Why is paying for transferred points forbidden?

[2thdr]

Just checking through the rules and regs of DVC contracts, and saw that compensation for transferring points is expressly forbidden. Why is that? You can rent points for money within limits.

 

[Sandisw]

IMO, it is because it would require DVC to get involved in a dispute between members, something they do not want to do. For a reservation rental, it is a private transaction between and owner and someone else. It involves only the owner and their own membership. If there is an issue, DVC doesn't get involved, and really would have no need to because it is the owner simply making a reservation for someone else.

With the transfer, DVC is directly involved in helping this as they are the ones that have to do it, so I am guessing it could cause a lot of problems once done if someone didn't get all the money, or didn't get the points they paid for.

 

[disneynutz]

My guess is because they want people to buy home resorts and not just transfer points for the 11 month booking advantage. Removing the money from transfer transactions reduces their popularity. If they were concerned about being involved they could easily publish a non-involvement policy.

Bill

 

[drusba]

It is a rule that DVD has never explained and that has existed since DVC existed. Likely it is partly to assure Disney, which is directly involved in the activity of transfer, cannot be accused of doing monetary harm if it blows the transfer. Despite the prohibition, members do transfers and receive money and DVD has never acted to stop that activity. There are also other prohibitions members have not followed when renting, particularly the section in the DVC Membership Agreement that precludes banked or borrowed points from being used "for rental or transfer purposes," and members have rented using such points.

 

[Dean]

Just checking through the rules and regs of DVC contracts, and saw that compensation for transferring points is expressly forbidden. Why is that? You can rent points for money within limits.

The short answer is because they said so. We can speculate as to why, my guess is a combination of simplicity and to prevent manipulation of the system. Interesting they've never sought to enforce this limitation.

 

[TheGecko]

The short answer is because they said so. We can speculate as to why, my guess is a combination of simplicity and to prevent manipulation of the system. Interesting they've never sought to enforce this limitation.

How would they enforce a private party transaction with no records available for their review? Sounds too messy to even begin especially for interstate transactions, hence the lack of enforcement. The policy probably curbs the practice enough to satisfy DVD.

 

[Dean]

How would they enforce a private party transaction with no records available for their review? Sounds too messy to even begin especially for interstate transactions, hence the lack of enforcement. The policy probably curbs the practice enough to satisfy DVD.

Obviously it's problematic but if they simply ask both parties on the front end and refuse or sanction those that do in some way, it'd curtain it tremendously. The way it is right now it's like there's no restriction at all.

 

[kristenrice]

I think they simply keep a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. It's expressly forbidden, but if you don't say anything about money changing hands, they will allow the transfer to go through. I'm sure they aren't naïve enough to believe that perfect strangers are sending hundreds of points into someone else's account out of the goodness of their heart. They KNOW money is changing hands, but it is a private transaction between two individuals and they choose to stay out of it. If something goes wrong, (non-payment, points "disappear", etc) then DVC can stay out of it completely because it was a transaction that was in violation of the rules.