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

[The Jackal]

I doubt Disney will make the same mistake twice, it is clearly laid out in the contracts that if it take 2,500 points to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year, then it must always take 2,500 to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year. (these numbers and resort are an example only, but it illustrates the point).

This means that for ALL existing contracts (at least all that I know of), they cannot say that the studio will now take 3,000 points and a 2 bedroom 500 points less. Now, they COULD put clauses in new contracts to allow for doing that, but that would ultimately mean at least two sets of point charts, one for old contracts and one for new contracts.

They can also reassign seasons, meaning it might take 300 points more in value season, but then 300 points less in moderate season and even adjust the dates of these seasons, but again the point totals have to remain the same for the entire year and they know it, which is why we saw revised point charts so quickly.

I think others have pointed out that SSR rooms were originally all one point value assigned. DVC then changed the amounts for preferred and standard views. This change is also believed to be an illegal move. I think DVC’s biggest issue is they have been doing this for 27 years. All of a sudden they expect more crowds due to SWGE and the MK 50th anniversary is around the corner and now everyone has to pay more, because just 1 resort has a few 2 bedroom villas that are not booked 60 days out. That is 1 out of 11 resorts, and everyone must pay. But if you cancel a stay with less than 30 days for any reason your points go in holding and can only be used for stays less then 60 days in advance. Now you are stuck with 2 bedroom at SSR as your only choice. Just wait for CCV to sell out and people complain they can’t get a studio there at 11 months, because DVC is selling almost all small contracts (under 200 points) for people to book studios and they have those pricy cabins. If you have 150 points you going to rent a cabin for a day or a studio for a week?

If there is such a big problem with dedicated 2 bedrooms at SSR when the refurbishment starts change some to lock off 2 bedrooms, yes this will take longer and cost more, but this solves the problem. They would then be a 1 bedroom and a studio. This is more of a poor planning on DVC’s part then anything else. Doors can be added, HVAC systems updated , kitchenette installed no more issues. But no they want people to pay more.

 

[Wakey]

There is no high demand for 1 beds at 7 months. I’ve been watching the RAT etc for years, log on all the time to check out of interest, and I book 1 beds. Whilst often I’d struggle to get studios and 2 beds at 7 months, 1 beds are never an issue. I can normally get most views, often including AKL Standard. Most difficult to get (aside from AKL Concierge) is BLT Standard I’d say. This doesn’t add up at all.
However if you look at the lists of availibility in the next 60 days, most are 2 beds but with some 1 beds and more 3 beds thrown in.
So if you were to say what is left with 60 days left, yes often more 2 beds but it's very resort specific (SSR etc). They are not there at any of the more 'desirable' resorts, and as I say I know at all the monorail and Crescent Lake etc, the 2 beds go before the 1.
Also these 2 beds that are put up on 60 days or less at SSR, why aren't they offered as 1 beds and studios?
The problem here is the data set isn't disclosed, and frankly you can slice and dice data to show anything. If it went legal, they'd be forced to disclose the data set and justify its the correct one. Hopefully it will never get to that again, and I'm sure members will be watching the charts like a hawk.
If it was done for balance, why not reduce the 2 beds even more, so no extra points were in the system created by lockoff premium at all? Also why keep quiet about it at the meeting the week before?

 

[Dean]

I doubt Disney will make the same mistake twice, it is clearly laid out in the contracts that if it take 2,500 points to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year, then it must always take 2,500 to book a standard view studio at SSR for a year. (these numbers and resort are an example only, but it illustrates the point).

This means that for ALL existing contracts (at least all that I know of), they cannot say that the studio will now take 3,000 points and a 2 bedroom 500 points less. Now, they COULD put clauses in new contracts to allow for doing that, but that would ultimately mean at least two sets of point charts, one for old contracts and one for new contracts.

They can also reassign seasons, meaning it might take 300 points more in value season, but then 300 points less in moderate season and even adjust the dates of these seasons, but again the point totals have to remain the same for the entire year and they know it, which is why we saw revised point charts so quickly.

I'd like to see where there is a guarantee that one can book a studio for 2500 its for a year. I have the POS for 3 different resorts and nowhere is that type of commitment found in any of them. Everything I have and have seen in exactly the opposite, the only real guarantee is that the total points for the resorts all done as non lockoff is guaranteed for the year.

 

[cmwade77]

I'd like to see where there is a guarantee that one can book a studio for 2500 its for a year. I have the POS for 3 different resorts and nowhere is that type of commitment found in any of them. Everything I have and have seen in exactly the opposite, the only real guarantee is that the total points for the resorts all done as non lockoff is guaranteed for the year.

2500 is just an example, don't get hung up on the number, but my contract specifically states that they can reassign seasons, but they can't require more points for one type of room and less for another.

 

[Dean]

2500 is just an example, don't get hung up on the number, but my contract specifically states that they can reassign seasons, but they can't require more points for one type of room and less for another.

That's different but as I read it the answer is the same. They can reallocate across the resort looking only at the non lockoff portions. I understand the inferences as to marketing, nuance and that when you get into court you never know what will happen; but from a contractual standpoint I haven't seen anything where one can definitively say reallocations are tied to a specific villa type and actually the reverse is true as I read all of the POS I have and the other postings I've seen here.

 

[cmwade77]

That's different but as I read it the answer is the same. They can reallocate across the resort looking only at the non lockoff portions. I understand the inferences as to marketing, nuance and that when you get into court you never know what will happen; but from a contractual standpoint I haven't seen anything where one can definitively say reallocations are tied to a specific villa type and actually the reverse is true as I read all of the POS I have and the other postings I've seen here.

Huh? This is clearly spelled out in the contract:

• The number of points needed to book any specific unit type at a specific resort may be reallocated as necessary to benefit the member's best interest; however, the total number of points required to book any specific unit type in a specific resort for an entire use year cannot change and the total number of points allocated to a specific resort for an entire use year may not change.

I may have the wording slightly off as I don't have the contract in front of me, but it clearly spells out that the total number of points for any given unit type cannot change, not sure how much clearer the contract can be on the matter.

Additionally, even IF that were deemed invalid, the other clause is that reassigning points must be in the best interest for the majority of members, which is the other way this reallocation could have been attacked.

 

[Dean]

Huh? This is clearly spelled out in the contract:

• The number of points needed to book any specific unit type at a specific resort may be reallocated as necessary to benefit the member's best interest; however, the total number of points required to book any specific unit type in a specific resort for an entire use year cannot change and the total number of points allocated to a specific resort for an entire use year may not change.

I may have the wording slightly off as I don't have the contract in front of me, but it clearly spells out that the total number of points for any given unit type cannot change, not sure how much clearer the contract can be on the matter.

Additionally, even IF that were deemed invalid, the other clause is that reassigning points must be in the best interest for the majority of members, which is the other way this reallocation could have been attacked.

I think if you go back to the actual wording you'll get a different answer. The reallocation is not tied to member benefit per se, it's tied to member demand though one could argue the same thing. I've read through 3 different resort POS, 3 different versions for one resort and the multi site POS with this subject in mind as well as seeing numerous posts here. The closest you can get to that interpretation is to nuance based on the wording of vacation home or unit present in limited versions of the POS.

 

[Bing Showei]

I may have the wording slightly off as I don't have the contract in front of me, but it clearly spells out that the total number of points for any given unit type cannot change, not sure how much clearer the contract can be on the matter.

If you come at Dean, you best come correct. He's got every versions of the POS scanned into his brain.

Are you thinking of the Product understanding Checklist? That has been described as a non-legally binding document and the POS terms will supersede any verbal or otherwise written communication (per conversation with Yvonne). Not sure I buy that story considering it's one of the only things we sign it as part of our purchase and is supposed to summarize the POS, but that's the official Disney story.

Magical.

 

[DVC92]

Being one of the notorious 24, the legality doesn't really matter at this point. The good news, for now, is that the reallocation was withdrawn. Quite often, I don't believe the left hand knows what the right hand is doing at Disney. That may, or may not, be the case here. I guess we will find out in due course whether they want to play this game again for 2021.

 

[skier_pete]

Being one of the notorious 24.

I love that "The Notorious 24". I think we've found a new Marvel Phase 4 movie title.

I am still prepping my e-mail, but count me as #25.

 

[Donna M]

Being one of the notorious 24

Ahh, to go down in the history books as being part of "The Notorious 24"

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

So, I sent an email last week Wednesday. The gist of my email was that there were A LOT more concerned members than the 'few dozen' who reached out, and that members were concerned about lock-off premium increases, increases to points available in a year, increases to 1 bedrooms, and the general lack of explanation/transparency. My email went to the general member services email that was provided several posts previously. Over the weekend I received a response that stated that I would need to provide my name, membership number, etc. for them to properly address my concern. This made total sense and I planned on replying later in the day.

However, a few hours after I saw that first email, I got a second response that basically said "As this is in regards to the 2020 point reallocation, we're forwarding your email straight to "another department" for further handling and that I should hear back in 24-48 hours."

So, we shall see.

 

[gharter]

No. the new points allocation doesn't really effect us for either contract, so I'm not worried about any changes. Yes, that is totally self centered.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

No. the new points allocation doesn't really effect us for either contract, so I'm not worried about any changes. Yes, that is totally self centered.

So, is it that the old, proposed 2020 point reallocation would not have affected you or the roll back to 2019 point charts is what is fine?

 

[drusba]

No. the new points allocation doesn't really effect us for either contract, so I'm not worried about any changes. Yes, that is totally self centered.

The original 2020 point charts adversely affected those who normally get studios and 1BRs, and thus many were unaffected. But that was only the immediate problem. With those charts, DVC was openly declaring it can do anything adverse to members that it wants to do, while ignoring its prior representations as to what it can do, and by claiming its actions were supported by secret data that it need not provide to members, which supposedly showed something non-sensical -- that demand for 1BRs was excessive.

The issue was not just the immediate one involving studios and 1BRs. If members had quietly given in, then in coming years, DVC would likely be shoving it up your butt too.

 

[skier_pete]

The original 2020 point charts adversely affected those who normally get studios and 1BRs, and thus many were unaffected. But that was only the immediate problem. With those charts, DVC was openly declaring it can do anything adverse to members that it wants to do, while ignoring its prior representations as to what it can do, and by claiming its actions were supported by secret data that it need not provide to members, which supposedly showed something non-sensical -- that demand for 1BRs was excessive.

The issue was not just the immediate one involving studios and 1BRs. If members had quietly given in, then in coming years, DVC would likely be shoving it up your butt too.

Well, I didn't like the move - but to me it's not like they could do anything too excessive. They STILL have to abide by the rule that they can't add points to a resort. So though they tried to raise the lock-off premium - there really was a limit to what they could do there. If a 2-BD unit is 250 points for a week, in theory they could say 250 points for a studio and 250 points for a 1-bedroom, but if they did THAT, then everyone would literally would only book 2-BD and they would completely lose the lock-off premiums. And even if they did something like 150 points for a studio, and 200 points for a 1-BD, it would STILL drive people to 2-BD.

And they can SAY that they are doing this to book more people in 2-BD, but we all know that's a lie. If they EVERYONE used 2-BD, they would lose the current lock-off premium completely.

I think we will be able to tell a lot about where they WANT to be when they release the Riviera points charts.

(Do we have an abbreviation for Riviera yet - RRV? - Riviera Resort and Villas? The website is currently just calling it Riviera Resort - so that's just RR, which is pretty awful.)

 

[PaintsWithAllTheColors]

So, I sent an email last week Wednesday. The gist of my email was that there were A LOT more concerned members than the 'few dozen' who reached out, and that members were concerned about lock-off premium increases, increases to points available in a year, increases to 1 bedrooms, and the general lack of explanation/transparency. My email went to the general member services email that was provided several posts previously. Over the weekend I received a response that stated that I would need to provide my name, membership number, etc. for them to properly address my concern. This made total sense and I planned on replying later in the day.

However, a few hours after I saw that first email, I got a second response that basically said "As this is in regards to the 2020 point reallocation, we're forwarding your email straight to "another department" for further handling and that I should hear back in 24-48 hours."

So, we shall see.

UPDATE: Got a call this morning from Y's office asking to set up a time to call/discuss.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I was one of the people who thought the new restrictions were so illogically extreme that Riviera had to be part of a new collection of DVC2 resorts.

This is not the case. There will be no DVC2. The new restrictions are part of a change in business model: separation of the membership from ownership.

I obtained a copy of the revision to the multi-site POS dated 01/19/19 and met with a quality assurance officer in person. Riviera resale owners are indeed banned from booking any of the current 14 resorts AND all future resorts. All future resorts will follow that model.

If DVC were being honest, they should be selling nonrefundable, nontransferable membership initiation fees of $10,000, and points at $88pp. I'd have no problem with that structure. Instead they decided to tap into the allure of real estate ownership to widen the audienceship, and we have this mess of gradually watered down grandfathered memberships.

Am I unimpressed with the way management is treating "valued members"? Sure. But I try to separate my enjoyment of the Disney experience and my annoyance with DVC management.

I decided to add 75 direct at CCV - family of 6!

I can't wait for DVD to get through Riviera and NursingHome/Reflections and build that Epcot resort. Wouldn't mind adding 300 cheap resale points at that resort at all!

 

[crvetter]

I was one of the people who thought the new restrictions were so illogically extreme that Riviera had to be part of a new collection of DVC2 resorts.

This is not the case. There will be no DVC2. The new restrictions are part of a change in business model: separation of the membership from ownership.

I obtained a copy of the revision to the multi-site POS dated 01/19/19 and met with a quality assurance officer in person. Riviera resale owners are indeed banned from booking any of the current 14 resorts AND all future resorts. All future resorts will follow that model.

If DVC were being honest, they should be selling nonrefundable, nontransferable membership initiation fees of $10,000, and points at $88pp. I'd have no problem with that structure. Instead they decided to tap into the allure of real estate ownership to widen the audienceship, and we have this mess of gradually watered down grandfathered memberships.

Am I unimpressed with the way management is treating "valued members"? Sure. But I try to separate my enjoyment of the Disney experience and my annoyance with DVC management.

I decided to add 75 direct at CCV - family of 6!

I can't wait for DVD to get through Riviera and NursingHome/Reflections and build that Epcot resort. Wouldn't mind adding 300 cheap resale points at that resort at all!

I think many people would be interested to see the updated multi-site POS if you can upload to this website.

What’s interesting if it indeed was updated I’m surprised they haven’t sent it out to owners as they are required to. I wonder if they have a leeway with time to provide.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I think many people would be interested to see the updated multi-site POS if you can upload to this website.

What’s interesting if it indeed was updated I’m surprised they haven’t sent it out to owners as they are required to. I wonder if they have a leeway with time to provide.

I tried to upload one, but the attachment was too large. Will rescan at lower resolution and post soon.