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

[Jerry5788]

DVCMember Relations. I also spoke to them. The person I spoke to put me on hold while he checked with a higher-up, then told me no info.

Yeah they probably figured there is no upside to providing that information just downside if they provide something right or wrong. So behind the veil of privacy that many businesses do.

 

[Nuclear Monkey]

Look, if you really think DVD is operating in a way that violates the contract, violates Florida law, or misrepresents DVC to potential buyers, your best redress is to contact the State AG and request that they investigate. As mentioned several times in this thread, a law suit is costly, would require proof of harm to the litigant, be lengthy, and would probably not produce any kind of desired outcome.

I will say that I have been reading this thread for a while and have observed a group of responses that trend toward the belief that Disney has not violated the letter of the law or the contract. In response to that I would say contract law is always a matter of interpretation and in a situation like this where one side has unilateral control of the verbiage of the contract, that side has a responsibility to define what the words of the contract mean. I'm just mentioning this not as a lawyer, but someone who got involved in a contract mess.

And for those of you who just plan to purchase more points and move on, what do you plan to do next year when the 2021 charts are published?

 

[skier_pete]

I probably keep saying it, but my big issue is the increasing of the lock-off premiums that I see as benefiting Disney financially and not benefiting the members, except maybe a small minority that benefit from the portion of that that comes from actual reallocation. However, I can't see that it is truly illegal as no-one has demonstrated where there is any restriction on this move. Disney could legally set points per night 30 studio = 30 for 1-BD = 30 for a 2-BD and not be breaking any laws. The only argument against is "it doesn't benefit the membership" but this seems to me extremely hard to prove. So I feel like I'm not sure what there is to do besides write a letter with little hope of resolution.

 

[glamdring269]

I probably keep saying it, but my big issue is the increasing of the lock-off premiums that I see as benefiting Disney financially and not benefiting the members, except maybe a small minority that benefit from the portion of that that comes from actual reallocation. However, I can't see that it is truly illegal as no-one has demonstrated where there is any restriction on this move. Disney could legally set points per night 30 studio = 30 for 1-BD = 30 for a 2-BD and not be breaking any laws. The only argument against is "it doesn't benefit the membership" but this seems to me extremely hard to prove. So I feel like I'm not sure what there is to do besides write a letter with little hope of resolution.

Disney can only do that legally if they’re also doing it to benefit the membership. What makes this difficult is they control everything. We could potentially see through experience that the change isn’t a benefit, DVCMC could say yeah it is, and it wouldn’t matter because they hold all of the data.

I will say that you probably have the most experience related to booking trends and it doesn’t comfort me that you have basically come to the same initial conclusion as I did (though you might not put it as bluntly).

This is likely not overall for our benefit. There is a small portion that may benefit which will simply help mask the fact that DVCMC just bled out more points that now allow Disney to book more cash rooms meaning our points were just devalued.

 

[crvetter]

I probably keep saying it, but my big issue is the increasing of the lock-off premiums that I see as benefiting Disney financially and not benefiting the members, except maybe a small minority that benefit from the portion of that that comes from actual reallocation. However, I can't see that it is truly illegal as no-one has demonstrated where there is any restriction on this move. Disney could legally set points per night 30 studio = 30 for 1-BD = 30 for a 2-BD and not be breaking any laws. The only argument against is "it doesn't benefit the membership" but this seems to me extremely hard to prove. So I feel like I'm not sure what there is to do besides write a letter with little hope of resolution.

There is limitations on Disney doing exactly that based on the maximum reallocation section in the POS (present in each Resort for dedicated and types that are not dedicated). So if they set each vacation home type equal across everyday in the calendar year they are in violation of that section. Essentially I read the maximum reallocation section as the maximum normalized (average) nightly point cost for a given Vacation Home Type (Studio, 1 Bedroom, etc). I keep going up further and further with DVCMC because they keep passing me along to higher ups when I ask about this section; they are stating they don't know what it means. They always assume I'm asking about trading points from one Vacation Home Type to another. Instead I'm asking about the limitation/maximum if one exists which effectively puts a bound on the "lock-off premium." Some resorts are in violation if I interpret correctly where others are not. But I've been told Management of DVCMC is now researching it as they didn't have an answer at the lower levels.

To be clear they can not set each Vacation Home Type equal in cost across everyday of the calendar year based on this section. The question is "Does this section imply a maximum normalized point cost?" I would assume it does because it is important for Fixed Ownership percentages and everything.

 

[Dean]

I think we could further say that Disney would be gaining breakage inventory, if at all (because some percentage will be reserved as 2BR), at the resorts that are least in demand. For example, Now there are more points required to reserve VGF at 11 months for studios and 1 BRs than there are in the system. So owners at other DVC resorts can reserve these units at the 7 month mark, leaving breakage inventory ultimately at the resorts that are lowest in demand.

It doesn't matter if that's where the end up but rather the intent of the change. If the intent was to push people to 2 BR but members drag their feet doing so, both could be the case.

I don't understand if the purpose is to push people to 2 bedrooms. Most people booking especially the studios would not even need a 2 bedroom, so it's not going to accomplish that. I'm at least partially not buying that theory.

IMO that's not accurate. You'd got a significant % of people booking studios and 1 BR that should likely be in larger units. But the way I look at it, it's sleeping capacity with 2 in a BR and no one on a pullout for the most part. We don't know what the % of people who are maxing out the limits and even DVC likely doesn't know the number that are being dishonest and room stuffing.

 

[Dean]

This thing about DVD (or whichever body does this) being able to change the POS to anything they want, apparently without being required to notify us, to me is more concerning than a one time reallocation.

I know we all have a certain trust with Disney, but you should never give anyone carte blanche, even a family member, lol. So I'll have to see what their reaction is to this, and think about it and make a decision about continuing. Their explanation to this will tell me a lot about whether to continue trusting them.

As in other areas we've been discussing, this has been laid out clearly in the POS. This is to new.

I think the only way to get more information is to go in person with an appt to corporate. At this point a phone call from member services is pointless.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

IMO that's not accurate. You'd got a significant % of people booking studios and 1 BR that should likely be in larger units. But the way I look at it, it's sleeping capacity with 2 in a BR and no one on a pullout for the most part. We don't know what the % of people who are maxing out the limits and even DVC likely doesn't know the number that are being dishonest and room stuffing.

It may be however that would be an issue that should not be addressed with point reallocations but instead with enforcement of occupancy. And since the occupancy is set to include using a sleeper sofa that would just be your feelings of how occupancy should be but not what it is - again, nothing to be addressed with point requirement changes.

 

[Dean]

It may be however that would be an issue that should not be addressed with point reallocations but instead with enforcement of occupancy. And since the occupancy is set to include using a sleeper sofa that would just be your feelings of how occupancy should be but not what it is - again, nothing to be addressed with point requirement changes.

But that's the rub. They have the requirement to control trends including demand. Previously they just didn't release all the lockoffs other than as 2 BR, that option has stopped. So it really was that way before but the new system apparently wouldn't function that way. I think I've been clear, this is my guess but it's the only thing that makes sense. I don't think their foolish enough to do it with the purpose of financial gain at the members expense.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But that's the rub. They have the requirement to control trends including demand. Previously they just didn't release all the lockoffs other than as 2 BR, that option has stopped. So it really was that way before but the new system apparently wouldn't function that way. I think I've been clear, this is my guess but it's the only thing that makes sense. I don't think their foolish enough to do it with the purpose of financial gain at the members expense.

When did they hold 2BR's back? I know that was thought to be the case back when I first asked many, many moons ago but it's nothing I ever saw evidence of in the past decade. I also find nothing in the POS that would indicate any requirement for that. I'd be incredibly surprised if that were a consideration especially since all resorts other than BWV and AKV-Jambo have dedicated 2BR's so then you're only addressing making changes to those two resorts for that intent. But this shift is directed at almost all resorts.

As one who does stay at BWV I wouldn't mind this as it is rather difficult to procure a 2BR in the fight with other members for studios this is not going to accomplish anything in that regard IMO. So that pushes the only gain back to DVC.

 

[Madame]

You'd got a significant % of people booking studios and 1 BR that should likely be in larger units. But the way I look at it, it's sleeping capacity with 2 in a BR and no one on a pullout for the most part. We don't know what the % of people who are maxing out the limits and even DVC likely doesn't know the number that are being dishonest and room stuffing.

It was DVC that added the fifth person capacity to studios at BCV/BWV. We often travel without DH (just us 4 are at SSR right now) & even then prefer a 1bd... not anymore.

They did that themselves & if they keep messing with point charts there is going to be more people cramming 5 in those studios including us at specific times as they’ve now put a 1bd out of reach for us during Christmas week. We bought DVC specifically for 1bds.

I do not think many if any are going over occupancy limits. With ME & FP+ linked to room reservations I just don’t see it unless they are sleeping local family.

 

[skier_pete]

Disney can only do that legally if they’re also doing it to benefit the membership. What makes this difficult is they control everything. We could potentially see through experience that the change isn’t a benefit, DVCMC could say yeah it is, and it wouldn’t matter because they hold all of the data.

I will say that you probably have the most experience related to booking trends and it doesn’t comfort me that you have basically come to the same initial conclusion as I did (though you might not put it as bluntly).

This is likely not overall for our benefit. There is a small portion that may benefit which will simply help mask the fact that DVCMC just bled out more points that now allow Disney to book more cash rooms meaning our points were just devalued.

I be blunt then - I think they are using the allocation process to line their pockets. I think they did enough re-allocation so that they can point to it benefiting the members (lowering points in magic season, 2-BD and some 1-BD while raising studios) so that they can point to something to win any legal argument, but I think this is being used primarily as an opportunity to increase the lock-off premium which will on the whole make more money for Disney at the expense of the majority of their members - with very little the members can do about it. The increased benefit to Disney is only a few percent, but again it's happening on the backs of the owners.

I think this is completely different from the exampled 2010/2011 reallocation which while clearly making things more difficult for people that worked the system but was not used to benefit Disney. There is a component of this decision that is a benefit to Disney and no one else. Please one person give me a reason that raising the lock-off premium helps ANY portion of the owners. They could easily do the exact same thing in lowering 2-BDs while raising studios and some 1-BDs and NOT raise the lockoff premium. The raising of the lockoff premium works to THEIR advantage and theirs only.

I think that's blunt enough.

 

[glamdring269]

I think this is completely different from the exampled 2010/2011 reallocation which while clearly making things more difficult for people that worked the system but was not used to benefit Disney. There is a component of this decision that is a benefit to Disney and no one else. Please one person give me a reason that raising the lock-off premium helps ANY portion of the owners. They could easily do the exact same thing in lowering 2-BDs while raising studios and some 1-BDs and NOT raise the lockoff premium. The raising of the lockoff premium works to THEIR advantage and theirs only.

I think that's blunt enough.

Well said--- if i could find a high five emoticon I'd use it! I didn't want to put words in your mouth with my comment and seems I didn't need to worry about it.

 

[ParkHoppers]

If in fact they are trying to stop people cramming 5 into studios and move them to 2 bedrooms then I guess my question is. Why? If the average amount of people in a studio dropped to 3 than there would be less people in Disney. The villas other than studios would have the same amount as before the change. So overall less people to spend money. I waste space and am usually 2 in a 1 bedroom. Just trying figure out why they would care about 5 in a studio. More people .....more money. Right?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

If in fact they are trying to stop people cramming 5 into studios and move them to 2 bedrooms then I guess my question is. Why? If the average amount of people in a studio dropped to 3 than there would be less people in Disney. The villas other than studios would have the same amount as before the change. So overall less people to spend money. I waste space and am usually 2 in a 1 bedroom. Just trying figure out why they would care about 5 in a studio. More people .....more money. Right?

Yes. And if they are still following the formula they shared several years ago for BLT budget for common area expenses at the resorts with hotel elements then it betters the hotel side to have more people in the DVC rooms so they can allocate more costs there based on the number of people in the rooms.

 

[ParkHoppers]

Yes. And if they are still following the formula they shared several years ago for BLT budget for common area expenses at the resorts with hotel elements then it betters the hotel side to have more people in the DVC rooms so they can allocate more costs there based on the number of people in the rooms.

Right. So why would they be pushing people towards 2 bedrooms. This gets more and more curious the more I think about it. To be fair if more people do book 2 bedrooms instead of separate studio/1 bedroom there will be more available points in the overall system. Which could help but for them to do it at the cost of less people in DVC resorts would be surprising.

 

[skier_pete]

The only resorts/views we're finding greater availability of 2BR than 1BR are:

VGF Standard
VGF Lake
BLT TPV

So I looked at the total number of each category that was green (OPEN) and yellow (MOSTLY OPEN) and added them together.
Data shows Green + yellow = total
This is out of 264 possible blocks on the availability tables with 24 time periods and from 1 to 11 months ahead of date. (24 x 11 = 264) So a resort that is always mostly available would get a total of 264 - SSR Preffered 1-bedrooms scores the highest with 213 + 29 = 242 out of 264 OPEN/MOSTLY dates.

Results for VGF Standard view
VGF Standard Studio 33 + 49 = 82 (31.1%)
VGF Standard 1BD 94 + 46 = 142 (53.8%)
VGF Standard 2BD 100+ 45 = 145 (54.9%)

Results for VGF Lake view
VGF Lake Studio 55 + 35 = 90 (34.1%)
VGF Lake 1BD 113+34 = 147 (55.7%)
VGF Lake 2BD 111 + 41 = 152 (57.6 %)

So by a VERY slight margin, 2BD are less available 1BD at VGF. However, the margin is probably within any real statistical error on this data, which isn't exactly absolute. (1.1% difference for Standard View, 1.9% difference for Lake View). In fact, the availability difference between Standard and Lake view (2.1% and 2.7%) is barely enough to say which is favored.

In fact - this says a few things about the VGF resort:
- Studios rent out about twice as fast as 1-BDs and 2-BDs
- Because studios are gone so much earlier than 2-BD, that means generally all the lock-offs turn into studios/1-bedrooms, making the lock-off premium of points nearly 100% in favor of Disney. (Edit: Realizing after I wrote this that since you can purposefully choose a 2-bedroom lockoff this is not strictly true - there may be reasons people prefer the lock-offs - so not really 100%, but probably pretty high.)
- The data says this resort is extremely well balanced between 1-BD and 2-BD points totals, as both rent out at similar rates.
- The data doesn't give a good reason to raise 1-BD versus 2-BD. There is an argument to raise studios but not 1-BD.

I haven't reviewed the VGF point difference data. How much did VGF change? Anyways, this to me gives good argument to changes in the lockoff premium that involved raising 1-BD are not justified by availability/occupancy.

 

[Wakey]

Look, if you really think DVD is operating in a way that violates the contract, violates Florida law, or misrepresents DVC to potential buyers, your best redress is to contact the State AG and request that they investigate. As mentioned several times in this thread, a law suit is costly, would require proof of harm to the litigant, be lengthy, and would probably not produce any kind of desired outcome.

I will say that I have been reading this thread for a while and have observed a group of responses that trend toward the belief that Disney has not violated the letter of the law or the contract. In response to that I would say contract law is always a matter of interpretation and in a situation like this where one side has unilateral control of the verbiage of the contract, that side has a responsibility to define what the words of the contract mean. I'm just mentioning this not as a lawyer, but someone who got involved in a contract mess.

And for those of you who just plan to purchase more points and move on, what do you plan to do next year when the 2021 charts are published?

It’s called contra proferentum- ambiguity in contract wording is interpreted against the maker.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I haven't reviewed the VGF point difference data. How much did VGF change? Anyways, this to me gives good argument to changes in the lockoff premium that involved raising 1-BD are not justified by availability/occupancy.

Studios:
I don't know what numbers you'd like to see per se but......VGF standard view studios increased in ever season by 1-2 points weekdays and 1-3 weekends. Lakeview studios did not increase in Adventure or Choice but did the remainder of seasons from 2-3/night. I calculated it at around 1203 point increase for the year on the studios if all lockoffs are booked separately.

1BR's:
VGF standard view 1BR's - Increaseed 3 points per night for every single night. Lakeview had no change at all. 1095 point increase for 1BR's if all lockoffs booked separately.

2BR's:
VGF 2BR's varied. Weekends all went up in standard view 4-8 points. Weeknights were anywhere from -5 decrease to 8 points increase. Lakeview 2Br's were decreased in all but 2 instances. It results in approx -607 decrease for dedicated 2BR's only.

VGF GV's: increases every night, every season of 8-14 points resulting in added 4276 points.

Mine was not using a base year calculation but taking the change in points and applying it to the 2020 season, excluding Feb 29th.

 

[skier_pete]

Studios:
I don't know what numbers you'd like to see per se but......VGF standard view studios increased in ever season by 1-2 points weekdays and 1-3 weekends. Lakeview studios did not increase in Adventure or Choice but did the remainder of seasons from 2-3/night. I calculated it at around 1203 point increase for the year on the studios if all lockoffs are booked separately.

1BR's:
VGF standard view 1BR's - Increaseed 3 points per night for every single night. Lakeview had no change at all. 1095 point increase for 1BR's if all lockoffs booked separately.

2BR's:
VGF 2BR's varied. Weekends all went up in standard view 4-8 points. Weeknights were anywhere from -5 decrease to 8 points increase. Lakeview 2Br's were decreased in all but 2 instances. It results in approx -607 decrease for dedicated 2BR's only.

VGF GV's: increases every night, every season of 8-14 points resulting in added 4276 points.

Mine was not using a base year calculation but taking the change in points and applying it to the 2020 season, excluding Feb 29th.

So - since there are no dedicated studios or 1-bds at VGF, they have no need to balance changes in the 1-bedrooms. They only have to balance out the 2BRs changes and the GV changes. No dedicated studios/1-BDs means no need to do any sort of balance. So they can raised both studios and 1-bedrooms without having any need to offset anywhere else. As proof, go to this article on DVC-news.

https://dvcnews.com/index.php/other...20-dvc-points-reallocation-part-1#prettyPhoto

They show the total (legal) balancing of the resort with new 2-BD and GV points, and the changes. Note there is no studio and 1-BD in the balancing chart.

Again, the lowered some 2-BD but raised others, yet raised ALL the studios and 2-BD. Availability shows that they are no issues really with filling 2-BD in a timely manner at roughly the same rate as 1-BD.

Shady, shady, shady.