Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[zavandor]

Not from me, people bought smaller contracts for a reason but it might not have been the right reason.

I honestly have to admin that I haven't read the POS before buying resale. It wasn't even given to me by the broker (wondering if I could ask for it now, I think I'll try).But someone reading the POS would have found the chapter regarding the rules for reallocations and find spelled clearly that in a reallocation:
- points can be reallocated by Use Day only within the same Vacation Home
- points for a Unit must remain constant
- an increase in a Use Day must be balanced by a decrease in another Use Day
- DVC could reallocate points to even out all seasons for each vacation unit so they have a constant cost for each Use Day, but up to a maximum value specified in the contract
Someone buying in to stay in studios, reading that section of the POS, could reasonably expect that the value of their points to book studios could vary along a year, but couldn't be devalued in absolute terms.
This reallocation has clearly violated those 4 rules that DVC gave themselves, someone buying after reading the terms in the POS has every right to be upset.

 

[Chuck S]

I honestly have to admin that I haven't read the POS before buying resale. It wasn't even given to me by the broker (wondering if I could ask for it now, I think I'll try).But someone reading the POS would have found the chapter regarding the rules for reallocations and find spelled clearly that in a reallocation:
- points can be reallocated by Use Day only within the same Vacation Home
- points for a Unit must remain constant
- an increase in a Use Day must be balanced by a decrease in another Use Day
- DVC could reallocate points to even out all seasons for each vacation unit so they have a constant cost for each Use Day, but up to a maximum value specified in the contract
Someone buying in to stay in studios, reading that section of the POS, could reasonably expect that the value of their points to book studios could vary along a year, but couldn't be devalued in absolute terms.
This reallocation has clearly violated those 4 rules that DVC gave themselves, someone buying after reading the terms in the POS has every right to be upset.

I don't know, when I bought in, my 230 points did quite well, with OKW studios being 69 points per week in Adventure Season, it gave the opportunity for 3 weeks in a studio, or 4 weeks if you went to a cash resort on weekends. With the maximum reallocation in the paperwork, it was pretty clear that could, and likely would, change at some point. It goes back to understanding the product and what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line. And there is no denying that general travel habits for Disney have changed...what used to be a few slow seasons throughout the year has really evolved into the parks and resort being pretty busy year round. The parks used to be pretty empty in DVC's Adventure Season...now...not so much.

 

[crvetter]

I don't know, when I bought in, my 230 points did quite well, with OKW studios being 69 points per week in Adventure Season, it gave the opportunity for 3 weeks in a studio, or 4 weeks if you went to a cash resort on weekends. With the maximum reallocation in the paperwork, it was pretty clear that could, and likely would, change at some point. It goes back to understanding the product and what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line. And there is no denying that general travel habits for Disney have changed...what used to be a few slow seasons throughout the year has really evolved into the parks and resort being pretty busy year round. The parks used to be pretty empty in DVC's Adventure Season...now...not so much.

My problem currently is on average (taking the total number of points to book a Home Type for an entire year divided by number of calendar days) nightly point cost is above the maximum reallocation for some but not all resorts.

 

[OKW Lover]

I suspect some of the holders of small contracts have them to get the benefits, with the rest of their points having been bought on the resale market.

 

[OKW Lover]

I don't know, when I bought in, my 230 points did quite well, with OKW studios being 69 points per week in Adventure Season, it gave the opportunity for 3 weeks in a studio, or 4 weeks if you went to a cash resort on weekends. With the maximum reallocation in the paperwork, it was pretty clear that could, and likely would, change at some point. It goes back to understanding the product and what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line.

Good point @Chuck S
Another thing that has changed is members attitude. When we bought in 1995 we looked at DVC as a second home. Today, people simply look at it as pre-paying their hotel rooms.

 

[Bing Showei]

Dean, I wish so much that I could share your perspective on this. It would feel so much better to shift the blame of the inability for owners to use the points the way they bought them to the owners and absolve Disney of any malfeasance in the recent changes, than to believe maybe it is time to question the integrity of the DVC system.

I think the disconnect for a lot of us is that you adhere strictly to the DVCMC and DVD labels (compartmentalizing the different departments and their respective roles), and beleive that they are not acting as one Disney entity that is knowingly selling one product (small contracts) using beguiling language, understanding that they will later make changes adversely affecting that same product.

You’ve brought up several points of how Disney is in fact acting in good faith as evidenced by what they are permitted to do according to the POS (increase lockoff premium without limits, invoke breakage at minute one of 11-months, etc.), but have not chosen not to, to date.

But here’s the rub: if Disney DID choose to do exactly those things tomorrow, it would be permissible as they have that legal right laid out clearly in the POS. Additionally, it could then be said that we should’ve known that this was possible all along and that we made the choice and it’s our fault for not understanding the risks. As true as that might be, you have to understand that’s a hard pill to swallow. And although that’s an extreme example, that’s what a lot of us are feeling now.

As much as you’re defending Disney’s actions through this reallocation, it seems you’re laying out a great argument for why every last owner should seriously question ownership at all, regardless of whether or not this latest change affects them adversely.

For me, these changes are not life shattering, the economics still makes sense for us (for now), but it does give me pause about ownership and what the next changes will bring. And for the first time, I’m honestly starting to understand the inherent “risks” of timeshare ownership that you have repeated over and over and over and over... and over again every time someone creates a new thread about buying into DVC.

 

[Dean]

I honestly have to admin that I haven't read the POS before buying resale. It wasn't even given to me by the broker (wondering if I could ask for it now, I think I'll try).But someone reading the POS would have found the chapter regarding the rules for reallocations and find spelled clearly that in a reallocation:
- points can be reallocated by Use Day only within the same Vacation Home
- points for a Unit must remain constant
- an increase in a Use Day must be balanced by a decrease in another Use Day
- DVC could reallocate points to even out all seasons for each vacation unit so they have a constant cost for each Use Day, but up to a maximum value specified in the contract
Someone buying in to stay in studios, reading that section of the POS, could reasonably expect that the value of their points to book studios could vary along a year, but couldn't be devalued in absolute terms.
This reallocation has clearly violated those 4 rules that DVC gave themselves, someone buying after reading the terms in the POS has every right to be upset.

You can ask DVC and they'll send it, brokers don't give you those but technically and legally you still assumed the commitment to the information. Based on the POS info I have, it does not match your statements but I don't have the latest version. Knowing the intent of reallocations I am confident that the limit by vacation home or even by unit won't fly because both basically mean they can't reallocate and they need the option. So all they have to do is change the POS if they want because the intent is clear that they need to be able to even out demand. I think it's unusual that people have read the POS before buying. Even if you're in a sales meeting and thinking about buying, they usually won't let you take a copy. I'm one of the exceptions, I asked for it at or after the tour but even then they only sent me a condensed version mostly leaving out the things we all skip over anyway like the plot maps. That's why the cancelation period doesn't start for retail until you get the POS even if it's well after you sign the contract and why you have a year if you don't get that info for retail sales.

 

[Chuck S]

I think the disconnect for a lot of us is that you adhere strictly to the DVCMC and DVD labels (compartmentalizing the different departments and their respective roles), and believe that they are not acting as one Disney entity that is knowingly selling one product (small contracts) using beguiling language, understanding that they will later make changes adversely affecting that same product.

But legally, and ethically, DVCMC, DVD, Disney, ABC, Disney Parks and DVC Membership ARE all very different animals, with different responsibilities and goals. Sometimes those goals mesh, sometimes they don't, and compromises are made.

 

[zavandor]

I don't know, when I bought in, my 230 points did quite well, with OKW studios being 69 points per week in Adventure Season, it gave the opportunity for 3 weeks in a studio, or 4 weeks if you went to a cash resort on weekends. With the maximum reallocation in the paperwork, it was pretty clear that could, and likely would, change at some point. It goes back to understanding the product and what you're buying before you sign on the dotted line. And there is no denying that general travel habits for Disney have changed...what used to be a few slow seasons throughout the year has really evolved into the parks and resort being pretty busy year round. The parks used to be pretty empty in DVC's Adventure Season...now...not so much.

But your original 230 points would have bought you only a week and a half in Premier season. With the maximum reallocation spelled in the contract your adventure season holiday time would shrink to 2.5 weeks, but your 1.5 weeks in premier would expand to 2.5 weeks. A gain in a season, a loss in another season.

But with this reallocation, your 3 weeks in adventure season shrink to 2.5 and your 1.5 weeks in premier shrink to one week. A loss in both seasons. Someone reading the POS couldn't expect this. It is a combined effect of:
- an increase in the lockoff premium
- a reallocation of larger villas points to beef up the studio charts
None of those are clearly stated as possibilities in the POS (except for the L/O premium at VGF)

 

[zavandor]

You can ask DVC and they'll send it, brokers don't give you those but technically and legally you still assumed the commitment to the information. Based on the POS info I have, it does not match your statements but I don't have the latest version. Knowing the intent of reallocations I am confident that the limit by vacation home or even by unit won't fly because both basically mean they can't reallocate and they need the option. So all they have to do is change the POS if they want because the intent is clear that they need to be able to even out demand. I think it's unusual that people have read the POS before buying. Even if you're in a sales meeting and thinking about buying, they usually won't let you take a copy. I'm one of the exceptions, I asked for it at or after the tour but even then they only sent me a condensed version mostly leaving out the things we all skip over anyway like the plot maps. That's why the cancelation period doesn't start for retail until you get the POS even if it's well after you sign the contract and why you have a year if you don't get that info for retail sales.

I have to unfortunately agree that they have the right to modify the POS to allow cross unit reallocations. It's the nature of the beast, the Management Company is in control of almost everything that doesn't violate the law.
However, changing the POS would change the documents given to people who buy and they can read during their cool down period. As they currently are, a buyer could think: "DVC is willing to keep the value of my points constant". With a modified POS a buyer could think "Mmmm, I may end up payment much more for a studio than I currently see in the points chart, maybe I will cancel".

One of the possible explanation of the language about the L/O premium being removed by the POS for CCV after it was introduced for VGF, is that maybe it raised a few questions in prospective buyers and caused some sales to slip through. It's something only Disney knows.

 

[Chuck S]

But your original 230 points would have bought you only a week and a half in Premier season. With the maximum reallocation spelled in the contract your adventure season holiday time would shrink to 2.5 weeks, but your 1.5 weeks in premier would expand to 2.5 weeks. A gain in a season, a loss in another season.

But with this reallocation, your 3 weeks in adventure season shrink to 2.5 and your 1.5 weeks in premier shrink to one week. A loss in both seasons. Someone reading the POS couldn't expect this. It is a combined effect of:
- an increase in the lockoff premium
- a reallocation of larger villas points to beef up the studio charts
None of those are clearly stated as possibilities in the POS (except for the L/O premium at VGF)

With Christmas (Premium) being in such high demand, it was not unexpected. Especially when you consider that we used to have a lottery system for Christmas and that was a mess. You had to sign up in advance, and you may or may not be picked...and if you were picked, and turned it down two years in a row, you had to re-register for the lottery.

 

[Dean]

Dean, I wish so much that I could share your perspective on this. It would feel so much better to shift the blame of the inability for owners to use the points the way they bought them to the owners and absolve Disney of any malfeasance in the recent changes, than to believe maybe it is time to question the integrity of the DVC system.

I think the disconnect for a lot of us is that you adhere strictly to the DVCMC and DVD labels (compartmentalizing the different departments and their respective roles), and beleive that they are not acting as one Disney entity that is knowingly selling one product (small contracts) using beguiling language, understanding that they will later make changes adversely affecting that same product.

You’ve brought up several points of how Disney is in fact acting in good faith as evidenced by what they are permitted to do according to the POS (increase lockoff premium without limits, invoke breakage at minute one of 11-months, etc.), but have not chosen not to, to date.

But here’s the rub: if Disney DID choose to do exactly those things tomorrow, it would be permissible as they have that legal right laid out clearly in the POS. Additionally, it could then be said that we should’ve known that this was possible all along and that we made the choice and it’s our fault for not understanding the risks. As true as that might be, you have to understand that’s a hard pill to swallow. And although that’s an extreme example, that’s what a lot of us are feeling now.

As much as you’re defending Disney’s actions through this reallocation, it seems you’re laying out a great argument for why every last owner should seriously question ownership at all, regardless of whether or not this latest change affects them adversely.

For me, these changes are not life shattering, the economics still makes sense for us (for now), but it does give me pause about ownership and what the next changes will bring. And for the first time, I’m honestly starting to understand the inherent “risks” of timeshare ownership that you have repeated over and over and over and over... and over again every time someone creates a new thread about buying into DVC.

If I didn't have a certain level of trust I wouldn't own or I would sell. I know they're currently thinking "we can't win". I look at these things technically and contractually, the spirit, sales pitch, assumptions or verbal promises have no meaning to me outside the contractual issue from a decision standpoint (just like the free valet parking issue). I separate out the sales process and the usage into almost independent processes. That means that sales promises or angles don't come into play if they are not in sync contractually. The contract says they can make changes and actually says they "shall" if needed to balance demand. And now we know they have made changes a number of times so the argument that many made with the 2010 reallocation that they hadn't made changes in 14 years so why now, is gone, not that it was very valid even then. That they sold people on studios and smaller points packages is irrelevant to me in this discussion but relevant to the individual.

I know I've seen something they are able to anticipate breakage but I wasn't able to confirm that when looking through the POS's I have. I do know they can change the breakage between 30 & 90 days and this is different than the original POS wording. But even if they can anticipate it they have to have historical information it would be available. Let me be clear, there are changes that might make DVC unworkable for a given group or person but still be legal. That's the way the system is laid out and if they cross over that line we can exit currently but let's compare to some other timeshares where an exit is more difficult (though usually possible even if you have to give it away). In that case you STILL took the risk for the savings and options, whether you know it or not. You've seen me reference risk in terms of buying decisions. Basically you hope for the best and plan for the worst. So yes, one should consider all of these things and more going in and reconsider at certain stages. Effectively if one continues to own, it's as if you've bought today with the same options you currently have and the current points costs. It's just like a stock, if you wouldn't buy it at todays prices if you had the cash sitting there, you should likely sell.

I didn't say one had to like the changes, only understand that the member is the one that put themselves in that situation whether they knew it or not is irrelevant. Thus jumping up and down screaming how dare they is simply an unacceptable reaction IMO. I can remember a poster back in the 2010/11 reallocation that stated they bought and knew it could change but assumed it wouldn't (maybe they were told it wouldn't by sales, I don't recall that part) but they were still livid. IMO that's that's unrealistic and entitlement thinking. It's a little like your CC reserving the right to jack up your interest related to credit changes. That's the contract and you put yourself in that situation.

I'm sorry that this is negative to you and others (and it likely is to me) but it's positive to many as well. It's good you're realizing that DVC is a timeshare and timeshares have risk. They WILL change over time and usually not for the better. Dues go up, choices change, new resorts are more expensive, etc. And that's just on the timeshare side, then there's the personal side. You lose your job, you have a medical event personally or with family and can't work or can't travel, etc.

If you see this as defending Disney, you haven't come to the full realization yet. This is really just DVCMC acting on behalf of the membership as a whole as I see it. I agree that it's a little weird increasing studios and 1 BR unless they want to move people to 2 BR which is my assumption. It'd sure be nice to have more specific info on the thinking but we'll never have the demand/occupancy numbers to completely analyze all of this. So going forward, there will be other changes and they likely will not be to your advantage or mine and we should act accordingly.

 

[Dean]

I have to unfortunately agree that they have the right to modify the POS to allow cross unit reallocations. It's the nature of the beast, the Management Company is in control of almost everything that doesn't violate the law.
However, changing the POS would change the documents given to people who buy and they can read during their cool down period. As they currently are, a buyer could think: "DVC is willing to keep the value of my points constant". With a modified POS a buyer could think "Mmmm, I may end up payment much more for a studio than I currently see in the points chart, maybe I will cancel".

One of the possible explanation of the language about the L/O premium being removed by the POS for CCV after it was introduced for VGF, is that maybe it raised a few questions in prospective buyers and caused some sales to slip through. It's something only Disney knows.

I'm not convinced any of the language posted would prevent such a reallocation even in the most restrictions versions. As I've noted, I've lived the process actually being directly involved as a member of a council taking a new state statue and actually writing the rules for them. You write something, put in into place and the same people interpret it different later, the lawyer for the state who's the consultant changes and has different thoughts or you have new people come on board. I think it detracts from the true important discussions to get hung up on the wording. It simply put a name to what has always been in place. I wouldn't be surprise if they changed it because of negative feedback from members or sales. From a sales standpoint you don't want to point out the negatives. Think of meetings you've been in where there are lots of people and lots of opinions. You get a ton of discussion but no consensus and ultimately get nothing done. That's one of the reasons you have subcommittees so you can work out the details and just present them to the group. That way you only change the things that most can agree on going forward.

 

[E2ME2]

[QUOTE="So if the principle was a deal breaker, they should not have bought in, after that we’re just haggling over price (bad joke comes to mind).
.

Dean -
Not a "bad joke", but a very memorable line by Robert Redford! I'm honestly confused over the recent rise in points, and I'm not sure if I've been hoodwinked or not ??
I know it's a little discouraging to see your number of vacation nights decrease as your yearly maintenance fees increase; that's a double whammy![/QUOTE]

Boiling down the immediate impact to my "double whammy" (isolated case based on our personal plans for 2020).
We plan to take the whole family of 9 (Me&DW/DD&SIL&3Grands/DS&DIL) and book the 3BR-GV at SSR,
& this has been a long-time goal since we purchased DVC in 2011, when DD was carrying Granddaughter #1
Last year my MFs were $5.86PP X 250 P = $1,465 annually
This year my MFs are $6.40PP X 250 P = $1,600 annually
That’s a 9.25% increase ($135 Net)

2019 Points chart for 3BR-GV-Standard View = 464
2020 Points chart for 3BR-GV-Standard View = 501
That’s an 8% increase (37Points Net)

Combined impact:
Last year 464 Points at $5.86PP = $2,719.04 for 1 week in that 3BR-GV
This year 501 Points at $6.40PP = $3,206.40 for 1 week in that same 3BR-GV
That’s an increase of 18% ($487.36 Net) and there's the "Double Whammy" !

Still gets me a 3BR-GV at $458/Night, but would have been only $388/Night last year.
Not enough to deter me from future DVC vacation planning for the family, but enough to make me rethink buying additional points, or doing more research to see if there might be less-expensive alternatives for our winters in Florida, long term......

 

[DVC92]

Good point @Chuck S
Another thing that has changed is members attitude. When we bought in 1995 we looked at DVC as a second home. Today, people simply look at it as pre-paying their hotel rooms.

As with Chuck, I purchased 310 points in 1992 so I could get a week in a 2BR during Magic. As you state, today's buyers are looking for prefixed, except for annual dues increases, hotel rooms.

 

[RobDoc]

You can ask DVC and they'll send it, brokers don't give you those but technically and legally you still assumed the commitment to the information. Based on the POS info I have, it does not match your statements but I don't have the latest version. Knowing the intent of reallocations I am confident that the limit by vacation home or even by unit won't fly because both basically mean they can't reallocate and they need the option. So all they have to do is change the POS if they want because the intent is clear that they need to be able to even out demand. I think it's unusual that people have read the POS before buying. Even if you're in a sales meeting and thinking about buying, they usually won't let you take a copy. I'm one of the exceptions, I asked for it at or after the tour but even then they only sent me a condensed version mostly leaving out the things we all skip over anyway like the plot maps. That's why the cancelation period doesn't start for retail until you get the POS even if it's well after you sign the contract and why you have a year if you don't get that info for retail sales.

For awhile, I know that DVC's attitude was that the POS for resales had to be provided by the seller. Perhaps that has recently changed and they are now willing to pick up the expense of providing that for resale purchases.

You are correct that DVC used to provide a 'Summary' version of the POS without all the legal description of the property itself instead of the complete version.

I agree that intent of reallocation is to even out demand for each resort across seasons and villa types and it was presented that way in the early POS documents.

 

[papertraveller]

Can someone please post the email address for the senior VP to whom we can direct our comments?
Thank you!

 

[Dean]

For awhile, I know that DVC's attitude was that the POS for resales were to be provided by the seller. Perhaps that has recently changed and they are now willing to pick up the expense of providing that for resale purchases.

You are correct that DVC used to provide a 'Summary' version of the POS without all the legal description of the property itself instead of the complete version.

I agree that intent of reallocation is to even out demand for each resort across seasons and villa types and it was presented that way in the early POS documents.

I don't think they can refuse but they could put up road blocks. Refusing to provide them but holding the buyer to them would be difficult to defend legally. They could charge if they wanted though.

 

[zavandor]

I don't think they can refuse but they could put up road blocks. Refusing to provide them but holding the buyer to them would be difficult to defend legally. They could charge if they wanted though.

I have asked DVC and they have said the broker has to provide it.
I have an older version and I asked for the latest one. I think they should either be able to provide the latest version or a list of amendments done over the years.

 

[RobDoc]

I don't think they can refuse but they could put up road blocks. Refusing to provide them but holding the buyer to them would be difficult to defend legally. They could charge if they wanted though.

I believe their position has been that they provided the POS to the direct buyer who needs to provide that information to his resale purchaser.