DVC plans to target commercial renters

[Cyberc1978]

It sounds like you are one of the ones at VGC in that Facebook group who book low point studios and rent them out for $30 per point. If you are scooping up low point studio reservations, staying in your reservations 1/4 of the time and renting out the rest as confirmed reservations based on the ability to find a customer, I view you as a commercial renter.

I’d define what you are doing as commercial.

When it comes down to it, commercial renting is when money exchange hands. That be for 1 reservation or 20 reservations.

DVC have accepted the behavior to some extend and now they need to decide if the current behavior is okay we not. If not we will hopefully see a definition - but I’m not holding my breath for a clear definition.

Also if quite funny that those that believe renting is so awful and should be disallowed they are part of the same Facebook groups that promote renting - talking about double standard

 

[Chuck S]

When it comes down to it, commercial renting is when money exchange hands. That be for 1 reservation or 20 reservations.

DVC have accepted the behavior to some extend and now they need to decide if the current behavior is okay we not. If not we will hopefully see a definition - but I’m not holding my breath for a clear definition.

Absolutely agree.

The problem is neither Disney/DVC nor the respective states timeshare regulatory bodies has a definition of commercial renting, while by law we all are allowed to rent. By the most extreme, anyone who has received any renumeration of any kind, even if a friend just buys you lunch, is a commercial renter. And we can discuss it here on the boards until the cows come home, but the reality is DISNEY/DVC has to set a reasonable definition and stick to it within the boundries of the non-definitive laws that allow us to rent. The posters in this thread, some posters, saying that in their opinion another poster here is a commercial renter is pointless, and nothing but pot stirring

 

[Sandisw]

Let’s remember to keep posts away from personal attacks.

As someone who is indifferent to it, because I bought DVC for me and my use, my wish list is that the updates to rules do not catch up owners who use their membership for family/friends as well, and that all these limitations on what counts and what does not don’t come to pass, even if other timeshares did them.

The contracts give DVC two very important things right now…the ability to determine what threshold turns a membership from personal use to commercial one.

In that light, it also uses the words “pattern of activity” that makes it appear as such.

IMO, pattern is regular and/or volume. I hope they use that as a basis and not all these limitations people champion.

Where you find a renter, what you rent should not matter under the right to rent. I simply do not want to give DVC any more power to decide reasons that make it okay or not.

Set the threshold and go after owners who hit it. And the easiest way to do that is number of reservations made.

Of course, even with thresholds, they can set it low, and could determine that a pattern is regular rentals above two year after year.

All I hope is that they do what they implied…keep it so commercial is really defined to mean bought for the purpose of making money and not when you rent you made some.

ETA: if people really want a crack down, then enforce the no transfer rule for money. Have owners attest when on the phone that there is no money changing hands.

 

[crisi]

When it comes down to it, commercial renting is when money exchange hands. That be for 1 reservation or 20 reservations.

DVC have accepted the behavior to some extend and now they need to decide if the current behavior is okay we not. If not we will hopefully see a definition - but I’m not holding my breath for a clear definition.

Also if quite funny that those that believe renting is so awful and should be disallowed they are part of the same Facebook groups that promote renting - talking about double standard

It isn't as simple as money changing hands. Legally, the accepted definition of commercial includes an intent to profit. So recouping your dues and expenses on the points used to make the reservation would not be commercial. I can rent my BWV points for $10 a point to cover dues and it isn't commercial - I could even factor in the original cost of points. Now if I take my BWV points that I bought 25 years ago for $65 a point and rent an 8 point a night studio out for $400 a night. - there is no way I'm going to convince a court that isn't commercial. Its the intent to profit (not the profit itself, by the way, the intent as I recall) that creates the commercial use.

 

[nalababybear]

It isn't as simple as money changing hands. Legally, the accepted definition of commercial includes an intent to profit. So recouping your dues and expenses on the points used to make the reservation would not be commercial. I can rent my BWV points for $10 a point to cover dues and it isn't commercial - I could even factor in the original cost of points. Now if I take my BWV points that I bought 25 years ago for $65 a point and rent an 8 point a night studio out for $400 a night. - there is no way I'm going to convince a court that isn't commercial. Its the intent to profit (not the profit itself, by the way, the intent as I recall) that creates the commercial use.

Yes, legal standard. Some even put a margin like 5% for it to be considered such in legal manner.

Disney is going to call it whatever they want; and it sounds like they will try to remain avoiding officially defining it unless their current and planned efforts fail to bring into line what they are thinking.

Upthread we talked about occupancy and whether DVC renting is impacting Disney's hotel business. I would say -- perhaps now. This isn't pre-2020 or revenge travel 2022. 2024 travel to Orlando has been down for two years. Rooms aren't completely full -- namely the mid-level resorts like Caribbean. IMHO, that resort is what I would use to determine impacts of renting cheap studios at DVC will impact potential hotel numbers, and what I think is moving Disney to constrain DVC rentals -- and that's logical.

We all love Disney in our own ways and capacities and the beautiful thing is Disney is so wide ranging in its offerings that the tentpole really is pretty broad. The more others and Disney makes rules and steps beyond the simplicity, it makes the experience that much harder to reach for those who just want to enjoy Disney in their own way.

If and when Disney decides to adjust; people will too.

Happy Holidays this coming week for everyone and hopefully a bit extra cheer and bounce in your steps.

 

[xdan0920]

I happen to rent because it's easy and we have the rooms already. It pays for the fees and our addiction. We price between 20 and 25 per point and that's 50%+ off room rates and great deal for those who want those.

This is commercial spec renting. No two ways about it.

 

[JackosinDIS]

This is commercial spec renting. No two ways about it.

It’s spec renting, but I disagree that it is commercial. So there are at least two ways about it.

 

[Sandisw]

This is commercial spec renting. No two ways about it.

IMO, depends on volume. One spec rental should not be considered as such, even if it’s popular and rented for more than average.

Would you feel the same if they were spec renting SSR?

I hope DVC decides not to micromanage to that degree.

 

[crisi]

IMO, depends on volume. One spec rental should not be considered as such, even if it’s popular and rented for more than average.

Would you feel the same if they were spec renting SSR?

I hope DVC decides not to micromanage to that degree.

Given the definition of commercial within U.S. Commercial Code, which is what contracts are written under (and then state law) it depends on profit, not volume. If you make one reservation a year and make $1000 in profit off of it, its commercial. If you make 50 reservations a year and only cover dues on the points you are renting out, that isn't commercial.

 

[nalababybear]

Given the definition of commercial within U.S. Commercial Code, which is what contracts are written under (and then state law) it depends on profit, not volume. If you make one reservation a year and make $1000 in profit off of it, its commercial. If you make 50 reservations a year and only cover dues on the points you are renting out, that isn't commercial.

Yes, and if Disney adopts that definition and enforces it, there will be a lot of changes throughout the membership. People love sharing their DVC.

Its rare to hear the same of any other timeshare program.

 

[drusba]

Some seem to believe one rental by a member, or perhaps a few, could be found to be a violation of the terms of the POS's declarations. None of the POS's declarations limit the right to rent to one or only a few rentals. The pre-Riviera resorts' declarations expressly allow multiple rentals by a member, and the only restriction is that a member cannot engage in a pattern of rental activity from which the association can reasonably conclude shows the member is engaging in a commercial enterprise.

Those declarations were drafted by lawyers, and there are statutes that use the term commercial enterprise, and it has a generally recognized legal meaning: it refers to someone engaging in the "business'' of something. There are likely some members who do many rentals as a business, but the likely majority of rentals do not fit within the restriction in the declarations, e.g., doing some profitable rentals to offset dues, doing some rentals to use points you will not be able to use, doing rentals of confirmed reservations that you learn you cannot use, doing some rentals to friends or family, are not things that lead to the conclusion that one is in the business of doing rentals. In June 2008, DVC itself recognized the limitations to its power to restrict when it created a rule that said that any member doing more than 20 reservations in a year would be presummed to to be violating the rental restriction, but it was a presumption that the member could overcome.

In essence. doing one or some reservations for profit is not a violation of the terms of those POS's. The rules stated in the POS's have changed for the three newly created DVC resorts starting with Riviera, and with the most retractions in the CFW POS, but even those do not say or imply that a single or a few rentals in a year could be a violation. You cannot state a member has a right to rent and then say just doing a few rental violates the rules.

Moreover, particularly as to the pre-Riviera DVC Resorts (which includes the additions to VGF and Poly), DVC faces the problem that what is in the declarations is a "material" term, and the ability to do some rentals cannot be reduced by any new, more restrictive "rule" absent an amendment to the declarations, which is subject to the vote of all the members of a resort.

 

[xdan0920]

IMO, depends on volume. One spec rental should not be considered as such, even if it’s popular and rented for more than average.

Would you feel the same if they were spec renting SSR?

I hope DVC decides not to micromanage to that degree.

we aren’t taking about 1 rental. That poster is booking 3-4 reservations per month and listing them, then canceling or going “depending on interest.”

So, yes I hope Disney does crack down on that.

 

[Travel60]

I'm in a similar situation. I often book more than one unit to travel with friends/family, and have had up to three units booked at a time. No one in my surviving family and friends shares my last name. So just how would DVC make that determination remains to be seen.

I agree to an extent about family/friends but I think DVC could figure out a way. For example, because we've traveled together to DVC and used points for cruises, my DVC account has the names of DD, DSIL, DSIL's mother, DS, DDIL, and Grands. Also a couple of close friends. I can see their plans and they can see mine. Perhaps if a "known associate" is on the reservation, it's not ID'd as a rental? I realize I could still be charging my family/friends rent (I don't) but at least it's not some random rental and sort of self limiting.

 

[Tatebeck]

I agree to an extent about family/friends but I think DVC could figure out a way. For example, because we've traveled together to DVC and used points for cruises, my DVC account has the names of DD, DSIL, DSIL's mother, DS, DDIL, and Grands. Also a couple of close friends. I can see their plans and they can see mine. Perhaps if a "known associate" is on the reservation, it's not ID'd as a rental? I realize I could still be charging my family/friends rent (I don't) but at least it's not some random rental and sort of self limiting.

I don't think they could make that work at all. They could still be friends/family on the site/app like they were for the "third party tour guides" that were linking up with groups in MDE and doing everything for them, guiding them around, using DAS, and getting paid for it.

They were able to eventually ban those "guides" from the parks, but good luck telling if someone is actually a friend of a member or not and then trying to ban that DVC owner with their deeded real estate interest if they think they weren't actually friends. Anything other than verifying ID to see if they are in the same household would be very hard to determine.

 

[Sandisw]

we aren’t taking about 1 rental. That poster is booking 3-4 reservations per month and listing them, then canceling or going “depending on interest.”

So, yes I hope Disney does crack down on that.

I make reservations every month on my membership in case I want to go. I don’t currently advertise them for rent but that action should definitely not be seen as an issue.

After reading @drusba post I am back to my original thought…they are going to go after those who have a high number of points who are clearly in it as a business…meaning they bought a lot of contracts for the sole purpose of renting all points

 

[JackosinDIS]

I make reservations every month on my membership in case I want to go. I don’t currently advertise them for rent but that action should definitely not be seen as an issue.

After reading @drusba post I am back to my original thought…they are going to go after those who have a high number of points who are clearly in it as a business…meaning they bought a lot of contracts for the sole purpose of renting all points

I tend to agree with you here. And given that the contracts currently say that members are limited to 8000 points ‘to encourage personal use’, I would think that will need to be a substantial number of points before its presumed to be a business. But who knows!

 

[nalababybear]

I tend to agree with you here. And given that the contracts currently say that members are limited to 8000 points ‘to encourage personal use’, I would think that will need to be a substantial number of points before its presumed to be a business. But who knows!

Yes, @drusba breakdown sounds and looks consistent with where and what Disney is right now and will pursue selective enforcement.

By the looks they are starting with AUL as that's a single resort and able to isolate rather easily.

As others mentioned upstream, the starting of cancellations after a fair warning will create a quick adjustment, while AUL management is going to most likely be able to accommodate any missed connects by walking to the cash side of the property given its size ability to bridge that readily on the backend where the guest won't even notice.

 

[dvcsince93]

Some seem to believe one rental by a member, or perhaps a few, could be found to be a violation of the terms of the POS's declarations. None of the POS's declarations limit the right to rent to one or only a few rentals. The pre-Riviera resorts' declarations expressly allow multiple rentals by a member, and the only restriction is that a member cannot engage in a pattern of rental activity from which the association can reasonably conclude shows the member is engaging in a commercial enterprise.

Those declarations were drafted by lawyers, and there are statutes that use the term commercial enterprise, and it has a generally recognized legal meaning: it refers to someone engaging in the "business'' of something. There are likely some members who do many rentals as a business, but the likely majority of rentals do not fit within the restriction in the declarations, e.g., doing some profitable rentals to offset dues, doing some rentals to use points you will not be able to use, doing rentals of confirmed reservations that you learn you cannot use, doing some rentals to friends or family, are not things that lead to the conclusion that one is in the business of doing rentals. In June 2008, DVC itself recognized the limitations to its power to restrict when it created a rule that said that any member doing more than 20 reservations in a year would be presummed to to be violating the rental restriction, but it was a presumption that the member could overcome.

In essence. doing one or some reservations for profit is not a violation of the terms of those POS's. The rules stated in the POS's have changed for the three newly created DVC resorts starting with Riviera, and with the most retractions in the CFW POS, but even those do not say or imply that a single or a few rentals in a year could be a violation. You cannot state a member has a right to rent and then say just doing a few rental violates the rules.

Moreover, particularly as to the pre-Riviera DVC Resorts (which includes the additions to VGF and Poly), DVC faces the problem that what is in the declarations is a "material" term, and the ability to do some rentals cannot be reduced by any new, more restrictive "rule" absent an amendment to the declarations, which is subject to the vote of all the members of a resort.

I agree with most of this.

However, two things:

First, I believe that one or a few rentals could establish a commercial purpose depending on factors as the percentage of pts being rented by renter, and frequency of rentals, e.g., every year. For example, if you have 800 points and every year rent 2-300 pt or 3 -225 pt spec reservations. So the owner uses 200 and rents 600 every year I think that DVC could support a decision to call your rentals a commercial enterprise. I don't that each owner has to be a "large" commericial enterprise. Now, whether they do is another matter.

Second, I believe that the amendment provisions in the docs are broad and gives DVC a right to change provisions without consent of the membership even if some members are adversely effected. For example:

7.5 Amendment. BVTC in its discretion may change the terms and conditions of this Disclosure Document and the rules and regulations set forth in this Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange, or rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and may impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Such changes may be made by BVTC without the consent of any Club Member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase the Club Member's costs of ownership. Further, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could impact their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them. Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Club publications or a Club website. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of this Disclosure
Document.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree with most of this.

However, two things:

First, I believe that one or a few rentals could establish a commercial purpose depending on factors as the percentage of pts being rented by renter, and frequency of rentals, e.g., every year. For example, if you have 800 points and every year rents 2-300 pt or 3 -225 pt spec reservation. So the owner uses 200 and rents 600 every year I think that DVC could support a decision to call your rentals a commercial enterprise. I don't that each owner has to be a "large" commericial enterprise. Now, whether they do is another matter.

Second, I believe that the amendment provisions in the docs are broad and gives DVC a right to change provisions without consent of the membership even if some members are adversely effected. For example:

7.5 Amendment. BVTC in its discretion may change the terms and conditions of this Disclosure Document and the rules and regulations set forth in this Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member's right to use, exchange, or rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and may impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of his or her Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership. Such changes may be made by BVTC without the consent of any Club Member and may adversely affect a Club Member's rights and benefits and increase the Club Member's costs of ownership. Further, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could impact their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them. Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Club publications or a Club website. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of this Disclosure
Document.

Remember, BVTC is the exchange company which gives us the right to trade into other resorts.

Rentals is relating to our rights to use our home resort ownership. There are things that can apply to exchanges wi th BVTC that don’t apply when using your points at your home resort.

 

[dvcsince93]

Remember, BVTC is the exchange company which gives us the right to trade into other resorts.

Rentals is relating to our rights to use our home resort ownership. There are things that can apply to exchanges wi th BVTC that don’t apply when using your points at your home resort.

Disney is all of them, and they would not allow the docs to tie the hands of one of the companies but not the other. Legally, that is not even an option.

For example:

1. Amendments. DVC Operator reserves the right to amend these Rules and Regulations, in its discretion. These changes
may affect a Club Member’s right to use, exchange, or rent the Club Member’s Ownership Interest and may impose
obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Club Member’s Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership.
Club Members will be notified of any such changes through Member Services publications, including posting on a Club
website. Current publications supersede prior publications with respect to the terms and conditions of these Rules and
Regulations.