New Definition of Rental Activity?

[DonMacGregor]

I definitely think it’s an update to the prior rules and I find the buy and sell quote the most interesting.

But, it will be interesting moving forward. It is why it was always risky for people to buy to rent points regularly.

The "creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website" language.

Also, the "repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in the Vacation Ownership Property or Vacation Ownership Plan whether in the name of an Owner or those related to such owner or through the use of entities, partnerships, or trusts".

The last sentence also addresses skirting the points limits by creating multiple entities. It's like everything that people complain about and were told to "Go tell DVC, but if they cared, they wouldn't be allowing it" has been neatly bundled into one giant " ____ You" suggesting DVC might actually care.

 

[Sandisw]

The "creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website" language.

Also, the "repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in the Vacation Ownership Property or Vacation Ownership Plan whether in the name of an Owner or those related to such owner or through the use of entities, partnerships, or trusts".

The last sentence also addresses skirting the points limits by creating multiple entities. It's like everything that people complain about and were told to "Go tell DVC but if they cared they wouldn't be allowing it" has been neatly bundled into one giant " ____ You" suggesting DVC might actually care.

Yeah. I think the notion was that they would change things when they decided they needed to and it’s obviously gotten to the point where they had a reason to do it.

Let’s see though how it plays out in practice.

 

[Genie+]

Guess this answers the question if DVD cares and what could possibly be done about it.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Yeah. I think the notion was that they would change things when they decided they needed to and it’s obviously gotten to the point where they had a reason to do it.

Let’s see though how it plays out in practice.

I agree. I'll only speculate that they didn't go to the bother of writing such specific language targeting such specific activities without some intention of enforcing it. Otherwise the old, ambiguous language that nobody could even find, and that they already weren't enforcing, probably gave them more latitude to do nothing.

 

[Sandisw]

Guess this answers the question if DVD cares and what could possibly be done about it.

Yup. I was obviously someone who was one who indicated that iits up to them to change it and if they were sticking to the 20 then it didn’t matter.

They obviously decided this was a good time to update the language…things are a changing

 

[Sandisw]

I agree. I'll only speculate that they didn't go to the bother of writing such specific language targeting such specific activities without some intention of enforcing it. Otherwise the old, ambiguous language that nobody could even find, and that they already weren't enforcing, probably gave them more latitude to do nothing.

I wasn’t suggesting they wouldn’t be. Just saying it will be interesting to show how it plays out.

It’s pretty possible though that we won’t necessarily know how it does.

If I had to guess, I bet they want to go after LLCs and not the individual owners

 

[DonMacGregor]

I wasn’t suggesting they wouldn’t be. Just saying it will be interesting to show how it plays out.

It’s pretty possible though that we won’t necessarily know how it does.

If I had to guess, I bet they want to go after LLCs and not the individual owners

I would respectfully disagree. The first half of the paragraph defines the new rules and repeatedly uses the term "Owner" in the singular and only references "entities, partnerships, or trusts" as they relate to churning contracts (repeated purchase and resale of contracts), or the practice of exceeding points limits by purchasing under those alternate ownership entities. I do agree that the tail end of that paragraph definitely puts LLC's, partnerships and trusts on notice, particularly if they are operating in the commercial space (websites, etc.).

I also find it interesting that they are poking their nose in the resale market, a universe that many would swear DVC could care less about.

 

[Hubalorian]

I honestly never understood why Disney didn’t take a more active role in the resale market. They left a lot of money on the table by just pretending it didn’t exist when millions of points have been churned through. The commissions they could have made and kept it all pretty much in house

 

[RuntheMouse]

The "creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website" language.

Also, the "repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in the Vacation Ownership Property or Vacation Ownership Plan whether in the name of an Owner or those related to such owner or through the use of entities, partnerships, or trusts".

The last sentence also addresses skirting the points limits by creating multiple entities. It's like everything that people complain about and were told to "Go tell DVC, but if they cared, they wouldn't be allowing it" has been neatly bundled into one giant " ____ You" suggesting DVC might actually care.

Does anyone think this goes hand in hand with resale restrictions in a way? DVC’s sales pitch is that you can save 40%+ on you accommodations, buy with us! If you can rent for cheaper than that, why would you buy direct from them? Just like using the resale restrictions to push people to buy direct.

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Does anyone think this goes hand in hand with resale restrictions in a way? DVC’s sales pitch is that you can save 40%+ on you accommodations, buy with us! If you can rent for cheaper than that, why would you buy direct from them? Just like using the resale restrictions to push people to buy direct.

This is a good point. I think DVC is finally cottoning onto the fact (or it’s come to a point where the effect is too great to ignore) that there’s a lot of money to be gained by tightening the resale and rental market.

I’m not sure how I feel about this honestly.

 

[DonMacGregor]

This is a good point. I think DVC is finally cottoning onto the fact (or it’s come to a point where the effect is too great too ignore) that there’s a lot of money to be gained by tightening the resale and rental market.

I’m not sure how I feel about this honestly.

Quite possibly. First, they establish that DVC villas are for "personal use" only (versus a prohibition on "commercial use" which was ambiguous). Then, there are 6 discrete activities they appear to be targeting and that they may conclude are indicative of engagement in a "commercial enterprise", each of which seems not to affect the casual owner who may occasionally gift a stay, let their family use their points, or rent out points to offset dues, or avoid losing points due to late cancellations, etc. They are:

1. DVC may conclude that a pattern of rental activity involving renting confirmed reservations (reserved accommodations) could be considered engagement a commercial enterprise.

2. Frequent occupancy of reserved accommodations other than by the owner or the owner's family may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

3. Use of regular rental or resale advertising may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

4. Creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

5. Repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in a Property or Plan may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise, whether it's an individual, an LLC, a partnership, or a trust.

6. Using a n LLC, partnership, or trust to circumvent caps on points ownership (maximum permitted ownership) may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

Numbers 3 through 6 are the ones I find most intriguing, seemingly targeting companies working overtly within the commercial space, like the board sponsor, David's etc.

As I said earlier, I just find it interesting that all of the concerns members have voiced over what has been perceived to be commercial renting, and that many dismissed with comments like "Go tell that to Disney. They don't care because if they did, they'd do something about it", all seem to be directly addressed without much ambiguity, right there in that new paragraph.

 

[Sandisw]

Quite possibly. First, they establish that DVC villas are for "personal use" only (versus a prohibition on "commercial use" which was ambiguous). Then, there are 6 discrete activities they appear to be targeting and that they may conclude are indicative of engagement in a "commercial enterprise", each of which seems not to affect the casual owner who may occasionally gift a stay, let their family use their points, or rent out points to offset dues, or avoid losing points due to late cancellations, etc. They are:

1. DVC may conclude that a pattern of rental activity involving renting confirmed reservations (reserved accommodations) could be considered engagement a commercial enterprise.

2. Frequent occupancy of reserved accommodations other than by the owner or the owner's family may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

3. Use of regular rental or resale advertising may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

4. Creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

5. Repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in a Property or Plan may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise, whether it's an individual, an LLC, a partnership, or a trust.

6. Using a n LLC, partnership, or trust to circumvent caps on points ownership (maximum permitted ownership) may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

Numbers 3 through 6 are the ones I find most intriguing, seemingly targeting companies working overtly within the commercial space, like the board sponsor, David's etc.

As I said earlier, I just find it interesting that all of the concerns members have voiced over what has been perceived to be commercial renting, and that many dismissed with comments like "Go tell that to Disney. They don't care because if they did, they'd do something about it", all seem to be directly addressed without much ambiguity, right there in that new paragraph.

To be fair, people that said those things, including myself, also said that DVD would change it when they decided it was an issue, which is exactly what happened.

But, until now, the rules were what they were.

Regardless, I found this in reading the updated Home Resort Rules and don’t remember this in relation to transfers?

 

[DonMacGregor]

To be fair, people that said those things, including myself, also said that DVD would change it when they decided it was an issue, which is exactly what happened.

But, until now, the rules were what they were.

Regardless, I found this in reading the updated Home Resort Rules and don’t remember this in relation to transfers?

It would appear, using your words, that they all of a sudden decided a great many things related to commercial renting are now an issue.

 

[Sandisw]

It would appear, using your words, that they all of a sudden care very much about a great many things.

Exacfly. It would change when DVC wanted it to change. And it appears we are at this point which is why they have updated the language.

The transfer language I posted is not new.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Exacfly. It would change when DVC wanted it to change. And it appears we are at this point which is why they have updated the language.

The transfer language I posted is not new.

I noticed that, and it further provides definition of "commercial purposes". There's no other way to interpret that other than the commercial use of points for rental income (as opposed to the laughable contention that "commercial purposes" really means using your villa as a place of business)...

 

[MerlinandtheMouse]

Quite possibly. First, they establish that DVC villas are for "personal use" only (versus a prohibition on "commercial use" which was ambiguous). Then, there are 6 discrete activities they appear to be targeting and that they may conclude are indicative of engagement in a "commercial enterprise", each of which seems not to affect the casual owner who may occasionally gift a stay, let their family use their points, or rent out points to offset dues, or avoid losing points due to late cancellations, etc. They are:

1. DVC may conclude that a pattern of rental activity involving renting confirmed reservations (reserved accommodations) could be considered engagement a commercial enterprise.

2. Frequent occupancy of reserved accommodations other than by the owner or the owner's family may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

3. Use of regular rental or resale advertising may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

4. Creating, maintaining, or frequent use of a rental or resale website may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

5. Repeated or frequent purchase and resale of interests in a Property or Plan may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise, whether it's an individual, an LLC, a partnership, or a trust.

6. Using a n LLC, partnership, or trust to circumvent caps on points ownership (maximum permitted ownership) may be considered engagement in a commercial enterprise.

Numbers 3 through 6 are the ones I find most intriguing, seemingly targeting companies working overtly within the commercial space, like the board sponsor, David's etc.

As I said earlier, I just find it interesting that all of the concerns members have voiced over what has been perceived to be commercial renting, and that many dismissed with comments like "Go tell that to Disney. They don't care because if they did, they'd do something about it", all seem to be directly addressed without much ambiguity, right there in that new paragraph.

Fascinating. I wonder if this is just precautionary or if they really mean to reinforce it. How would we even know?

 

[DonMacGregor]

Fascinating. I wonder if this is just precautionary or if they really mean to reinforce it. How would we even know?

We don't. I may be way off base, but it would seem that if they had no intentions of enforcing it, then they could have just left it unchanged, buried in the multi-site POS where literally no one could find it half the time, even the experts, and kept the status quo. Ultimately, @Sandisw is right in that no one is going to make DVC change unless DVC wants to, and not only did they want to but they apparently wanted to do so significantly. I don't think it's all window dressing and eye wash.

 

[tjkraz]

We don't. I may be way off base, but it would seem that if they had no intentions of enforcing it, then they could have just left it unchanged, buried in the multi-site POS where literally no one could find it half the time, even the experts, and kept the status quo. Ultimately, @Sandisw is right in that no one is going to make DVC change unless DVC wants to, and not only did they want to but they apparently wanted to do so significantly. I don't think it's all window dressing and eye wash.

We can hope it’s not simply window dressing. But I don’t think the biggest players are going to alter their activities one bit until Disney takes overt action.

 

[DonMacGregor]

We can hope it’s not simply window dressing. But I don’t think the biggest players are going to alter their activities one bit until Disney takes overt action.

I don’t think anyone engaged in the specific activities defined by the new rules will alter their activities until Disney takes overt action. At least now there are rules and a more clearly defined definition of “commercial enterprise”. We shall see.

 

[crisi]

This is a good point. I think DVC is finally cottoning onto the fact (or it’s come to a point where the effect is too great to ignore) that there’s a lot of money to be gained by tightening the resale and rental market.

I’m not sure how I feel about this honestly.

It isn't just the DVC resale market....its also their market for hotel rooms. If Disney want to get $600 a night for a room, they can't compete with people who want to rent what is perceived as nearly the same room for $300.

I don't think this is about members who can't book their studio at BCV in October eleven months out or find it really hard to get into Grand Floridian at seven months.