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

[Dean]

I'm pretty sure they can't reallocate points at VGF in order to facilitate a change at another resort. Doesn't the language specifically limit the reallocation to affecting demand at that specific resort?

That wasn't the point but if the demand is off MORE at some resorts than others, they may reallocate looking at the big picture. A reallocation is a lot of work and has costs associated with it, they want consistent data over several years to know the trends are reproducible.

 

[DVC92]

Maybe to slow the flood at the 7-month mark? It could be argued that there's a benefit to VGF owners in trying to keep demand roughly proportionate across resorts, so that they might have a hope of booking their home resort inside of 7 months.

Whether or not the reallocation that was done is enough to make a difference is another question.

So why the point rise for 80% of the studios AND 50% of the 1BRs at VGF? The points for booking was already high enough at VGF.

Also, how does DVC benefit members, particularly those who have fewer points, who intended to never book or afford any unit other than a studio. It helps them to get fewer days? DVC caused this problem by permitting the purchase of small contracts. That was not the original game plan when OKW started with a minimum purchase of 230 points.

I just looked at the 7 month mark for BLT and VGF, 2 of my resorts, and there is plenty of availability for studios and 1BRs. There just wasn't any need for raising the points like they did!

 

[zavandor]

Also, how does DVC benefit members, particularly those who have fewer points, who intended to never book or afford any unit other than a studio. It helps them to get fewer days? DVC caused this problem by permitting the purchase of small contracts. That was not the original game plan when OKW started with a minimum purchase of 230 points.

It doesn't help those who purchased more points to stay in 2BR either, because the decrease in 2BR has been funded by the increase in Grand Villas.
It has the only effect of making studios and 1BR a worst deal, so someone might book another type of accommodation. How can this be an advantage for the membership as a whole?

 

[Chuck S]

So why the point rise for 80% of the studios AND 50% of the 1BRs at VGF? The points for booking was already high enough at VGF.

Also, how does DVC benefit members, particularly those who have fewer points, who intended to never book or afford any unit other than a studio. It helps them to get fewer days? DVC caused this problem by permitting the purchase of small contracts. That was not the original game plan when OKW started with a minimum purchase of 230 points.

I just looked at the 7 month mark for BLT and VGF, 2 of my resorts, and there is plenty of availability for studios and 1BRs. There just wasn't any need for raising the points like they did!

To be fair, 7 months from now is mid-JUly...one of the hottest, muggiest times of year....so I can see them taking longer to book up right now. And even so, I doubt they will be available at 5 months.

 

[Chuck S]

It doesn't help those who purchased more points to stay in 2BR either, because the decrease in 2BR has been funded by the increase in Grand Villas.
It has the only effect of making studios and 1BR a worst deal, so someone might book another type of accommodation. How can this be an advantage for the membership as a whole?

I think, in general, larger contracts, and assuming this will make new purchasers, both direct and resale, consider larger contracts, will be good for the membership overall. Less competition for rooms from smaller contracts is a benefit.

 

[zavandor]

I think, in general, larger contracts, and assuming this will make new purchasers, both direct and resale, consider larger contracts, will be good for the membership overall. Less competition for rooms from smaller contracts is a benefit.

Reallocations must balance demand, not drive purchases or sales. If the intent of DVCMC was to push current owners to sell small contracts so others could buy them, then they're in violation of the POS.

 

[drusba]

Here is something else to consider. The Disney documents are complex. Some have noted that the multi-site disclosure document says that DVC can make changes in "other vacation homes." However, that is not what the actual DVC Membership Agreement says, which controls. A proper interpretation of even the multi-state would mean another studio for a studio. Moreover, even under DVC's interpretation, you still cannot meet the "another use day or days" requirement if you are raising the studios and 1BRs for every use day of the year and lowering 2BRs for the same use days of the year.

Moreover, you need to go back to the beginning of the clause, It reserves the right to make changes due to changes in "use day" demand." It does not reserve the right to make changes because one size of vacation home has more demand than another. They are supposed to have varying demand.

In addition, everyone should check a document they received at the time of sale, if they purchased from DVD, entitled either the "Product Understanding Checklist" or (as later renamed) the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement." The declarations and all the other documents are complex, but that particular Product Understanding document is designed to tell you exactly what DVC intends and believes the documents to say in a shortened fashioned. This is, in fact, the document that I read when I purchased and which always made me assume that what the DVC Membership Agreement was talking about was seasonal demand changes not changes in demand among the sizes of vacation homes, and it reads in paragraph 8:

"Each Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation point value, which varies depending upon the season of use location and size of the Vacation Home. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand."

The document does not say that DVC believes the membership agreement allows it to make changes based on differences in demand among sizes of vacation homes.

 

[tjkraz]

Sadly I probably placed too much trust in the Disney brand when I bought.

If you expected any sort of transparency, yes, you did. And you've been around these forums long enough to know that would be the case.

I know it sounds trite but if you've lost confidence in Disney, the only sensible thing to do is sell. Even if you're able to get some degree of closure on this particular issue, you'll be questioning their motives on another topic before long.

 

[tjkraz]

Reallocations must balance demand, not drive purchases or sales. If the intent of DVCMC was to push current owners to sell small contracts so others could buy them, then they're in violation of the POS.

I think it's naive to suggest that DVC has zero usage data to support the changes that they've made

Studios went up. Weekends went up. Most Two bedrooms went down. Adventure & Choice seasons generally went up while Magic & Dream went down. I'm at least open to the idea that inconsistent changes to 1B rates are a byproduct of placing a higher priority on other adjustments while still having to balance the charts.

 

[zavandor]

I think it's naive to suggest that DVC has zero usage data to support the changes that they've made.

I have never said that.

I commented that the increase in studios and 1bedrooms will not help people who want to book larger units, because the decrease in 2br will be paid by the increase in GV at VGF. This is undeniable.
So the change in demand will be only be caused by the fact that studios and 1br are being made a worst deal for everyone, hoping trey're now so bad that people will book something else. So I asked how this can be considered beneficial for the membership as a whole.

Chuck replied that one benefit is that people may be encouraged to buy larger contracts (or consolidate). I replied that this is not what could have driven DVCMC, because it is not what the POS authorize them to do. They can only balance demand, not encourage sales.

Now you say that there must be some reason no one can see that would justify the reallocation. It would be simple enough for Disney to explain if there is one, right? But until now nothing convincing has been told by Disney or anyone else. The only mantra is: "Disney knows". Well, I'm not going to give that much credit to them.

Also, the POS requires that a reallocation has to be done to balance demand during the UY, so the following reasons are not acceptable:
- create extra breakage to perform renovations
- balance demand between UY in preparation for SWL
- reduce front end cost or parking usage
- force owners to sell small contracts
The POS does not allow that.

And I am tired of people saying I should sell if I have not enough faith.
How many people were owners 10 years ago and sold after the Aulani fiasco? It was clearly proven by the state of Hawaii that DVD management was trying to mislead buyers and condemned them for it. Did you sell?
If the current management is making mistakes, let's oppose the changes, make the thing public until Disney worried about their brand (the most precious thing they have) have them replaced with someone more sensible.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Here is something else to consider. The Disney documents are complex. Some have noted that the multi-site disclosure document says that DVC can make changes in "other vacation homes." However, that is not what the actual DVC Membership Agreement says, which controls. A proper interpretation of even the multi-state would mean another studio for a studio. Moreover, even under DVC's interpretation, you still cannot meet the "another use day or days" requirement if you are raising the studios and 1BRs for every use day of the year and lowering 2BRs for the same use days of the year.

Moreover, you need to go back to the beginning of the clause, It reserves the right to make changes due to changes in "use day" demand." It does not reserve the right to make changes because one size of vacation has more demand than another. They are supposed to have varying demand.

In addition, everyone should check a document they received at the time of sale, if they purchased from DVD, entitled either the "Product Understanding Checklist" or (as later renamed) the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement." The declarations and all the other documents are complex, but that particular Product Understanding document is designed to tell you exactly what DVC intends and believes the documents to say in a shortened fashioned. This is, in fact, the document that I read when I purchased and which always made me assume that what the DVC Membership Agreement was talking about was seasonal demand changes not changes in demand among the sizes of vacation homes, and it reads:

"Each Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation point value, which varies depending upon the season of use location and size of the Vacation Home. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand."

The document does not say that DVC believes the membership agreement allows it to make changes based on differences in demand among sizes of vacation homes.

Yes! That "Product Understanding" document is something you actually have to sign! Not the POS booklet. There is a reason for that. Nobody is going to read that and even if they do, they will not understand it all. The "Product Understanding" is like a "good faith" attempt to make sure you know what you're getting into.

So, if some resorts don't technically have ANY 1 bedrooms or Studios (a defined vacation home) subject to points balancing, they should be pointing that out. Especially since they refer to them as "vacation homes" in some places and not others. Instead, they clearly state that if they take a point from here, they add a point to there... etc and that the combined total points cannot increase. Misleading is an understatement.

 

[DVC92]

I think it's naive to suggest that DVC has zero usage data to support the changes that they've made

Studios went up. Weekends went up. Most Two bedrooms went down. Adventure & Choice seasons generally went up while Magic & Dream went down. I'm at least open to the idea that inconsistent changes to 1B rates are a byproduct of placing a higher priority on other adjustments while still having to balance the charts.

At VGF, studios went up in 8 of 10 but none went down. Also, all 1BR standards went up while lake views remained the same. At BLT, all 10 standard and lake view studios went up while 8 of 10 1BR standard and lake view went up. No inconsistency, just increases.

 

[tjkraz]

I commented that the increase in studios and 1bedrooms will not help people who want to book larger units, because the decrease in 2br will be paid by the increase in GV at VGF. This is undeniable.
So the change in demand will be only be caused by the fact that studios and 1br are being made a worst deal for everyone, hoping trey're now so bad that people will book something else. So I asked how this can be considered beneficial for the membership as a whole.

Moving people from S/1B to 2B is not the only behavioral change that could result from this. Taking a member who previously had enough points to book 7 nights in a Studio and putting them in a spot where they can only book 6 nights is also a behavioral change. Collectively, thousands of shorter trips changes the manner in which points are spent throughout the entire system.

15 years ago there were members who bought points for the sole purpose of cheap Sunday - Thursday stays. Following the weekday/weekend reallocation, adjustments were necessary. The same applies here.

Now you say that there must be some reason no one can see that would justify the reallocation. It would be simple enough for Disney to explain if there is one, right? But until now nothing convincing has been told by Disney or anyone else.

Do any of your past interactions with DVC suggest they would do otherwise?

 

[zavandor]

Moving people from S/1B to 2B is not the only behavioral change that could result from this. Taking a member who previously had enough points to book 7 nights in a Studio and putting them in a spot where they can only book 6 nights is also a behavioral change. Collectively, thousands of shorter trips changes the manner in which points are spent throughout the entire system.

You're saying that reducing the amount of nights that owners will be able to book overall with the points they own is a good thing. Since they can book fewer nights, then there is more availability for everyone.
So why is this kind of things forbidden by the law?
If a developer sells a resort, he cannot, after the resort is sold out, double the points required to book the whole resort to have half of it available for cash bookings. That if forbidden by the one-to-one rule in Florida Law. Disney is using a technicality (which I'm convinced is not legal) to do something similar, just on a smaller (2-4%) scale, for now. At which point a good behavioral change at 4% becomes an abuse when it's 50%? Is a small level of abuse acceptable?

15 years ago there were members who bought points for the sole purpose of cheap Sunday - Thursday stays. Following the weekday/weekend reallocation, adjustments were necessary. The same applies here.

This is my second post on the 2020 thread (the first one was a comment about the Poly studios):
https://www.disboards.com/threads/2020-point-charts.3725229/page-4#post-60052326

My usual 12 nights stay (in adventure season) has gone up about 12 points. I can live with it, but the more I think about it and the more I'm convinced it's just the first step because every year they cannot reallocate more than 15%.

(bold added).
I did look only at studios, because it's what I book exclusively. I thought this was the reallocation that everyone predicted, increasing studios and lowering 1BR. My comment was "I can live with it".
If they just did that, I would have not complained, somehow I have been expecting it since I bought. It was your post about the increase in the lockoff premium that got me angry (toward DVC, not toward you, of course). Then I started questioning DVC actions, reading the POS and finding there where many other things that smelled nasty.
This is not a reallocation like the others. I can see the logic behind each of them. I cannot see, instead, how devaluing the points that members own is beneficial to them.

Do any of your past interactions with DVC suggest they would do otherwise?

Aulani.

 

[Dean Marino]

.

 

[Dean]

Here is something else to consider. The Disney documents are complex. Some have noted that the multi-site disclosure document says that DVC can make changes in "other vacation homes." However, that is not what the actual DVC Membership Agreement says, which controls. A proper interpretation of even the multi-state would mean another studio for a studio. Moreover, even under DVC's interpretation, you still cannot meet the "another use day or days" requirement if you are raising the studios and 1BRs for every use day of the year and lowering 2BRs for the same use days of the year.

Moreover, you need to go back to the beginning of the clause, It reserves the right to make changes due to changes in "use day" demand." It does not reserve the right to make changes because one size of vacation has more demand than another. They are supposed to have varying demand.

In addition, everyone should check a document they received at the time of sale, if they purchased from DVD, entitled either the "Product Understanding Checklist" or (as later renamed) the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement." The declarations and all the other documents are complex, but that particular Product Understanding document is designed to tell you exactly what DVC intends and believes the documents to say in a shortened fashioned. This is, in fact, the document that I read when I purchased and which always made me assume that what the DVC Membership Agreement was talking about was seasonal demand changes not changes in demand among the sizes of vacation homes, and it reads in paragraph 8:

"Each Vacation Home is assigned a nightly Vacation point value, which varies depending upon the season of use location and size of the Vacation Home. The number of Vacation Points required to reserve any specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change based on seasonal demand."

The document does not say that DVC believes the membership agreement allows it to make changes based on differences in demand among sizes of vacation homes.

As I read the quote it does say they can change it and would not limit it to changes only within a given villa. To do that it would have to have more specific wording precluding the current change and it does not as quoted.

 

[Chuck S]

Seriously? It appears that everyone is "trying" a potential case on the Internet. I doubt that any court is looking.
The original question:

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

Yes, I would. Knowing full well that it's a COURT that would decide, on the basis of offered evidence, if the suit has merit. Only way to find out? Sue.
Yup, might loose. Might win. It's sort of why we have courts .

Really - if someone training Poodles can sue? Anything is possible .

But bear in mind, if you do go to court and lose, you'll not only be responsible for your own legal fees, but likely also DVCs legal fees. It can get VERY expensive.

 

[TexasChick123]

But bear in mind, if you do go to court and lose, you'll not only be responsible for your own legal fees, but likely also DVCs legal fees. It can get VERY expensive.

This isn’t true. I’m an attorney. It is very hard to recover attorney’s fees in a lawsuit especially in a class action suit. Usually each party pays his/her own fees.

 

[Chuck S]

This isn’t true. I’m an attorney. It is very hard to recover attorney’s fees in a lawsuit especially in a class action suit. Usually each party pays his/her own fees.

Really, you can legally bankrupt someone with legal fees who goes to civil trial and wins the trial? That doesn't sound legal that there is no recovery for damages to the party that did nothing wrong.

 

[Dean]

But bear in mind, if you do go to court and lose, you'll not only be responsible for your own legal fees, but likely also DVCs legal fees. It can get VERY expensive.

This isn’t true. I’m an attorney. It is very hard to recover attorney’s fees in a lawsuit especially in a class action suit. Usually each party pays his/her own fees.

That's what the POS says, collecting might be another matter. But they don't have to collect, only file and suspend the account.