2020 Point Charts

[tjkraz]

This may be the key issue with regard to the “lockoff premium”:

At resorts with dedicated Studio and One Bedroom units, that lockoff premium appears to have grown organically. The point chart balancing counts all of the lockoffs as Two Bedroom villas. By shifting more points into the dedicated studio rooms and taking points away from (at least some) Two Bedrooms, that gap naturally widens when pricing the lockoffs separately.

At AKV, BCV, BWV, BRV, CCV, the Studio rates are set where they need to be in order to balance the charts. And those higher prices trickle-down to lockoffs, widening the premium.

The real question is whether it’s appropriate to impose similar growth in the “lockoff premium” at resorts which do not have dedicated Studios or One Bedrooms: VGF, OKW, SSR and BLT

 

[tjkraz]

If that is the case, I would expect the lock off premium to return to previous levels after the refurb.

14 resorts are now subject to accellerated refurb schedules with one or more resorts being updated every year.

I wouldn’t expect them to impose a major hike on individual resort(s) during their refurb period. Instead, some more modest adjustment implemented system-wide would absorb the annual need.

I thought that only 96% of all rooms are sold so some can be taken out of the reservation system to do refurbishments. Does it say in the contract that Disney can require more points per room simply for the purpose of refurbishment?

Only 2% is held back for maintenance purposes. And that is to cover both planned and unplanned maintenance. If managed properly, there are always a handful of rooms unavailable for booking at every resort. Those rooms provide the necessary overflow capacity if there’s an unforeseen issue (plumbing break, electrical malfunction, drywall repair, tile repair), while giving crews time to perform scheduled maintenance like carpet shampooing or a fresh coat of paint.

Even during the OKW refurb, 3-4 of the buildings have been closed at a time for the wholesale renovations. However, the resort probably cannot book the remainder of the resort to 100% occupancy. They still need some buffer to account for unplanned maintenance issues arising among the other 400 rooms.

 

[tjkraz]

Regarding refurbishments...there are 7,678,935 points at OKW. Disney is required to hold 2% (153,578 points) ostensibly for maintenance purposes. That leaves 7,525,357 points sold to members.

For nearly 2 years from 2017-2019, approximately 8% of the resort will be closed at a time for refurbishment. The active 92% represents about 7,064,620 points per year.

How do you accommodate the owners of 7.53 million points with only 7.06 million points’ worth of available villas?

 

[drusba]

The only prior major reallocation that affected all WDW resorts at the same time was the 2010-11 shift of points from weekends to weekday, which took two years to do because the total increase or decrease per night exceeded the 20% allowed in any given year. That one obviously raised both studios and 1BRs at all the WDW resorts throughout the year for Mon to Fri stays but lowered them for Fri and Sat nights. The total points for any given week stayed the same or changed only a little. My understanding is that there were actually threats to sue over that one, focusing on BLT. The issue with BLT was not whether points had properly been accounted for to assure no increase in total but instead on the reason for the change. DVC's making a point change at any particular resort is not supposed to occur absent as a response to changes in reservation patterns at the particular resort. With all resorts other than BLT, the weekday demand greatly exceeded weekends and was continuously getting worse. However, the problem with BLT is that the reallocation was announced after BLT had been on sale for four months but before it ever opened or even took a reservation and thus could not be justified based on a change in reservation patterns at that resort. To add insult to injury, within two weeks after issuing the new point charts raising the points needed for Mon to Fri --and many at BLT purchased only enough to get points needed for those nights -- DVC changed the minimum add-on at BLT (and only BLT) from 25 to 100 points, thus making it financially impossible for many of those purchasers from fixing the problem DVC had created. Though there was apparently never a real lawsuit, my understanding is that there were some agreements not to sue and some BLT members were permitted to buy add-on contracts for less than 25 points; DVC did change the usual minimum back to 25.

The only prior reallocation at WDW that specifically focused on raising a particular class of rooms occurred in 2013, but did not focus on studios. DVC raised the points needed for the SSR treehouses by 15% throughout the year. Because there are so few treehouses in relation to other rooms, the offsetting decrease that occurred for all other rooms was hardly noticeable. I thought a lawsuit would follow that increase because DVC sales had specifically sold the treehouse points on the representation that the treehouses were set up to have the same per night point costs as the 2BRs but gave you three bedrooms. Then, as soon as the treehouses sold out, DVC raised them 15%. Arguably it was justified because demand for the treehouses made it the only class of room at SSR that actually disappeared before 7 months out during many times of the year.

The other changes at WDW may have affected points needed for studios and 1BRs but none were designed for that specific purpose. In 2012, AKV had a reallocation that raised points needed for savanna view for much of the year. What happened is that a large number of savanna view rooms were reclassified as standard view and the total points those converted rooms lost as a result went to other rooms with savanna views. When the chart was originally issued it looked like all that was done was to raise points because standard view per night costs did not actually decrease. That same kind of shift happened at BLT in 2013 because a number of lower floor theme park rooms were converted to standard view because they essentially views of mainly the parking lot -- something Disney obviously knew when the rooms were first classified but then had to change after it had sold all those points as theme park view. Another major change was creating preferred and standard view at SSR; obviously studio and 1BR points changed (up or down) but the focus was on room location not room size.

A minor change occurred effective 2018 at BWV in which preferred and bw view rooms increased a little in the premier season and there appeared to be no offsetting increase. I learned the reason was that two ground floor rooms in the Luna Park pool area and the second floor 1BR on the Village Green were changed to standard view which explained why there was a noticeable increase somewhere but no decrease. Interesting is that one might be considered a precursor to the current change -- not because of the change in room classification but because DVC obviously moved points to raise rooms in a season that needed no raise at all but were just the odd man out because a shift was needed , e.g., similarly to what appears to have now occurred at BWV, in that the desire with the newest allocation was to raise studios and all standard view rooms for most of there year while lowering 2BR preferred and GV rooms but some of the shifted points raised the 1BR preferred in a couple seasons because they had to go somewhere.

In other words, before the current reallocation, there were some questionable reallocations in the past but there was not a real question as to whether the total points for the resort had improperly changed.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

.... similarly to what appears to have now occurred at BWV, in that the desire with the newest allocation was to raise studios and all standard view rooms for most of there year while lowering 2BR preferred and GV rooms but some of the shifted points raised the 1BR preferred in a couple seasons because they had to go somewhere.

In other words, before the current reallocation, there were some questionable reallocations in the past but there was not a real question as to whether the total points for the resort had improperly changed.

I also wonder about this - is there a duty to shift points from a particular view to attempt to even out demand within the resort? I'd tend to think not. The "views" are there for other reasons - in good part I've always thought is to limit complaints that would otherwise arise. Start reducing the point requirements and flattening out the difference and DVC has just said that it doesn't matter what the views are anymore.

 

[drusba]

I also wonder about this - is there a duty to shift points from a particular view to attempt to even out demand within the resort? I'd tend to think not. The "views" are there for other reasons - in good part I've always thought is to limit complaints that would otherwise arise. Start reducing the point requirements and flattening out the difference and DVC has just said that it doesn't matter what the views are anymore.

The only actual duty one can assert DVC has in this situation is to act in the best interests of the members as a whole (an amorphous concept that leaves a lot of leeway in decision making). Contrary to what many seem to believe, there is no express duty to make any point changes ever. The written provisions relating to that say only that if DVC, in its discretion, decides a reallocation is needed because of changes in demand (and nothing says it has any duty to actually make that decision) then any increase in points for nights and rooms done needs an equal offsetting decrease elsewhere in the resort so that total points applicable to the units remain the same. Regardless of any changes in demand patterns, one can usually assert it is in the best interests of the members as a whole to just do nothing, i.e., regardless of what changes are made some will be hurt and some will be favored, and thus what is in the best interests of the members "as a whole" is really amorphous and mostly undeterminable in that situation so doing nothing is an acceptable choice.

The provision that allows reallocation then warns that such reallocations could eventually result in coming close to equalizing the points per night for all seasons and rooms except that members are guaranteed that there will be one night in each particular type of room at a point level designated in the Declarations, so the documents thus allow for the possibility of almost equalizing seasons and room views subject to a certain minimum point amount per room size and view for at least one night.

I mostly favor DVC's doing nothing. That at least provides certainty as to which reservations are difficult to get and which are not, and avoids what has now happened. Vast numbers have found themselves short of points for desired times and rooms. I often see posts advocating changes like lowering points in the last quarter of the year and raising them elsewhere. The thing that most do not consider when advocating such things is that DVC, if it actually makes changes, is highly unlikely to do what you expect will happen and is more likely, as has happened with most of its points changes, to do surprising injury to many and leave many scratching their heads wondering why DVC did what it did.

I have the same reaction to the boardwalk changes as you. I could understand the reasoning behind raising points for the last quarter and lowering them in others, but the change made does not focus on that. Instead the change focuses on raising points for all studios (standard and preferred) for almost all times of the year, and raising standard 1BR and 2BR points for most of the year, with the main offset for those point increases being the lowering of points needed for preferred 2BR and GVs. In other words, after making sure that required initial purchase point levels were so low for years that most would only buy enough to get studios, and then adding fuel to that fire by redesigning the studios to sleep 5, DVC decides the excess demand for studios (and standard view as a whole) that it is personally responsible for creating is something that it should raise points to rectify. It is the same thing that has happened at Poly -- Disney created bungalows that it knew were far too expensive for anyone and thus sold all those points to those wanting studios and now after selling all those points decides to shift those bungalow points to the studios. But what has happened now is nothing really new. Disney already previously screwed all the members who purchased SSR to get treehouses.

In essence, members should now not be advocating for more certain rules applicable to reallocations except for one rule: bar all future reallocartions.

 

[Dean]

I have checked the declarations for SSR and other WDW resorts. VGF stands alone as having that "lock-off premium" language.

They could have amended the POS for each resort but if they haven't, you can bet they will now.

I know DVC can change the points around as long as the total stays the same. This said... We purchased our points based on the points charge that was presented to us at the time of purchase and now there is an increase of 14 points for a week stay in a studio at Beach Club. This will make me short points for the year if I stay 2 weeks per year. This doesn't sit well with us!

But you either knew or should have known they could change they. As a minimum you were given the POS are part of your retail purchase, which spells out they can make changes.

I also wonder about this - is there a duty to shift points from a particular view to attempt to even out demand within the resort? I'd tend to think not. The "views" are there for other reasons - in good part I've always thought is to limit complaints that would otherwise arise. Start reducing the point requirements and flattening out the difference and DVC has just said that it doesn't matter what the views are anymore.

In reading the POS there is language they requires them to adjust to even out demand but it ultimately leaves it up to DVCMC to decide if/when/how.

 

[Cyberc1978]

They could have amended the POS for each resort but if they haven't, you can bet they will now.

But you either knew or should have known they could change they. As a minimum you were given the POS are part of your retail purchase, which spells out they can make changes.

In reading the POS there is language they requires them to adjust to even out demand but it ultimately leaves it up to DVCMC to decide if/when/how.

After reading all the posts regarding this change it seems that a lot of people questions Disney legal rights to do what they did.

I wonder if anyone will challenge Disney legally, that would be the only way to find out if they are allowed to do it.

 

[Wakey]

After reading all the posts regarding this change it seems that a lot of people questions Disney legal rights to do what they did.

I wonder if anyone will challenge Disney legally, that would be the only way to find out if they are allowed to do it.

It needs a US Lawyer to consider it and whether it would be worth a class action lawsuit. Do we have any US litigation lawyers on here as members?

 

[zavandor]

It needs a US Lawyer to consider it and whether it would be worth a class action lawsuit. Do we have any US litigation lawyers on here as members?

If anyone is willing to investigate which are our options, I'd be happy to contribute. Someone suggested a go fund campaign.
I do not think everything they do is certainly legal because they're Disney and they have a lot of lawyers. Aulani stands as a good reminder in a corporation people can make big mistakes.

 

[Dean]

After reading all the posts regarding this change it seems that a lot of people questions Disney legal rights to do what they did.

I wonder if anyone will challenge Disney legally, that would be the only way to find out if they are allowed to do it.

Doubtful, I don't see any way they could win. As I read the POS not only can they reallocate but they are required to if demand is too far askew. But it really doesn't necessarily need to go the far. Just make an appointment and go to Celebration in person to get the information. I suspect they'll be more than happy to show you the reallocation numbers, how they work and how they balance. What they likely won't show you is the demand information and I can 100% guarantee they won't share occupancy numbers. Assuming the numbers balance legally, which ignores the smaller sections of a lockoff as I read it, the POS covers everything else. It spells out they have control without input. Whether one could get any more info by involving a lawyer is unknown. And until, unless, someone either goes and asks or gets a lawyer involved, we likely won't know any more than we do now other than people will continue to play with the numbers. I understand this affects people but ultimately it comes down to what the state statutes and POS says and whether they met those standards. With timeshares there's almost no situation where one can use the word unethical if it's legals & within the rules.

It needs a US Lawyer to consider it and whether it would be worth a class action lawsuit. Do we have any US litigation lawyers on here as members?

Why not just hire a lawyer as an individual if it's that important to someone. There are a ton what would be willing to get paid to take on Disney.

 

[Cyberc1978]

If anyone is willing to investigate which are our options, I'd be happy to contribute. Someone suggested a go fund campaign.
I do not think everything they do is certainly legal because they're Disney and they have a lot of lawyers. Aulani stands as a good reminder in a corporation people can make big mistakes.

That sounds like a good idea with a go fund campaign. Everyone can make “mistakes” but if no one is held accountable then nothing never changes.

 

[DVC92]

The bottom line is that this may be totally legal, but is definitely not ethical. The point restructuring surely wasn't instituted to help members, but will force members, particularly those with fewer points, to purchase additional points if available, simply to be capable of booking their desired stay in a studio or 1BR. It will also make more rooms available for DVC to rent out. The new point restructuring is ridiculous in many instances. For example, in Adventure Season at BLT, a 1BR Lake View is 33 pts. for a weekday while a 2BR Standard is 34 points. Similarly, at VGF, in Dream Season, a 1BR Lake View is 50 pts. while a 2BR Standard is 53 points. Although the views are different, it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to be able to get rooms that sleep 9 as compared to 5 for 1-3 points more per night.

 

[Dean]

The bottom line is that this may be totally legal, but is definitely not ethical. The point restructuring surely wasn't instituted to help members, but will force members, particularly those with fewer points, to purchase additional points if available, simply to be capable of booking their desired stay in a studio or 1BR. It will also make more rooms available for DVC to rent out. The new point restructuring is ridiculous in many instances. For example, in Adventure Season at BLT, a 1BR Lake View is 33 pts. for a weekday while a 2BR Standard is 34 points. Similarly, at VGF, in Dream Season, a 1BR Lake View is 50 pts. while a 2BR Standard is 53 points. Although the views are different, it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to be able to get rooms that sleep 9 as compared to 5 for 1-3 points more per night.

My guess is that's the goal, to push members to 2 BR where possible. We'd likely disagree on the reasons as I sincerely doubt it was purposeful to cause people to buy more points. If I believed that, I'd sell personally. But in the end if that's where a given member is, they'll have to adjust in some way or possible to exit if DVC doesn't work under the new rules. I don't get the legal but unethical as the reallocation was always part of the risk for every member when they bought in. Everything either knew or should have known this was the risk when they bought. This won't be the last change and at some point we'll likely see weekends increase again. We might also see added fees for changes, housekeeping, banking/borrowing and a minimum length of stay. We might even see a VIP system at some point.

 

[SL6827]

We might also see added fees for changes, housekeeping, banking/borrowing and a minimum length of stay.

I would sell and get out of my mega point contract. I no longer have the desire that I used to have to buy another 25-35 points.

 

[The Prophet]

This seems to fit into Disney's goal of trying to decrease crowds while increasing revenue.

 

[zavandor]

I have downloaded SSR POS and tried to better understand a few of the definitions. It's not easy from the doc I have because it's a scan of a printout, so not searchable for terms. Also, it's 120 pages and I haven't read word by word as most of it is not relevant for this discussion, so I might have missed crucial information.

As already said, there is no explicit mentioning of the lockoff premium and an explicit authorization to modify it at will.

I have not found anywhere an indication that the points charts are based solely on 2BR (and the other bigger units). This has been mentioned as a given, so it might be something I just couldn't find.

When talking about the points charts, this is the text used:
"During the Base Year the total number of Home Resort Vacation points required to reserve all Vacation Homes during all User Days in the condominium must always equal, and be symbolic of, the total number of Ownership interests owned by Club Members in the Condominium."
This is the definition of Vacation homes:
"Vacation Homes shall mean and refer to those portions of a Unit designed and intended for separate use and occupancy"
This definition seems to include all room types, studios and 1BR included and explicitly talks about "portion of units". In fact, for example:
"Studio Vacation Home shall mean a Vacation Home including one (1) bedroom, one (1) bathroom and equipped with a microwave, under counter refrigerator, and sink."

So, how I read it: the total number of points needed to book all vacation homes (as studio+1BR and/or 2BR) cannot exceed the total number of points sold. So how can the lockoff premium be legal at all?
Given that it's been there for 27 years, what am I missing?

Later there is a paragraph regarding the amendments DVC can do to the doc. They can do whatever they want, without the need for owners'consent but:
"Further although DVCMC generally is required to make such changes in a manner which, in its reasonable business judgement, improves upon the quality and operation of the Vacation Ownership Plan as a whole, such changes under some circumstances may not be to the advantage of some Club Members and could adversely affect their ability to secure reservations when and where they want them".

Given that the points charts must balance the cost to book all vacation homes and studios and 1BR are vacation homes, I cannot see how increasing the lockoff premium would respect that requirement.
DVCMC could amend the POS to include wording about the lockoff premium (like there is int the VGF POS) but they can do so only if under reasonable business judgement improves the quality of operation for the ownership as a whole.
This is were it gets tricky: DVCMC could say that having smaller units cost more improves the program. But members can say that requiring them more points to book the same units damages the values of the points they own and the only one to benefit is Disney. This could be the basis for a lawsuit.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, well, I'm not even an American citizen, not even an English native speaker, so I would put the chances of me misunderstanding something important to 99%. I'm posting this more to ask someone more expert to find the flaws in my logic rather than as the basis for a class action

Also, the doc I have is an older version as it doesn't have the treehouses. It is possible the latest version is different. I have asked MS for the latest version. However the fact there might be some limits on them adding the lockoff premium remains, as this is the first version and even if they've added it, it might no be legal anyway,

 

[Wakey]

The POS is the public offering statement. Essentially the prospectus/ consumer information documents , summarising in short form what they can or can't do, taking from the home resort rules and regulations, and more importantly the declaration of condominium and exhibits.
I think we hear too much about the POS, and really any legal challenge would not only require consideration of that, but also the documentation behind it, in detail.
Like many buyers, I am far from happy with this new management.

 

[zavandor]

The POS is the public offering statement. Essentially the prospectus/ consumer information documents , summarising in short form what they can or can't do, taking from the home resort rules and regulations, and more importantly the declaration of condominium and exhibits.
I think we hear too much about the POS, and really any legal challenge would not only require consideration of that, but also the documentation behind it, in detail.
Like many buyers, I am far from happy with this new management.

The doc I have has a number of exhibit, the one I quoted, talking about reallocations, is Exhibit G, the Disney Vacation Club Membership Agreement. I am not aware there are other documents. Do you know other docs exist? I would ask MS to receive a copy of them, as in our rights.

 

[skier_pete]

After reading all the posts regarding this change it seems that a lot of people questions Disney legal rights to do what they did.

I wonder if anyone will challenge Disney legally, that would be the only way to find out if they are allowed to do it.

I don't think what they are doing is illegal in the strictest sense of the word. I am sure they are keeping the total number of points at the required amount. The act of doing this "lock-off premium" though seems rather iffy to me - with only a few resorts strictly spelling it out, and even thoses not limiting the lock-off premium. As I said, there is a limit to how much they can stretch this - you can't very well make a 1-bedroom cost more than a 2-bedroom - but who knows where the limit is.

The problem is the "loss" to me as an individual is fairly negligent not owning a lot of points - maybe talking $100-120 a year at most? Hard to justify outlying thousands of dollars towards a lawsuit. What sort of money would be necessary?

I would think there HAS to be an owner out there of considerable points who is also a real estate lawyer and could review of pursuing anything is even worth a darn.

I have to say - I am not sure if this is what they were intending, but this is the first time I have really been turned off from the idea of buying more points. I have two contracts, and with the elimination of resale benefits (which I still get because I bought my first contract before they were removed) the skyrocketing of resale prices, the 10% spike in Maintenance Fees, and now at the same time increasing how much it costs me to stay each night - I am not a particularly happy member.

Edit: Didn't someone post an address to write to for complaints about this? Is it in this thread somewhere? I couldn't find it.