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

[tjkraz]

You're saying that reducing the amount of nights that owners will be able to book overall with the points they own is a good thing. Since they can book fewer nights, then there is more availability for everyone.

Not sure I called it a "good thing" but it's a necessary thing. The point charts have always charged different amounts for the same room on different nights of the year. With any adjustment, it's obvious some will win and some will lose.

If a developer sells a resort, he cannot, after the resort is sold out, double the points required to book the whole resort to have half of it available for cash bookings. That if forbidden by the one-to-one rule in Florida Law. Disney is using a technicality (which I'm convinced is not legal) to do something similar, just on a smaller (2-4%) scale, for now. At which point a good behavioral change at 4% becomes an abuse when it's 50%? Is a small level of abuse acceptable?

The size of the change is very significant. There has always been a lockoff premium. While I cannot cite chapter and verse for its existence, I'm not particularly shocked that some adjustment would be deemed necessary. Additionally the presence of *DEDICATED* Studio and One bedroom villas in most resorts means that the lockoff premium has grown somewhat organically as part of balancing the charts.

The hyperbole ("doubling the points") seems excessive in the wake of 1 adjustment in 29 years. If we are back having another conversation about growth of the lockoff premium in 2021 or 2022, I will be much more alarmed.

Then I started questioning DVC actions, reading the POS and finding there where many other things that smelled nasty.

Not sure some of the legal interpretation flying being tossed about is the most sound. There's a lot of "here's what I read in a 15 year old POS and here's what I *think* it means." Difficult to inspire a group to action when the interpretation may be wildly incorrect.

Aulani.

With regard to transparency, we know almost nothing about what happened at Aulani. We know that 3 executives were fired and Disney agreed to subsidize the dues. That's about it.

The most detailed news report came from the Orlando Sentinel, who claimed that the problem was uncovered during an internal review, not some investigation by the state of Hawaii. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...815_1_aulani-disney-vacation-club-time-shares

Assuming that report is accurate, the system worked. As owners, we know we will have little say on how the program is run and little insight to the inner workings. We must rely on internal checks-and-balances, external audits and government regulators to do their jobs.

If I were to compose a list of the corruption theories floated on a regular basis, I'd be going on for a long time: OKW extension, SSR Treehouses, Aulani, BLT dues, Poly Bungalows, Copper Creek Cabins, property taxes, breakage income, 2020 reallocation. All together, it encompasses more than a decade of DVC and four Presidents/Senior VPs. If I truly believed that corruption was that deeply rooted in the Disney/DVC culture, I'd sell in a heartbeat.

 

[Dean]

Majority of members is open to interpretation. A simple majority of members is not the same as a majority of the points owned. In other words, say you have 3 people that own 50 points and one person that owns 300 points. I can see it benefiting the 300 point owner by reducing competition for room availability. Making point to reserve rooms would benefit the small point owner, but increase room competition for a large point owner.

I suspects majority is based on either the number of owners or the number of contracts in this situation. I can't imagine it's based on number of points owned.

 

[zavandor]

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

 

[tjkraz]

In addition, everyone should check a document they received at the time of sale, if they purchased from DVD, entitled either the "Product Understanding Checklist" or (as later renamed) the "Product Understanding Acknowledgement." The declarations and all the other documents are complex, but that particular Product Understanding document is designed to tell you exactly what DVC intends and believes the documents to say in a shortened fashioned.

...

The document does not say that DVC believes the membership agreement allows it to make changes based on differences in demand among sizes of vacation homes.

The Product Understanding Checklists I have from my purchases also contain outdated point banking policy and maximum room occupancy.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

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. 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

 

[Bing Showei]

They told me that (brace yourself) demand for 1BR is much higher than 2BR. She told this like if they're flying off the shelves. So the lockoff premium has to re-balance this.

First, thank you for taking the time to share this conversation.

Would you be able to find out in the next call if there is any way, without compromising proprietary information, they can share broader data that supports the assertion that 1BR book up much faster than 2BR? This flies in the face of what members have regularly observed and reported when booking. Just now, checking for the first week of July, across all the WDW resorts, it's clear that 1BRs are more readily available at 5.5 months out.

Can someone who can understand/accept the Disney position that 1BRs are MUCH more popular explain to me how to reconcile this? I'm honestly asking. It feels a lot like, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes."

 

[DVC92]

First, thank you for taking the time to share this conversation.

Would you be able to find out in the next call if there is any way, without compromising proprietary information, they can share broader data that supports the assertion that 1BR book up much faster than 2BR? This flies in the face of what members have regularly observed and reported when booking. Just now, checking for the first week of July, across all the WDW resorts, it's clear that 1BRs are more readily available at 5.5 months out.

Can someone who can understand/accept the Disney position that 1BRs are MUCH more popular explain to me how to reconcile this? I'm honestly asking. It feels a lot like, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes."

I just looked at my 3 resorts - OKW, BLT, & VGF and clearly 1BRs aren't booking up the fastest. The fastest ones to book are the studios. 1BRs & 2BRs really don't show any difference. There are even plenty of studios available at less than 7 months. This whole point reallocation is to increase breakage and therefore their revenues. It is of no benefit to members.

 

[crvetter]

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

The product understanding checklist I have does not specifically state anything in regarding to how an increase in Vacation Points will be offset. Attached. So I do think the Product Understanding Checklist should be updated to be a bit more forward.

As to your final comment on the maximum reallocation this is the question that I've been focused in on. In fact I'm confident the same people you have talked to are those that I've been speaking with regarding the issue. I didn't focus on any of the other issues because if a maximum nightly Point Cost does exist I think it brings everything into check and alleviates my concerns.

I'm refraining from posting too much on our discussions as it is still ongoing. However, I must say I did appreciate the time they took out of their day to handle the phone call. I'll follow back up in a week or so with their interpretation.

 

[crvetter]

First, thank you for taking the time to share this conversation.

Would you be able to find out in the next call if there is any way, without compromising proprietary information, they can share broader data that supports the assertion that 1BR book up much faster than 2BR? This flies in the face of what members have regularly observed and reported when booking. Just now, checking for the first week of July, across all the WDW resorts, it's clear that 1BRs are more readily available at 5.5 months out.

Can someone who can understand/accept the Disney position that 1BRs are MUCH more popular explain to me how to reconcile this? I'm honestly asking. It feels a lot like, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes."

Just an observation it is possible that they are slowly trying to flip the seasons? Perhaps this was the moves that could be done to maximize that effort while keeping them below the legal requirements of how much they can change points. After my call I wondered if that was their goal. I wouldn't be too surprised, if everyone tries during the fall why keep that cheaper than the summer which is super easy to book.

 

[DVC92]

Just an observation it is possible that they are slowly trying to flip the seasons? Perhaps this was the moves that could be done to maximize that effort while keeping them below the legal requirements of how much they can change points. After my call I wondered if that was their goal. I wouldn't be too surprised, if everyone tries during the fall why keep that cheaper than the summer which is super easy to book.

Looking at the studio and 1Br point increases at BLT and VGF, that certainly is not the case.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Just an observation it is possible that they are slowly trying to flip the seasons? Perhaps this was the moves that could be done to maximize that effort while keeping them below the legal requirements of how much they can change points. After my call I wondered if that was their goal. I wouldn't be too surprised, if everyone tries during the fall why keep that cheaper than the summer which is super easy to book.

What they are doing is somewhat that direction but it isn't the items in question.

 

[DougEMG]

As an example, if one looked at SSR where all 2 bedrooms are lock offs, we know that studios rent first by a wide margin. This leaves lots of 1 bedrooms available but very few 2 bedrooms to rent. By having few 2 bedrooms available to rent can that be used by Disney to imply demand for 2 bedrooms is too low so the points need to be decreased?

 

[DougEMG]

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

A big thanks for doing this.

 

[crvetter]

What they are doing is somewhat that direction but it isn't the items in question.

Yes and no in my opinion. I think my point in that post doe exist with all the other expressed on here and aren't mutually exclusive. I agree with many people's outrage. However, I just suggested perhaps the 2020 point chart is a transition that was needed to get them the quickest to flipping the seasons in some sense. I'm just going to be interested to see what they do in 2021 as I am expecting movements from summer to fall and early winter. I would love for Disney just to come out and say hey you know what we are working on correcting the fall frenzy and this is the first step in a multi-year plan.

I support getting an answer from Disney, hence my never ending communication with them. Which I think next week I will have their "final" answer on my questions.

 

[crvetter]

As an example, if one looked at SSR where all 2 bedrooms are lock offs, we know that studios rent first by a wide margin. This leaves lots of 1 bedrooms available but very few 2 bedrooms to rent. By having few 2 bedrooms available to rent can that be used by Disney to imply demand for 2 bedrooms is too low so the points need to be decreased?

This is my thought exactly.

 

[John Dimes]

Yes sign me up!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As an example, if one looked at SSR where all 2 bedrooms are lock offs, we know that studios rent first by a wide margin. This leaves lots of 1 bedrooms available but very few 2 bedrooms to rent. By having few 2 bedrooms available to rent can that be used by Disney to imply demand for 2 bedrooms is too low so the points need to be decreased?

You must mean BWV? All resorts except BWV and Jambo have dedicated 2BR's. One can expect different resorts to have different issues - they show they do - but the reallocations are pretty similar across the board. I'd buy that 1BRs at VGF for example are more in demand. BWV has issues in that 2BR's are gone too quickly because there are no dedicated 2BR's. Jambo - same thing.

 

[drusba]

As an example, if one looked at SSR where all 2 bedrooms are lock offs, we know that studios rent first by a wide margin. This leaves lots of 1 bedrooms available but very few 2 bedrooms to rent. By having few 2 bedrooms available to rent can that be used by Disney to imply demand for 2 bedrooms is too low so the points need to be decreased?

That would seem to be the only way they can justify what they are saying. The demand for 2BRs is perceived lower than 1BRs at resorts without a lot of dedicated 2BRs simply because there can no longer be any demand after all the studios are filled. I am sure that there are likely many who still look for the 2BR after studios are filled but since they cannot reserve a 2BR DVC concludes demand is low because a fairly low number actually succeed in getting 2BRs. But as to real demand, that is ridiculous, e.g., at BWV where all 2BRs are lockoffs, you can often find even standard and boardwalk view 1BRs open at 3 to 4 months out during many times of the moderate demand season from mid-Jan to late Sep.

In tracking demand over many years, what I have seen is that 1BRs generally stay open longer than dedicated 2BRs at resorts that have them, and there are even some where dedicated 2BRs can go as fast as studios -- BLT standard often has dedicated 2BRs fill before studios do and that also happens at BCV occasionally.

 

[DougEMG]

That would seem to be the only way they can justify what they are saying. The demand for 2BRs is perceived lower than 1BRs at resorts without a lot of dedicated 2BRs simply because there can no longer be any demand after all the studios are filled. I am sure that there are likely many who still look for the 2BR after studios are filled but since they cannot reserve a 2BR DVC concludes demand is low because a fairly number actually succeed in getting 2BRs. But as to real demand, that is ridiculous, e.g., at BWV where all 2BRs are lockoffs, you can often find even standard and boardwalk view 1BRs open at 3 to 4 months out during many times of the moderate demand season from mid-Jan to late Sep.

In tracking demand over many years, what I have seen is that 1BRs generally stay open longer than dedicated 2BRs at resorts that have them, and there are even some where dedicated 2BRs can go as fast as studios -- BLT standard often has dedicated 2BRs fill before studios do and that also happens at BCV occasionally.

And how does what they are saying explain how their conclusion that AKV value studios should stay the same year round while value 1BRs and 2BRs should be raised year round -- are they claiming studio demand of value rooms is less than 1BR or 2BR demand, for rooms generally that all disappear during the 11 month window.

What I am afraid of is that this exactly the kind of justification they would use to explain what they are doing. All they need is a plausible justification, doesn't mean they have to actually believe it themselves.

 

[drusba]

The product understanding checklist I have does not specifically state anything in regarding to how an increase in Vacation Points will be offset. Attached. So I do think the Product Understanding Checklist should be updated to be a bit more forward.

As to your final comment on the maximum reallocation this is the question that I've been focused in on. In fact I'm confident the same people you have talked to are those that I've been speaking with regarding the issue. I didn't focus on any of the other issues because if a maximum nightly Point Cost does exist I think it brings everything into check and alleviates my concerns.

I'm refraining from posting too much on our discussions as it is still ongoing. However, I must say I did appreciate the time they took out of their day to handle the phone call. I'll follow back up in a week or so with their interpretation.

Could you tell me what year that Product Understanding Checklist is from. The latest one I have, which is for AKV, is from 2008, and it has the same language as the one from BWV.

Rather than helping DVC, that actually adds more fuel to our argument. As to all resorts that used the original Product Understanding document, which would appear to be at least AKV and before, the applicable declarations and agreements have not changed or been amended in any of the relevant extent. DVC claimed, via the original Product Understanding document, that it believed its right to make a point change was limited to seasonal change. Making a later change to what your language is would actually be considered an admission that DVC knew that the the Product Understanding document was a critical document that stated what it actually intended before, and now it is trying to assert a new meaning, which it cannot possibly do for any purchasers that received the old Product Understanding document.