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

[Dean]

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

If there's a true conflict in the most recent version of both, the home resort would trump the Multi site POS. Or they'd just change it if it didn't require a vote of the membership.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

If there's a true conflict in the most recent version of both, the home resort would trump the Multi site POS. Or they'd just change it if it didn't require a vote of the membership.

I now looked up in the Home resort POS and it matches the Multi site so no differences to worry about anyway.

 

[Mumof4mice]

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.

I have to say I disagree with this. So many owners complain about Disney increasing the direct point cost, when this is the most beneficial pricing strategy to existing owners.

Imagine if Disney had frozen direct point cost at $95, and simply launched new resorts with doubled point charts. (I don't expect them to sell points at 2004 pricing and still offer 12 point studios). What it would do is effectively deter all current owners from trading into new resorts, while all rooms at legacy resorts instantly vaporise at 7 months 5 seconds from people who bought 250 points at $95pp who want to use them on 10 Point BWV studios. We would really understand the meaning of point inflation then.

And does anyone think they can sell their BCV contract for $145pp if direct pricing was $95?

If Disney wanted to, they could add on "transfer fees" and "new member education fees" that many timeshare companies charge, when contracts are sold to a resale buyer. These can easily add up to $5000-$8000 and come straight out of the seller's pocket into Disney's, because resale buyers would factor that in when they place offers. Resale pricing could plummet to 30% of direct pricing (like other "good" timeshares that aren't sold for $1), not the ~70% that DVC owners currently enjoy. But Disney hasn't done that (yet). They've raised the point cost of sold-out resorts which further supports resale pricing. Considering the power disparity - we basically signed away all rights - they are behaving quite well. Not quite the rapacious despot... a sensible dictatorship? Hey, Singapore does alright.

I fully expect Disney to nickel and dime us at every turn. But I trust that self interest, to not kill the golden goose, will keep the DVC offering at an acceptable standard. As @Dean said in a previous post. The DVC savings are not worth the aggravation, if basic levels of trust is lost. Too much effort over vacation lodging that's supposed to bring us more relaxation.

 

[zavandor]

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. 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."

View attachment 372300 View attachment 372301

Kat, thanks a lot, this is very useful!
I only have an older version of the SSR POS, I don't have the most recent (mine doesn't have the THV) and I don't have the multi site POS.

The only difference between this one and the one I have is, however, the part within brackets specifying what "exists" means, which is missing in mine. There is still mention of the reallocation "within a Vacation Home".

I think this closes definitely the question related to reallocations of points across units: they are illegal both according to the Resort POS and according to the multi site POS. They are not in contraddiction and both confirm the thesis in my posts.

Regarding the lockoff premium, the multisite POS explicitly allows it. I am still not convinced this complies with Florida laws (I'm brewing a post about the topic). And since DVCMC has violated their own rules (and possibly the law) about cross units reallocations, I wouldn't be surprised they violated the law about the lockoff premium too.
However there is a noticeable difference between the Multi site POS and VGF POS, where they state that they can increase the lockoff premium at will.
Why is that? Since the language disappeared from a later version of a resort POS my guess is that someone realised that they cannot increase it at will. Unfortunately that person wasn't involved in the team who did the 2020 reallocation.

 

[Dean]

I fully expect Disney to nickel and dime us at every turn. But I trust that self interest, to not kill the golden goose, will keep the DVC offering at an acceptable standard. As @Dean said in a previous post. The DVC savings are not worth the aggravation, if basic levels of trust is lost. Too much effort over vacation lodging that's supposed to bring us more relaxation.

I expect members will have to pay for the costs, there are many ways to allot those costs. In general I view certain options are necessary for a resort and those those should be included for everyone even if they don't use them, ie the pool. Others are more peripheral and that then depends on the specifics. Is there a discount for the volume? Can it be easily separated and enforced? Valet parking is a good example, no discount and easily targeted to those using it, for the benefit of a few, no discount. Boy those were fun thread's, speaking of entitlement mentality. There has to be a balance in dues and services.

 

[Dean]

However there is a noticeable difference between the Multi site POS and VGF POS, where they state that they can increase the lockoff premium at will.
Why is that? Since the language disappeared from a later version of a resort POS my guess is that someone realised that they cannot increase it at will. Unfortunately that person wasn't involved in the team who did the 2020 reallocation.

My guess it was seen as confusing and unnecessary. It simply put a name to the situation that has existed from 1991 until the present.

 

[Madame]

Imagine if Disney had frozen direct point cost at $95, and simply launched new resorts with doubled point charts. (I don't expect them to sell points at 2004 pricing and still offer 12 point studios). What it would do is effectively deter all current owners from trading into new resorts, while all rooms at legacy resorts instantly vaporise at 7 months 5 seconds from people who bought 250 points at $95pp who want to use them on 10 Point BWV studios. We would really understand the meaning of point inflation then.

I’m not sure if I follow here. They upped the price AND the points requirements on some new resorts! My points go twice as far at BCV than at Poly & this IS what happens at 7 months - BCV, BWV etc go in a flash.

And does anyone think they can sell their BCV contract for $145pp if direct pricing was $95?

Well I wouldn’t have paid $132 pp for a resort that expires in 2042, so I don’t think I would expect to get $145.

If Disney wanted to, they could add on "transfer fees" and "new member education fees" that many timeshare companies charge, when contracts are sold to a resale buyer. These can easily add up to $5000-$8000 and come straight out of the seller's pocket into Disney's, because resale buyers would factor that in when they place offers.

Sure, but then they’d be just like any other timeshare & many of us would have/would walk away. No one is going to pay Disney direct prices if they can’t unload it because of massive fees etc to resell.

I fully expect Disney to nickel and dime us at every turn.

Disney, yes, DVC, no. DVC is supposed to manage the timeshare on our behalf. If they are manipulating the system to squeze profit from us, that’s a problem.

acceptable standard

If that’s what they are aiming for then they’d better lower their prices. Pixie dust only goes so far.

 

[zavandor]

My guess it was seen as confusing and unnecessary. It simply put a name to the situation that has existed from 1991 until the present.

But they never increased it in over 25 years. And while in the VGF POS they wrote they could increase it, that wording never qualified for the multi site POS. Then it disappeared and now we have new points charts with a trebled lockoff premium. Do you really think everything is crystal clear in this situation?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But they never increased it in over 25 years. And while in the VGF POS they wrote they could increase it, that wording never qualified for the multi site POS. Then it disappeared and now we have new points charts with a trebled lockoff premium. Do you really think everything is crystal clear in this situation?

Let me go back to the Multi site POS I have because I did read that language this morning and I thought it was in that document.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I expect members will have to pay for the costs, there are many ways to allot those costs. In general I view certain options are necessary for a resort and those those should be included for everyone even if they don't use them, ie the pool. Others are more peripheral and that then depends on the specifics. Is there a discount for the volume? Can it be easily separated and enforced? Valet parking is a good example, no discount and easily targeted to those using it, for the benefit of a few, no discount. Boy those were fun thread's, speaking of entitlement mentality. There has to be a balance in dues and services.

I think that was a little exaggerated though because of the way DVC implemented it. Zero warning. In some cases people had checked in using the free Valet and when it changed during their stay the charges were added to their bill.

 

[Dean]

Sure, but then they’d be just like any other timeshare & many of us would have/would walk away. No one is going to pay Disney direct prices if they can’t unload it because of massive fees etc to resell.

That's part of the hype, it really is like other timeshares even if some thought it wasn't. While some would have not bought had they believed it, most would have. I've seen lots of people buy that shouldn't have, emotions run high. When a timeshare system can sell for 5 figures that's worth pennies, lots of things happen. There's something about vacation/timeshares that cause otherwise smart people to turn their brain off in favor of the emotions.

A track record of not making a given change that's contractually allowed has no meaning. Things go in and out of FL statutes, the rules under them and the POS all the time. Different people, different thoughts. As I said before, I spent almost 3 years of my life living this process with the state of FL. Regardless the wording is irrelevant as far as the naming of the option, it's the option is the same with or without it.

 

[Madame]

That's part of the hype, it really is like other timeshares even if some thought it wasn't. While some would have not bought had they believed it, most would have. I've seen lots of people buy that shouldn't have, emotions run high. When a timeshare system can sell for 5 figures that's worth pennies, lots of things happen. There's something about vacation/timeshares that cause otherwise smart people to turn their brain off in favor of the emotions.

Yes, but I’d bet that there are a high percent of buyers who are members that have no interest in other timeshares & never will & if Disney did what was suggested you couldn’t pay me to buy DVC.

But, yes, sometimes I overestimate the intelligence of the gen pop.

 

[zavandor]

That's part of the hype, it really is like other timeshares even if some thought it wasn't. While some would have not bought had they believed it, most would have. I've seen lots of people buy that shouldn't have, emotions run high. When a timeshare system can sell for 5 figures that's worth pennies, lots of things happen. There's something about vacation/timeshares that cause otherwise smart people to turn their brain off in favor of the emotions.

A track record of not making a given change that's contractually allowed has no meaning. Things go in and out of FL statutes, the rules under them and the POS all the time. Different people, different thoughts. As I said before, I spent almost 3 years of my life living this process with the state of FL. Regardless the wording is irrelevant as far as the naming of the option, it's the option is the same with or without it.

To clarify: I do not mean that since they haven't done before they cannot do it now.
I think they cannot do it and whoever decided to do it now has made a big mistake like the mistake with the cross units reallocation.
I think people managing DVC in the first 20 years were less reckless than those managing it now.

 

[Dean]

I think that was a little exaggerated though because of the way DVC implemented it. Zero warning. In some cases people had checked in using the free Valet and when it changed during their stay the charges were added to their bill.

They certainly did it poorly, no argument there. It relates back to my feeling that if they were just more up front and forth coming, they'd be better off in the long run. For those that don't know, they implemented it without any announcement such that some arrived without a charge for valet parking and left with a charge. But that wasn't my reference, my reference is to those that felt the membership should pay for their free valet parking and were very upset (rabid might be a better word for some) that it changed. Anyone that would say they implemented it well is pretty much an idiot but the decision was the only reasonable one, there really was only one decision DVC would make as to what to do but again, they implemented it extremely poorly. But I suspect the reason they take such an approach is because of the way members act when they're unhappy. As I said before, DVC seems to have more than their fair share of those who feel entitled.

 

[Mumof4mice]

I’m not sure if I follow here. They upped the price AND the points requirements on some new resorts! My points go twice as far at BCV than at Poly & this IS what happens at 7 months - BCV, BWV etc go in a flash.

Simply that DVD could have chosen to "stick it to the owners" way more than they have. The result of not increasing the point cost and only increasing the point chart would have been devastating for every owner.

1/3 of our points are PVB. We had planned on booking multiple studios for the RunDisney events on a regular basis. We're not thrilled about the relocations. But we factored in a 2-3 point increase when we made the purchase decision, so that was no surprise. I understood the relocation to be within the resort rather than within individual vacation homes from both the sales presentation and the reading material provided. The sales guide told plenty of other lies, but was clear that point relocation was across all room types. Logically, it's implicit that all the units are pooled because all owners can book any size rooms regardless of which specific unit their percentage real estate interest resides in. I really don't think we'd win this argument with DVCMC.

The lock-off premium being raised so much is more concerning. It should be self-limiting though as people decide to opt for 2BRs. One change doesn't make a trend.

 

[Dean]

Yes, but I’d bet that there are a high percent of buyers who are members that have no interest in other timeshares & never will & if Disney did what was suggested you couldn’t pay me to buy DVC.

But, yes, sometimes I overestimate the intelligence of the gen pop.

It doesn't matter their interest in other timeshare. I've seen lots of smart people make poor decisions with timeshares in general, esp DVC. And while I'm sure there are some that would know and walk away, most wouldn't including most who say they would.

To clarify: I do not mean that since they haven't done before they cannot do it now.
I think they cannot do it and whoever decided to do it now has made a big mistake like the mistake with the cross units reallocation.
I think people managing DVC in the first 20 years were less reckless than those managing it now.

I don't make decisions of such general nature on one issue that I don't have all the facts on. If their track record concerns me then I may have to exit or add on depending on specifics. I don't see getting stuck on the wording of the Lockout premium or not, to me it's a non issue for the wording itself.

 

[Madame]

Simply that DVD could have chosen to "stick it to the owners" way more than they have. The result of not increasing the point cost and only increasing the point chart would have been devastating for every owner.

I understand that, but it isn’t that they raised the points & cost, it’s that it was the degree. Simply put they’ve gone too far & are compounding the 7 mo problem in studios by selling Poly contacts which are studio sized against bungalows potentially leaving members homeless & searching elsewhere at 7 months.

 

[Dean]

I understand that, but it isn’t that they raised the points & cost, it’s that it was the degree. Simply put they’ve gone too far & are compounding the 7 mo problem in studios by selling Poly contacts which are studio sized against bungalows potentially leaving members homeless & searching elsewhere at 7 months.

And given the 2010/11 experience, they may do it again for 2021.

 

[Madame]

It doesn't matter their interest in other timeshare. I've seen lots of smart people make poor decisions with timeshares in general, esp DVC. And while I'm sure there are some that would know and walk away, most wouldn't including most who say they would

I would love to be able to say that I disagree here, but as depressing as it is you are probably correct. Being a part of a DVC FB site is eye opening in terms of human nature (& a but scary too).

 

[Jerry5788]

Simply that DVD could have chosen to "stick it to the owners" way more than they have. The result of not increasing the point cost and only increasing the point chart would have been devastating for every owner.

1/3 of our points are PVB. We had planned on booking multiple studios for the RunDisney events on a regular basis. We're not thrilled about the relocations. But we factored in a 2-3 point increase when we made the purchase decision, so that was no surprise. I understood the relocation to be within the resort rather than within individual vacation homes from both the sales presentation and the reading material provided. The sales guide told plenty of other lies, but was clear that point relocation was across all room types. Logically, it's implicit that all the units are pooled because all owners can book any size rooms regardless of which specific unit their percentage real estate interest resides in. I really don't think we'd win this argument with DVCMC.

The lock-off premium being raised so much is more concerning. It should be self-limiting though as people decide to opt for 2BRs. One change doesn't make a trend.

Yes I don’t get how we would win this arguement thus a frivolous lawsuit.
Luckily if people are very upset they can likely sell their interest inn DVC at a good price given the resale maintains the value and if you bought in the past the value has appreciated!