New Definition of Rental Activity?

[Bearval]

Can we call the points DVD sells at sold out resorts experienced points rather that resale ?

Preowned

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Preowned

If that makes you happy

 

[Bearval]

DVC has a simple way to track these transactions because the reservations are always in a numerical order . If I was using a bot they all would show transactions that reflect this quickly and clearly for DVC to determine this commercial activity
. Seems like an easy way to limit it to only so many per year and track the abusers In these types of transactions.

Currently I have 5 small reservations with only my name on the reservation as one guest in room .
I will eventually call member services to add family but this could technically be a bunch of reservations I might decide to rent . I guess that would help differentiate abusers also.
We are innocently using just 1guest/1room to check and grab quickly to not lose availabiliity but it might look suspicious to an automated system monitoring activity…?
Would that be a concern for me ? I have never rented and never will .
Has anybody ever received a letter of warning along with clarification of rules?

I doubt they would flat out cancel the reservation without first sending a "warning" before a reservation was canceled stating you were violating the policy which would give you an opportunity to "fix" the reservation just incase you were in fact not going against the policy.

 

[hertamaniac]

But, it could end up tricky because as a renter, you may not know that. We have plenty of owners here who rent a lot and all the time and depending on how DVC decided to view those memberships, renters could be out of luck.

I won’t be surprised though to start seeing fewer confirmed bookings on website because ir does make it easier for DVC to figure out whose membership those are on.

So those owners who rent a lot and all the time could be out of luck too right? They wouldn't be able to utilize their points to renters. It seems to me like a cascading effect and a symbiotic relationship.

 

[eticketplease]

So those owners who rent a lot and all the time could be out of luck too right? They wouldn't be able to utilize their points to renters. It seems to me like a cascading effect and a symbiotic relationship.

I’m sure I’m wrong but it sounds like they are targeting those who make reservations using their points (aka known as Confirmed Reservations) at key times (Run Disney, 3 day weekends holidays) and then change the guest information to someone completely different and removing themselves from the reservation as well.

I don’t think they are targeting the renter who is being asked hey I would like to go to Disney for x days during y time. Can you check to see if Z resort is available?

 

[hertamaniac]

I’m sure I’m wrong but it sounds like they are targeting those who make reservations using their points (aka known as Confirmed Reservations) at key times (Run Disney, 3 day weekends holidays) and then change the guest information to someone completely different and removing themselves from the reservation as well.

I don’t think they are targeting the renter who is being asked hey I would like to go to Disney for x days during y time. Can you check to see if Z resort is available?

I didn't catch that in terms of trying to impose scheduling limitations; I thought it was holistic. It does have me wonder if there is a mechanism they can use just to address the key times. At first I thought they might be able to impose an additional removal fee during those selected days/weeks, but then that would likely just get passed onto the renter(s) (presuming it's within the legal limits of the contracts).

 

[eticketplease]

I didn't catch that in terms of trying to impose scheduling limitations; I thought it was holistic. It does have me wonder if there is a mechanism they can use just to address the key times. At first I thought they might be able to impose an additional removal fee during those selected days/weeks, but then that would likely just get passed onto the renter(s) (presuming it's within the legal limits of the contracts).

I have absolutely no clue that was just my opinion.

 

[crisi]

I didn't catch that in terms of trying to impose scheduling limitations; I thought it was holistic. It does have me wonder if there is a mechanism they can use just to address the key times. At first I thought they might be able to impose an additional removal fee during those selected days/weeks, but then that would likely just get passed onto the renter(s) (presuming it's within the legal limits of the contracts).

Honestly, who knows what they are trying to do, what they will follow up on and actually do, and what they are just putting into the contract for a "sometime in the future we might want to."

MY GUESS is that they will eventually target owners who rent a lot. And by a lot, the only data we have on what Disney thinks is a lot is the 20 reservations a year in someone else's name. If your renting a lot is half a dozen a year, MY GUESS is that they don't care. If your renting a lot is 40, yeah, that is probably commercial activity. But, again MY GUESS, is that they are going after a few big players who are doing the buy, strip-and-spec rent, sell strategy first - seeing what the result is - both positive and negative, before going after someone who has 3000 points and rents 90% of them on a points for reservation (i.e. non-spec) basis.

However, at this moment I would really discourage anyone for buying points for the purpose of renting them - even if its just "enough rental points to cover dues." But, I've always discouraged that - it isn't a good investment and Disney can step in at any time to throw a wrench in it.

 

[eticketplease]

Honestly, who knows what they are trying to do, what they will follow up on and actually do, and what they are just putting into the contract for a "sometime in the future we might want to."

MY GUESS is that they will eventually target owners who rent a lot. And by a lot, the only data we have on what Disney thinks is a lot is the 20 reservations a year in someone else's name. If your renting a lot is half a dozen a year, MY GUESS is that they don't care. If your renting a lot is 40, yeah, that is probably commercial activity. But, again MY GUESS, is that they are going after a few big players who are doing the buy, strip-and-spec rent, sell strategy first - seeing what the result is - both positive and negative, before going after someone who has 3000 points and rents 90% of them on a points for reservation (i.e. non-spec) basis.

However, at this moment I would really discourage anyone for buying points for the purpose of renting them - even if its just "enough rental points to cover dues." But, I've always discouraged that - it isn't a good investment and Disney can step in at any time to throw a wrench in it.

My other question would be what if you have multiple use years? You have multiple member ID's at that point.

Membership 1 has the majority of points and person made 30 rentals with that one.
Membership 2 has no rentals.

It is technically the same owner so would they be allotted 40 to share per say. Or a strict 20 per membership.

Luckily I don't rent my points very often to worry about these things but you never know down the road.

 

[crisi]

My other question would be what if you have multiple use years? You have multiple member ID's at that point.

Membership 1 has the majority of points and person made 30 rentals with that one.
Membership 2 has no rentals.

It is technically the same owner so would they be allotted 40 to share per say. Or a strict 20 per membership.

Luckily I don't rent my points very often to worry about these things but you never know down the road.

MY GUESS is that number of contracts doesn't matter - its the ownership of the points. Because according to the updated language, having multiple contracts under multiple LLCs isn't going to save you from being defined as commercial.

 

[Hubalorian]

My other question would be what if you have multiple use years? You have multiple member ID's at that point.

Membership 1 has the majority of points and person made 30 rentals with that one.
Membership 2 has no rentals.

It is technically the same owner so would they be allotted 40 to share per say. Or a strict 20 per membership.

Luckily I don't rent my points very often to worry about these things but you never know down the road.

My guess would be they’d be treated as 20 total regardless of membership IDs. My rationale is, I believe in the contract it states the total number of points an owner can have, not a member, but an owner is limited to that many points. So I think it would be a holistic look, not a micro member account scenario.

Plus, it’s not based on the contract, I can have thirty 50 point contracts for a total of 1500 points or a single 1500 point contract but I’d still be held to the 20 rental rule even in the same use year

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Something tells me Disney is going to look at membership that has a large number of separate vacations…

then they will look at repeat names….

but who knows, we start to figure it out when, cancelations start to happen

 

[hertamaniac]

I can share from personal experiences that renting, whatever limits they impose, has the ability to reduce interest in purchasing a DVC contract for us (resale and/or direct). If a commercial renter has a plethora of booked reservations and we find a match, then it gives us visibility to that resort and a more likely positive reaction towards a purchase.

If they limit the commercial owner's market and breadth of offerings, then I see it potentially doing more harm than good to the overall bottom line; you're removing guest exposure out of the loop. Maybe I'm missing the entire focal point of this verbiage.

 

[eticketplease]

I can share from personal experiences that renting, whatever limits they impose, has the ability to reduce interest in purchasing a DVC contract for us (resale and/or direct). If a commercial renter has a plethora of booked reservations and we find a match, then it gives us visibility to that resort and a more likely positive reaction towards a purchase.

If they limit the commercial owner's market and breadth of offerings, then I see it potentially doing more harm than good to the overall bottom line; you're removing guest exposure out of the loop. Maybe I'm missing the entire focal point of this verbiage.

If you are buying Resale it doesn't really affect Disney's bottom line as they have already sold the points.
It would only affect the bottom line if they thought they could flip the contract.

If you are renting one of the sold out resorts and fell in love with it and wanted to purchase said resort you would be paying much more than the properties that they are actively selling (A few exceptions but those direct will certainly be higher than resale) so you really wouldn't be hurting Disney's bottom line.

You will add to their bottom line with tickets, merch/food no matter where you stay.

I believe the only time you are directly hurting Disney's bottom line is if you are renting with a person or company other than Disney to on site.

 

[crisi]

I can share from personal experiences that renting, whatever limits they impose, has the ability to reduce interest in purchasing a DVC contract for us (resale and/or direct). If a commercial renter has a plethora of booked reservations and we find a match, then it gives us visibility to that resort and a more likely positive reaction towards a purchase.

If they limit the commercial owner's market and breadth of offerings, then I see it potentially doing more harm than good to the overall bottom line; you're removing guest exposure out of the loop. Maybe I'm missing the entire focal point of this verbiage.

And for every one of you, there is someone who reads these boards and believes (and its debatable) that renting is a real problem with booking a resort other than the one you own at seven months - and decides they won't buy. That they want to stay at the BC, and if Disney doesn't crack down on renting to make that possible (which, frankly, THAT isn't going to put a dent in seven month BC availability, IMHO), they won't buy.

Those sorts of arguments often cut both ways - and as @eticketplease pointed out, they don't care if your intention was resale, they only really care if it impacts direct sales.

My GUESS is that this has far more to do with the impact rentals are having on CRO reservations than anything at all to do with DVC and its members or sales.

 

[crisi]

Something tells me Disney is going to look at membership that has a large number of separate vacations…

then they will look at repeat names….

but who knows, we start to figure it out when, cancelations start to happen

Again, guesses - they will start with a cease and desist letter "you have ____________, any additional reservations that follow this pattern will be cancelled" rather than start with cancelling reservations. They prefer not having guests showing up to find out their room isn't there.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Again, guesses - they will start with a cease and desist letter "you have ____________, any additional reservations that follow this pattern will be cancelled" rather than start with cancelling reservations. They prefer not having guests showing up to find out their room isn't there.

i have said how long before the c&d letters go out, but if you have 9000 points on the line are you going to cancel on 20 people or see what you can get away with….

my guess is these companies are going to squeeze what ever they can out of the points before they sell them

just a guess,

 

[hertamaniac]

If you are buying Resale it doesn't really affect Disney's bottom line as they have already sold the points.
It would only affect the bottom line if they thought they could flip the contract.

If you are renting one of the sold out resorts and fell in love with it and wanted to purchase said resort you would be paying much more than the properties that they are actively selling (A few exceptions but those direct will certainly be higher than resale) so you really wouldn't be hurting Disney's bottom line.

You will add to their bottom line with tickets, merch/food no matter where you stay.

I believe the only time you are directly hurting Disney's bottom line is if you are renting with a person or company other than Disney to on site.

I wouldn't know if the resort was sold out or not when booking a reservation. And that isn't a driving factor for our decisions. We use a 1-2 week window of full flexibility where actually purchasing any DVC contract would probably be prohibitive. It gives our position and location somewhat an advantage. We have stayed at several 2BR/3BR villas over the past ~5 years that we wouldn't have stayed at using this method. Incidentally, we took a 5-year hiatus from all the parks, but last month I did purchase my Pixie Dust AP.

We do purchase food/mech. onsite at the resorts we rent at so that does add to their revenue. I don't see how that is hurting their bottom line.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

This is how it is hurting Disney’s bottom line,

thats 65 % off what Disney charges for the same room….

these 7000 point rental llc’s are undercutting the mouse in his own house….

think about it, you buy a loaded contract for 135 a point…. You don’t pay dues, you strip it… rent three years worth of points for upwards of 30 dollars per point (spec rooms) recoup most of your investment, then sell the stripped contract for 95 to 105 dollars per point ….

PAY DAY!

 

[hertamaniac]

Since we don't own, we are renting a room that might otherwise be unoccupied. So I have to think that's a better position for the resort than the room(s) sitting idle.