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

[Bing Showei]

And as I've said before, if I did believe that was the case I wouldn't play in their sandbox. I have no problems separating out sales and usage but when I feel I can't trust them from a management standpoints, I'm out. I can't see why anyone would want to play otherwise long term who felt otherwise.

Because they are the only sandbox in town. The alternative is a compromised Disney experience, smaller fastpass window, few opportunities to walk back to your room, or paying Disney rack rates.

This is what happens when you’re nursing an addiction and your connect offers bulk discount for that sweet, sweet magic they’ve cornered the market on.

Cry me a river, I know. Not looking for sympathy, just explaining that all these issues notwithstanding, DVC is still a (relatively) cheap way to do the fake castle. And for now, it’s still fun. No more illusions about membership magic or any of that marketing business for me, but yeah, I’ll take the cheaper room.

 

[Bing Showei]

Actually I don't believe the 1 BR are more in demand than the 2 BR which is whey I suspect they misspoke.

Dean, you are far too generous.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Just looking online over time gives you information but not a complete picture. It also doesn't tell you when the rooms actually book up or who has to settle for options that were not the top on their list. DVCMC has access to all of that information and more. Actually I don't believe the 1 BR are more in demand than the 2 BR which is whey I suspect they misspoke. But I do believe that the studio and 1 BR are a set and the increasing studios and decreasing 1 BR doesn't help 2 BR and may actually make their availability worse. I do not believe it's their intent or their right to purposefully try to generate breakage inventory for profit but one doesn't preclude the other. They could make the change for the right reasons AND general more breakage both. Frankly I don't believe this change will general more breakage as I believe that increased 2 BR bookings will offset much or all of the potentially freed up rooms. And as I've said before, if I did believe that was the case I wouldn't play in their sandbox. I have no problems separating out sales and usage but when I feel I can't trust them from a management standpoints, I'm out. I can't see why anyone would want to play otherwise long term who felt otherwise.

How do you assume they can gather data on owners settling on room types. This is not a system that anything is ranked as 1st choice, 2nd choice etc. Even waitlists are just there - no ranking. I also think you've indicated that searches also indicate demand? The online booking tool allows anyone to search ever day, every minute should they wish with zero meaning they are actually looking to book. There are bots that also search the information. The actual booking of rooms and remaining availability would seem to be a very valid indicator of demand - possibly the only indicator.

 

[miTnosnhoJ]

They told me that (brace yourself) demand for 1BR is much higher than 2BR (and of course studios, but she never spoke about one being in higher demand of the other). She told this like if they're flying off the shelves.

This doesn’t pass the giggle test.

 

[DougEMG]

All you see on DVC is whether there is 1 unit available, not how many. If there are 100 units and 99 of them go quickly bu the last one slowly (or is booked and later canceled) you won't get an accurate picture. Or if both are available and one type has 5% and the other 50% available, you won't see that either. DVCMC has a vast amount of very detailed data available to them across resorts, days of the week, times of the year, villa type, different years; etc. They're not stupid and they're not going to set themselves up. And I think we all agree that an increase in the studios and a decrease in the 2 BR are both reasonable so I'm reminded of one of the 2 Meatloaf songs I actually like ("2 out of 3 aint bad)". One of my systems actually shows how many of each villa type is available and since some of the resorts have different types of 1 BR and 2 BR, and some quite a variation, it shows each type separately. I just booked this morning a 2 night stay leading into a cruise with this company and a search showed me two different 2BR types and about 5 different 1 BR types and the total availability for each along with the total points for the dates specified. It also gives a description including whether it has 2 doubles or a King in the second, square footage and whether it has a jetted tub or not. I booked the 2 BR dedicated with 2 king rather than the larger L/O that had 2 doubles and more square footage since it was cheaper and there are only 2 couples.

Actually I disagree with 2 bedrooms needing to be decreased and with 1 bedrooms being increased, I also think they didn't adjust the seasons at all. The only thing I do agree with is studios increasing; and that hurts me personally, but I still agree with it. So from my point of view they only got 1 out 4 right, 25%, which if I was grading them would be a failure.

 

[DougEMG]

Just looking online over time gives you information but not a complete picture. It also doesn't tell you when the rooms actually book up or who has to settle for options that were not the top on their list. DVCMC has access to all of that information and more. Actually I don't believe the 1 BR are more in demand than the 2 BR which is whey I suspect they misspoke. But I do believe that the studio and 1 BR are a set and the increasing studios and decreasing 1 BR doesn't help 2 BR and may actually make their availability worse. I do not believe it's their intent or their right to purposefully try to generate breakage inventory for profit but one doesn't preclude the other. They could make the change for the right reasons AND general more breakage both. Frankly I don't believe this change will general more breakage as I believe that increased 2 BR bookings will offset much or all of the potentially freed up rooms. And as I've said before, if I did believe that was the case I wouldn't play in their sandbox. I have no problems separating out sales and usage but when I feel I can't trust them from a management standpoints, I'm out. I can't see why anyone would want to play otherwise long term who felt otherwise.

I doubt that there are going to be any significant number of people moving up from studios and 1 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Most people don't have the points. I have a ton of points, but when I go there are only ever 2-3 of us. A studio works fine and a 1 bedroom is mores space than I need. They would have to reduce 2 bedrooms to close to the price of a 1 bedroom to make me look at it; wait they did that at SSR!

The average buyer these days can only afford a studio for a week. I don't think they are going to trade that for 2 days in a 2 bedroom.

 

[Wakey]

I had a call today from someone in the Regulatory affairs office, V. was leading the call and there were 3 more people in the room; I feel honored (the website I've created might have drawn attention). *
It was a 30 minutes call and we hadn't the time to address all my concerns, so I have another call scheduled for next week. I haven't received any real answer, but I've started to present most of the questions. And I appreciated the call.

Most of the time today has been spent on the lockoff premium.

They told me that (brace yourself) demand for 1BR is much higher than 2BR (and of course studios, but she never spoke about one being in higher demand of the other). She told this like if they're flying off the shelves. So the lockoff premium has to re-balance this.
Since she was referring to higher demand, I've asked what is their definition of demand, what are they trying to balance with this reallocation. I've asked if it is how many rooms go into breakage and she said that no, it's how quickly room are booked and which ones have less availability.
Regarding the lockoff premium they told me that's like buying a package versus single items. At this point I was a bit frustrated: I imagined they didn't have much time and they were telling me very basic definitions (like resort balance and so on). I didn't want to be rude and interrupt but a lot of time was spent on explaining very obvious things, and the clock was ticking...

I asked about the definition of the one-to-one rule and why they think it doesn't apply to studios and 1BR. Now it was time for B. to be frustrated, I guess, because I've read them the definition of timeshare unit and the one-to-one rule and why I think it was relevant. He told he's very familiar with these definitions.
There was a misunderstanding because when I've nominated "timeshare unit" they thought I was talking about what they define as "Unit".
I also made an example about why I think the lockoff premium cannot be increased (because it can be exploited).
At this point I didn't receive an answer to this because we were already over 30 minutes, but V. said that B. took some "very good notes".

At this point V. asked if I could tell her what are my biggest concern so they could prepare for the next call.
I told her:
- the increase in the lockoff premium
- the fact that I do not think they're allowed to move points between different room sizes (as Drusba added recently, I said neither the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement" says so)
- that the balancing doesn't seem right, but I have added that I know they have the data and if she tells 1BR are in high demand there isn't much I can add
- the maximum reallocation: average for studios at some resorts is already over the value stated **

I have another appointment for next week.


* I do not know if it is allowed to name the people on the call here, but I'd rather avoid it and refer to people with their initials.
** I am not entirely convinced about this, but it would be interesting to have a comment on it anyway

As the management company paid for by us, they need to release this data because it absolutely flies in the face of what I and many others see, we are not stupid. We cannot just accept this explanation without data, particularly given how they classify high demand- what is left later. It’s also not a case of 1 or two rooms hanging around, I only book 1 beds and they are always availible and I always look and check at all times of year. I see the exact same patterns as Skier Pete’s charts. So they are wrong on that 100%, so how do they come to this conclusion. I would suggest to them Zavandor the 1 beds flying off the shelves is contrary to member observations, booking experiences and significant 12 month checking and analysis and I’d also say thus this claim currently has zero credibility with the members and they have to release the data to back up their point.

 

[mustinjourney]

So, in your legal opinion, this section of the POS is not valid?

From Exhibit "4" to the Public Offering Statement for the Declaration Of Condominium of the Disney Vacation Club at Walt Disney World Resort, A Leasehold Condominium
Dated 01/06/1992

Article XV
Compliance and Default​

15.1 Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In any proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an Owner or the Association to comply with the terms of the Condominium Documents, or the Condominium Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant to them, as they may be amended from time to time, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of the proceeding, and recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as may be awarded by the Court, including all appeals and all proceedings to bankruptcy.

As a fellow attorney -- when a corporation takes advantage of thousands of consumers, these type of clauses rarely hold water. Especially if the corporation is flexing their muscle on a clause that is tenuous at best. Again -- the media exposure for Disney is a nice leverage point that can be exploited to prevent Disney from seeking attorney fees. If this gets big enough, then it will hurt their direct sells...which could force them to reconsider their stance.

At the same time, DVC will likely just have the attorney's fees taken out of the maintenance fees, so it is somewhat a moot point.

 

[mustinjourney]

We’re talking about the same Disney that made a little daycare center remove a Mickey Mouse drawing from their wall, right?

trademark infringement is a completely different animal.

 

[mustinjourney]

I had a call today from someone in the Regulatory affairs office, V. was leading the call and there were 3 more people in the room; I feel honored (the website I've created might have drawn attention). *
It was a 30 minutes call and we hadn't the time to address all my concerns, so I have another call scheduled for next week. I haven't received any real answer, but I've started to present most of the questions. And I appreciated the call.

Most of the time today has been spent on the lockoff premium.

They told me that (brace yourself) demand for 1BR is much higher than 2BR (and of course studios, but she never spoke about one being in higher demand of the other). She told this like if they're flying off the shelves. So the lockoff premium has to re-balance this.
Since she was referring to higher demand, I've asked what is their definition of demand, what are they trying to balance with this reallocation. I've asked if it is how many rooms go into breakage and she said that no, it's how quickly room are booked and which ones have less availability.
Regarding the lockoff premium they told me that's like buying a package versus single items. At this point I was a bit frustrated: I imagined they didn't have much time and they were telling me very basic definitions (like resort balance and so on). I didn't want to be rude and interrupt but a lot of time was spent on explaining very obvious things, and the clock was ticking...

I asked about the definition of the one-to-one rule and why they think it doesn't apply to studios and 1BR. Now it was time for B. to be frustrated, I guess, because I've read them the definition of timeshare unit and the one-to-one rule and why I think it was relevant. He told he's very familiar with these definitions.
There was a misunderstanding because when I've nominated "timeshare unit" they thought I was talking about what they define as "Unit".
I also made an example about why I think the lockoff premium cannot be increased (because it can be exploited).
At this point I didn't receive an answer to this because we were already over 30 minutes, but V. said that B. took some "very good notes".

At this point V. asked if I could tell her what are my biggest concern so they could prepare for the next call.
I told her:
- the increase in the lockoff premium
- the fact that I do not think they're allowed to move points between different room sizes (as Drusba added recently, I said neither the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement" says so)
- that the balancing doesn't seem right, but I have added that I know they have the data and if she tells 1BR are in high demand there isn't much I can add
- the maximum reallocation: average for studios at some resorts is already over the value stated **

I have another appointment for next week.


* I do not know if it is allowed to name the people on the call here, but I'd rather avoid it and refer to people with their initials.
** I am not entirely convinced about this, but it would be interesting to have a comment on it anyway

I'm now really considering having a face to face conversation with these people.

 

[Wakey]

The issue re attorneys fees, they would have to be awarded first and I am unsure as to what circumstances a court awards the fees in the USA (I am in the U.K.).

Not only that, if there is alleged wrongdoing in any lawsuit (and I am not suggesting there has been, but just stating if there was a theoretical lawsuit alleging that) then surely the management board would each be a defendant to the legal action, and the legal action would centre on any alleged conflict of interest and the interaction with DVD. In those circumstances if proven, I would expect a costs order against the at fault parties, and a declaration that it is not to come from member’s fees. If DVCMC had breached the contract, they could not then claim an indemnity in the same contract, or at least not in the U.K. They would not be coming with ‘clean hands’ as we call it.

 

[Wakey]

I'm now really considering having a face to face conversation with these people.

I think you should if possible.

 

[zavandor]

Which, as written, clearly allows the change in question, a reallocation across the resort. And clearly the other information is that restrictions are to the full villas only.

Only if you ignore the second sentence:
If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights
The increase in studios and 1BR have not been balanced by a decrease anywhere else (or only partially, depending on resort). The increase in Grand Villas at VGF has not been balanced with a decrese in another night, but a decrease in another Vacation Home.

From time to time, the number of Vacation Points required to reserve a specific night in a particular Vacation Home may change. This "reallocation" occurs for various reasons, such as a change in pattern of member usage

Very very interesting.
@crvetter Could you please scan this page from the POS you have: Exhibit G, paragraph 3.3 Home Resort Vacation Point Reservation Values.
This paragraph describes why, when and how a reallocation can happen. If the interpretation has changes so much, I can image they must have changed the POS as well. Because in the SSR POS I have a reallocation is authorized only to balance members demand.

That the reason it looks like there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs is because there are more 1BRs available than 2BRs.

LOL
Thanks, I started the day with a good laugh.

(3) Other resorts the data we have collected is less than complete. I do have to say at SSR it may actually prove the 2BR are more available than 1BRs, but this so far seems to be the only resort.

I suspect it's because DVC deposits a lot of 1BR into RCI at SSR. At least, it's a plausible explanation for such anomaly.
I have told her that I've seen the charts published by someone who logged in every two weeks and checked year around availability, showing that 1BR are in much lower demand than 2BR.
Her reply (and I think I can quote word by word): "According to the data we have this is false".
Sorry

 

[TexasChick123]

I'm now really considering having a face to face conversation with these people.

PLEASE do it! This would be amazing!!!

 

[Dean]

Dean, you are far too generous.

Maybe, it is what it is.

Because they are the only sandbox in town. The alternative is a compromised Disney experience, smaller fastpass window, few opportunities to walk back to your room, or paying Disney rack rates.

This is what happens when you’re nursing an addiction and your connect offers bulk discount for that sweet, sweet magic they’ve cornered the market on.

Cry me a river, I know. Not looking for sympathy, just explaining that all these issues notwithstanding, DVC is still a (relatively) cheap way to do the fake castle. And for now, it’s still fun. No more illusions about membership magic or any of that marketing business for me, but yeah, I’ll take the cheaper room.

But DVC isn't the only way to get to Disney. As I said, there is zero chance I'm owning if I felt the way some here do even if I visited Disney. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind.

How do you assume they can gather data on owners settling on room types. This is not a system that anything is ranked as 1st choice, 2nd choice etc. Even waitlists are just there - no ranking. I also think you've indicated that searches also indicate demand? The online booking tool allows anyone to search ever day, every minute should they wish with zero meaning they are actually looking to book. There are bots that also search the information. The actual booking of rooms and remaining availability would seem to be a very valid indicator of demand - possibly the only indicator.

They have access to what people search for, what they ask for when they call, how many villas are booked and available and when they are booked, when they are completely gone, cancelation patterns, surveys and the like. They have access to it by day of year, day of week, season, across resorts, etc. I have no idea what data they actually used or had but these are all pieces of information they could have easily considered and gathered. The idea of simply a unit being available is a small piece of the puzzle but I realize it's all we have on this end.

Actually I disagree with 2 bedrooms needing to be decreased and with 1 bedrooms being increased, I also think they didn't adjust the seasons at all. The only thing I do agree with is studios increasing; and that hurts me personally, but I still agree with it. So from my point of view they only got 1 out 4 right, 25%, which if I was grading them would be a failure.

I don't have the data to know what needs to be done on the 2 BR but they increased smaller units and decreased 2 BR in many situations so I'm trying to look at it from their point and the info provided on the phone call suggests they feel they need to be adjusted.

I doubt that there are going to be any significant number of people moving up from studios and 1 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms. Most people don't have the points. I have a ton of points, but when I go there are only ever 2-3 of us. A studio works fine and a 1 bedroom is mores space than I need. They would have to reduce 2 bedrooms to close to the price of a 1 bedroom to make me look at it; wait they did that at SSR!

The average buyer these days can only afford a studio for a week. I don't think they are going to trade that for 2 days in a 2 bedroom.

It doesn't take a big move to even out all the points in question. I think it's a given some will make the move but I also wonder if we have yet to see all the changes in this area like enforcement of the technical occupancy of the 1 BR.

Only if you ignore the second sentence:
If Vacation Points for one specific night increase, it will be offset by a decrease on another night or nights
The increase in studios and 1BR have not been balanced by a decrease anywhere else (or only partially, depending on resort). The increase in Grand Villas at VGF has not been balanced with a decrese in another night, but a decrease in another Vacation Home.

For the quote post, which was my response, it doesn't say it must be by vacation home. The key parts are that it says the points may change, the points for a year (base year) can't change and that if the points for a vacation home changes they must be offset SOMEWHERE. It does not say that offset must be in the same villa type/size.

 

[Chuck S]

Sorry, this is apparently all my fault as I am a person that stays in a one bedroom, even for solo trips, far more often than I stay in studios or two bedrooms. Though later this year with a party of 5, I will be in a two bedroom lockoff. And on a trip a few years ago with 16 people we had two- two bedroom lockoffs and a one bedroom.

 

[Madame]

the quote post, which was my response, it doesn't say it must be by vacation home. The key parts are that it says the points may change, the points for a year (base year) can't change and that if the points for a vacation home changes they must be offset SOMEWHERE. It does not say that offset must be in the same villa type/size.

Let’s say we give you that point. As @drusba pointed out weeks ago, they did NOT decrease points on a DIFFERENT use day between vacation homes. They increased/decreased the SAME days. I think we are right and that was their interpretation from the beginning - increases/decreases must stay within a type of vacation home.

Then someone had the idea for PVB and saw the opportunity to sell studio points against those bungalows barely anyone can afford. So, they changed the wording and the meaning. You are ok with that. I’m not. & I am not such a defeatist that I’m willing to give up and sell. I don’t assume companies are always right and all powerful.

 

[drusba]

Very very interesting.
@crvetter Could you please scan this page from the POS you have: Exhibit G, paragraph 3.3 Home Resort Vacation Point Reservation Values.
This paragraph describes why, when and how a reallocation can happen. If the interpretation has changes so much, I can image they must have changed the POS as well. Because in the SSR POS I have a reallocation is authorized only to balance members demand.

I have the declarations and Membership Agreements for the resorts including CCV. The provisions relating to DVCMC's ability to make point changes are, in relevant part, the same. What has changed is the Product Disclosure document presented to new purchasers to provide Disney's understanding of the documents terms, which now does not say anything comprehensible about adjusting points. In other words, what has happened is that old DVC management believed that DVCMC's ability to make changes was limited to making seasonal changes and that is what it told customers in the Product Disclosure document. Now, more recent management, which apparently does not feel bound by prior representations, simply wants the Membership Agreement to mean whatever it wants it to mean, and it thought the clever way to accomplish that was to simply change the Product Disclosure document.

 

[glamdring269]

Sorry, this is apparently all my fault as I am a person that stays in a one bedroom, even for solo trips

You've ruined it for everyone Chuck!

 

[zavandor]

I have the declarations and Membership Agreements for the resorts including CCV. The provisions relating to DVCMC's ability to make point changes are, in relevant part, the same. What has changed is the Product Disclosure document presented to new purchasers to provide Disney's understanding of the documents terms, which now does not say anything comprehensible about adjusting points. In other words, what has happened is that old DVC management believed that DVCMC's ability to make changes was limited to making seasonal changes and that is what it told customers in the Product Disclosure document. Now, more recent management, which apparently does not feel bound by prior representations, simply wants the Membership Agreement to mean whatever it wants it to mean.

The POS stayed the same, but the Product Disclosure has been changed radically, from saying points can be reallocated only within the same vacation home to saying that a reallocation can happen for whatever reason. So the Product Disclosure was either misleading before the change or it is misleading now.
I will raise the point next week.