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

[DaveNan]

I do not take it as how many studios are in any category has any bearing. Simply that 15 x 366 = 5490 points. If all studios were equal and level, it would take 5490 points to book a single studio for the year. Assuming each category at AKV has dedicated studios. Any category that has only lock offs, seems to me is going to be counted as a 2 bedroom.

So, y

The only dedicated studios are in Jambo. Based on every nights point level (season and day of week) it would take 5832 points to stay in a standard view for 366 days. It would take 7385 to stay in a Sav view. It would only take 4030 to stay in a value studio. I own in Kidani, so my % interest would be based off a 2BR. I would be curious to know what the original point levels were, and how they were reflected on contracts in Jambo on the dedicated studio units. Some folks out the have a specific % ownership of a unit that is a studio in Jambo. The points are only the tool used to represent the actual % ownership. If 366 days requires more points than the % interest on a contract/points on that contract for a specific unit that would be the closest thing to violating the POS.
I am sure the Disney lawyers reviewed all these changes before they were done and believe them to be within the contract. Based on the numbers, I know Disney will have more rooms available for cash reservations. (with 75% of 2BR units booked as LO, the number of points sold will not consume 98% of the inventory, more like 93% of the inventory) They can stand behind contracts and POS, but the numbers tell what the end result will be.
Additionally, I find it frustrating that the supposed justification for the LO premium is additional burden on housekeeping, front desk, DME, and reservation system. Last I checked, and felt it pretty hard in mid Dec, Disney does not pay for those items out of their pocket, the members do in the form of annual dues.

 

[crvetter]

The resort POS will take priority, unless there has been an amendment since the date of that POS. As clearly noted in most DVC documents, DVC may amend documents whenever they deem necessary.

Correct the bolded parts are from older POS the newer ones dropped it. Considering I just bought and the amendments to the CCV don’t change this section my comment still stands.

 

[DougEMG]

I know there are people who don't want to read this, but "maximum reallocation" does not set the maximum amount of points that a vacation home type can cost throughout the year. Just because the word "maximum" is used when talking about a point chart that has no seasons and no weekend/weekday differences doesn't mean that it creates "maximum" point values for the accommodations.

In a maximum reallocation, a resort's total points are equally distributed across all Use Days by vacation home type. Beach Club Villas has just over 3 million points and to fit all of those points on a flattened point chart, DVD assigned 16 points a night to studios, 36 points to one-bedrooms, and 46 points to two-bedrooms. These point assignments were arbitrary; DVD could have just as easily set a higher or lower point value for one vacation home type as long as it made a corresponding change in either or both of the other two types. DVD merely had to find places for 3.0+ million points on BCV's point chart, and by tweaking the weighted values of the three vacation home types it set these point values.

But these point values do not establish a "maximum" Use Day value for each vacation home type. They do not serve to cap the point values of the vacation home types. They do not set a "maximum" number of points that can be allotted to each vacation home type for the entire year. They do not set an "average" value for each vacation home type.

Instead, these values have been used to establish a single Use Day booking "guarantee" (my word) for each vacation home type at each resort. In each resort's master declaration is a section that states "each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points;" etc. The Multi-Site POS has a chart showing these values for all DVC resorts.

As I have said before, the point values set in this section do not represent a "maximum" point value. They do serve as a guarantee (my word) that a resort's point chart will always have at least one Use Day that can be booked for that number of points, or less.

If BCV's point chart was reallocated and there was not at least one day where a studio could be reserved for 16 points, then DVCMC would be in violation of the POS. However, if BCV studios go to 20 points or more for some nights during the year, there is no violation as long as there is a night at 16 points or less on the point chart.

Then what is the purpose of having this other than to trick people on the points? Essentially you are saying as long as one night matches the indicated maximum, the rest of the nights can be anything they want provided the resort stays within its point totals, which for resorts with no dedicated studios or 1 bedrooms are easy to manipulate higher. Or am I missing something here.

 

[DougEMG]

The first is page 162, with a description of how Vacation Points are determined, and how DVCMC in its discretion has the ability to reallocate points in accordance with 'Use Day' demand at any given Resort to better meet Member reservation patterns

To me this means that they can't reallocate to reduce booking costs, cleaning costs or any other costs. They are only allowed to reallocate to fix demand problems.

 

[DougEMG]

I just completed The entire BWV chart and it is close enough to the numbers in the maximum allocation chart for me to believe that there is validity to how I am understanding it. That being said, there are small variances but when the total points (max allocation for every room type for 366 day s) the 2 CHARTS balance with a variance of only 756 points. And it is in favor of the members not DVC.

on to the next

What do mean "It is in favor of the members not DVC" ? I can't tell.

 

[wdrl]

Then what is the purpose of having this other than to trick people on the points? Essentially you are saying as long as one night matches the indicated maximum, the rest of the nights can be anything they want provided the resort stays within its point totals, which for resorts with no dedicated studios or 1 bedrooms are easy to manipulate higher. Or am I missing something here.

The maximum reallocation shows what would happen if, hypothetically, there was a maximum change in the Seasons and Days of the Week; that is, if a point chart was completely leveled with no Season and no differences between weekdays and weekends. Unfortunately, some people misconstrued the phrase "maximum reallocation" to mean a "maximum point value." It never was intended to be used in that manner, nor has it ever been used in that manner.

.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

The maximum reallocation shows what would happen if, hypothetically, there was a maximum change in the Seasons and Days of the Week; that is, if a point chart was completely leveled with no Season and no differences between weekdays and weekends. Unfortunately, some people misconstrued the phrase "maximum reallocation" to mean a "maximum point value." It never was intended to be used in that manner, nor has it ever been used in that manner.

.

I'm missing how mathematically that isn't the average points over the entire year then.

DougEMG has has a good point - that's a very convoluted way to say "we guarantee there will be one night during the year you can book for xx points. If it isn't an average then the description of leveling is unnecessary.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

What do mean "It is in favor of the members not DVC" ? I can't tell.

Meaning DVC did not set the points on the 2020 chart higher than what is listed on the max alloc chart. Basically, assuming some room for allowed variances (always dropping any numbers after the decimal) the BWV charts were pretty well matched.

I did SSR too. It's a mess. And I do want to go back and double check myself. But I don't think I made any big mistakes and it doesn't look like they were sticking to the max allocation chart for the most part.

As to the max allocation charts and how / why they are used, I have already requested contact for information from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

I'm missing how mathematically that isn't the average points over the entire year then.

DougEMG has has a good point - that's a very convoluted way to say "we guarantee there will be one night during the year you can book for xx points. If it isn't an average then the description of leveling is unnecessary.

thank you

 

[4luv2cdisney]

The maximum reallocation shows what would happen if, hypothetically, there was a maximum change in the Seasons and Days of the Week; that is, if a point chart was completely leveled with no Season and no differences between weekdays and weekends. Unfortunately, some people misconstrued the phrase "maximum reallocation" to mean a "maximum point value." It never was intended to be used in that manner, nor has it ever been used in that manner.

.

I'm missing how mathematically that isn't the average points over the entire year then.

DougEMG has has a good point - that's a very convoluted way to say "we guarantee there will be one night during the year you can book for xx points. If it isn't an average then the description of leveling is unnecessary.

And from the article providing the charts...

"The figures presented above represent the amount that it would cost to spend a single night in the indicated resort and room size if the points were equal for every night of the year. For example, by using "Caskbill's" DVC Planner, we can determine that the number of points required to spend all of 2008 in a Two Bedroom villa at the Beach Club is 16760. Divide 16760 by 366 days and you get 45.79 points per day on average. Round-up and the average daily point stay is equal to the 46 points per night cited on DVC's Maximum Reallocation Chart.

DVC has the right to reallocate the points charts as they see fit. This document is part of DVD's disclosure to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Effectively DVC is saying that worst-case, the most a member will ever pay for a BCV two bedroom villa is 46 points per night if the charts were completely flat."

I assume the writer did his research...

If it means nothing except to create a crazy scenario where we all live in an alternate universe and there are no booking seasons .....

Why are they required to file it?

And what did they base their numbers on?

There has to be some rationale.

 

[zavandor]

The multi-site POS states “Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirement for a given Use Day in any Vacation Home pursuant to the Management Company’s right to make this Home Resort Vacation Point adjustment (other than changes in the Lock-Off Premium) must be offset by a corresponding decrease or increase for another Use Day or Days in any other Vacation Home in the same DVC Resort.”

This explicitly states they can, for example, increase all studios in order to decrease bungalows. It also seems to imply that the lock-off premium can be increased.

At which resort have you added on?
Has the resort POS the same wording or is it like the old SSR POS that has been quoted in this thread?

To change the resort POS, DVCMC must send a communication to all owners (a newsletter is ok), but I haven't received any yet.

 

[Dean]

Then what is the purpose of having this other than to trick people on the points? Essentially you are saying as long as one night matches the indicated maximum, the rest of the nights can be anything they want provided the resort stays within its point totals, which for resorts with no dedicated studios or 1 bedrooms are easy to manipulate higher. Or am I missing something here.

I don't think this was a requirement to be included so it may be a limit that was included but not required, at least at those with only lockoff's and no smaller dedicated units. I haven't read through Statue 721 to be sure there's no requirement.

 

[Donna M]

"To make this change possible, Vacation Point requirements for some instances of Sunday-Thursday stays are now higher. However, a full week's stay will essentially cost the same amount of Vacation Points as before." These are Disney's words.

This is taken from the other new post quoting the reallocation for 2010. This is how so many of us understand how reallocation is supposed to work.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Kudos to whoever is reading their POS. I just realized it is a book! A book with very little printed words.

Omg.

No average person is going to read and understand that before they buy. That's why they provide and make you sign the Product Understanding Checklist which should provide a good summary of the most important parts to the buyer.

So, I've just realized the maximum allocation charts for all resorts are in the multi site POS. Didn't know that. Silly me.

Where can we find the "total number of vacation points required to use all vacation homes during each calendar year" ... The number that is never supposed to increae...

 

[mustinjourney]

At which resort have you added on?
Has the resort POS the same wording or is it like the old SSR POS that has been quoted in this thread?

To change the resort POS, DVCMC must send a communication to all owners (a newsletter is ok), but I haven't received any yet.

This language was from the booklet I got when I added on direct at BCV. I also own VGF via resale -- but I don't think I got the booklet when I bought resale.

 

[mustinjourney]

Kudos to whoever is reading their POS. I just realized it is a book! A book with very little printed words.

Omg.

No average person is going to read and understand that before they buy. That's why they provide and make you sign the Product Understanding Checklist which should provide a good summary of the most important parts to the buyer.

So, I've just realized the maximum allocation charts for all resorts are in the multi site POS. Didn't know that. Silly me.

Where can we find the "total number of vacation points required to use all vacation homes during each calendar year" ... The number that is never supposed to increae...

DAK - 7,399,244
BCV - 3,027,124
BLT - 5,732,762
BWV - 4,888,837
HHI - 1,368,962
OKW - 7,674,852
SSR - 14,029,319
VB - 1,616,438
VGC - 1,136,865
VGF - 2,520,379
BRV - 1,961,969

 

[mustinjourney]

Kudos to whoever is reading their POS. I just realized it is a book! A book with very little printed words.

Omg.

No average person is going to read and understand that before they buy. That's why they provide and make you sign the Product Understanding Checklist which should provide a good summary of the most important parts to the buyer.

So, I've just realized the maximum allocation charts for all resorts are in the multi site POS. Didn't know that. Silly me.

Where can we find the "total number of vacation points required to use all vacation homes during each calendar year" ... The number that is never supposed to increae...

I'm beginning to now see POS as what that acronym usually stands for. Piece of ****!

 

[wdrl]

I'm missing how mathematically that isn't the average points over the entire year then.

DougEMG has has a good point - that's a very convoluted way to say "we guarantee there will be one night during the year you can book for xx points. If it isn't an average then the description of leveling is unnecessary.

All I am saying is that a "maximum reallocation" is a hypothetical situation where there is a "leveling" of differences in Vacation Point reservation requirements based on seasons or upon particular Use Days in the week. But this hypothetical does not constrain DVCMC's ability to establish other point charts that have different values. In other words, the hypothetical "maximum reallocation" does not yield a point value that caps point requirements for all other possible reallocations. Nor does it yield a point value that becomes an average of reservation requirements across seasons for all other possible reallocations.

Some people on this thread look at the "guarantee" point values as displayed in each resort's POS and in the Multi-Site POS and think the point charts cannot exceed those values. Or that the point values across all seasons must average the "guarantee" point value. But that simply isn't the case.

The wording in the POS is very specific that BCV owners will always be able to book at least one (1) Use Day in a studio for 18 points. I agree it would be strange if a BCV point chart had only one Use Day when a studio costs 18 points and, frankly, I don't think we'll ever see a point chart like that.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

All I am saying is that a "maximum reallocation" is a hypothetical situation where there is a "leveling" of differences in Vacation Point reservation requirements based on seasons or upon particular Use Days in the week. But this hypothetical does not constrain DVCMC's ability to establish other point charts that have different values. In other words, the hypothetical "maximum reallocation" does not yield a point value that caps point requirements for all other possible reallocations. Nor does it yield a point value that becomes an average of reservation requirements across seasons for all other possible reallocations.

Some people on this thread look at the "guarantee" point values as displayed in each resort's POS and in the Multi-Site POS and think the point charts cannot exceed those values. Or that the point values across all seasons must average the "guarantee" point value. But that simply isn't the case.

The wording in the POS is very specific that BCV owners will always be able to book at least one (1) Use Day in a studio for 18 points. I agree it would be strange if a BCV point chart had only one Use Day when a studio costs 18 points and, frankly, I don't think we'll ever see a point chart like that.

But still, that's a pretty specific hypothetical that does imply an average. If Disney does nothing in their POS without great thought then it still seems questionable on why they did that. Or else it's very misleading. It actually was my initial interpretation when reading thru the POS because it is a prominent outline in the documents. People here stated that no, it's only the single night that is applicable. And there also is a poster here that is getting pushed up the line when asking about it.

 

[mab2012]

Instead, these values have been used to establish a single Use Day booking "guarantee" (my word) for each vacation home type at each resort. In each resort's master declaration is a section that states "each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every XX Home Resort Vacation Points;" etc. The Multi-Site POS has a chart showing these values for all DVC resorts.

As I have said before, the point values set in this section do not represent a "maximum" point value. They do serve as a guarantee (my word) that a resort's point chart will always have at least one Use Day that can be booked for that number of points, or less.

If BCV's point chart was reallocated and there was not at least one day where a studio could be reserved for 16 points, then DVCMC would be in violation of the POS. However, if BCV studios go to 20 points or more for some nights during the year, there is no violation as long as there is a night at 16 points or less on the point chart.

But this isn't quite true. It doesn't say that "at least one Use Day in a Studio will be made available at XX points", it says "each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve ... at least one Use Day in a <type> Vacation Home for every X Home Resort Vacation Points". Strictly interpreted, this means for each unit type there must be at least enough nights available at or below point value X so that the member owning the most vacation points could use all his or her points to reserve a unit of that type at point value X. Subject to availability, meaning some other member hasn't gotten to those nights first. But that's a bit nonsensical. The only sensible interpretation is that it's meant to be an average, such that there always exists some combination of nights that would allow any individual owner to book Y nights at a total cost of X*Y (or less), subject to availability.

Taken to an extreme, and to use a concrete example, an owner at BWV, where the maximum reallocation value for a standard studio is 15* points, should be able to reserve every night of the year in a studio for a total cost of 15*365 = 5475 points. But the actual cost to book a standard studio at BWV in 2020, ignoring the extra day for the leap year, is 5533 points. Or, to rephrase, our hypothetical owner of 5475 BWV points would be short 58 points required to book the entire year, and thus unable to reserve "at least one Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every 15 Home Resort Vacation Points".

* I'm taking the BWV 15 point value to be accurate based on other comments in this thread and the link that someone posted to dvcnews.com. I haven't independently verified that it's correct.

To me, this says a few things:

• The 2020 point charts are clearly in violation of the "maximum reallocation" point values in some categories, including BWV standard studios (subject to my disclaimer* above).
• Reading the OKW POS that @WebmasterDoc posted (thank you!), there's no indication that "maximum allocation" must be "in effect" for those average point values to apply. Rather, they are given as the average point values at which "each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve" a particular unit type, and in fact this is stated prior to any mention of "maximum reallocation". The "maximum reallocation" concept (and chart) appears to be nothing more than an illustration of what would naturally occur if the point chart was flattened; there's no implication that they must do away with seasons in order for the maximum average value guarantees to apply.
• IF the initial point allocations for a given point chart are at the maximum (so, for example, if the initial point chart for BVW had the total points to book a standard studio every night of the year at 5475 points, and other booking categories similarly set at the maximum from the outset), then that would argue strongly for @zavandor's interpretation that points can't be reallocated across unit types, because any such reallocation would have to leave at least one category in violation of the maximum reallocation average. BUT... I ran the numbers on OKW, and the results were not quite what I expected. In every booking category, the average cost (and thus the total annual points required) to book the unit are lower than that unit's maximum reallocation average. This was true of both the 2019 and 2020 point charts. Thus it would appear that at least at OKW, there is some room to reallocate across unit types without exceeding the stated average maximums.

For the record, I don't think any of this means we need to break out the pitchforks, nor do I think it's necessarily legally significant. (If DVC can amend the terms of the POS at their sole discretion at any time, is any of it legally binding?) But I also don't see any point in denying what is fairly clearly written.