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

[crvetter]

Agreed -- at VGF, in 2019, the average for studios already exceeds 18. In fact, the average cost of a studio if there were no views and all days were the same is 23 points and in 2020, it jumps up to 25 points on average.

The 18 that was quoted was for Copper Creek for Grand Floridian it is 22 for Studio, 45 for 1 Bedroom, 61 for 2 Bedroom, and 147 for Grand Villa. Also interestingly some Resorts have different numbers for different views. Like Polynesian has a set for Lake and Standard View. However, VGF and SSR do not.

 

[Wakey]

Thanks guys for all your efforts, please don’t give up trying to get answers. Your work has been outstanding, particularly Zavandor who has been like a dog with a bone on this and has been an activist, makeshift legal timeshare expert and publicist.

What I took away from the above is ‘a guy’ ( or gal) does the points reallocation and perhaps this is not some super duper complex algorithm with huge amounts of data.

I work with data analysts in my role, some are great, some sometimes make mistakes.

What happens if the data analyst didn’t really understand what he can and cannot do with the allocation from a legal perspective , and this lady senior person and senior management didn’t understand what had been done , other than the analyst guy telling them he had now balanced the points,demonstrating it on his Excel spreadsheet? “Great, good job Bob, publish the chart, we don’t understand it but it looks impressive”.

What if rather than some clever plan to manufacture points for breakage, trading into DVC 2, selling more timeshare or whatever, they simply made a mistake?

If that did happen, then hopefully they can see the error of their ways and you can educate them and we get a reversal of the 1 beds going up and points appearing out of thin air.

I’m not sure I’d be too happy though with that odd offer for a committee to buy you out.

 

[Matty B13]

I also wonder how many of the senior managers actually own DVC points? Do they have any skin in the game, like we do? Or are they just given villas if they request them through DVC for their use, and have no idea how the point system really works and how people actually use them.

I'm sure some of the CM's who actually purchased points know exactly who the 2020 point reallocation has hurt their customers.

Like Wayey says, this could just be a major screw up, that the upper management didn't know they were creating.

 

[skier_pete]

I think you meant @zavandor post.

Oh sorry - got it backwards. Writing quick.

 

[freediverdude]

Hmm, I don't know what to think after hearing these reports. It's possible that the financial and points people know what is going on but other executives don't, making the financial guys look good. But the offer to buy back the contracts seems like a quick fix for them and not wanting to look into it further, which seems odd. I suspect they know more than they are letting on. I'm not sure further meetings or phone calls will get any farther, because they will start to circle the wagons to protect themselves.

 

[DougEMG]

Was just looking at BLT in May (4 months out) to see what is available. Nothing more than a night for a studio or 2 bedroom, but the 1 bedroom has half the month available. While just 1 small sample, it is things like this that make me (and others) question the decrease in 2 bedroom costs and increase in 1 bedroom costs. Studios increasing I am fine with, even though that is what I mostly book.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

I have just had another call with Y. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's Y. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

This is incredible

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Does it make any difference. I don't see anything as written that would suggest a representation these were the only changes that could happen. I see no reason they could, would or should have brought up the lockoff premium or adjustments between units. WE already have examples of movement between units historically.

This is important because they cannot tell you one thing and do another. They did this to us too. We just do not have it recorded.

 

[zavandor]

I also got a clear "is there some way we can get you to go away?" vibe from your description. You should've tried for "Give me an extra 15 points to make up for the lost nights you have taken away from me."

But they would probably give me Riviera points, which we know will be worthless.

Another funny thing happened during the call. I told her I've a spreadsheet with the calculations made for VGF and SSR to demonstrate the increase in the lockoff premium and she told me: I don't know which spreadsheet you have, because that information is proprietary. I replied that units declarations are public and it is very clear how many rooms in each category there are. She was a bit taken aback and then said, oh yes you're right.
They are underestimating the power of the Internet.

I've googled Y., I don't know your definition of middle management, but she looks pretty senior to me.

 

[Bearval]

It's not an upper limit, it's an average and technically it would provide no contractual protection at resorts with no dedicated smaller villas though realistically there is al limit. Could they make a studio the same as a 2 BR or a 1 BR the same as a 2 BR in the same view type, legally they could. Even in resorts with dedicated smaller units they could somewhat.

I still say going in person or working through a lawyer is really the only way to get this done. It sounds like we're still talking to middle management types here that aren't inherently versed on all the issues. Even a formal letter (not email) to the CEO with a copy to the legal department and voting rep would be better.

I have just had another call with Y. from regulatory affairs (I got her initial wrong last time, it's Y. not V.). Please read, there are some surprises.

At the end of last call I told her which were my biggest concerns:
- the lockoff premium
- the possibility to move points between different vacation home sizes
- how they judged demand
- the maximum reallocation

So she asked me where I wanted to start and I said the lockoff premium, which is really the thing I care the most. She started saying that she doesn't think they call it "lockoff premium", but there was a woman in the room (she didn't introduce herself) who confirmed it is what they call it. This seemed strange to me, because the VGF POS clearly has wording for it, I was talking with a senior manager, it seemed weird she didn't know it after last time I explicitly told her about it.

She explained to me that the lockoff premium is needed for them to balance demand between different unit sizes. It could be increased or could be decreased. They could even make it negative in case studios and 1BR are far less in demand than 2BR. She then went explaining (again) that the whole resort has to be balanced, so an increase in a studio or a 1BR had to be balanced somewhere else.
I replied this is true just for the dedicated units, not for the lockoff because they count only the 2BR. It was clear she wasn't understanding me. So I made the example of SSR and at that point she told me that the increase in the studios and 1BR went to lower the 2BR.
At that point I had to tell her what she was saying was not true. I told her what we discussed here, the difference in total points if SSR is fully booked as 2BR or as separate rooms. She still wasn't sure to understand. She asked for a 5 min pause so she could call someone who has been responsible of the reallocation, but she called me back saying she wasn't in the office today.
So she asked me to tell her exactly what my question was so she could get me the answer. I told her to do an experiment: take the 2019 and 2020 chart, apply them to the same Base year, calculate how many points are needed at SSR to book all lockoffs as studio+BR and compare the results. The different will be around 450k points. Then repeat the same experiment with 2BR. According to which law this is possible?

Then I went to tell her why I think they are not allowed to reallocate points across units. I told her about paragraph 10.6.3 of the condominium declaration, which is about destructive damage and it says that if a unit and its owners are removed from the system then the rest of the resort has to be in balance according to the one-to-one Florida law. There was a pause, she didn't give me an explanation.
I went on saying that in the first 20 odd years of DVC their interpretation of the POS was clearly that they couldn't reallocate cross units, it started in 2013 when they changed the product understanding document and reallocated the THV. They changed their interpretation without changing the POS, so they created all sorts of contradictions.
She told me the product understanding document is not a legal document but a courtesy they do to buyers and they simplified it making it shorter due to members feedback. She then asked me about which other contradictions I found and I told her the other things we discussed here:
- the "within one Vacation Home" sentence
- the fact that an increase in one Use day has to be balanced with a decrease in a different day (non in the same day in a different unit)
- the maximum reallocation rule

Before I could tell her, she told me her interpretation of the sentence "Vacation Points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased". She told me what she already told to @crvetter and I replied what I already wrote here: that points do not exist in a Unit, the sentence doesn't make any sense. A Unit is sold in different contracts as a % of ownership and that Points correspond to that % as a simplified tool to book rooms. So in the context of the paragraph, that sentence makes sense only if interpreted as "the total number of points needed to book a Unit cannot increase or decrease".

At this point we were about 1 hour into the call and she had to go. She promised me to get me answers to my two questions (the imbalance in the point charts due to the lockoff premium and the destructive damage paragraph).
But before leaving she asked me what I wanted. Was I looking for? I told her I would like them to roll back the 2020 change
Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

She told me she'll take some time to gather all the answers I need and they'll call me back, probably in a week time. She also told me she's quite a senior manager and already spent a lot of time with me, and she's happy about it because they care about the members but she would be also be looking at finding a conclusion to this (I think this means next call will be the last one).

I have to say I actually appreciate the time they're spending with me, but I'm not happy with the replies I got until now.

Thank you for all that you have done for all of the owners in getting this information. It appears that they would just rather have you go away as if you have discovered something that the now is a problem with how the reallocation has been done. On another note considering how many owners there are, how many do you feel would be willing to have a one time special assessment of 25 cents per point for a class action lawsuit? That is if this is the only route to resolve the reallocation if it is indeed not being done according to our contracts.

 

[Dean]

This is important because they cannot tell you one thing and do another. They did this to us too. We just do not have it recorded.

A sales persons job is to sell, as such they will tell you things that they believe will get you to buy. Usually they tell you truths but they tell you things to make you think it's better than it actually is. In this case reported, I don't see anything wrong as presented. There is no way they could cover every scenario and not covering a scenario is not the same as specifically giving inaccurate information. Regardless when one buys retail they sign off that verbal representations are not binding. Plus the poster referenced did not buy retail and as such they would have no recourse since they simply assumed the risks and rights included in the POS as amended over time. For example, with the big last reallocation there was a report that a guide told them the OKW reallocation was so contentious that they'd never reallocate again though legally they could. This was opinion and would not be binding to say it couldn't happen going forward.

But they would probably give me Riviera points, which we know will be worthless.

Another funny thing happened during the call. I told her I've a spreadsheet with the calculations made for VGF and SSR to demonstrate the increase in the lockoff premium and she told me: I don't know which spreadsheet you have, because that information is proprietary. I replied that units declarations are public and it is very clear how many rooms in each category there are. She was a bit taken aback and then said, oh yes you're right.
They are underestimating the power of the Internet.

I've googled Y., I don't know your definition of middle management, but she looks pretty senior to me.

I've talked to them several times over the years and they've consistently been knowledgeable and professional. You paint the picture of a no completely uninformed, powerless individual which is why I asked. Now it may be your disconnect with them or it may be the way you're approaching it, I wasn't on the call so I don't know either way. I do know that my nature is to not accept a single report secondarily as absolute. Thus I'm going somewhat discount a secondary account of a phone call, esp when it doesn't fit the other information and experiences I have, don't take it personally. Here's what I know as 100% fact.

• FL law says these matters count lockoff's as the full unit unless the developer chooses otherwise.
• DVD did not chose otherwise that I can find in the POS.
• The points formulations were done on non locked off accounting for BWV, OKW & AKV and I suspect the wording for the rest is the same.
• The POS not only gives the right to reallocate unilaterally, it mandates it in some situations.

Thus I must conclude that the reallocation is governed by the same accounting rules. And I still think you're wasting your time unless you're willing to go further either as a visit personally to Celebration and/or legal action.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

A sales persons job is to sell, as such they will tell you things that they believe will get you to buy. Usually they tell you truths but they tell you things to make you think it's better than it actually is. In this case reported, I don't see anything wrong as presented. There is no way they could cover every scenario and not covering a scenario is not the same as specifically giving inaccurate information. Regardless when one buys retail they sign off that verbal representations are not binding. Plus the poster referenced did not buy retail and as such they would have no recourse since they simply assumed the risks and rights included in the POS as amended over time. For example, with the big last reallocation there was a report that a guide told them the OKW reallocation was so contentious that they'd never reallocate again though legally they could. This was opinion and would not be binding to say it couldn't happen going forward.
I've talked to them several times over the years and they've consistently been knowledgeable and professional. You paint the picture of a no completely uninformed, powerless individual which is why I asked. Now it may be your disconnect with them or it may be the way you're approaching it, I wasn't on the call so I don't know either way. I do know that my nature is to not accept a single report secondarily as absolute. Thus I'm going somewhat discount a secondary account of a phone call, esp when it doesn't fit the other information and experiences I have, don't take it personally. Here's what I know as 100% fact.

• FL law says these matters count lockoff's as the full unit unless the developer chooses otherwise.
• DVD did not chose otherwise that I can find in the POS.
• The points formulations were done on non locked off accounting for BWV, OKW & AKV and I suspect the wording for the rest is the same.
• The POS not only gives the right to reallocate unilaterally, it mandates it in some situations.

Thus I must conclude that the reallocation is governed by the same accounting rules. And I still think you're wasting your time unless you're willing to go further either as a visit personally to Celebration and/or legal action.

Yes, a salesperson's job is to sell, but bait and switch is not legal. It is not legal for them to tell people that they are locking in costs by joining dvc and that overall points in the system will not change and then do the opposite, or something different. We attended several dvc pitches over the years and they all said the same thing about points in the system not changing. It doesn't matter what they put in the fine print. It is not legal to misrepresent the product.

 

[Johnny D]

Yes, a salesperson's job is to sell, but bait and switch is not legal. It is not legal for them to tell people that they are locking in costs by joining dvc and that overall points in the system will not change and then do the opposite, or something different. We attended several dvc pitches over the years and they all said the same thing about points in the system not changing. It doesn't matter what they put in the fine print. It is not legal to misrepresent the product.

Exactly my position!!! I asked several questions during both contracts I purchased regarding the reallocation. I read the contracts and when I didn’t fully understand something I asked the agent. They specifically said it is possible over time, if different seasons became more in demand and there was a seasonal demand shift, there could be a “vertical shift in point between seasons “ but there would not be a horizontal shift between units. Their big pitch was always that you were locking in future costs. They would always focus you towards buying enough points for a certain type of accommodation for a certain period of time. Classic bait and switch at best, lying in the deceitful at worst. Though not exactly the same, reminds me of the predatory lending practices of the early 2000’s!

 

[mustinjourney]

A sales persons job is to sell, as such they will tell you things that they believe will get you to buy. Usually they tell you truths but they tell you things to make you think it's better than it actually is. In this case reported, I don't see anything wrong as presented. There is no way they could cover every scenario and not covering a scenario is not the same as specifically giving inaccurate information. Regardless when one buys retail they sign off that verbal representations are not binding. Plus the poster referenced did not buy retail and as such they would have no recourse since they simply assumed the risks and rights included in the POS as amended over time. For example, with the big last reallocation there was a report that a guide told them the OKW reallocation was so contentious that they'd never reallocate again though legally they could. This was opinion and would not be binding to say it couldn't happen going forward.
I've talked to them several times over the years and they've consistently been knowledgeable and professional. You paint the picture of a no completely uninformed, powerless individual which is why I asked. Now it may be your disconnect with them or it may be the way you're approaching it, I wasn't on the call so I don't know either way. I do know that my nature is to not accept a single report secondarily as absolute. Thus I'm going somewhat discount a secondary account of a phone call, esp when it doesn't fit the other information and experiences I have, don't take it personally. Here's what I know as 100% fact.

• FL law says these matters count lockoff's as the full unit unless the developer chooses otherwise.
• DVD did not chose otherwise that I can find in the POS.
• The points formulations were done on non locked off accounting for BWV, OKW & AKV and I suspect the wording for the rest is the same.
• The POS not only gives the right to reallocate unilaterally, it mandates it in some situations.

Thus I must conclude that the reallocation is governed by the same accounting rules. And I still think you're wasting your time unless you're willing to go further either as a visit personally to Celebration and/or legal action.

I largely agree with you. But there’s are two very important points to consider.

1. It is still illegal to mislead purchasers. Deceptive trade practices act cover this. Relying on the “4 corners” of the POS is not necessarily binding.

2. The reallocations can only be made to even out demand and must be for benefit of the members.

 

[DVC92]

You're right, last time I completely got the name wrong, at least this time I was nearly there.

I believe the name of the person is Yvonne Chang.

 

[DVC92]

Agreed -- at VGF, in 2019, the average for studios already exceeds 18. In fact, the average cost of a studio if there were no views and all days were the same is 23 points and in 2020, it jumps up to 25 points on average.

As much as I don't like the studio increase at VGF, I really detest the 21 point a week increase in the 1BR standard at VGF, particularly since there is no greater demand for these 1BRs that I can see.

 

[JGINPL]

Would be nice if someone knowledgeable had a form letter that people could try to email or mail to DVC management. If they get a bunch of letters that all spell out the same issue this might get them to take it more seriously.

 

[Johnny D]

I largely agree with you. But there’s are two very important points to consider.

1. It is still illegal to mislead purchasers. Deceptive trade practices act cover this. Relying on the “4 corners” of the POS is not necessarily binding.

2. The reallocations can only be made to even out demand and must be for benefit of the members.

I hope this class action suit proceeds and that is not all talk!! Sworn affidavits by thousands of Dvc members regarding the deceptive sales tactics I believe would have tremendous weight. It seems that we were all sold the same bill of goods and lied to!

1) Vertical point Adjustments could happen but not horizontal.

2) total points for each unit accommodation would not change throughout the years, but seasonal adjustments could happen based on shifts in demand.

3) you were locking in your future costs for accommodations, however dues could go up.

I would gladly fly down to Orlando to testify in any case brought against DVC!

 

[Donna M]

There are over 41,000 views on this thread, Disney should be concerned about how this can impact their image. Last time I received a survey from Disney about my trip, this website was at the top of their list for where to gather planning information. Ms Chang, Director, Club Managment and Regulatory Affairs at The Walt Disney Company, who crevetter and Zandor might have spoken with should want this whole mess to get cleaned up in a positive way, so we can all go away happy.

 

[bobbiwoz]

There are over 41,000 views on this thread, Disney should be concerned about how this can impact their image. Last time I received a survey from Disney about my trip, this website was at the top of their list for where to gather planning information. Ms Chang, Director, Club Managment and Regulatory Affairs at The Walt Disney Company, who crevetter and Zandor might have spoken with should want this whole mess to get cleaned up in a positive way, so we can all go away happy.

One would hope so.