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

[Dean]

When did they hold 2BR's back? I know that was thought to be the case back when I first asked many, many moons ago but it's nothing I ever saw evidence of in the past decade. I also find nothing in the POS that would indicate any requirement for that. I'd be incredibly surprised if that were a consideration especially since all resorts other than BWV and AKV-Jambo have dedicated 2BR's so then you're only addressing making changes to those two resorts for that intent. But this shift is directed at almost all resorts.

As one who does stay at BWV I wouldn't mind this as it is rather difficult to procure a 2BR in the fight with other members for studios this is not going to accomplish anything in that regard IMO. So that pushes the only gain back to DVC.

Before the last computer IT system change, maybe 3-5 years ago, they designated which ones were booked as 2 BR and which were released as studios.

It was DVC that added the fifth person capacity to studios at BCV/BWV. We often travel without DH (just us 4 are at SSR right now) & even then prefer a 1bd... not anymore.

They did that themselves & if they keep messing with point charts there is going to be more people cramming 5 in those studios including us at specific times as they’ve now put a 1bd out of reach for us during Christmas week. We bought DVC specifically for 1bds.

I do not think many if any are going over occupancy limits. With ME & FP+ linked to room reservations I just don’t see it unless they are sleeping local family.

True, but IMO they should not have. And this was never an official change for the resorts not designed for 5. I'm not even sure they should allow the one over under 3 but it's currently a Disney thing not just DVC.

If in fact they are trying to stop people cramming 5 into studios and move them to 2 bedrooms then I guess my question is. Why? If the average amount of people in a studio dropped to 3 than there would be less people in Disney. The villas other than studios would have the same amount as before the change. So overall less people to spend money. I waste space and am usually 2 in a 1 bedroom. Just trying figure out why they would care about 5 in a studio. More people .....more money. Right?

Obviously speculation on my part but it's really the only thing that makes sense sending people to 2 BR over the smaller units. As for why, wear and tear on the units, less vehicles parking, lower fees for MS & at the resort level all come to mind.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Before the last computer IT system change, maybe 3-5 years ago, they designated which ones were booked as 2 BR and which were released as studios.

As I mentioned, I never saw any evidence of it and the only place I heard it was from a few people on the boards here. If they did it had to be much longer than 5 years ago. In fact it was with online booking that it it finally became visible and confirmed in my mind that they were not holding any back although some still purported that to be the case even though the second studios were gone the 2BR's were gone.

 

[Dean]

As I mentioned, I never saw any evidence of it and the only place I heard it was from a few people on the boards here. If they did it had to be much longer than 5 years ago. In fact it was with online booking that it it finally became visible and confirmed in my mind that they were not holding any back although some still purported that to be the case even though the second studios were gone the 2BR's were gone.

I know for sure they did at one point, I'm not totally sure when they stopped.

 

[Matty B13]

I wonder if DVC thinks the way to manage the over demand for studios, especially at resorts with lock-off 2 bedrooms, was to increase the point requirements for the studios and 1 bedrooms thus "burning" through the points of owners with smaller contracts. This would open up more days for studios, 1 bedrooms, and lock-off 2 bedrooms for other owners to book, but limit how many days they could stay.

Maybe they have been getting a lot of complaints from owner of large point contracts that planned on booking 2 bedrooms, but are not able to because all of the 2 bedrooms are booked up and the 2 bedroom lock-offs as well. Since it seems that the 1 bedroom unit demand is the same 2 bedroom units, maybe by burning smaller contract owners points with higher studio point requirements they think that some lock-offs will be more open for 2 bedroom occupancy.

We did a tour of the Poly when it was being sold, and I complained that they didn't have any 2 bedroom or 1 bedroom units, and the CM responded that they had heard this complaint a lot. So, like myself there might be more owners than is thought here on Disboards that want to book the larger units and don't want to book a studio.

So this might not be as nefarious a move by DVC to line their pockets, but a rethinking of the way to manage the studio demand, or open up more 2 bedroom lock-offs to more people as a whole 2 bedroom unit. But also has the added bonus of making them a ton of money through breakage.

 

[Wakey]

I wonder if DVC thinks the way to manage the over demand for studios, especially at resorts with lock-off 2 bedrooms, was to increase the point requirements for the studios and 1 bedrooms thus "burning" through the points of owners with smaller contracts. This would open up more days for studios, 1 bedrooms, and lock-off 2 bedrooms for other owners to book, but limit how many days they could stay.

Maybe they have been getting a lot of complaints from owner of large point contracts that planned on booking 2 bedrooms, but are not able to because all of the 2 bedrooms are booked up and the 2 bedroom lock-offs as well. Since it seems that the 1 bedroom unit demand is the same 2 bedroom units, maybe by burning smaller contract owners points with higher studio point requirements they think that some lock-offs will be more open for 2 bedroom occupancy.

We did a tour of the Poly when it was being sold, and I complained that they didn't have any 2 bedroom or 1 bedroom units, and the CM responded that they had heard this complaint a lot. So, like myself there might be more owners than is thought here on Disboards that want to book the larger units and don't want to book a studio.

So this might not be as nefarious a move by DVC to line their pockets, but a rethinking of the way to manage the studio demand, or open up more 2 bedroom lock-offs to more people as a whole 2 bedroom unit. But also has the added bonus of making them a ton of money through breakage.

I doubt the 1 bed demand is anything like the 2 bed at SSR, and they’ve done a very similar thing there if you look at the charts. The common feature being they can, because all studios and 1 beds are lockoff, so more points can be manufactured out of thin air.

 

[zavandor]

Obviously speculation on my part but it's really the only thing that makes sense sending people to 2 BR over the smaller units. As for why, wear and tear on the units, less vehicles parking, lower fees for MS & at the resort level all come to mind.

You say this a lot. "If the goal is to make people book 2BR then the reallocation makes sense". But it's not an explanation, the real question is: "Why is DVCMC trying to make people book 2BR?". No one has come up with a reasonable explanation for what is clearly the goal of the reallocation.
We do not have the full real data, so maybe what we see from the RAT is not the full story. However if pushing people to 2BR is needed to balance demand, then a good KPI for this goal would be breakage income. If after a reallocation the breakage income will decrease, then the reallocation has accomplished its goal of balancing demand.

For example, before the first big week day-weekend reallocation, rooms were sitting empty at weekends because of their costs.
The THV reallocation made a very popular category a little more expensive and decreased some 2BR, probably causing a few more 2BR to be booked. While I'm still not convinced the POS allows this, at least breakage should have decreased as a result.
The SSR standard-preferred reallocation created a cheap category that pushed some members to book those rooms (I know I did).

BLT and AKV villas reclassifications were driven by members satisfaction on the actual view received after paying a premium in points, so they had a different goal.

Maybe we should ask DVCMC to modify in the POS the rules about how much breakage income is paid into the resorts budget to add a sentence saying that any extra income generated by the 2020 reallocation (compared to 2019+inflation) will be paid into the resorts budget over the 2.5% cap. If they made the change in good faith, they should accept this.

 

[zavandor]

Florida statute, in the “One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio” law says:

"No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period"

This clearly refers to a traditional timeshare sold in weeks or days. Can someone with more knowledge point me if and where this rule is adapted for a points timeshare?
My interpretation would be that "no individual timeshare unit may require more points to book over 365 use nights than the amount of timeshare interest it represents". But to know the exact law formulation would be important.
Also, this rules seems to rule out that cost per night could be done at resort wide level. Because each individual timeshare unit must provide a maximum of 365 nights.

Another question: do you think that at a resort like SSR, where there are no dedicated studios and 1BR, can DVC decide to change the POS to allow only 2BR to be booked, removing completely (at any time) the option lock off a larger unit?

 

[Dean]

You say this a lot. "If the goal is to make people book 2BR then the reallocation makes sense". But it's not an explanation, the real question is: "Why is DVCMC trying to make people book 2BR?". No one has come up with a reasonable explanation for what is clearly the goal of the reallocation.
We do not have the full real data, so maybe what we see from the RAT is not the full story. However if pushing people to 2BR is needed to balance demand, then a good KPI for this goal would be breakage income. If after a reallocation the breakage income will decrease, then the reallocation has accomplished its goal of balancing demand.

For example, before the first big week day-weekend reallocation, rooms were sitting empty at weekends because of their costs.
The THV reallocation made a very popular category a little more expensive and decreased some 2BR, probably causing a few more 2BR to be booked. While I'm still not convinced the POS allows this, at least breakage should have decreased as a result.
The SSR standard-preferred reallocation created a cheap category that pushed some members to book those rooms (I know I did).

BLT and AKV villas reclassifications were driven by members satisfaction on the actual view received after paying a premium in points, so they had a different goal.

Maybe we should ask DVCMC to modify in the POS the rules about how much breakage income is paid into the resorts budget to add a sentence saying that any extra income generated by the 2020 reallocation (compared to 2019+inflation) will be paid into the resorts budget over the 2.5% cap. If they made the change in good faith, they should accept this.

I can't speak for them but a possibility is that by pushing people to 2BR it takes both the studio AND 1 BR out of play. In the absence of a formal specific explanation, we're all only speculating. I think at this point the only way to get further is ether through the legal system or a face to face with corporate (or maybe some combination). Speaking to MS or us battling bath or forth won't change that. If they want to push people to more 2 BR and less other, this will do so, the question is how much in terms of numbers or %.

Florida statute, in the “One-to-one use right to use night requirement ratio” law says:

"No individual timeshare unit may be counted as providing more than 365 use nights per 12-month period"

This clearly refers to a traditional timeshare sold in weeks or days. Can someone with more knowledge point me if and where this rule is adapted for a points timeshare?
My interpretation would be that "no individual timeshare unit may require more points to book over 365 use nights than the amount of timeshare interest it represents". But to know the exact law formulation would be important.
Also, this rules seems to rule out that cost per night could be done at resort wide level. Because each individual timeshare unit must provide a maximum of 365 nights.

Another question: do you think that at a resort like SSR, where there are no dedicated studios and 1BR, can DVC decide to change the POS to allow only 2BR to be booked, removing completely (at any time) the option lock off a larger unit?

As noted previously, both the FL statutes and POS are referring to non locked off units, the smaller components do not come under this rule. I think the statutes and POS are the rules we have to live by. They cover points systems but not in great detail and they likely shouldn't because they are only a framework. For something to be legal under either there has to be wording that allows it and not wording that precludes it. As I read both, this change meets that test. Do I think they could remove the smaller units completely for the lockout's, I'll have to think about that one. My first thought is yes in some degree but not completely. But they could raise the costs enough at a resort like SSR that it's effectively the same thing.

 

[zavandor]

As noted previously, both the FL statutes and POS are referring to non locked off units, the smaller components do not come under this rule. I think the statutes and POS are the rules we have to live by. They cover points systems but not in great detail and they likely shouldn't because they are only a framework. For something to be legal under either there has to be wording that allows it and not wording that precludes it. As I read both, this change meets that test.

I'm not thinking about 2BR lockoff, at least not only to 2BR lockoff, I'm thinking about THV.
They've been declared as their own units, after the rest of the resort sold out. Two reallocations have both increased their cost. So if we compare the amount of ownership interest they sold for the THV and the amount of points required to book them all year around, they DO currently provide more than 365 night per use year.

 

[Dean]

I'm not thinking about 2BR lockoff, at least not only to 2BR lockoff, I'm thinking about THV.
They've been declared as their own units, after the rest of the resort sold out. Two reallocations have both increased their cost. So if we compare the amount of ownership interest they sold for the THV and the amount of points required to book them all year around, they DO currently provide more than 365 night per use year.

I still read it by resort and since THV is part of SSR, then it would be allowed. I know you read it differently but clearly DVCMC is reading it by resort. In reality they have to be able to do it by resort else they can't do what's needed and required.

 

[zavandor]

I still read it by resort

The law clearly states "no individual timeshare unit".
They could have written "no timeshare unit", the meaning would have been the same. But they took the time to add individual, to make the point stronger.
How can "no individual timeshare unit" become "resort wide regardless of each individual timeshare unit" in DVCMC interpretation? Unless somewhere else it is stated that for point timeshares the requirement is dropped and it's resort wide. If anyone knows this, please tell us where.
I am making the example of THV because we know for sure they are separate and we know they only increased (twice), so it's an easier argument. [But I do think it applies also to the lockoff premium.]

In the absence of a formal specific explanation, we're all only speculating. I think at this point the only way to get further is ether through the legal system or a face to face with corporate (or maybe some combination). Speaking to MS or us battling bath or forth won't change that.

I will ask for an appointment for September, when I'll be in Orlando. My Home resort has still 35 years remaining, so I'm in for the long run, a few months won't make a difference.
I will also ask if possible for an earlier conference call, I cannot see why they should accept a face-to-face meeting and not a cc.

 

[RobDoc]

The law clearly states "no individual timeshare unit".
They could have written "no timeshare unit", the meaning would have been the same. But they took the time to add individual, to make the point stronger.
...

As already noted, the FL Statute defines a 'unit' as a single villa in a timeshare resort. Many week based timeshares never included lock-off ability and may be reserved only as a 2BR.

From the beginning, DVC modified that principle by defining 'unit' differently in the POS, which FL seems to have accepted since 1991 when DVC began selling.

DVC has apparently modified their original definition over time for some unexplained (to Members) reason which is likely the source of the present confusion/concern/outrage regarding the 2020 point charts.

 

[DVC92]

So I looked at the total number of each category that was green (OPEN) and yellow (MOSTLY OPEN) and added them together.
Data shows Green + yellow = total
This is out of 264 possible blocks on the availability tables with 24 time periods and from 1 to 11 months ahead of date. (24 x 11 = 264) So a resort that is always mostly available would get a total of 264 - SSR Preffered 1-bedrooms scores the highest with 213 + 29 = 242 out of 264 OPEN/MOSTLY dates.

Results for VGF Standard view
VGF Standard Studio 33 + 49 = 82 (31.1%)
VGF Standard 1BD 94 + 46 = 142 (53.8%)
VGF Standard 2BD 100+ 45 = 145 (54.9%)

Results for VGF Lake view
VGF Lake Studio 55 + 35 = 90 (34.1%)
VGF Lake 1BD 113+34 = 147 (55.7%)
VGF Lake 2BD 111 + 41 = 152 (57.6 %)

So by a VERY slight margin, 2BD are less available 1BD at VGF. However, the margin is probably within any real statistical error on this data, which isn't exactly absolute. (1.1% difference for Standard View, 1.9% difference for Lake View). In fact, the availability difference between Standard and Lake view (2.1% and 2.7%) is barely enough to say which is favored.

In fact - this says a few things about the VGF resort:
- Studios rent out about twice as fast as 1-BDs and 2-BDs
- Because studios are gone so much earlier than 2-BD, that means generally all the lock-offs turn into studios/1-bedrooms, making the lock-off premium of points nearly 100% in favor of Disney. (Edit: Realizing after I wrote this that since you can purposefully choose a 2-bedroom lockoff this is not strictly true - there may be reasons people prefer the lock-offs - so not really 100%, but probably pretty high.)
- The data says this resort is extremely well balanced between 1-BD and 2-BD points totals, as both rent out at similar rates.
- The data doesn't give a good reason to raise 1-BD versus 2-BD. There is an argument to raise studios but not 1-BD.

I haven't reviewed the VGF point difference data. How much did VGF change? Anyways, this to me gives good argument to changes in the lockoff premium that involved raising 1-BD are not justified by availability/occupancy.

Have you presented this info to DVC yet for an explanation of why the point increase for standard 1BR is justified? It clearly isn't.

 

[zavandor]

As already noted, the FL Statute defines a 'unit' as a single villa in a timeshare resort. Many week based timeshares never included lock-off ability and may be reserved only as a 2BR.

From the beginning, DVC modified that principle by defining 'unit' differently in the POS, which FL seems to have accepted since 1991 when DVC began selling.

DVC has apparently modified their original definition over time for some unexplained (to Members) reason which is likely the source of the present confusion/concern/outrage regarding the 2020 point charts.

What in Florida law is defined as a "Timeshare Unit":

“Timeshare unit” means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter, unless the timeshare instrument provides that timeshare interests may be separately conveyed in such locked-off portions.​

in the DVC POS is called "Vacation Home":

Vacation Home shall mean and refer to those portions of a Unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy.
​

I guess it's just marketing, very much like DVC is a "Vacation Club" and not a timeshare, the rooms are called Vacation Homes and not Timeshare Units. However the two definitions match.
I'd also go one step further and say that since in the SSR POS studios and 1BR are called Vacation Homes too, and since there are no dedicated studios or 1BR at SSR, every rule applying to the "timeshare units" in the FL law has to be applied to the lockoff portions of the 2BR DVC Vacation Homes as well. I know this isn't a popular interpretation here, but I have yet to find an explicit definition that says what counts is a 2BR only, while in the definitions studios and 1BR are defined as vacation homes = timeshare units.

 

[zavandor]

Have you presented this info to DVC yet for an explanation of why the point increase for standard 1BR is justified? It clearly isn't.

I have a call scheduled for today, I will ask about this too.

 

[Madame]

True, but IMO they should not have. And this was never an official change for the resorts not designed for 5. I'm not even sure they should allow the one over under 3 but it's currently a Disney thing not just DVC.

How was it not official? It seems more official to me than 5 in a 1 bed, bring your own bed & bedding.

I don’t like that 2 & under enter parks for free either - do they not take up more space with their gear? Are they not people? Same with air travel. I just follow the rules.

My point is that DVC is an erratic mess if they truly are now trying to push families of 5 into 2 bds when they literally just made it possible to book more studios for 5. Begs the question: why are they trying to push members out of 1bds...? Want to bet most breakage is 1beds?

 

[RobDoc]

...

in the DVC POS is called "Vacation Home":

Vacation Home shall mean and refer to those portions of a Unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy.
​

I guess it's just marketing, very much like DVC is a "Vacation Club" and not a timeshare, the rooms are called Vacation Homes and not Timeshare Units. However the two definitions match.
I'd also go one step further and say that since in the SSR POS studios and 1BR are called Vacation Homes too, and since there are no dedicated studios or 1BR at SSR, every rule applying to the "timeshare units" in the FL law has to be applied to the lockoff portions of the 2BR DVC Vacation Homes as well. I know this isn't a popular interpretation here, but I have yet to find an explicit definition that says what counts is a 2BR only, while in the definitions studios and 1BR are defined as vacation homes = timeshare units.

So you now feel that Lockoff 2BRs are thus qualified under two different categories where we (the collective 'we') get to pick which one works best to suit our own purposes?

Your interpretation chooses to use the FL definition even though it does not specifically apply to the DVC POS. Therefore now DVC Lockoff 2BRs (divided into two different sized 'Vacation Homes') "has to" ignore the fact that they are still actually Lockoff 2BR villas.

Interesting concept. That will also be a great question to ask DVCMC.

 

[Donna M]

in the long run....those with large contracts who already can afford 2 and 3 bedroom units....they get a little discount.....or more for your money.

I see this as a win for everyone.

people will think twice about going so often...more points would get banked...making it easier to find rooms at 7 months

I have read through all the posts, and this seems like it could be one explanation to why they might have raised points on studios.

So many have complained about the lack of studios now that Disney sold so many points at Poly and CCV. I believe they also made a huge mistake when they were selling 25 point contracts. I wonder if they are back peddling and trying to get the small contract owners to buy more points since they are now unable to vacation like they had planned thereby freeing up more studios.

The whole lockoff premium increase is very interesting. I can't wait to hear from the people planning to speak with Disney.

 

[DenLo]

As far as I am concerned, DVC caused the entire problem with studios booking up first. First of all DVC reduced the minimum purchase amount for new members to 50 points. This lower points means that new owners really can't book the larger units for a week or more than a day or two by banking or borrowing. Secondly, DVC built the Poly studios to sleep five and allowed members to book a reservation for five. Then DVC remodeled several resorts all but BLT adding a five bed in a studio and allowing members to book the rooms for five guests.

Now instead of changing the guest size on the studios back to four and somehow creating a fifth guest sleeping space in most of the one bedrooms, now with the new 2020 point charts, DVC raises the point cost for studios and one bedrooms and lower the cost of 2BRs.

 

[zavandor]

So you now feel that Lockoff 2BRs are thus qualified under two different categories where we (the collective 'we') get to pick which one works best to suit our own purposes?

Your interpretation chooses to use the FL definition even though it does not specifically apply to the DVC POS. Therefore now DVC Lockoff 2BRs (divided into two different sized 'Vacation Homes') "has to" ignore the fact that they are still actually Lockoff 2BR villas.

Interesting concept. That will also be a great question to ask DVCMC.

Do you agree or not that the definition in the Florida Law for a Timeshare Unit is equivalent in the DVC POS to that of a Vacation Home?

If yes, than DVC says in the POS that the studios and 1BR are vacation homes, i.e what the FL law calls Timeshare units. In a world without a lockoff premium, there would be no contradiction in having a 2BR lockoff, a studio or a 1BR all as timeshare units. They would convey each a proportional amount of ownership interest, the point charts would be balanced.
FL law allows the timeshare instrument to convey the portions of larger villas as single timeshare units, no contradiction here.

If no, then which one is the entity that matches the definition of timeshare unit? If it's only the 2BR for lockoff, can you point to where in the POS this is written? And then, why studios and 1BR (in a resort where there are no dedicated studios and 1BR) are called Vacation Homes?

Also, what do you think about THV needing more vacation points to be booked than the ownership interest they convey? There is no lockoff here to muddle the waters.

Maybe there are other documents and laws that would apply to this. In that case, I'd like to read them. I am not ready to concede that if DVC did it, then it's fine. Because they've also set the MF for Aulani to a low level to boost sales and so they've been condemned to pay subsidized fees for 50 years by the state of Hawaii. So their track record is not immaculate.