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

[ericar]

From what I have read on DVC rooms, a big part of the problem is the amount of points needed for a 1 bedroom yet they don't sleep enough people. If the 1 BRs had 2 double pull outs or 2 queen beds and 1 pull out then they would be worth the point values and maybe make studios less popular. DVC needs more rooms for stays of 5 or 6 people.

 

[zavandor]

Consumer are meant to be protected from predatory practices, not from themselves. You knew it could change and you assumed certain limitations on those changes that were not accurate. The POS clearly deals with non locked off villas and you knew the smaller components were more expensive than the full unit when you bought. That it changed different than you assumed could happen doens’t affect the reasonableness of the decision one way or another or the ethical judgement of the company involved. If they purposefully did this to put $$$ in their pocked, then I’m there with you. If I thought that were the case I would sell and frankly, I’d suggest anyone that has that opinion once things are said and done should not continue to be a member. I’ve long since opined that smaller contracts selling at a premium was not an automatic thing. Whether this will increase or decrease their demand remaines to be seen. My guess is it’ll increase the smallest ones and decrese the premium at 75 points or more.

I have only seen in the VGF POS the explicit mention of the ability to increase the lockoff premium.
In the multi site POS there is a mention of the ability to assign a premium, not the ability to increase it during a reallocation.
Do you remember any other places where it is mentioned?

When they say that the points to book a unit cannot change, it doesn't say "... when the 2 bedroom are booked as whole and not as separate lockoffs VH"

It is also not just a problem with wording, but with the spirit of the law. The law prohibits an increase in points needed to book the whole resort because that would decrease the value of the ownership intererest. The effect of a lockoff premium increase is the same, so why should it be permitted?
A rogue timeshare developer could easily set up a resort in a fraudulent way in order to increase later the lockoff premium and gain a great benefit at thd expense of owners. I cannot see how it can be legal. And if it is a loophole that makes it permissable, then it should be closed.

Regarding the reallocations moving points between different units it is clear that the POS were written thinking about reallocating only within the same vacation home type. The POS talks about balancing the demand of each Use Day, balancing an increase in a day with a decrease in another day, says "within a vacation home" and says points in a units must remain the same. As an extreme example of reallocation the POS says that all seasons could be balanced out and every day cost the same. Not that every vacation home could cost the same.
Only many years later they added the language that allows reallocations between units in the multi site POS and they haven't yet changed the resort POS. It is a problem with responsibility: if they want to do such extremes changes to the system, they should change the POS so it's clear for potential buyers. As they are now this reallocation is against the rules they've given themselves.

 

[10CJ]

From what I have read on DVC rooms, a big part of the problem is the amount of points needed for a 1 bedroom yet they don't sleep enough people. If the 1 BRs had 2 double pull outs or 2 queen beds and 1 pull out then they would be worth the point values and maybe make studios less popular. DVC needs more rooms for stays of 5 or 6 people.

I will agree with this. I always thought it bizarre that you could fit more people in a studio than a 1 bedroom in some cases.

If this does increase availability at 7 months I think you could argue that is beneficial to the overall membership.

 

[zavandor]

I will agree with this. I always thought it bizarre that you could fit more people in a studio than a 1 bedroom in some cases.

If this does increase availability at 7 months I think you could argue that is beneficial to the overall membership.

If DVC increased the points needed to book all rooms by 3% all year for all rooms they would have created more availability. Because members wouldn't be able to book the whole resort with the points they own. Would you see it as beneficial?

Increasing the lockoff premium they have potentially increased the cost of booking the whole resort by 2-4%.

 

[skier_pete]

I hear all the arguments that the point re-allocation makes sense - but I still don't buy it. As I've said, I 100% agree the reallocation from Magic season to Adventure/Choice season. And even though it is 100% what I use - the reallocation of points to make studios more expensive makes a lot of sense. But making 1-bedrooms more expensive - which they did almost across the board?? Makes no sense EXCEPT to increase the lock-off premium - which someone has yet to float a theory to me how increasing the 1-bedrooms/lock-off premium benefits the members.

I will agree with @tjkraz comments - that after the uproar, life will go on and very few members will sell their points. And I didn't "live" through the 2010/2011 allocation though that one certainly makes more sense to me. I won't sell my points over this - but as I've said a few times - it has dimmed my desire for more points for the first time in the 5 years since I first bought in. Perhaps I will eventually rekindle that - an economic slump in which resale prices drop may still inspire me to buy a few more - but I feel like Disney has taken advantage of me on this one, and I don't really care for it.

 

[The Prophet]

This re-allocation fits within their bigger plan to lower attendance at the parks and to maintain/increase revenue

 

[Madame]

This re-allocation fits within their bigger plan to lower attendance at the parks and to maintain/increase revenue

DVC should not be used for either. It is to manage our interests in our timeshare, not promote sales or control park attendance.

 

[glamdring269]

I’ll be honest. When we bought we did what I thought was pretty thorough research and I was of the belief that a point reallocation would be point neutral. I got that from these forums in the Purchasing DVC area. I have a feeling the lock off premium is not something that gets discussed very frequently unless it becomes necessary... like right now. I’d go further to assume that no sales person is offering up anything on this topic and I’m guessing most people would not understand it if they saw it in some kind of legalese document. I wonder if the sales people even know themselves? I honestly thought if a studio went up by a point then something else had to go down by a point. This is probably not uncommon thinking. It’s also apparently incorrect thinking.

To me there’s the ‘understanding what you bought’ from a how the program is presented and how it works perspective. Then there’s the fine detail that most will never understand and would probably never even think to ask about or even know how to properly ask.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

If this does increase availability at 7 months I think you could argue that is beneficial to the overall membership.

Because it's not first come first served and there are no warnings in the POS that if you don't book early you may not be able to book the villa you most want? But that's exactly what it says as it also spells out reallocations. It never states that there's even going to be 7 month availability. We can't pick and choose the parts we like and use the "well, so and so complained that they couldn't book a room 2 months from now" and that becomes a good reason to now affect those who book at the earliest window possible and decrease what they can book with their points. At least that's my take on the system. If it worked for last minute bookings in years past that was a bonus - it was not designed to be a guarantee or even a good possibility of last minute bookings. Trades at 7 months is also a bonus of the system, not a guarantee from my understanding.

 

[skier_pete]

I’ll be honest. When we bought we did what I thought was pretty thorough research and I was of the belief that a point reallocation would be point neutral. I got that from these forums in the Purchasing DVC area. I have a feeling the lock off premium is not something that gets discussed very frequently unless it becomes necessary... like right now. I’d go further to assume that no sales person is offering up anything on this topic and I’m guessing most people would not understand it if they saw it in some kind of legalese document. I wonder if the sales people even know themselves? I honestly thought if a studio went up by a point then something else had to go down by a point. This is probably not uncommon thinking. It’s also apparently incorrect thinking.

To me there’s the ‘understanding what you bought’ from a how the program is presented and how it works perspective. Then there’s the fine detail that most will never understand and would probably never even think to ask about or even know how to properly ask.

I admit that in my research before buying I didn't catch that a "lock-off premium" existed. I was not interested in 1- or 2-bedrooms so I never really looked at them that closely. It wasn't until after I bought that I notice it existed and sort of surprised me. I am even more shocked now to see that there is no limit on what they could do to those points. They could legally make a studio = 1 bedroom = 2 bedroom lock-off. Not that I think they would do that, but they could. It's pretty disturbing to think now what they COULD do.

 

[tjkraz]

But making 1-bedrooms more expensive - which they did almost across the board??

They increased more areas than decreased, but there were still periods that either went down or were unchanged.

Generally, 1Bs that went up:

- Adventure, Choice and Premier seasons
- AKV Savanna and Club
- BWV Standard
- BLT Standard
- VGF Standard
- SSR Preferred
- Weekends

Taken independently, the only item from that list that raises and eyebrow is SSR preferred. But it's worth noting that those Standard/Preferred categories are only a few years old so I can assume some adjustments were deemed necessary based upon member usage.

Aside from that, I'm not surprised that Adventure and Choice seasons are more popular than Magic and Dream. I'm not surprised that Standard views are more popular than preferred, nor that some adjustment to the weekday/weekend balance was warranted.

Makes no sense EXCEPT to increase the lock-off premium...

For resorts with dedicated Studio and One Bedroom villas, keep in mind those units are integral to the basic balancing of the charts. BCV has 20 dedicated One Bedroom villas. If we lower the cost of a 1B, it doesn't just impact that "premium" on the 74 lockoffs, it also takes the chart out of balance with 2019. Frankly I'm not certain how difficult it would be to make a change like that and find an offsetting adjustment elsewhere.

If the primary goals to this reallocation were increasing studio costs, decreasing 2 bedroom and increasing Adventure, Choice and Premier seasons, some of the One Bedroom numbers may simply be collateral damage necessary to get the numbers to balance.

...which someone has yet to float a theory to me how increasing the 1-bedrooms/lock-off premium benefits the members.

I posted some numbers in another thread about the cost of taking a resort like OKW down for phased refurb for nearly 2 years. I'm in no position to declare that the refurbs are a part of this move but clearly that lack of resort capacity should be accounted for in some fashion. OKW will lose nearly a million points' worth of room capacity from 2017-2019 due to the refurb.

Back in 2016, BCV underwent a refurbishment project that lasted 9-10 months. Entire wings of the resort--all 5 floors--were closed down for weeks at a time. If we conservatively assume that BCV lost 15% of its room capacity throughout the year, that's 450K worth of villas removed from service under an accelerated refurbishment schedule. And for the same resort we now see this "lockoff premium" increased by a maximum (assuming all lockoffs booked separately) of 63k points per year. Coincidence?

Later this year SSR will begin a major refurb that was originally earmarked for its 25 year anniversary in 2029.

 

[skier_pete]

@tjkraz OK - you have made the soundest arguments I've seen in favor of the changes. Pointing out the 1-beds went up predominantly in the "Standard" categories makes sense - the one group of 1-bedroom categories that are popular. Doesn't explain AKV Savannah views, which are not more popular, but as I stated elsewhere, the one place I am seeing 1-beds maybe being more popular than 2-beds is at SSR.

 

[Wakey]

I did my research. Never saw lockoff premium mentioned, and there's no obvious mention in the POS that points can be manufactured out of thin air. I'm not convinced it's permitted given some of the analysis on here.
There's also an element of trust here. I bought my timeshare from Disney, not John Palmer (Google it). With the latter, I'd expect to be taken advantage of, which is why I had no interest in any timeshare but Disney. The brand and trust is everything here.
DVC is so powerful a product simply because of the trust element and quality. Otherwise it becomes just like any other timeshare. I can buy a Marriott for $1.
The rest are tarred with that 'timeshare is a con' brush, some unfairly. DVC is elevated above that.
I don't recall anyone, in my hundreds of hours of research and reading about DVC over the years, saying anywhere that 'Watch out because subject to a 20% annual limit, DVCMC can increase all studios and 1 beds in lockoffs- (which by the way means all of them at Saratoga)- ad infinitum with no balance necessary elsewhere'.
So now I'm thinking what happens if every year going forward for the next 5,10,20 years DVCMC decide to just keep increasing the points on studios and 1 beds? Acceptable? All OK? Consumer deserves no protection?
And no, I don't see why I should sell my DVC which I enjoy greatly and have invested a lot of money in.
DVCMC have a duty to act in our interests, as the management employed by the members' club. Hopefully they are doing that, but I'm still waiting for the explanation with data to demonstrate their actions were for our benefit.

 

[ParkHoppers]

@tjkraz OK - you have made the soundest arguments I've seen in favor of the changes. Pointing out the 1-beds went up predominantly in the "Standard" categories makes sense - the one group of 1-bedroom categories that are popular. Doesn't explain AKV Savannah views, which are not more popular, but as I stated elsewhere, the one place I am seeing 1-beds maybe being more popular than 2-beds is at SSR.

Only problem is what tjkraz said above is not that accurate. For example it’s stated Standard 1 bedrooms went up at BLT when all 3 categories went up. Maybe I am reading what tjkraz wrote wrong but .......

 

[tjkraz]

Only problem is what he said above is not that accurate. For example he says Standard 1 bedrooms went up at BLT when all 3 categories went up. Maybe I am reading what tjkraz wrote wrong but .......

Weekday Dream and Magic costs for Lake View remained unchanged and Theme Park view costs went down.

I’m not tying to suggest that these reductions offset other increases. We all know that isn’t true. However, it’s still incorrect to make the blanket statement that all one bedroom costs increased.

 

[ParkHoppers]

Weekday Dream and Magic costs for Lake View remained unchanged and Theme Park view costs went down.

I’m not tying to suggest that these reductions offset other increases. We all know that isn’t true. However, it’s still incorrect to make the blanket statement that all one bedroom costs increased.

Fair enough but all three categories went up for adventure and choice seasons. Your argument about what raises eyebrows had me thinking about any lake view 1 bedrooms going up. Last to book and there are a ton of them. If I had a 3rd eyebrow that would have also went up over ANY lake view 1 bedroom at BLT. I think the BLT 1 bedroom lake view points increases are a good example of how DVC can’t claim these moves are for member benefit....not that they are saying that.

 

[ParkHoppers]

Something tells at BLT the standard 2 bedroom during adventure and choice seasons are going to be the new tough room to get. It’s a bargain compared to the 1 bedrooms

 

[Dean]

I have only seen in the VGF POS the explicit mention of the ability to increase the lockoff premium.
In the multi site POS there is a mention of the ability to assign a premium, not the ability to increase it during a reallocation.
Do you remember any other places where it is mentioned?

When they say that the points to book a unit cannot change, it doesn't say "... when the 2 bedroom are booked as whole and not as separate lockoffs VH"

It is also not just a problem with wording, but with the spirit of the law. The law prohibits an increase in points needed to book the whole resort because that would decrease the value of the ownership intererest. The effect of a lockoff premium increase is the same, so why should it be permitted?
A rogue timeshare developer could easily set up a resort in a fraudulent way in order to increase later the lockoff premium and gain a great benefit at thd expense of owners. I cannot see how it can be legal. And if it is a loophole that makes it permissable, then it should be closed.

Regarding the reallocations moving points between different units it is clear that the POS were written thinking about reallocating only within the same vacation home type. The POS talks about balancing the demand of each Use Day, balancing an increase in a day with a decrease in another day, says "within a vacation home" and says points in a units must remain the same. As an extreme example of reallocation the POS says that all seasons could be balanced out and every day cost the same. Not that every vacation home could cost the same.
Only many years later they added the language that allows reallocations between units in the multi site POS and they haven't yet changed the resort POS. It is a problem with responsibility: if they want to do such extremes changes to the system, they should change the POS so it's clear for potential buyers. As they are now this reallocation is against the rules they've given themselves.

It doesn't have to spell it out to be allowed contractually, you can't spell it all out in every case. It's clear they wanted options to adjust, no more and no less. Read all the wording where they have total control referenced each time this comes up. All the info I've seen makes it clear the points are tied to the full villas not locked out, it wouldn't need to spell that out again in this section.

 

[Dean]

If DVC increased the points needed to book all rooms by 3% all year for all rooms they would have created more availability. Because members wouldn't be able to book the whole resort with the points they own. Would you see it as beneficial?

Increasing the lockoff premium they have potentially increased the cost of booking the whole resort by 2-4%.

Again, it's only the non locked off portion that are protected, those are the only ones where the accounting applies for total points. There is the 20% per year limit on changes. Personally I expect the increased booking for 2 BR will balance out the points on the studio/1BR.

I did my research. Never saw lockoff premium mentioned, and there's no obvious mention in the POS that points can be manufactured out of thin air. I'm not convinced it's permitted given some of the analysis on here.
There's also an element of trust here. I bought my timeshare from Disney, not John Palmer (Google it). With the latter, I'd expect to be taken advantage of, which is why I had no interest in any timeshare but Disney. The brand and trust is everything here.
DVC is so powerful a product simply because of the trust element and quality. Otherwise it becomes just like any other timeshare. I can buy a Marriott for $1.
The rest are tarred with that 'timeshare is a con' brush, some unfairly. DVC is elevated above that.
I don't recall anyone, in my hundreds of hours of research and reading about DVC over the years, saying anywhere that 'Watch out because subject to a 20% annual limit, DVCMC can increase all studios and 1 beds in lockoffs- (which by the way means all of them at Saratoga)- ad infinitum with no balance necessary elsewhere'.
So now I'm thinking what happens if every year going forward for the next 5,10,20 years DVCMC decide to just keep increasing the points on studios and 1 beds? Acceptable? All OK? Consumer deserves no protection?
And no, I don't see why I should sell my DVC which I enjoy greatly and have invested a lot of money in.
DVCMC have a duty to act in our interests, as the management employed by the members' club. Hopefully they are doing that, but I'm still waiting for the explanation with data to demonstrate their actions were for our benefit.

You read more protections into the process than actually exist. It's a timeshare with the limits and risks involved. The specific change in question would not have to be spelled out, no one anticipated it. But that doesn't make it inappropriate. Before they held some lockoffs as 2 BR not available as smaller units, apparently the newer system doesn't work that way. Thus it appears to me their seeking another way to limit it.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Consumer are meant to be protected from predatory practices, not from themselves.

It's been beyond that for several years now.

Now anything and everything has to be spelled out and broke down and many dollars and man hours spent doing it so that the consumer isn't taken advantage of - even by themselves.

How timeshares get away with it still in this day and age is amazing other than they must have deep lobbying pockets and overall slimy reputations so I guess that lawmakers feel consumers are already warned. I'm not saying that Disney is being slimy but there are a lot of consumer protection laws out now that are simply aimed at protecting consumers from themselves.