Tired of SSR being blamed

SL6827

Them, loving the lake. Me- not so much!
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Which, if they keep the overall points for the resort the same, increase the cost of studios, and lower it for one bedrooms....that would not create legal problems, they are standing on two precedents - at SSR twice and at BWV- balancing room types and not seasons, and that would decrease the demand for studios, increase it for one bedrooms, and drive people who bought for studios to buy more points for the same trip.
But that would be completely legal in which to do, right? I mean for those who bought a small contract, like I did before I sold, that would suck, but it would be legal and right, correct?
 

Sandisw

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
But that would be completely legal in which to do, right? I mean for those who bought a small contract, like I did before I sold, that would suck, but it would be legal and right, correct?
Yes. They are allowed to adjust as long as they basically keep total the same, Years ago..maybe 2010?...they raised weeknights and lowered weekends,

People who bought contracts to cover 5 night stays only during the week were upset because they were now short,,,However, those that included weekends were happy because their trips were cheaper.

Rule of thumb should always be to plan for worst case scenario and have a bit of a cushion.
 

zavandor

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
But didn’t they at least take points from the 2 bedrooms to offset it? Or am I remembering wrong? I think what they did at SSR was within the rules of raising in one area and lower in the other.
Yes they did, but this doesn't make it necessarily "right" or "legal".

A bit of history.
In the first 18 years in DVC history, the DVC management interpretation of point reallocations was that they could only move points withint the same room type, to reallocate seasonal or weekly demand. That's what they did with the big week-days/weekends reallocation.
The fact that this was the earliest interpretation is confirmed by:
- how the POS is written (more on this later)
- the early marketing materials; there are videos on YouTube showing the videos included in the free DVC DVD, where the guy explains what can happen during a point reallocation and he only explains that points may move seasonally within the same room type
- the accompanying document that DVC asked to sign to owners. That is a document where the purchaser confirms that he has been explained and understands DVC rules and regulations. The earliest versions explain clearly that points reallocation can be done withint he same room type to balance seasonal demand *

So the message was quite consistent across the board. When DVC sold the THV, the main marketing spiel was "Buy points to stay in a 3BR villa for the same cost of a 2BR villa". And actually it was quite the deal and in the early days THV were very popular: I remember reading posts on the DISboards of people asking "are you buying SSR just to have a shot at THV at 11 months?".
Right after the resort sold out, the DVCMC rebalanced the point charts, according to a new interpretation of the POS.
Was this right? I guess there were quite a few people who were sold points on the idea of paying low points for a 3BR villa who were upset by the change. They were promised something and just after the resort sold out, that promise was broken. It might have been legal (and I don't think so), but I cannot blame anyone who might have been furious.

Now about the legality. As I said the initial interpretation was that reallocations can only be seasonal and not across room types and that was how the POS was written. Changing that crucial interpretation later causes a lot of contraddiction in the POS. There are at least three huge problems:
1) the paragraph describing a point reallocation states that any increase in points in a day must be balanced by a decrease in a different day. The increase in THV had been balanced by a decrease in a different room category in the same day. This is not permitted by the POS
2) The destuctive damage paragraph regulates what happens when a building or part of a building is damaged so much that it's not convenient to repair it. Something not too absurd for the THV since a huge hurrican migh cause a tree to fall on one and completely destroy it. That paragraph states that the Unit is removed from the resort, owners of points of that unit are reimboursed by the insurance and they lose their contracts and they are not members anymore. This is done so that the remaining resort is still in balance according to the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio". So if a unit is removed from the system, it must be possible to continue to book the remaining resort with the points available to members. Which is not true anymore in the case of SSR because of the THV. A reallocation is not permitted by the POS to balance the resort after destructive damage, a reallocation can only happen to balance seasonal demand
3) Florida law states that the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" must be valid at any moment for each "timeshare unit". DVC defines a "unit" in a different way that the Florida law, but that is not important here: THV are declared in their own units, separated from the rest of the resort. So the reallocation is in violation with the law.

I have to add that DVCMC has the right to change most parts of the POS "in the interest of the membership", so they might change the POS to eliminate the contraddiction in 1 and 2 (not sure how they can overcome 3). However they can do so only in the interest of the membership and only in accordance with the law. And they haven't done it yet. The've changed all resorts POS to allow multiple UY for the same Unit; given the 2020 reallocation debacle, if the change was so straightforward, why haven't they changed the POS accordingly? Maybe it's because they cannot.

All of this before we even start talking about the lockoff premium increase, which is wrong for so many additional reasons that it blows my mind they even attempted it.


* = DVC states that those accompanying documents are not legally binding. I know nothing about USA consumers protection laws, but I can tell you that if something like this happens in Europe, it would be an easy court win. When there are proofs you've explained a crucial part of your product in a certain way, to the point that your customer has signed a document with that interpretation, then that becames legally binding otherwise you've misled the customer. If it's true they're not legally binding, then guys, you need better consumers protection laws.
 
Last edited:
  • we"reofftoneverland

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2015
    Wh
    Yes they did, but this doesn't make it necessarily "right" or "legal".

    A bit of history.
    In the first 18 years in DVC history, the DVC management interpretation of point reallocations was that they could only move points withint the same room type, to reallocate seasonal or weekly demand. That's what they did with the big week-days/weekends reallocation.
    The fact that this was the earliest interpretation is confirmed by:
    - how the POS is written (more on this later)
    - the early marketing materials; there are videos on YouTube showing the videos included in the free DVC DVD, where the guy explains what can happen during a point reallocation and he only explains that points may move seasonally within the same room type
    - the accompanying document that DVC asked to sign to owners. That is a document where the purchaser confirms that he has been explained and understands DVC rules and regulations. The earliest versions explain clearly that points reallocation can be done withint he same room type to balance seasonal demand *

    So the message was quite consistent across the board. When DVC sold the THV, the main marketing spiel was "Buy points to stay in a 3BR villa for the same cost of a 2BR villa". And actually it was quite the deal and in the early days THV were very popular: I remember reading posts on the DISboards of people asking "are you buying SSR just to have a shot at THV at 11 months?".
    Right after the resort sold out, the DVCMC rebalanced the point charts, according to a new interpretation of the POS.
    Was this right? I guess there were quite a few people who were sold points on the idea of paying low points for a 3BR villa who were upset by the change. They were promised something and just after the resort sold out, that promise was broken. It might have been legal (and I don't think so), but I cannot blame anyone who might have been furious.

    Now about the legality. As I said the initial interpretation was that reallocations can only be seasonal and not across room types and that was how the POS was written. Changing that crucial interpretation later causes a lot of contraddiction in the POS. There are at least three huge problems:
    1) the paragraph describing a point reallocation states that any increase in points in a day must be balanced by a decrease in a different day. The increase in THV had been balanced by a decrease in a different room category in the same day. This is not permitted by the POS
    2) The destuctive damage paragraph regulates what happens when a building or part of a building is damaged so much that it's not convenient to repair it. Something not too absurd for the THV since a huge hurrican migh cause a tree to fall on one and completely destroy it. That paragraph states that the Unit is removed from the resort, owners of points of that unit are reimboursed by the insurance and they lose their contracts and they are not members anymore. This is done so that the remaining resort is still in balance according to the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio". So if a unit is removed from the system, it must be possible to continue to book the remaining resort with the points available to members. Which is not true anymore in the case of SSR because of the THV. A reallocation is not permitted by the POS to balance the resort after destructive damage, a reallocation can only happen to balance seasonal demand
    3) Florida law states that the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" must be valid at any moment for each "timeshare unit". DVC defines a "unit" in a different way that the Florida law, but that is not important here: THV are declared in their own units, separated from the rest of the resort. So the reallocation is in violation with the law.

    I have to add that DVCMC has the right to change most parts of the POS "in the interest of the membership", so they might change the POS to eliminate the contraddiction in 1 and 2 (not sure how they can overcome 3). However they can do so only in the interest of the membership and only in accordance with the law. And they haven't done it yet. The've changed all resorts POS to allow multiple UY for the same Unit; given the 2020 reallocation debacle, if the change was so straightforward, why haven't they changed the POS accordingly? Maybe it's because they cannot.

    All of this before we even start talking about the lockoff premium increase, which is wrong for so many additional reasons that it blows my mind they even attempted it.


    * = DVC states that those accompanying documents are not legally binding. I know nothing about USA consumers protection laws, but I can tell you that if something like this happens in Europe, it would be an easy court win. When there are proofs you've explained a crucial part of your product in a certain way, to the point that your customer has signed a document with that interpretation, then that becames legally binding otherwise you've misled the customer. If it's true they're not legally binding, then guys, you need better consumers protection laws.
    What is THV? Thanks
     

    Sandisw

    Moderator
    Moderator
    Joined
    Nov 15, 2008
    Yes they did, but this doesn't make it necessarily "right" or "legal".

    A bit of history.
    In the first 18 years in DVC history, the DVC management interpretation of point reallocations was that they could only move points withint the same room type, to reallocate seasonal or weekly demand. That's what they did with the big week-days/weekends reallocation.
    The fact that this was the earliest interpretation is confirmed by:
    - how the POS is written (more on this later)
    - the early marketing materials; there are videos on YouTube showing the videos included in the free DVC DVD, where the guy explains what can happen during a point reallocation and he only explains that points may move seasonally within the same room type
    - the accompanying document that DVC asked to sign to owners. That is a document where the purchaser confirms that he has been explained and understands DVC rules and regulations. The earliest versions explain clearly that points reallocation can be done withint he same room type to balance seasonal demand *

    So the message was quite consistent across the board. When DVC sold the THV, the main marketing spiel was "Buy points to stay in a 3BR villa for the same cost of a 2BR villa". And actually it was quite the deal and in the early days THV were very popular: I remember reading posts on the DISboards of people asking "are you buying SSR just to have a shot at THV at 11 months?".
    Right after the resort sold out, the DVCMC rebalanced the point charts, according to a new interpretation of the POS.
    Was this right? I guess there were quite a few people who were sold points on the idea of paying low points for a 3BR villa who were upset by the change. They were promised something and just after the resort sold out, that promise was broken. It might have been legal (and I don't think so), but I cannot blame anyone who might have been furious.

    Now about the legality. As I said the initial interpretation was that reallocations can only be seasonal and not across room types and that was how the POS was written. Changing that crucial interpretation later causes a lot of contraddiction in the POS. There are at least three huge problems:
    1) the paragraph describing a point reallocation states that any increase in points in a day must be balanced by a decrease in a different day. The increase in THV had been balanced by a decrease in a different room category in the same day. This is not permitted by the POS
    2) The destuctive damage paragraph regulates what happens when a building or part of a building is damaged so much that it's not convenient to repair it. Something not too absurd for the THV since a huge hurrican migh cause a tree to fall on one and completely destroy it. That paragraph states that the Unit is removed from the resort, owners of points of that unit are reimboursed by the insurance and they lose their contracts and they are not members anymore. This is done so that the remaining resort is still in balance according to the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio". So if a unit is removed from the system, it must be possible to continue to book the remaining resort with the points available to members. Which is not true anymore in the case of SSR because of the THV. A reallocation is not permitted by the POS to balance the resort after destructive damage, a reallocation can only happen to balance seasonal demand
    3) Florida law states that the "One-to-one purchaser to accommodation ratio" must be valid at any moment for each "timeshare unit". DVC defines a "unit" in a different way that the Florida law, but that is not important here: THV are declared in their own units, separated from the rest of the resort. So the reallocation is in violation with the law.

    I have to add that DVCMC has the right to change most parts of the POS "in the interest of the membership", so they might change the POS to eliminate the contraddiction in 1 and 2 (not sure how they can overcome 3). However they can do so only in the interest of the membership and only in accordance with the law. And they haven't done it yet. The've changed all resorts POS to allow multiple UY for the same Unit; given the 2020 reallocation debacle, if the change was so straightforward, why haven't they changed the POS accordingly? Maybe it's because they cannot.

    All of this before we even start talking about the lockoff premium increase, which is wrong for so many additional reasons that it blows my mind they even attempted it.


    * = DVC states that those accompanying documents are not legally binding. I know nothing about USA consumers protection laws, but I can tell you that if something like this happens in Europe, it would be an easy court win. When there are proofs you've explained a crucial part of your product in a certain way, to the point that your customer has signed a document with that interpretation, then that becames legally binding otherwise you've misled the customer. If it's true they're not legally binding, then guys, you need better consumers protection laws.
    Thanks for such a detailed explanation! When I bought in 2009 direct, I was told about the total points not changing, but that adjustments could happen. Nothing was mentioned about only seasonal changes or that it had to align to same rooms. The example was even given if one room went up, another room had to go down to meet demand,

    Of course, this could have just been a way to start making the waters muddy i what they could do legally. This was also before THV as well,

    IIRC, while the point reallocation for THV may have come after sell out, I do remember they were extremely difficult to book at 11 months, and it appeared their reason for changing was grounded in supply and demand.

    I don’t have my POS documents any longer from BLT or VGF that I bought direct since I have since sold those contracts but I am waiting for my RIV ones and it will be interesting to read the specific language to see if it has been adjusted at all in terms of point allocation language.
     

    zavandor

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2011
    I am waiting for my RIV ones and it will be interesting to read the specific language to see if it has been adjusted at all in terms of point allocation language.
    I know about a couple of differences between the different resorts.
    With VGF they added a note about the possibility of increasing the lockoff premium. That was removed in PVB (since it doesn't have 2BR) but was not reinstated for CCV.
    The current version of the multi-site POS has a wording that permits the reallocation across different units, however the multi-site POS has lower priority and the individual resort POS always wins in case of a contraddiction. I think CCV may have a similar wording, but I don't remember for sure.
    I don't think anyone has checked yet on RIV, can you please report your findings?
     

    Sandisw

    Moderator
    Moderator
    Joined
    Nov 15, 2008
    I know about a couple of differences between the different resorts.
    With VGF they added a note about the possibility of increasing the lockoff premium. That was removed in PVB (since it doesn't have 2BR) but was not reinstated for CCV.
    The current version of the multi-site POS has a wording that permits the reallocation across different units, however the multi-site POS has lower priority and the individual resort POS always wins in case of a contraddiction. I think CCV may have a similar wording, but I don't remember for sure.
    I don't think anyone has checked yet on RIV, can you please report your findings?
    Absolutely! I am waiting for them to input the gratuitous transfer..which should be this week...then I will get all Rivera paperwork.

    Very interesting!
     

    Wakey

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Dec 22, 2015
    Zavandor is a mine of excellent information and did a lot for the owners when they tried to lockoff premium points increase, if it wasn't for Zavandor and a few others we would have been stuck with it. I just hope Zavandor is watching like a sentry and ready to pounce again if ever required!
     

    SL6827

    Them, loving the lake. Me- not so much!
    Joined
    Apr 23, 2017
    Ok, so Disney can change the rules in the middle of the game whenever they want? So what they did with the THV was or wasn't legal? Did they succeed because no one challenged them?
     

    DaveNan

    Mouseketeer
    Joined
    Jul 31, 2017
    Ok, so Disney can change the rules in the middle of the game whenever they want? So what they did with the THV was or wasn't legal? Did they succeed because no one challenged them?
    A couple things on THV. Yes, they changed the rates. But it was really a net sum zero game. The overall scale of the increases in THV were offset by comparable reductions elsewhere. We can argue and debate if they were allowed to transfer points across the boundary they did, but at least the were making equal reductions. That change help some members based on booking wants and hurt others, but it can still be argued it was "in the overall interest of the owners". The lock-off premium increase hurt the majority of owners, while helping very few. Plus the amount of premium was not offset by the reductions in other categories. If all lock-off were booked as 2BR than the offset was equal, but we all know the vast majority of 2BR lock-offs are booked as studios and 1BR, not as 2BR. So I would say they succeeded for 2 reasons, a) it can legitimately be argued it is in the interest of most the owners, b) it was a change that only hit owners with an interest in THV, not all owners who are interested in studios and 1BR - so the impacted crowd was smaller, less vocal, and thus it was not challenged to the extent the lock-off premium was challenged.
     

    bobbiwoz

    I'm happy to dance with you!
    Joined
    Aug 26, 2003
    It has been mentioned here already, but I was bothered by the “Book a treehouse for the same price as a two bedroom“ switch. Never booked a treehouse again, but it was nice while it lasted.
     

    crisi

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2002
    Ok, so Disney can change the rules in the middle of the game whenever they want? So what they did with the THV was or wasn't legal? Did they succeed because no one challenged them?
    They succeeded because it was a reallocation of points that didn't increase the overall number of points within SSR. That's a reallocation - which they are entitled to do. And THV isn't the only reallocation. BWV standard view was a reallocation (although in that case I think they decreased the number of points required for those units during the sales period and didn't reallocate - and I suspect they did it by making the sales rooms long term and removing those points from the system - they were readded much later.) And weekend rates were lowered.

    And these aren't changing the rules - the rules allow them to do this.
     

    Connect

    Disney News and Updates

    Get Daily Email Updates

    Subscribe to the DVCstore.com
    mailing list!

    BUY DVC


    SELL DVC


    DVC POINT CHARTS


    DIS PODCASTS

    Top