVC. They have fixed the market price and kept owners under their thumb, pocketing what should be the extra 8 dollars plus per point that owners should be receiving. They have inorganically created demand for spec rentals, and they’ve created an unintended market where they risk little and gain heaps. I want to see boards like this be bustling places of rental activity where individual owners who need to rent a reservation or two can do so without competition from a business designed solely to cannibalize the rental market.

My ideal scenario would be one where they lose and owners win, but I’m not opposed to a Pyrrhic victory if it means shaking the parasite free from the host. In other words, I’m willing to suffer the consequences. I realize I only speak for myself and many don’t want anything changed, even though I respectfully disagree.

 

[Sandisw]

I think there’s a lot of muddied water around this topic. I don’t want to get rid of renting, as I believe it’s a nice benefit and it keeps the value of the contract higher. I want to see the wholesale, complete and utter annihilation and dismantling of every single broker on the market. As a wise man once said, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” They are quite literally everything that is wrong with DVC. They have fixed the market price and kept owners under their thumb, pocketing what should be the extra 8 dollars plus per point that owners should be receiving. They have inorganically created demand for spec rentals, and they’ve created an unintended market where they risk little and gain heaps. I want to see boards like this be bustling places of rental activity where individual owners who need to rent a reservation or two can do so without competition from a business designed solely to cannibalize the rental market.

My ideal scenario would be one where they lose and owners win, but I’m not opposed to a Pyrrhic victory if it means shaking the parasite free from the host. In other words, I’m willing to suffer the consequences. I realize I only speak for myself and many don’t want anything changed, even though I respectfully disagree.

I think there’s a lot of muddied water around this topic. I don’t want to get rid of renting, as I believe it’s a nice benefit and it keeps the value of the contract higher. I want to see the wholesale, complete and utter annihilation and dismantling of every single broker on the market. As a wise man once said, “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” They are quite literally everything that is wrong with DVC. They have fixed the market price and kept owners under their thumb, pocketing what should be the extra 8 dollars plus per point that owners should be receiving. They have inorganically created demand for spec rentals, and they’ve created an unintended market where they risk little and gain heaps. I want to see boards like this be bustling places of rental activity where individual owners who need to rent a reservation or two can do so without competition from a business designed solely to cannibalize the rental market.

My ideal scenario would be one where they lose and owners win, but I’m not opposed to a Pyrrhic victory if it means shaking the parasite free from the host. In other words, I’m willing to suffer the consequences. I realize I only speak for myself and many don’t want anything changed, even though I respectfully disagree.

Rental brokers have been around since I have been an owner..15 years.. and they did make adjusts years go to prevent the number of associates owners can have as some of those brokers were being added so they could make reservations.

I think if DVc had the power to stop them, they would have.

Having said that, there are a lot more now and a lot more rentals by the average owner so the market is much different today.

Here are some things that I think might help with little impact to owners.

Change the rules that a review will be triggered when threshold is met over across all memberships an owner is part of.

Limit the number of points a trust or LLC can own..below the 8000 an owner can have.

Require owners to submit rental contracts..not for approval but notice.

Prevent owners of rental brokers from renting their own points in sites they own. For example, those that own or are related to owners of a rental agency would no longer be allowed to list on their site but could as a client elsewhere.

Personally, I want options to use others to help me rent, when and if I do, but I do understand that some would like to see safeguards to prevent any broker from being the middle man for themselves.

I agree that there are lots of different topics that get mixed in to one topic.

 

[muppets3d]

Disney won't make any changes until it is in their financial interests to do so.

I would say it is, because there are many people who rent DVC points at a significant discount over rack rates (or even AP/resident rates) for deluxe resorts like Grand Floridian, Polynesian, Riviera, etc.

The question is - when will Disney consider it crosses the line.

 

[lowlight]

Rental brokers have been around since I have been an owner..15 years.. and they did make adjusts years go to prevent the number of associates owners can have as some of those brokers were being added so they could make reservations.

That is true, but I will say that the nature of some of the brokers has changed. Some were not content to only skim the $8 a point from the owner, they realized that they could have owners do spec rentals and give them the same $15-18 a point, but instead of reselling for $26-28 a point, they could resell for $30-35 depending on room category, time of year, resort, etc. I think that's why we are where we are at today, greed on the part of the some of the brokers.

Require owners to submit rental contracts..not for approval but notice.

Isn't this already in the POS? I remember reading it at some point- that they had to use rental contracts and had to notify member services when it was a rental.

Personally, I want options to use others to help me rent, when and if I do, but I do understand that some would like to see safeguards to prevent any broker from being the middle man for themselves.

I think the Disboards is a good example of an avenue that helps others rent while not being overly predatory. Sure, Disboards makes money off of rentals, but they have to charge something in order to verify the person is real, so I understand that to a degree. Disboards isn't telling owners to take their points and book Presidents' Day weekend in a tower at Riviera if they want to rent with them. As far as I know, Disboards doesn't have any skin in the game as far as owning points through an LLC to rent. Redweek is the same way.

 

[Chuck S]

Isn't this already in the POS? I remember reading it at some point- that they had to use rental contracts and had to notify member services when it was a rental.

I think there was that type of clause, and perhaps still is. The problem is, since we now book online, and don't actually speak to Member Services, they have not detailed any way to do that, nor what may or may not be considered a contract. For instance, a post saying "300 OKW Points for Rent, $20 pp, payable via paypale at time of booking" is a contract, if a renter agrees to it. It is not necessarily a separate document. And there is no check box to indicate it is a renter or a reservation for a family member or friend. Just a check-box for the owner to indicate if the primary is a DVC Member. And as Scotty would say, the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

The only time I actually rented points was last year, 100 points (well, 98 got rented) spread over 6 reservations. Every other time I've booked a room in someone else's name, they have been friends or family. But how would MS know that? Of course, I've also never been anywhere near hitting the 20 reservaton limit, nor have I ever rented an existing reservation.

 

[Sandisw]

That is true, but I will say that the nature of some of the brokers has changed. Some were not content to only skim the $8 a point from the owner, they realized that they could have owners do spec rentals and give them the same $15-18 a point, but instead of reselling for $26-28 a point, they could resell for $30-35 depending on room category, time of year, resort, etc. I think that's why we are where we are at today, greed on the part of the some of the brokers.



Isn't this already in the POS? I remember reading it at some point- that they had to use rental contracts and had to notify member services when it was a rental.



I think the Disboards is a good example of an avenue that helps others rent while not being overly predatory. Sure, Disboards makes money off of rentals, but they have to charge something in order to verify the person is real, so I understand that to a degree. Disboards isn't telling owners to take their points and book Presidents' Day weekend in a tower at Riviera if they want to rent with them. As far as I know, Disboards doesn't have any skin in the game as far as owning points through an LLC to rent. Redweek is the same way.

The contract says that a rental contract is required to be done, but we don’t currently have to submit it. We don’t need permission to rent and they can’t put that in place but they could say that we must not only notice but submit a copy of the contract.

In terms of brokers, those nuisances don’t bother me because as an owner, if I don’t like their practices, I don’t have to use them. If I am okay with their fee structure, then I should be allowed to use them.

I get that places like DIS are a place to rent, but it’s still more work for an owner and I liked being able to hand it off.

So, I hope we never lose the ability to use a company to help us rent and I don’t think they will ever micromanage how one can rent and what since the contract specially says we don’t need their permission.

If the true issue is that brokers or any owner for that matter are skirting the rules by renting their own points outside the limits, then that is what DVc should be addressing

 

[PRmamiDEdos]

I think about this a lot with respect to the AKV value rooms. I remember last year seeing days and days of value studios available for rent on several rental sites (can’t remember the specifics now) but it’s definitely a noticeable issue. If I want a value studio I will usually walk it for weeks (usually taking a few attempts to secure it to begin with), simply because there are more sharks in the water.

This! For high-stakes dates, I would start walking maybe a week in advance. That no longer works. I needed a 2 BR value for Christmas week and started the process two weeks out. I honestly feel like people who have DVC just to sell it employ "walkers" to get these reservations. It was crazy how I couldn't get what I needed when I had never had an issue before. I love my DVC and wish the company would do something about these high-volume renters but I know it won't happen. I'll just be more vigilant about the dates I need.

 

[BeachClub2014]

Actually, no. What constitutes "Commercial Rentals" is what DVC defines as commercial rentals, not what an individual member may personally believe is a commercial rental. It is not a "loophole" it is the way the system is designed. Having a broker to help an owner rent a reservation is no more a "commercial renter" than using a broker to sell your home is a commercial sale.

You're suggesting that rental brokers are not commercial enterprises? Am I reading that correctly? If so, that's just silly.

Rental brokers are, of course, commercial enterprises. Brokers exist to make a profit. They are not non-profit organizations facilitating pass-thru rentals out of the goodness of their charitable hearts.

Nobody (including many here who defend rental brokers ad nausuem) knows what percentage of the confirmed reservations being rented are points owned/controlled by them or how many are owned by a family in Iowa that happens to have 12 extra points this year and wants help renting them.

We know that 100% of the rental offerings sold make money for the broker.

 

[Chuck S]

You're suggesting that rental brokers are not commercial enterprises? Am I reading that correctly? If so, that's just silly.

Rental brokers are, of course, commercial enterprises. Brokers exist to make a profit. They are not non-profit organizations facilitating pass-thru rentals out of the goodness of their charitable hearts.

Nobody (including many here who defend rental brokers ad nausuem) knows what percentage of the confirmed reservations being rented are points owned/controlled by them or how many are owned by a family in Iowa that happens to have 12 extra points this year and wants help renting them.

We know that 100% of the rental offerings sold make money for the broker.

There is a big difference between being a commercial enterprise, ANY business is a commercial enterprise by default, and being a "commercial renter" under DVC's definition of commercial renting. And it is DVCs definition that matters, not yours, not mine, not the opinion of any individual. I also doubt the Division of Florida Condominiaiums, timeshares and mobile homes would ever agree to not allowing use of a broker to rent our points. As you said, NO ONE HERE knows what percentage of the reservations offered are actually owned by the brokerage, or if the brokerage is breaking DVC's definition of "commerciual renting."