$95 Fee?

[amomma23]

I was just browsing some DVC rentals available on eBay. A few of the listings mentioned this $95 fee that would be collected at check-in. I don't remember seeing this listed on the rent/transfer boards here. Is that legit? What is it?

[Tink10]

If you see a $95 fee, it means it's an RCI rental...Which is against the terms & conditions of RCI.

I wouldn't do it...there's a chance you may show up and not have a ressie.

[spiceycat]

those should be about half price what a dvc member would charge.

[JimMIA]

Originally Posted by Tink10

If you see a $95 fee, it means it's an RCI rental...Which is against the terms & conditions of RCI.

I wouldn't do it...there's a chance you may show up and not have a ressie.

Exactly right. DVC does not charge a $95 fee for rentals from a DVC owner. The only situation where a $95 fee would be collected would be if the reservation were an exchange through RCI.

Renting RCI exchanges violates the rules of both RCI and DVC. If detected - and it's brain-dead simple to detect by either company - the likely response is to simply cancel the reservation. You arrive, and are told, "Too bad, so sad, you got had."

Renting a DVC reservation on eBay involving a $95 fee at checking is one of the most risky rentals you would ever do.

[amomma23]

To be honest I had no intentions of renting from anyone on ebay. I just searched out of curiosity. It struck me as strange and I had never seen a fee before in a rental listing. Thanks for the replies. Good to know!

[Lil' Grumpy]

what good is it when dvc does nothing to stop it?

it just like the parking.....& because they don't, the guests are
forced to park in the back or do active problem solving by
reporting & waiting for the tow truck.

[dianeschlicht]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

what good is it when dvc does nothing to stop it?

it just like the parking.....& because they don't, the guests are
forced to park in the back or do active problem solving by
reporting & waiting for the tow truck.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. I don't recall anything being asked about parking.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

what good is it when dvc does nothing to stop it?

it just like the parking.....& because they don't, the guests are
forced to park in the back or do active problem solving by
reporting & waiting for the tow truck.

It's not DVC's concern, it's only a concern of RCI. You forget that these units are already gone to DVC members, they now belong to RCI. The only question is who is staying in the unit that is NOT a DVC owner or at least not using their points to do so. RCI is fairly active in policing this area but they can't get everything. While it may (really doesn't) hurt RCI, there is absolutely no harm to DVC or it's members. Actually the reverse if someone ends up buying as a result of a single trip.

[Lil' Grumpy]

i disagree.

we pay the dues.

as for the other part, i think dvc should be required to show
that for example a blt owner made a trade in & not just
another resort and /or that they are not just adding
their own inventory.

like to see exactly what all the conditions/benefits dvc
owners are getting and/or additional money exchanges
the dvc co. are getting. ( of course, i think these are
2 different values ).

oh, fyi~ when we stayed @ blt the first time, i spent some
time socializing with other guests that were staying there
under different "combinations"--liked certain co. benefits,
..eh, some inside disney connections. thought it was very
interesting & they didn't mind talking.

it just like some posters here, trying to work their rci trades
to do big family events....while that makes sense, "others"
i think are for holding dom-like parties. i remember seeing
some "playboy" liked parties, that made me concern by the
damages being reported from the workers.

but i get your point, if it is up to rci to take actions, & dvc
to monitor their actions if they do not stop it- then dvc
needs to stop the rci connection.

i really respect your input. i think your advice is as solid
as concrete. ( i listen to it a lot.).

so why isn't rci stopping them?

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

i disagree.

we pay the dues.

as for the other part, i think dvc should be required to show
that for example a blt owner made a trade in & not just
another resort and /or that they are not just adding
their own inventory.

like to see exactly what all the conditions/benefits dvc
owners are getting and/or additional money exchanges
the dvc co. are getting. ( of course, i think these are
2 different values ).

oh, fyi~ when we stayed @ blt the first time, i spent some
time socializing with other guests that were staying there
under different "combinations"--liked certain co. benefits,
..eh, some inside disney connections. thought it was very
interesting & they didn't mind talking.

it just like some posters here, trying to work their rci trades
to do big family events....while that makes sense, "others"
i think are for holding dom-like parties. i remember seeing
some "playboy" liked parties, that made me concern by the
damages being reported from the workers.

but i get your point, if it is up to rci to take actions, & dvc
to monitor their actions if they do not stop it- then dvc
needs to stop the rci connection.

i really respect your input. i think your advice is as solid
as concrete. ( i listen to it a lot.).

so why isn't rci stopping them?

IMO the only place one could argue harm to DVC or it's member's is in the area of rental price undercutting. Given that those concerned in this area are normally somewhat to totally anti renting, I don't think it makes any difference there as well. These rooms are totally gone to DVC members even if RCI lets them sit empty. The other valid issue is that rules are meant to be followed, unfortunately we see that one broken almost daily by members simply by posts on this board.

Some developers actually place units in RCI themselves for the simple purpose of generating fresh meat for timeshare presentations, they're called developer deposits. It would make no sense for DVC to do so unless they were going to go after such a group to strongly encourage them to tour. Other developers also do cheap rentals tied to a timeshare presentation requirement, again it only makes sense if you're going to be aggressive enough to get a certain % to buy.

As for why RCI's not able to stop it, I know historically they have gone after it fairly aggressively as has II. Based on that info I'd assume they are stopping much of it, just not all of it. But regardless, unless you're competing for a rental using your DVC points, it doesn't hurt you in any way. Personally I don't buy the argument that this group is more likely to cause damage than the rest. I also don't have any patience for the attitude that it's a club and others should be excluded whenever possible.

[Chuck S]

Originally Posted by Dean

I also don't have any patience for the attitude that it's a club and others should be excluded whenever possible.

I agree, it is a matter of marketing semantics. A "Club" sells better than a "Timeshare." But in reality, both legally and operationally, DVC is a timeshare.

And the points retained by DVC, as well as unsold points, can be used in any way that Disney/DVC sees fit, including discount promotions, giveaways, cast member discounted stays, celebrity housing during a WDW visit or just general rentals. Those points are not owned or controlled by members. It would be like you demanding that your neighbor buy a particular brand of refrigerator...it isn't your concern, it doesn't affect you.

[Lil' Grumpy]

true,

..but my interest/s is to "figure out" what we are "up against"
when we are using our dvc points so we can plan accordingly.

my take is that dvc is a business. and there some practices
in this business that can help or hurt our personal interests.
some are being kept in secret but are being spilled out by
those given these "privileges" without realizing they should
be. when i think about some telling me how they got their
room, i first thought they were avoiding the truth. now i
feel they were giving accurate accounts , which is motivating
me to "pay" closer attention to what really going on
behind the dvc structure. more than anything else.

however, there one point i was wondering about is the "losses"
to the rci owners that are following the rules. we are not rci
owners -though we have several friends that are---& i have
many here trying so hard for trading purposes. now to read
about e-bay browsers finding these abusers doing this...
doesn't rci have an obligation to protect those trying to do
it right? ( their owners).

the only reason why i am concern about damages , is the
effect on our dues. and then to see first hand damages that
met the definition of criminal acts....& then hearing the workers
frustrations..and even "adding" worst damages ...and where the
managers ignored...thus as an owner, i felt dvc failed & it should
have to pay for the damages ,not the owners. now when looking
@ this likely sources, i think there are certain groupings are
more likely. that does not mean any person /group is not
capable...& anyone committing willful damages should have
been held responsible.

my own opinions of rci owners, are reading /listening to those
posting here. it has been well defined. the usefulness for
dvc owners is a waste from these sources. i am still waiting
to read something positive in values/applications. but i am
not against rci , instead i feel dvc is responsible for not
making rci options easy/better for dvc owners to experience.

saw your comments about the 95$ fee. never gave it thought,
but i thought you made an excellent point. my best guess,
dvc will add that to their "profits" under a processing statement.

[bwvBound]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

saw your comments about the 95$ fee. never gave it thought,
but i thought you made an excellent point. my best guess,
dvc will add that to their "profits" under a processing statement.

I've assumed the $95 fee charged to the inbound exchange guest was the other half of the full exchange fee charged by RCI to DVC on behalf of the DCV member who booked an RCI exchange against their DVC points.

A typical RCI exchange fee, for normal RCI members under normal circumstances, is $199 if booked online or $209 if booked by phone. DVC members get a break with the special $95 outbound exchange and I'd think the balance is then made up by the inbound guest.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by bwvBound

I've assumed the $95 fee charged to the inbound exchange guest was the other half of the full exchange fee charged by RCI to DVC on behalf of the DCV member who booked an RCI exchange against their DVC points.

A typical RCI exchange fee, for normal RCI members under normal circumstances, is $199 if booked online or $209 if booked by phone. DVC members get a break with the special $95 outbound exchange and I'd think the balance is then made up by the inbound guest.

DVC officials have acknowledged in the past they essentially use it to pay for the exchange system itself on their end. A function that could and IMO should come under the management fee. There is not a single option that the exchanger gets for this fee that they do not have access to without the fee including ME and dining. All you could argue is for requests.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Lil' Grumpy

true,

..but my interest/s is to "figure out" what we are "up against"
when we are using our dvc points so we can plan accordingly.

my take is that dvc is a business. and there some practices
in this business that can help or hurt our personal interests.
some are being kept in secret but are being spilled out by
those given these "privileges" without realizing they should
be. when i think about some telling me how they got their
room, i first thought they were avoiding the truth. now i
feel they were giving accurate accounts , which is motivating
me to "pay" closer attention to what really going on
behind the dvc structure. more than anything else.

however, there one point i was wondering about is the "losses"
to the rci owners that are following the rules. we are not rci
owners -though we have several friends that are---& i have
many here trying so hard for trading purposes. now to read
about e-bay browsers finding these abusers doing this...
doesn't rci have an obligation to protect those trying to do
it right? ( their owners).

the only reason why i am concern about damages , is the
effect on our dues. and then to see first hand damages that
met the definition of criminal acts....& then hearing the workers
frustrations..and even "adding" worst damages ...and where the
managers ignored...thus as an owner, i felt dvc failed & it should
have to pay for the damages ,not the owners. now when looking
@ this likely sources, i think there are certain groupings are
more likely. that does not mean any person /group is not
capable...& anyone committing willful damages should have
been held responsible.

my own opinions of rci owners, are reading /listening to those
posting here. it has been well defined. the usefulness for
dvc owners is a waste from these sources. i am still waiting
to read something positive in values/applications. but i am
not against rci , instead i feel dvc is responsible for not
making rci options easy/better for dvc owners to experience.

saw your comments about the 95$ fee. never gave it thought,
but i thought you made an excellent point. my best guess,
dvc will add that to their "profits" under a processing statement.

While I understand that many of us simply want to understand the ground rules, IMO, this is not an area where it affects DVC members in ANY way unless they exchange in or try to using other RCI or BVTC options. Frankly, I don't buy the idea that exchangers or renters are more likely to do damage, there's no proof to this and it really doesn't make sense when you analyze it. Given that most owners are doing 1-2 weeks a year in different resorts and different units, DVC is really a rental car even for owners. Put another way, I do not believe for a second that a single member is likely to be more protective simply because they are a member. Thus those that respect other people's property will behave accordingly as will those who don't. We agree that DVC should be more aggressive going after those who cause damage no matter who it is. I think the problem from this board is that many people here are so afraid that someone will be hit that didn't actually cause the damages that they would prefer just to let it all go. It is my opinion that there are circumstances where it's clear that the damages were severe enough to warrant charging and clearly issues that could be attributed to a specific reservation. Obviously this is an area where they need to be sure and I'm sure they are/will be when needed. I'm sure they do this at times but it appears they don't do so aggressively enough. The reality though is that we wouldn't know otherwise since DVC would not advertise it. The only way we'd know is if anyone posted somewhere and if they did I wouldn't expect them to say it was their fault so they would likely be complaining they were charged inappropriately.

The only losses to RCI members is that someone got the exchange and rented it and someone else didn't. RCI's reasons for this rule is for their own profit and protection, not that of the owners.

DVD is a business, DVCMC is a business to a degree but a somewhat static one, DVC as a club is not a business. I still feel you have far too much of a conspiracy theory view of DVC to justify owning. If you are that distrustful and that convinced they are not appropriate, it seems you shouldn't play in their game because it is and always will be their game.