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

[skier_pete]

What about AKV, where Jambo House has ONLY lock-offs, and owners have deeded interests in units that are specific to Jambo House? Would that have any impact? (Oops, actually, I forgot that JH also has 8 dedicated studios in the value category.)

Jambo actually has 46 dedicated studios. (See Table in previous post.)

 

[Dean]

What about AKV, where Jambo House has ONLY lock-offs, and owners have deeded interests in units that are specific to Jambo House? Would that have any impact? (Oops, actually, I forgot that JH also has 8 dedicated studios in the value category.)

Plus Jambo and Kidani are actually one resort just like SSR and THV are one.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

There are no resorts where all of the villas are lockoff's. BWV all 2 BR are lockoff's but there are dedicated studio and 1 BR. At OKW there are a mix of 2 BR dedicated and lockoff's. Likewise there are no resorts without lockoff's that I can think of.

PVB rents only as studios and not in a combination so I don't believe the units there are considered lockoff's in the manner normally assumed. But they are unique with just studios and Bungalows.

 

[Dean]

PVB rents only as studios and not in a combination so I don't believe the units there are considered lockoff's in the manner normally assumed. But they are unique with just studios and Bungalows.

Good point thanks, I was forgetting about those.

 

[glamdring269]

I've followed this almost from the beginning but one point I can't quite remember is the following...

I know reallocations have occurred in the past (season and within a week). I know the lockoff premium has existed for some time now, basically already buried within our current point charts. Has there been an example in the past where they actually did what was done in 2020 or was this the first time? And what I'm referring to here is making the lock off premium obvious to everyone by increasing total points year over year.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've followed this almost from the beginning but one point I can't quite remember is the following...

I know reallocations have occurred in the past (season and within a week). I know the lockoff premium has existed for some time now, basically already buried within our current point charts. Has there been an example in the past where they actually did what was done in 2020 or was this the first time? And what I'm referring to here is making the lock off premium obvious to everyone by increasing total points year over year.

They did not do it with the 2010/11 revisions. I am uncertain about the one done in the mid 90's.

 

[drusba]

I've followed this almost from the beginning but one point I can't quite remember is the following...

I know reallocations have occurred in the past (season and within a week). I know the lockoff premium has existed for some time now, basically already buried within our current point charts. Has there been an example in the past where they actually did what was done in 2020 or was this the first time? And what I'm referring to here is making the lock off premium obvious to everyone by increasing total points year over year.

There was not anything of significance before 2009 -- a partial seasonal shifting of points at OKW effective 1996:

1. There was the two year point shift for 2010 and 2011 (first change came in a 2010 chart issued in early 2009). that lowered weekend days (Fri and Sat) and raised weekdays. It took two years to do the shift because the total change exceeded 20% per night and they cannot change any night more than 20% a year, but basically total points needed for a week in any room remain unchanged.

2. The 2011 charts also reflected a change for AKV that created more standard view rooms and lowered the number of savanna view rooms, with the result that nightly savanna view point costs went up for many times of the year to offset the increase in the number of standard view rooms. That one raised points for a view category and lowered them for another but did not raise an issue of increasing total points.

3. The 2012 charts showed a change for VGC with a significant increase in the number of premier and choice season days and a decrease in adventure and magic season days, but not an issue of raising total points.

4. The 2013 point charts reflected a significant change for SSR, where the treehouses went up about 15% year round and all other room categories had minor decreases to offset that increase. That reallocation comes close to type of reallocation DVC attempted to do with 2020 point chart, but on a much smaller scale, and there was not really an issue of changing total points for the resort. The 2013 charts also showed a change for BLT, where several rooms were reclassified as standard view from Theme Park view and the points taken out of those rooms were added to others elsewhere to offset the decrease.

5. The 2014 point charts changed Aulani by decreasing points needed for standard view GV's and increased ocean view GVs a little in all seasons and also shifted 14 days from choice to magic season, all apparently the result of the removal of a GV from the inventory and possibly some other rooms from inventory, and also possibly a change of some rooms from ocean view to lower point views.

6. The 2015 point charts reflected changes at Aulani made to add the hotel rooms to the inventory. At Vero some ocean view inn rooms were reclassified as lower-point cost garden view rooms, with the excess points going mainly to the 3BR's in dream and choice seasons. Thus to some extent that was also similar to the 2020 point change attempt, although its purpose was simply to change the classification of certain rooms.

7. The 2016 charts were released with changes to Aulani significantly lowering the number of choice and magic season days, while raising the number of premier and adventure season days.

8. The 2017 charts made a major change to SSR by creating standard and preferred room categories, where before all were considered the same category. The result was to raise the points for rooms in two of the areas (Congress Park and Springs) while lowering then for rooms in the rest of the areas. That involved lowering and raising points between the same-sized rooms.


9. For the 2018 BWV chart, points went up a little in Premier season for preferred view (pool/garden and boardwalk view) 2BRs with no noticeable offset elsewhere on the chart, but DVC explained it, stating three rooms were changed from preferred to standard view and the excess points created by that move were added to the premiere season for 2BRs.


Personal view is that at least some of those changes starting with the 2010 point charts should not have been made, and I actually thought someone would sue over the SSR changes -- before the treehouse change, they were the same cost as the SSR 2BRs, and had been sold by emhasizing they had three bedrooms but would cost the same points per night as the SSR 2BRs; as to the preferred/standard change at SSR, there was nothing in the POS that even hinted that DVC could create preferred and standard categories with different point structures, without having included those classifications in the POS..

 

[Bearval]

There was not anything of significance before 2009 -- a partial seasonal shifting of points at OKW effective 1996:

1. There was the two year point shift for 2010 and 2011 (first change came in a 2010 chart issued in early 2009). that lowered weekend days (Fri and Sat) and raised weekdays. It took two years to do the shift because the total change exceeded 20% per night and they cannot change any night more than 20% a year, but basically total points needed for a week in any room remain unchanged.

2. The 2011 charts also reflected a change for AKV that created more standard view rooms and lowered the number of savanna view rooms, with the result that nightly savanna view point costs went up for many times of the year to offset the increase in the number of standard view rooms. That one raised points for a view category and lowered them for another but did not raise an issue of increasing total points.

3. The 2012 charts showed a change for VGC with a significant increase in the number of premier and choice season days and a decrease in adventure and magic season days, but not an issue of raising total points.

4. The 2013 point charts reflected a significant change for SSR, where the treehouses went up about 15% year round and all other room categories had minor decreases to offset that increase. That reallocation comes close to type of reallocation DVC attempted to do with 2020 point chart, but on a much smaller scale, and there was not really an issue of changing total points for the resort. The 2013 charts also showed a change for BLT, where several rooms were reclassified as standard view from Theme Park view and the points taken out of those rooms were added to others elsewhere to offset the decrease.

5. The 2014 point charts changed Aulani by decreasing points needed for standard view GV's and increased ocean view GVs a little in all seasons and also shifted 14 days from choice to magic season, all apparently the result of the removal of a GV from the inventory and possibly some other rooms from inventory, and also possibly a change of some rooms from ocean view to lower point views.

6. The 2015 point charts reflected changes at Aulani made to add the hotel rooms to the inventory. At Vero some ocean view inn rooms were reclassified as lower-point cost garden view rooms, with the excess points going mainly to the 3BR's in dream and choice seasons. Thus to some extent that was also similar to the 2020 point change attempt, although its purpose was simply to change the classification of certain rooms.

7. The 2016 charts were released with changes to Aulani significantly lowering the number of choice and magic season days, while raising the number of premier and adventure season days.

8. The 2017 charts made a major change to SSR by creating standard and preferred room categories, where before all were considered the same category. The result was to raise the points for rooms in two of the areas (Congress Park and Springs) while lowering then for rooms in the rest of the areas. That involved lowering and raising points between the same-sized rooms.


9. For the 2018 BWV chart, points went up a little in Premier season for preferred view (pool/garden and boardwalk view) 2BRs with no noticeable offset elsewhere on the chart, but DVC explained it, stating three rooms were changed from preferred to standard view and the excess points created by that move were added to the premiere season for 2BRs.


Personal view is that at least some of those changes starting with the 2010 point charts should not have been made, and I actually thought someone would sue over the SSR changes -- before the treehouse change, they were the same cost as the SSR 2BRs, and had been sold by emhasizing they had three bedrooms but would cost the same points per night as the SSR 2BRs; as to the preferred/standard change at SSR, there was nothing in the POS that even hinted that DVC could create preferred and standard categories with different point structures, without having included those classifications in the POS..

I think one of the reasons DVD may have backed off of the changes to the 2020 point charts could be that they did not want to "open up a can of worms" with a lawsuit that could have discovered some past changes they made may have not been proper (your last bullet items statement) and now require them to be rolled back too if they lost.

 

[mikebb]

There was not anything of significance before 2009 -- a partial seasonal shifting of points at OKW effective 1996:

...snip...

8. The 2017 charts made a major change to SSR by creating standard and preferred room categories, where before all were considered the same category. The result was to raise the points for rooms in two of the areas (Congress Park and Springs) while lowering then for rooms in the rest of the areas. That involved lowering and raising points between the same-sized rooms.

...snip...

Personal view is that at least some of those changes starting with the 2010 point charts should not have been made, and I actually thought someone would sue over the SSR changes -- before the treehouse change, they were the same cost as the SSR 2BRs, and had been sold by emhasizing they had three bedrooms but would cost the same points per night as the SSR 2BRs; as to the preferred/standard change at SSR, there was nothing in the POS that even hinted that DVC could create preferred and standard categories with different point structures, without having included those classifications in the POS..

The preferred/standard change for SSR is an interesting point indeed. I've been trying to keep up with this thread, but have not heard it mentioned here before. It sounds to me that if people believe Disney violated some contract terms by reallocating points between units (or types, ala bungalows/studios at POLY) that this precedent was really set back in 2017 when Disney did the new categories and corresponding reallocations at SSR.

I do not recall much outrage over reallocating points between units at that time, perhaps because it did not substantively impact as many people. Indeed the "spirit" of the arrangement could be argued to be maintained (after all my XX SSR points still get me YY days in a ZZ type of unit), but in reality my fractional ownership of unit ZZ does indeed change with the preferred/standard category additions - some owners may have come out ahead while others have lost. Any experts to chime in here?

 

[bobbiwoz]

I was quite happy that SSR was divided into standard and preferred. I always thought SSR should be similar to OKW. Even though I almost always book Congress Park, I was good.

 

[Donna M]

No expert here, but I own at SSR and didn't have a problem with the change to category. The Carousel section was just about everyone's last choice. Now, if you want to use less points you realize that you won't be up close to the main area or DS.

 

[skier_pete]

I do not recall much outrage over reallocating points between units at that time, perhaps because it did not substantively impact as many people. Indeed the "spirit" of the arrangement could be argued to be maintained (after all my XX SSR points still get me YY days in a ZZ type of unit), but in reality my fractional ownership of unit ZZ does indeed change with the preferred/standard category additions - some owners may have come out ahead while others have lost. Any experts to chime in here?

No expert here, but I own at SSR and didn't have a problem with the change to category. The Carousel section was just about everyone's last choice. Now, if you want to use less points you realize that you won't be up close to the main area or DS.

I think there's also a GOOD argument with the SSR reclassification of standard/preferred that it benefits the members. It made 60% of the resort cheaper to book, while making the more popular locations that people would request most more expensive.

As @drusba said - the Treehouse re-allocation is probably the closest to something that raised the ire of members - but even that was a re-allocation of existing points.

Based on what @drusba lists - it doesn't look like they have ever tried to create additional points by raising the lock-off premium. And I still think THAT'S the reason they pulled back - questionable legality. As I've said earlier in the thread - creating a lock-off premium at a new resort for sale is not the same as CHANGING the points distribution. The former is establishing point charts - you know it exists coming in. The latter creates points - increasing point costs for a majority of members and benefiting few of them. I still believe that regardless of what it does or does not say in the POS - that this is of questionable legality, and may well be the reason they peeled back the charts. It's still hard to know whether it was through ignorance or intentional.

 

[mikebb]

I think there's also a GOOD argument with the SSR reclassification of standard/preferred that it benefits the members. It made 60% of the resort cheaper to book, while making the more popular locations that people would request most more expensive.

As @drusba said - the Treehouse re-allocation is probably the closest to something that raised the ire of members - but even that was a re-allocation of existing points.

Based on what @drusba lists - it doesn't look like they have ever tried to create additional points by raising the lock-off premium. And I still think THAT'S the reason they pulled back - questionable legality. As I've said earlier in the thread - creating a lock-off premium at a new resort for sale is not the same as CHANGING the points distribution. The former is establishing point charts - you know it exists coming in. The latter creates points - increasing point costs for a majority of members and benefiting few of them. I still believe that regardless of what it does or does not say in the POS - that this is of questionable legality, and may well be the reason they peeled back the charts. It's still hard to know whether it was through ignorance or intentional.

Don't get me wrong, as an SSR owner I'm not complaining either. Just wondering if one of the tenets of this year's allocation complaints has precedent/similarities in what was done at SSR. Put another way, I think one of the key arguments against reallocation was that Disney was only "allowed" to reallocate across seasons, not units. And in SSR by creating a new booking category they were effectively reallocating across units.

And again, this is more akin to moving bungalow points at Poly to Studios, rather than the manufacturing of points via the lockoff premium. However, I know if I was an owner at Poly I'd be just as riled at that type of reallocation as I would be as an owner of another resort who (was) getting hosed by the lockoff premium shenanigans.

 

[skier_pete]

Don't get me wrong, as an SSR owner I'm not complaining either. Just wondering if one of the tenets of this year's allocation complaints has precedent/similarities in what was done at SSR. Put another way, I think one of the key arguments against reallocation was that Disney was only "allowed" to reallocate across seasons, not units. And in SSR by creating a new booking category they were effectively reallocating across units.

And again, this is more akin to moving bungalow points at Poly to Studios, rather than the manufacturing of points via the lockoff premium. However, I know if I was an owner at Poly I'd be just as riled at that type of reallocation as I would be as an owner of another resort who (was) getting hosed by the lockoff premium shenanigans.

The reallocation across units has happened many times. As @drusba pointed out, the changed some unit designations at AKV, BLT, and BWV. I doubt that Disney was particularly worried about THAT particular change. I didn't check - did they rollback the Poly changes as well? I assume they did.

 

[drusba]

The reallocation across units has happened many times. As @drusba pointed out, the changed some unit designations at AKV, BLT, and BWV. I doubt that Disney was particularly worried about THAT particular change. I didn't check - did they rollback the Poly changes as well? I assume they did.

From what I can tell. the new point charts, including Poly, have returned to the 2019 charts except for normal variations due to changing dates of Easter and Thanksgiving. The SSR change to standard/preferred was probably not challenged because most people either liked it or accepted it as needed, although obviously the need for the change was caused by DVD's decision to give SSR a higher point structure than OKW in the first place, when it should have been closer to OKW.

However, I still do not know how DVC could do the change without first changing the POS and the DVC Membership Agreement to allow for it (and give proper notice of those changes).The SSR POS and Membership Agreement that existed right before that change mentioned nothing about being able to create different point preferred and standard classes, and the reallocation provision spoke only of rooms that had no view classes and the maximum reallocation provision and its guaranteed points for a night was still based on only one class of rooms. I had assumed DVC may have actually changed the POS but thus far I have not found anything to indicate that. The changes at AKV, BLT and BWV which changed some rooms to standard at least had the separate classifications as part of the original POS, but SSR never did. If the SSR POS/membership agreement has not been changed, then what you currently have is a point structure at SSR that is contradicted by the terms of the POS and membership agreement. For example, how could DVCMC claim any right to do any reallocation now based on that agreement since it does not even address the existing preferred and standard rooms at SSR, but instead addresses a class of room that no longer exists at SSR.

 

[drusba]

And adding another point to what is now past. There is another reason why the claim made by DVC that the maximum reallocation provision applied only to the first year is pure fantasy. As I mentioned before, you get two years of point charts when the resort opens, the existing year and the next year and thus one cannot possibly do a maximum reallocation before the third year. The additional point is that DVC cannot possibly do a maximum reallocation even then, and even until after a number of years, because any point change made in a year cannot be more than 20% per night, meaning if you take any given exisiting point chart, it would take at least a few years of point changes to even get to a maximum reallocation.

 

[Dean]

I think there's also a GOOD argument with the SSR reclassification of standard/preferred that it benefits the members. It made 60% of the resort cheaper to book, while making the more popular locations that people would request most more expensive.

As @drusba said - the Treehouse re-allocation is probably the closest to something that raised the ire of members - but even that was a re-allocation of existing points.

Based on what @drusba lists - it doesn't look like they have ever tried to create additional points by raising the lock-off premium. And I still think THAT'S the reason they pulled back - questionable legality. As I've said earlier in the thread - creating a lock-off premium at a new resort for sale is not the same as CHANGING the points distribution. The former is establishing point charts - you know it exists coming in. The latter creates points - increasing point costs for a majority of members and benefiting few of them. I still believe that regardless of what it does or does not say in the POS - that this is of questionable legality, and may well be the reason they peeled back the charts. It's still hard to know whether it was through ignorance or intentional.

I'd point out that the requirement to be for the benefit of the majority of members doesn't apply to reallocations if it meets the other criteria. It could help 10% and hurt 90% and still be within guidelines.

 

[glamdring269]

If I had to guess I think they were worried that what they did might not be legal. Not a lot of time left before the 11 month window opened so basically they were backed into a corner of rolling the dice that things would work out well for them or punt and take the next several months to review their options.

The reason I asked the question about previous allocation changes was to see if raising points across the board via the lockoff premium, in an already established resort, has actually been a lever they had used before. It seems as if this hasn't happened in the past unless I'm misreading or overlooking one of the examples provided by @drusba . This brings us back to the marketing material they have been using. It wouldn't shock me to learn that 99 out of 100 DVC owners (or more) believe exactly what I believed: If a point goes up somewhere then another point must go down elsewhere in order to evenly offset. Why would most people believe that? Because that's what they told us. Directly in sales pitches. Directly in marketing ads. etc.

 

[Spartan86]

I'd point out that the requirement to be for the benefit of the majority of members doesn't apply to reallocations if it meets the other criteria. It could help 10% and hurt 90% and still be within guidelines.

I’m a 10%’er. Don’t lower the points on my 1BR’s

 

[tjkraz]

So why do you think Disney rolled back the point reallocation?

(1) member complaints
(2) fear of bad publicity
(3) fear that a lawsuit would show the reallocation doesn't benefit the members, but does benefit Disney
(4) fear that a lawsuit would show that the data doesn't support the change
(5) higher ups didn't realize what the underlings had done and didn't want to screw over members that badly
(6) fear that a lawsuit would show that points can only be reallocated within the legal units as they were sold not across the entire resort
(7) something else

I'm hoping #5 is the case. Per the characterizations posted here, Yvonne Chang seemed completely ignorant of the situation. Either she was asleep at the wheel or somebody left her out of the conspiracy (or both.)

Reallocating the charts would require coordination between an actuary/data analyst and a variety of other departments within DVC. Legal should be advising them on relevant contractual provisions. Operations should offer guidance to understand availability data & trends. The most optimistic outlook is that communication lines broke down and the charts were constructed without properly vetting them through all of these channels.

If we believe that the charts were part of a conspiracy to bilk owners out of millions in value, then we're truly lost. These are the same people who have control over annual dues calculations, resort availability and every other aspect of the program. If their intention is to screw owners at every turn, we will never have the resources to challenge it.