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

[miTnosnhoJ]

I do want to admit a few things here. I'm sure many of you have seen the availability charts that Bing_Showei and I have generated for studios and 1-bedrooms. He has prodded me to also complete charts for 2-bedrooms, which we are working on now. (Been doing it for a few months but not more than 1/3 done.) The assumption we all make is that studios are the most popular, followed by 2-bedrooms, followed last by 1-bedrooms. This data mining should once and for all answer that question.

To date, the results I am seeing are mostly backing that up, but it's a lot closer than I would've though. And I have to say, it looks like at SSR the 2-bedrooms might actually be even more available than the 1-bedrooms. (Though both are pretty damn available.) Other resorts seem to be confirming the thought that 2bedrooms do run out first, such as BCV, but again since the resort books up pretty quickly at 7-months the difference isn't huge. A few resorts (

I guess what I'm saying is Disney may have SOME ammo - especially at SSR - to say that 2-bedrooms need lower point prices. However, raising 1-bedroom rates still remains a problematic argument in my point of view. As I said, even though I am a studio renter, i can fully see the argument to increase studios rates, but increasing 1-beds at the same time does not have a firm basis in the data.

Your data should be a great source for Disney’s motivations. If I was trying to put myself in DVC’s shoes, what is the number one complaint here on the boards? (Well, besides the Maintenance Increases, and the resale restrictions, but I digress!). Certainly near the top is the unavailability of vacations at the 11 month mark due to walking. Part of this is natural as members try to cram a years worth of points into the most desirable seasons. And as many have mentioned, a lot of the available capacity in the desirable seasons are tied up in Bungalows and GVs.

But we are some of the most knowledgeable members. I can generally navigate the system to go to VGF in December, for example. But what about the mass of members who buy points expecting to be able to book at their home resort, only to find that there is no availability at their home resort for much of the Fall, into December? I bet these members complain to Disney, feeling they were sold something that does not enhance their vacations, but rather, forces them to vacation in the summer months, or forces them away from their home resort, and puts their planning in limbo until the 7 month mark.

So if you are Disney, what do you do?
1) Outlaw walking. This creates a frenzy at the 11 month mark, but otherwise does not change the underlying dynamics.
Or 2) Shift the demand curve over to the left. They can do this by raising the price of studios and 1BRs by 20% per year using the lockoff premium. This should have the effect of reducing the necessity to walk, but has the side effect, like so much at Disney, that those with the most money (or points) will win. It hurts those small purchasers. But at least they have a better shot at a reservation.

Anyway, this is what I would argue if I were Disney, but I am not sure your data would back this up, except at VGF and maybe Beach Club.

 

[Madame]

We certainly don't know what they intend to do in the future. However, there is no basis for complaining (lawsuit) now about what might be done.

I think if you look back at my posts I have been encouraging opening a dialogue with DVC & asking for transparency. I also do not equate complaining with a lawsuit.

 

[Madame]

Your data should be a great source for Disney’s motivations. If I was trying to put myself in DVC’s shoes, what is the number one complaint here on the boards? (Well, besides the Maintenance Increases, and the resale restrictions, but I digress!). Certainly near the top is the unavailability of vacations at the 11 month mark due to walking. Part of this is natural as members try to cram a years worth of points into the most desirable seasons. And as many have mentioned, a lot of the available capacity in the desirable seasons are tied up in Bungalows and GVs.

But we are some of the most knowledgeable members. I can generally navigate the system to go to VGF in December, for example. But what about the mass of members who buy points expecting to be able to book at their home resort, only to find that there is no availability at their home resort for much of the Fall, into December? I bet these members complain to Disney, feeling they were sold something that does not enhance their vacations, but rather, forces them to vacation in the summer months, or forces them away from their home resort, and puts their planning in limbo until the 7 month mark.

So if you are Disney, what do you do?
1) Outlaw walking. This creates a frenzy at the 11 month mark, but otherwise does not change the underlying dynamics.
Or 2) Shift the demand curve over to the left. They can do this by raising the price of studios and 1BRs by 20% per year using the lockoff premium. This should have the effect of reducing the necessity to walk, but has the side effect, like so much at Disney, that those with the most money (or points) will win. It hurts those small purchasers. But at least they have a better shot at a reservation.

Anyway, this is what I would argue if I were Disney, but I am not sure your data would back this up, except at VGF and maybe Beach Club.

Or they could stop selling small contracts & set more realistic expectations for buyers. That will not happen because DVC & DVD are too intertwined, which is beginning to seem problematic to me.

 

[Dean]

Or they could stop selling small contracts & set more realistic expectations for buyers. That will not happen because DVC & DVD are too intertwined, which is beginning to seem problematic to me.

There's really no need to though they've raised the minimum recently for most situations. The buyers are responsible for understanding the product and how they will use it as well as how it might change. I personally think they should outlaw any contract for under a certain limit OR charge those who only own smaller contracts some type of fee to equilibrate their costs to the system (? club fee).

 

[Madame]

There's really no need to though they've raised the minimum recently for most situations. The buyers are responsible for understanding the product and how they will use it as well as how it might change. I personally think they should outlaw any contract for under a certain limit OR charge those who only own smaller contracts some type of fee to equilibrate their costs to the system (? club fee).

I agree about the suspension of small contract sales, but no way should buyers be penalized because DVC got greedy & didn’t establish a reasonable minimum and instead pushed the direct pricing to ridiculous levels. DVC has never lowered rates, right? Any responsible company would have lowered point cost & raised minimum buy in.

But they didn’t, for quite a long time. Now the management side of DVC has to deal with the complaints of those to whom they sold insufficient points, more than ever going forward.

DVC AND the buyer have equal responsibility here. I won’t absolve either one (myself included for my naïveté), but DVC does not get a pass here from me. Individual AND corporate responsibility does not seem unreasonable.

 

[RobDoc]

How do you know they’ll stop there? We already have 1bds requiring more points than 2bds at SSR in the same season. I’m a forward looking type.

That is a very misleading statement though as you are comparing the point cost for a Preferred 1BR to a Standard 2BR. These are not located in the same building or area of the resort. The 2020 point chart for SSR also explains that the reallocation was based on Member usage with the goal to provide a more even distribution of use throughout the year.

Members have made the preference to stay in the Springs and Congress Park areas - so those are the 'Preferred' category. The other SSR areas are the 'Standard' areas where a 2BR may be reserved for less than a 'Preferred' 1BR. Again, the reason to reallocate is to make better utilization of the entire resort. Those with a preference to stay in the Springs and Congress Park areas are not prevented from doing so (based on availability), but will need to use more points than the same reservation in Grandstand, Carousel and Paddock areas.

Hopefully @zavandor will receive answers to the questions posed in this thread.

 

[Madame]

That is a very misleading statement though as you are comparing the point cost for a Preferred 1BR to a Standard 2BR. These are not located in the same building or area of the resort. The 2020 point chart for SSR also explains that the reallocation was based on Member usage with the goal to provide a more even distribution of use throughout the year.

Members have made the preference to stay in the Springs and Congress Park areas - so those are the 'Preferred' category. The other SSR areas are the 'Standard' areas where a 2BR may be reserved for less than a 'Preferred' 1BR. Again, the reason to reallocate is to make better utilization of the entire resort. Those with a preference to stay in the Springs and Congress Park areas are not prevented from doing so (based on availability), but will need to use more points than the same reservation in Grandstand, Carousel and Paddock areas.

Hopefully @zavandor will receive answers to the questions posed in this thread.

You could argue that, but Grandstand too is a sought after location, so spending less for an 8 person room than for a 4 person room when both locations are somewhat/desirable seems exaggerated to me. However, perhaps the majority of the membership agrees with you that location trumps double the bathrooms and double the room size and not sleeping in the living room.

I will say this, I started stalking 2 wks ago for our trip Dec 31-Jan 6th and lots of SSR has been popping up... All of it preferred. I think most members (given the number of small contract members even more so now) will opt to save points.

 

[Frederic Civish]

I believe the answer to this is, however far we allow ourselves to be pushed. Most owners are the frog in the pot getting slowly boiled to death without even realizing the temperature has been changed. I am not going to get boiled.

Talking about the opinion of most DVC owners, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Frederic Civish]

Disney is changing the points in 2020 and I imagine must follow in lines with the terms/conditions when we bought then what’s the problem?

A lawsuit seems what is wrong with America.

1. That is the exact problem. They are NOT changing the points based upon the guidelines with the terms/conditions we agreed to. The BEST that you could say about it is that they are changing them according to THEIR interpretation of the guidelines. And that is the crux of the issue. Either, A: They are NOT following the guidelines or, B: They are following them in as much as they can get away with their interpretation, but they are NOT REALLY following them the way that an impartial judge would interpret them. That is why we just might need to go searching for that Impartial Judge.

2. Yes, perhaps a lawsuit IS what is wrong with America, and it's just too damn bad that DISNEY is causing that lawsuit to happen. This rests on them, NOT on the aggrieved parties. And why is this so? Because they acted UNILATERALLY, in an INAPPROPRIATE manner, and if they cannot come up with a better explanation, OR if they don't change their new points rules, then THEY are establishing our need for legal recourse.

 

[skier_pete]

So if you are Disney, what do you do?
1) Outlaw walking. This creates a frenzy at the 11 month mark, but otherwise does not change the underlying dynamics.
Or 2) Shift the demand curve over to the left. They can do this by raising the price of studios and 1BRs by 20% per year using the lockoff premium. This should have the effect of reducing the necessity to walk, but has the side effect, like so much at Disney, that those with the most money (or points) will win. It hurts those small purchasers. But at least they have a better shot at a reservation.

Anyway, this is what I would argue if I were Disney, but I am not sure your data would back this up, except at VGF and maybe Beach Club.

I think walking is a problem but from Disney's standpoint a minor one. It doesn't stop studios from being booked. It probably causes some level of complaint, but only amongst those wanting the lower point rooms in the most popular seasons. This is really for another discussion though on the solution to walking.

I don't get how raising prices on studios and 1-bedrooms across the entire year helps with shifting demand away from the busy season. I much more logical way to do this would be to raise point costs in the Oct-Dec timeframe, and lower them in the less in demand time frames. While they did this a little bit with the 2-bedrooms, they didn't do it at all for studios - they just raised them across the board. To me this will in fact just drive MORE people to want to go in the Oct-Dec timeframe, because while it's more points, it might be less than when they were otherwise going.

That's just it - I cannot see beyond the reallocation not overall benefiting the members. As I've said many times, if they had raised studios and lowered 1-bedrooms, I wouldn't be happy about it, but it would make sense. But raising 1-bedrooms when they are for the most part the last rooms to become occupied just doesn't jibe with trying to make a change to the allocation that is beneficial to the membership. Especially since the 1-bedroom rates in my view were already out of whack high.

 

[Jerry5788]

1. That is the exact problem. They are NOT changing the points based upon the guidelines with the terms/conditions we agreed to. The BEST that you could say about it is that they are changing them according to THEIR interpretation of the guidelines. And that is the crux of the issue. Either, A: They are NOT following the guidelines or, B: They are following them in as much as they can get away with their interpretation, but they are NOT REALLY following them the way that an impartial judge would interpret them. That is why we just might need to go searching for that Impartial Judge.

2. Yes, perhaps a lawsuit IS what is wrong with America, and it's just too damn bad that DISNEY is causing that lawsuit to happen. This rests on them, NOT on the aggrieved parties. And why is this so? Because they acted UNILATERALLY, in an INAPPROPRIATE manner, and if they cannot come up with a better explanation, OR if they don't change their new points rules, then THEY are establishing our need for legal recourse.

How are they changing it against their guidelines. I was always under impression they could change points across all the units and it wasn’t limited to a studio is always 100K points for entire year but rather all DVC units are 1mn points for entire of year. Is that what you are talking about?

Did I misread something somwhere at some point. Sorry if I did.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Your data should be a great source for Disney’s motivations. If I was trying to put myself in DVC’s shoes, what is the number one complaint here on the boards? (Well, besides the Maintenance Increases, and the resale restrictions, but I digress!). Certainly near the top is the unavailability of vacations at the 11 month mark due to walking. Part of this is natural as members try to cram a years worth of points into the most desirable seasons. And as many have mentioned, a lot of the available capacity in the desirable seasons are tied up in Bungalows and GVs.

But we are some of the most knowledgeable members. I can generally navigate the system to go to VGF in December, for example. But what about the mass of members who buy points expecting to be able to book at their home resort, only to find that there is no availability at their home resort for much of the Fall, into December? I bet these members complain to Disney, feeling they were sold something that does not enhance their vacations, but rather, forces them to vacation in the summer months, or forces them away from their home resort, and puts their planning in limbo until the 7 month mark.

So if you are Disney, what do you do?
1) Outlaw walking. This creates a frenzy at the 11 month mark, but otherwise does not change the underlying dynamics.
Or 2) Shift the demand curve over to the left. They can do this by raising the price of studios and 1BRs by 20% per year using the lockoff premium. This should have the effect of reducing the necessity to walk, but has the side effect, like so much at Disney, that those with the most money (or points) will win. It hurts those small purchasers. But at least they have a better shot at a reservation.

Anyway, this is what I would argue if I were Disney, but I am not sure your data would back this up, except at VGF and maybe Beach Club.

The POS also specifically states that there are no guarantees you'll be able to book your preferred villa at 11 months - or really anytime - and that you may have to book something else or forfeit your points.

 

[Dean]

I agree about the suspension of small contract sales, but no way should buyers be penalized because DVC got greedy & didn’t establish a reasonable minimum and instead pushed the direct pricing to ridiculous levels. DVC has never lowered rates, right? Any responsible company would have lowered point cost & raised minimum buy in.

But they didn’t, for quite a long time. Now the management side of DVC has to deal with the complaints of those to whom they sold insufficient points, more than ever going forward.

DVC AND the buyer have equal responsibility here. I won’t absolve either one (myself included for my naïveté), but DVC does not get a pass here from me. Individual AND corporate responsibility does not seem unreasonable.

That's part of the issue here, no one is being punished. However if the application of the changes get them, them's the breaks. It's the nature of the system. Those who didn't buy enough to adjust either knew or should have known it was a risk. Regardless it was a risk they took and not the responsibility of the system to act outside of it's normal operations.

 

[Madame]

That's part of the issue here, no one is being punished. However if the application of the changes get them, them's the breaks. It's the nature of the system. Those who didn't buy enough to adjust either knew or should have known it was a risk. Regardless it was a risk they took and not the responsibility of the system to act outside of it's normal operations.

Yes I was referencing your suggestion to charge small contract owners.

 

[nasmith]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned (I didn't read thru all 9 pages of posts)- but point chart reallocation across room categories occurred for the 2019 year for both AKL and Vero Beach. Certainly, someone already pursued the legality of such a move in the last year since those point charts were published?? Not to mention that the 2019 point reallocation set precedence for the current point reallocation - which might have some legal ramification? (not a lawyer)

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

DVC have published the new point charts for 2020 and many members have been negatively impacted. This caused many of us to go and (re)read the POS and possibly discover that the reallocation done may not be legal in its current form.
The most contentious points are:

1) Reallocations should leave the total points needed to book one unit/vacation home unchanged

Reallocations are described in the POS document for each resort in "Exhibit G - Disney Vacation Membership Agreement for XXX RESORT"
For SSR (and as far as I know, every resort, please point out any resort with different wording), the reallocations are authorised as follows:

“In order to meet the Club Members’ needs and expectations as evidenced by fluctuations in Use Day demand at the Condominium experienced by DVCMC during a given calendar year, DVCMC may, in its sole discretion, increase or decrease the Home resort Vacation Point requirements of a given Use Day within a given Vacation Home during the given calendar year by any amount not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve a Use Day during the previous calendar year; provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation points existing within a given Unit at any time may not be increased or decreased because of such reallocation. The twenty percent (20%) reallocation limitation shall not apply to increases or decreases of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements relating to designated periods of high demand which do not occur on the same Use Day each year. Any increase or decrease in the Home Resort Vacation point reservation requirement for a given Use Day pursuant to DVCMC’s right to make this Home resort Vacation Point adjustment must be offset by a corresponding increase or decrease for another Use Day or Use Days.”

For a long time we have thought that Disney could do whatever they wanted with the point charts as long as the total points needed to book the whole resort for the whole year remained unchanged. Reading the POS is seems this is not the case.

• The first highlighted sentence seems to restrict reallocations only to balance demand during the year, not across different vacation home sizes. If bungalows seat empty and studios fly off the shelves at 11 months, a reallocation cannot be used to balance demand
• The second sentence says points can be shifted only "within a given Vacation Home". A Vacation Home is defined as "portion of a unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy". This allows to move points only within the same room type. They can lower points for a studio for weekends and increase week days, they cannot increase studios and 1BR and lower 2BR
• The third sentence says the total points allocated to a Unit cannot change. It seems the reallocation they did for the SSR treehouses is not legal, as all the treehouses are declared in their own units. Poly Bungalows are in different units from the studios, so the 2020 reallocation is not legal. Also, usually a unit includes different room types and different units within the same resort can have different compositions. If a unit includes 2 dedicated studios and 2 lockoffs, another might include only dedicated 2BR. Balancing units with different compositions might prove impossible if points are moved across different vacation home types.

In the first years of DVC, when a balancing act was needed to balance demand within the same room types, DVC created different booking categories with the same price point. This applied to BW view (same points as garden), and OKW HH (same points as the rest of the rooms). Those separate booking categories are a good advantage for owners, because they can book the better rooms before the 7 months window without paying a premium in points. Later DVC started moving points around balancing the points across the new booking categories. It might have been in good faith (at the beginning), but it doesn't seem to be allowed by the POS and it opened the way for strategic point allocations like the Poly bungalows: the high point cost for the bungalows allowed DVC to sell a lot of points while showing the points required by studios to potential owners.


2) The lockoff premium
The point needed to book a studio + a 1BR are greater than the points needed to book a 2BR. This has always been the case since DVC opening. It is called "lockoff premium" (and can be justified by the fact that managing two reservations can be more onerous).
For example, in 2019, in Adventure season:
- studio standard: 11 points
- 1BR standard: 22 points
- 2BR standard: 30 points (and not 11+22)
The lockoff premium is 3 points.
In 2020 the lockoff premium has increased, as both studios and 1BR have increased while the 2BR has decreased:
- studio standard: 12 points
- 1BR standard: 24 points
- 2BR standard: 28 points
The lockoff premium will be 8 points, nearly trebled.

VGF is the only resort there there is explicit mention of the lockoff with the wording authorising DVC to modify it at will. For other resorts there is no mention of it.
It is not clear if the lockoff premium is even legal in the first place, but it has always been there so it probably is. However it doesn't seem right that DVC can increase it at will. This would violate the reallocation rule written above (each Vacation Home/Unit must keep the same number of points constant over the whole year).
Increase the lockoff premium seems to benefit only Disney. The extra availability generated by the lockoff premium goes into the breakage inventory which is then booked by Disney for cash which is paid back into the resorts budget to lower the dues. However there is a cap to how much is paid back (2,5% of the total budget) and that cap has been already reached every year in the past. So an increase of the lockoff premium will cause more cash income that will be kept by Disney.

3) Unbalanced rebalance
Members have strong evidence that the least popular room size is the 1BR. Studios are the first to go, then 2BR and finally after a lot of time, 1BR. Also, the most common last minute availability is for 1BR.
So it seems that a reallocation increasing both studios and 1BR in favor of 2BR doesn't make sense.
The only possible explanation is that Disney want to push members to book larger vacation homes for the benefit of selling add-ons and larger contracts. At the expense of people who bought to stay in studios.


What is the plan?
In this phase we are still gathering feedback and information. I have recently enquired Disney about the legality of reallocations across different vacation homes/units and I have yet to receive a reply.
Previously I questioned the legality of the increase of the lockoff premium and received a call back by a CM who just seemed to read from a script not addressing the problem: she told me the reallocation happened to balance demand cross seasons, but she seemed unaware about what the lockoff premium was and what the actual policy was about it.

We now have to gather potential support for a possible lawsuit.
The best outcome would be that given the weight of many members willing to pursue a lawsuit, DVCMC management would be willing to reconsider their decision and revert the changes. If not, I'll find a way for all people to communicate easily and decide what the best way to move forward will be.
If you want to join this group, please reply below. It would be important to have as much public support as we can get, but if you prefer to stay anonymous, please PM me.

Please note: as members we will pay with our dues for the legal expenses for DVCMC to fight us.

What will we ask
1/25/2019 will be the first day the new points charts will became effective, as it's the first day it'll be possible to book in 2020. As a matter of urgency, we ask DVC to suspend the application of the new points charts and use the same 2019 charts, only adjusted for floating holidays. However this could be achieved only if we find an agreement with DVCMC management. A Lawsuit will require a lot more time.

Currently, my intention is to ask:
- cancel any reallocation done (even in the past) that modified the number of points needed to book every vacation home
- remove the lockoff premium from the point charts
- create new booking categories for the rooms that have been reallocated in the past.
However, those points are open for discussions, if you would like to modify them or add other points, please post below.

How can you help?
Members reading the DISboards and informed about what's happening are a very small minority of the membership base. I am ready to bet that most people don't even know that the 2020 charts have been published, let alone that a reallocation happened.
So it is important to raise awareness in any way. Please post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media a link to this page. If you belong to any other forum or Facebook group, please post a recap of this post. Send a letter to the press. I have had a journalist interested in the topic and he's going to contact DVCMC management for an official position.

I've pulled out the multi-site POS statement that is listed as revised as of 8/26/16. I missed what revision you are quoting from here though I believe it is the POS from a specific Resort? Anyway there is an additional sentence relating to the reallocation in the multi-site POS I have in front of me. First they do Define unit and vacation home in reference to the section that the reallocation resides in and here's a copy of that.


Next I'll post the first 2 pages about reallocation. The additional clarification is on the second page. It goes as

....."not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of the Home Resort Vacation Points required to reserve that Use Day during the previous calendar year, provided, however, that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit (i.e., the amount of Home Resort Vacation Points representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Ownership Interest in a given Unit) at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation."

 

[Dean]

You could argue that, but Grandstand too is a sought after location, so spending less for an 8 person room than for a 4 person room when both locations are somewhat/desirable seems exaggerated to me. However, perhaps the majority of the membership agrees with you that location trumps double the bathrooms and double the room size and not sleeping in the living room.

I will say this, I started stalking 2 wks ago for our trip Dec 31-Jan 6th and lots of SSR has been popping up... All of it preferred. I think most members (given the number of small contract members even more so now) will opt to save points.

I still suspect there were changes in SSR standard vs preferred that have not yet been announced. Regardless they made the decision based on their interpretation of the demand. If the demand justifies it, I'm sure it'll change again.

I think walking is a problem but from Disney's standpoint a minor one. It doesn't stop studios from being booked. It probably causes some level of complaint, but only amongst those wanting the lower point rooms in the most popular seasons. This is really for another discussion though on the solution to walking.

I don't get how raising prices on studios and 1-bedrooms across the entire year helps with shifting demand away from the busy season. I much more logical way to do this would be to raise point costs in the Oct-Dec timeframe, and lower them in the less in demand time frames. While they did this a little bit with the 2-bedrooms, they didn't do it at all for studios - they just raised them across the board. To me this will in fact just drive MORE people to want to go in the Oct-Dec timeframe, because while it's more points, it might be less than when they were otherwise going.

That's just it - I cannot see beyond the reallocation not overall benefiting the members. As I've said many times, if they had raised studios and lowered 1-bedrooms, I wouldn't be happy about it, but it would make sense. But raising 1-bedrooms when they are for the most part the last rooms to become occupied just doesn't jibe with trying to make a change to the allocation that is beneficial to the membership. Especially since the 1-bedroom rates in my view were already out of whack high.

I think walking is a bigger problem than most do but it's still better than the day by day before. I believe they should stop it COLD by making reservations a cancellation and rebooking, as a min for those done more than 11 months out from that day. Or by instituting fees or other limitations on the points (go into holding if canceled later) I'll change the wording on your last paragraph, maybe you mean the same thing. It doesn't have to benefit the membership overall but the overall membership. That might mean it benefits 30%, means nothing to 50% and is neg to 20%. And it might mean that it's neg to those wanting to book smaller units but positive to the system in terms of dues or general availability.

1. That is the exact problem. They are NOT changing the points based upon the guidelines with the terms/conditions we agreed to. The BEST that you could say about it is that they are changing them according to THEIR interpretation of the guidelines. And that is the crux of the issue. Either, A: They are NOT following the guidelines or, B: They are following them in as much as they can get away with their interpretation, but they are NOT REALLY following them the way that an impartial judge would interpret them. That is why we just might need to go searching for that Impartial Judge.

2. Yes, perhaps a lawsuit IS what is wrong with America, and it's just too damn bad that DISNEY is causing that lawsuit to happen. This rests on them, NOT on the aggrieved parties. And why is this so? Because they acted UNILATERALLY, in an INAPPROPRIATE manner, and if they cannot come up with a better explanation, OR if they don't change their new points rules, then THEY are establishing our need for legal recourse.

You say it like that's an absolute. As I read the POS information available to me it's by resort not unit or villa. They've obviously already made their interpretation. The only options as I see them are to conform, to discuss (we might understand better but it won't change) or some type of legal action.

 

[Dean]

Yes I was referencing your suggestion to charge small contract owners.

They cost the system more, just suggesting they should pay a more proportionate cost compared to what they cost. They certain call, change, cancel on average more than those with a lot of points on a per point basis and likely more in total than those with more points.

 

[Dean]

I've pulled out the multi-site POS statement that is listed as revised as of 8/26/16. I missed what revision you are quoting from here though I believe it is the POS from a specific Resort? Anyway there is an additional sentence relating to the reallocation in the multi-site POS I have in front of me. First they do Define unit and vacation home in reference to the section that the reallocation resides in and here's a copy of that.
View attachment 372295

Next I'll post the first 2 pages about reallocation. The additional clarification is on the second page:
View attachment 372300 View attachment 372301

I don't believe he had a copy of the multi site POS.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I don't believe he had a copy of the multi site POS.

I don't recall - if there's a conflict between a Resort POS and the Multi Site POS which takes precedence?