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

[Sammie]

I can't believe someone would accuse Dean of being a DVC employee, consultant, or unpaid plant on this board. Just because someone actually read their contract and understands what they bought and also know that DVC is audited by outside agencies and held to laws that govern such, does not make one a plant. It makes them intelligent.

Comments such as these are the main reason I am not very active on this forum anymore. Sadly I see it has not changed..

They might have backed off the changes for now, but they will align them again at some point and as stated in the email they have the legal right to that. I feel certain if a battle was won it will be at best temporary and I don't think the war will be won. At worst you have kicked a sleeping bear.

 

[Wakey]

I can't believe someone would accuse Dean of being a DVC employee, consultant, or unpaid plant on this board. Just because someone actually read their contract and understands what they bought and also know that DVC is audited by outside agencies and held to laws that govern such, does not make one a plant. It makes them intelligent.

Comments such as these are the main reason I am not very active on this forum anymore. Sadly I see it has not changed..

They might have backed off the changes for now, but they will align them again at some point and as stated in the email they have the legal right to that. I feel certain if a battle was won it will be at best temporary and I don't think the war will be won. At worst you have kicked a sleeping bear.

You are accepting their claims of having a legal right to do what they did on face value, I think most on this thread are not of that view.

 

[Dean]

You are accepting their claims of having a legal right to do what they did on face value, I think most on this thread are not of that view.

It's not face value it's reading the POS and FL statutes that prove they have the right to make changes including reallocation between villa sizes.

(Off-topic: Am I the only one that could see them moving a high point season window to early October for the 50th anniversary in 2021. They wouldn't really NEED to do it, but I sort of think that they might.)

I don't see them adjusting for an individual event, too much work and not needed.

 

[Madame]

I don’t believe they can patch up legal vulnerabilities re the lockoff premium. There are duties there they cannot overcome, both in the POS, what would be a huge misselling issue (it’s also all over Facebook what people say they were told by guides), and DVCMCs fiduciary duty in the benefit of members.
I think if they tried the lockoff premium again, given all the groundwork that has been done on here already, I think it wouldn’t take a month to get to the stage of members going to lawyers.
I suggested above and people seem to agree, maybe 1 to 2 points on a studio, but only if there is exactly the same reduction in one beds, and Oct to Dec up a bit, but only if there is exactly the same points deductions elsewhere (probably summer) would be the only fiddling with the points that make any sense.

I so hope you’re right!

 

[Bing Showei]

I suggested above and people seem to agree, maybe 1 to 2 points on a studio, but only if there is exactly the same reduction in one beds, and Oct to Dec up a bit, but only if there is exactly the same points deductions elsewhere (probably summer) would be the only fiddling with the points that make any sense.

Sure, the sort of reallocation you describe makes sense to me and others on this board, but in order for anyone to believe this is something Disney would ever do, in lieu of what they tried to do, one has to assume first that they made a mistake with this last reallocation (in the sense that there was a miscalculation or misreading of data).

I don’t believe that’s what happened. I believe the noise generated put a lot of unwanted scrutiny on the present legal foundations on their changes. My guess is it may be something around balancing between units that zavandor identified. Not that Disney hasn’t done it in the past, but rather, they need to change the POS to allow it more explicitly; change language to establish once and for all that they can do this. They've done it for years.

Unfortunately, this probably has nothing to do with lockoff premiums. As members, few of us like Disney's ability to do this without limit, but the reality is when buying in, we've ceded to Disney the right to do so. All Disney has to do is find the justification to make that happen. I think the biggest obstacle in the last attempt was justifying 1BR increases.

But say for the next 2-3 years, they raise the price of studios by some maximum each year(assuming there actually is one). At some point, this will push demand of 1BRs up as people who can afford to will book those instead of studios with the smaller gap. 1BRs could then arguably be raised to even out address that new demand. Optics notwithstanding, all of this would be legal.

Noise we made here was potentially bad press, but it was only potentially bad press because they were not prepared for it. This is what I mean that they will regroup to bolster their position to do this. All we've done is the dirty work of their lawyers in terms of identifying where the issues are that they need to address before being able to move forward.

They might have backed off the changes for now, but they will align them again at some point and as stated in the email they have the legal right to that. I feel certain if a battle was won it will be at best temporary and I don't think the war will be won. At worst you have kicked a sleeping bear.

I couldn't muster the strength to "like" this quote, but this is exactly what I suspect will happen.

 

[skier_pete]

It's not face value it's reading the POS and FL statutes that prove they have the right to make changes including reallocation between villa sizes.

I still think it comes down to "benefit of the members". It's a real stretch to say raising lock-off premiums by raising studios AND one bedrooms benefit a majority of the members.As you've said yourself, they have a fiduciary responsibility to us. And while it doesn't have to benefit ALL members, it at least has to help more than it hurts, or on balance even out. (For instance, the idea of reallocation across seasons...its a sum zero balance.) Raising studios and 1-beds without an equal discount in 2-bed hurts a lot of members while helping very few.

It could well be that once they got all these complaints, they passed these by the lawyers with a focus on that clause. Sure, all the changes were legal in the POS sense, but not legal in the "benefit the members" sense. When they realized they were looking at a lawsuit that they could potentially LOSE, it suddenly became smart to roll back the changes based on "member feedback". Of course this is just opinion, but it's based on the logic. As you said, if they didn't really break any of the legal requirements, then why roll it back?

It's why I think that we won't see them do the same thing next year. They will (I hope) take a closer look at the changes in regards to its effect on members. For instance, maybe they will raise studios and lower 1-bids, but in a way where the lockoff premium goes up slightly, but not enough to get people riled.

I do in fact believe that if they raised studios slightly and lowered 1-bedrooms slightly, it WOULD benefit the members as a whole. I think you'd see more people wanting to book 1-beds instead of studios, which would in turn free up studios. The higher point price on studios would also mean people booking in them couldn't book for as long, which would also free up availability. Yes, it would hurt some members, including myself, but I can easily see the overall benefit and it would improve things at every resort. It might even mean getting studios at 7 months aren't so hard, which even benefits those whose point premium was raised.

 

[Madame]

Sure, the sort of reallocation you describe makes sense to me and others on this board, but in order for anyone to believe this is something Disney would ever do, in lieu of what they tried to do, one has to assume first that they made a mistake with this last reallocation (in the sense that there was a miscalculation or misreading of data).

I don’t believe that’s what happened. I believe the noise generated put a lot of unwanted scrutiny on the present legal foundations on their changes. My guess is it may be something around balancing between units that zavandor identified. Not that Disney hasn’t done it in the past, but rather, they need to change the POS to allow it more explicitly; change language to establish once and for all that they can do this. They've done it for years.

Unfortunately, this probably has nothing to do with lockoff premiums. As members, few of us like Disney's ability to do this without limit, but the reality is when buying in, we've ceded to Disney the right to do so. All Disney has to do is find the justification to make that happen. I think the biggest obstacle in the last attempt was justifying 1BR increases.

But say for the next 2-3 years, they raise the price of studios by some maximum each year(assuming there actually is one). At some point, this will push demand of 1BRs up as people who can afford to will book those instead of studios with the smaller gap. 1BRs could then arguably be raised to even out address that new demand. Optics notwithstanding, all of this would be legal.

Noise we made here was potentially bad press, but it was only potentially bad press because they were not prepared for it. This is what I mean that they will regroup to bolster their position to do this. All we've done is the dirty work of their lawyers in terms of identifying where the issues are that they need to address before being able to move forward.

I couldn't muster the strength to "like" this quote, but this is exactly what I suspect will happen.

For me the “proof” that this was not some sort of miscalculation was the chosen seasons for the lowering of 2 bds. They lowered magic for a reason, because DVC-wise it is a low season. Partly because of points, partly because of crowds so something does need to be done there (whether it’s a dramatic slashing of 2bds or not is seriously questionable).

But did they touch those first 2 wks in Dec? THE highest demand period for DVC across the board. Everyone can agree on that. In my mind, they didn’t shift that season (which desperately needs it) almost as if doing so would draw attention & scrutiny & outrage of too many long time members & they just wanted us to accept the changes & go back to sleep.

I’d wager quite a bit that in 2021 they’ll hit fall hard, then the answers to complaints will be “Well, we tried to address demand in the 2020 chart and we responded to member feedback against it. This is the only other option.” Admittedly I am a full blown glass 1/2 empty, negative Nelly type, but I’d bet quite a bit...

 

[E2ME2]

Dean -
Not a "bad joke", but a very memorable line by Robert Redford! I'm honestly confused over the recent rise in points, and I'm not sure if I've been hoodwinked or not ??
I know it's a little discouraging to see your number of vacation nights decrease as your yearly maintenance fees increase; that's a double whammy!

Boiling down the immediate impact to my "double whammy" (isolated case based on our personal plans for 2020).
We plan to take the whole family of 9 (Me&DW/DD&SIL&3Grands/DS&DIL) and book the 3BR-GV at SSR,
& this has been a long-time goal since we purchased DVC in 2011, when DD was carrying Granddaughter #1
Last year my MFs were $5.86PP X 250 P = $1,465 annually
This year my MFs are $6.40PP X 250 P = $1,600 annually
That’s a 9.25% increase ($135 Net)

2019 Points chart for 3BR-GV-Standard View = 464
2020 Points chart for 3BR-GV-Standard View = 501
That’s an 8% increase (37Points Net)

Combined impact:
Last year 464 Points at $5.86PP = $2,719.04 for 1 week in that 3BR-GV
This year 501 Points at $6.40PP = $3,206.40 for 1 week in that same 3BR-GV
That’s an increase of 18% ($487.36 Net) and there's the "Double Whammy" !

Still gets me a 3BR-GV at $458/Night, but would have been only $388/Night last year.
Not enough to deter me from future DVC vacation planning for the family, but enough to make me rethink buying additional points, or doing more research to see if there might be less-expensive alternatives for our winters in Florida, long term......[/QUOTE]



REPLY: (Sorry - I replied to my own post from early January for reference)
WOW - I was in SSR using my DVC points when all this took place. I had no idea the DVC Point Charts had a Walmart "RollBack" Moment until I returned on 1/26!
The only thing I became aware of while at SSR was the rule change that took place on 1/19, regarding the ability to transfer points between only the existing 14 DVC resorts, when buying resale. I'm waiting to see if this has an impact on the resale prices. I've been thinking about buying AKL - resale, and would take advantage in a dip in the AKL resale price if it happens. I was pleasantly surprised at this rollback for, as I posted before I left, I was looking at an 18% uptick on our 2020 plans for the 3BR -GV. Now it's back to 464 points at SSR, saving me 37 points. I have not read through all of these posts to catch up on the sequence of events; was there a DVC epiphany that they had made a mistake, or was it an un-trumpeted event to just slip in a revised point chart before 2/1 ??
Is it the collective opinion that DVC yielded to the owner's pushback on this forum? I'd really like to uncover that Paul Harvey moment and get "the rest of the story" on this one Anybody close enough to the issue to share those insights ??

 

[disneynutz]

DVD/DVC's job is to make Disney money, period. They will modify, adjust, change the rules, restrict, what ever it takes to sell DVC contracts. Do they make mistakes, history tells us yes, do they go to far and get caught, Aulani tells us yes. They have a reason for everything they do, we aren't told why and we don't always pay attention because they do such a great PR job, all they have to do is send us a DVC magnet.

Bill

 

[skier_pete]

Is it the collective opinion that DVC yielded to the owner's pushback on this forum? I'd really like to uncover that Paul Harvey moment and get "the rest of the story" on this one Anybody close enough to the issue to share those insights ??

Without going into details - Disney claims that the changes were on the up-and-up, but "member feedback" was the reason they rolled the charts back. Many of us don't believe this to be the case, and believe they looked at the changes a little closer and found something that could lead to a valid suit against the company. Whether that's true or what that would've been is anyone's guess. Most of us I would say also anticipate some sort of similar change being implemented in 2021. For now 2020 appears safe.

 

[E2ME2]

Without going into details - Disney claims that the changes were on the up-and-up, but "member feedback" was the reason they rolled the charts back. Many of us don't believe this to be the case, and believe they looked at the changes a little closer and found something that could lead to a valid suit against the company. Whether that's true or what that would've been is anyone's guess. Most of us I would say also anticipate some sort of similar change being implemented in 2021. For now 2020 appears safe.

Thanks for the synopsis! We really do have to re-assess our DVC strategy on a year-by-year basis.
I'm still on the fence about asking our kids if they want to be on the deed, or if I should just sell when I'm at the point of diminishing use ???
I'm waiting to see their reaction after we all vacation together in 2020 in a 3BR-GV.
My thoughts are mostly around the benefit to our grandkids, who are only 2, 4, & 6 years old. It could be a definite savings for their future Disney vacations.
Thanks again for the update!

 

[Matty B13]

I'm guessing the "data" that they were using was pretty flimsy to justify this reallocation and they knew it, but thought that they wouldn't be questioned on it. Thankfully Skier_pete and others have kept up with the availability of all the units, and we aren't just using anecdotal data.

Good job guys!

 

[ziravan]

DVD/DVC's job is to make Disney money, period. They will modify, adjust, change the rules, restrict, what ever it takes to sell DVC contracts. Do they make mistakes, history tells us yes, do they go to far and get caught, Aulani tells us yes. They have a reason for everything they do, we aren't told why and we don't always pay attention because they do such a great PR job, all they have to do is send us a DVC magnet.

Bill

DVD’s job is to make money.

DVC makes money but it’s job is to work in the interest of owners.

 

[ziravan]

Without going into details - Disney claims that the changes were on the up-and-up, but "member feedback" was the reason they rolled the charts back. Many of us don't believe this to be the case, and believe they looked at the changes a little closer and found something that could lead to a valid suit against the company. Whether that's true or what that would've been is anyone's guess. Most of us I would say also anticipate some sort of similar change being implemented in 2021. For now 2020 appears safe.

It’s more than they determined that it could lead to a valid suit. My experience with big companies is they push the limits frequently because they’re insulated with the whole “team of lawyers” and figure must people will be too intimidated to sue.

I firmly believe that an ongoing and popular thread discussing the merits of a suit convinced them that the possibility of a suit this time was much higher.

I’m not so sure the equation here is that they determined that there was a liability if sued, but rather, they determined that there was a higher likelihood of actually being sued.

 

[Madame]

DVD’s job is to make money.

DVC makes money but it’s job is to work in the interest of owners.

Yes & The Disney company counts on members not knowing or forgetting the difference.

 

[disneynutz]

DVD’s job is to make money.

DVC makes money but it’s job is to work in the interest of owners.

I don't agree, DVC's job is to make their bosses happy and get a paycheck. They do what they are told, I don't believe that they are under any obligation to work in the interests of the owners.

Bill

 

[intertile]

I didn't post to this thread, but after re-reading the POS i realized(or was of the opinion) that what they did was within their legal right. (Call it my opinion, dont argue it. You can have yours.)

So why the about face? It comes down to DVC sales practice, Fl and USA contract law, and precedent.

This case would never have been Joe Smith owner vs DVD. A law firm would have contracted 1000's of owners and petitioned class action status. (Some firm would have taken the case and been paid by a % of the settlement) This is what Disney feared. A class action lawsuit would bring heavy negative press against Disney. On top of that there is a degree of culpability here that is probable. I've seen more than one person type "the Point charts dont change, there can be an increase in one area, but there must be an equal decrease". This was said to me when I first purchased DVC from my salesperson, as it was also apparently said to others. I'm thinking that it is in their training videos/scripts. That is something that would easily come out in discovery. That shows intent to deceive. Based on the precedent set in 2009 when banks were held liable for predatory lending practices...I could see Disney losing millions. Not to mention the bad press and consumer confidence lost(they still have to sell VWL2, Riviera, River country,etc).
Legal looked at this and said we could easily lose hundreds of millions in a lawsuit, and even more in future sales...just to make an extra 40-50m. Not worth it.

Now, that doesn't mean they won't try it again...just now it will be more subtle. For example, I saw a 20 point increase on my typical vacation. Well, I'll probably see a 2 point increase in 2021, and then another the following year. They'll do a better job of making it in the future.

For now, i'm happy that people spoke up.

 

[Bearval]

It’s more than they determined that it could lead to a valid suit. My experience with big companies is they push the limits frequently because they’re insulated with the whole “team of lawyers” and figure must people will be too intimidated to sue.

I firmly believe that an ongoing and popular thread discussing the merits of a suit convinced them that the possibility of a suit this time was much higher.

I’m not so sure the equation here is that they determined that there was a liability if sued, but rather, they determined that there was a higher likelihood of actually being sued.

It would have not been in DVDs best interest to have a lawsuit against them. If they did lose they would be legally bound to follow the outcome.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

If needed in the future here is exhibit "A"

The most important part is at 10mins 30secs to 11mins. Regardless of what the fine print says this says all that needs to be said to a jury for Disney to be worried.

 

[E2ME2]

If needed in the future here is exhibit "A"

The most important part is at 10mins 30secs to 11mins. Regardless of what the fine print says this says all that needs to be said to a jury for Disney to be worried.

AWESOME SAUCE - This captures the salient points, and is definitely better than hearsay evidence!