Aggressive anti-rental email response from MS

[KAT4DISNEY]

I would guess Disney would "prefer" that I stay in my own room, and that the potential renter also pays for a cash room. Two occupied rooms are better than one.

Disney is also a company that has been fairly conflicted if they want to be in the hotel business or not. With conversions and the majority of new builds being DVC I'd say they are still in that space. And Disney does make money off of DVC villas while not having the same financial commitment as with their hotels. But the biggest thing - someone not being able to stay onsite via a DVC rental does not automatically mean they will pay Disney cash prices. They just as easily might go to Universal, offsite or someplace else entirely.

 

[keishashadow]

I think Wyndam just pulled reservations for a few of the Bonnet Creek owners who they felt were a bit too active in rentals? It was obviously not all of them, but if they just did it to a few (which is what DVC MS was indicating they Could do) - it was enough to hit the Wyndam boards (and the DVC boards) as a heads up ... at that point I would not have rented Bonnet Creek thru Any service for fear we'd arrive to cancelled reservations. We fly into Orlando from the west coast, so that would be a disaster start to a trip.

I‘ve rented WBC thru vacation strategy for years, never an issue. Well, other than the blackout dates recently instituted. However, VS will absolutely not book a rental during those dates. My understanding is members get two ? exceptions and can book for others during the black out dates.

are you saying, WBC is arbitrarily cancelling any reservation they decide to choose now made for a “guest”, even if it’s in adherence with the blackout date policy?

 

[DonMacGregor]

Disney is also a company that has been fairly conflicted if they want to be in the hotel business or not. With conversions and the majority of new builds being DVC I'd say they are still in that space. And Disney does make money off of DVC villas while not having the same financial commitment as with their hotels. But the biggest thing - someone not being able to stay onsite via a DVC rental does not automatically mean they will pay Disney cash prices. They just as easily might go to Universal, offsite or someplace else entirely.

Regardless, my comment was in response to this:

Disney has not done this because they do not care. I believe they do not care because they want those rooms occupied by any means necessary.

Disney prefers to have 2 rooms filled over just a single one. However that can be done, Disney wants as many rooms filled with as many human beings spending money on Disney property as possible. The question wasn’t whether that was viable, or even likely, or what that potential renter might go or do otherwise, but what Disney would prefer. My point remains: if presented with two options, one being me renting my points to someone and them staying in that room, versus me using my points to stay in that room and the potential renter paying cash for a second room, Disney will prefer the latter.

 

[Bearval]

Regardless, my comment was in response to this:


Disney prefers to have 2 rooms filled over just a single one. However that can be done, Disney wants as many rooms filled with as many human beings spending money on Disney property as possible. The question wasn’t whether that was viable, or even likely, or what that potential renter might go or do otherwise, but what Disney would prefer. My point remains: if presented with two options, one being me renting my points to someone and them staying in that room, versus me using my points to stay in that room and the potential renter paying cash for a second room, Disney will prefer the latter.

Disney would probably really want your points to expire if you cannot use them so they can rent your room for a cash stay.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Isn't that everyone who rents out their DVC points?

No. It could really be limited to people who bought the contracts and are using them almost exclusively for commercial use. People who are occasionally renting are not making a profit overall.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

I’m sure everyone can agree, the ability to rent points is a huge benefit to DVC.

I don’t agree, and I bet a lot of people would fall on my side of this. If renting was disallowed, spec bookings for hard to get times would cease (and more points would necessarily go to breakage and not get used until 60 days before) increasing 11 month and 7 month availability for the rest of us. I rented points once for a reservation I ended up not being able to use, through David’s, but I would be absolutely fine with renting going away. I bought my contract to use it and if I ever reach a point where I’m not using it, I’ll sell it.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

(2) crashing the resale market by severely restricting rentals would have a chilling effect on the sake of new points.

Disney’s actions the last few years demonstrate that they could really care less about the resale market. There are plenty of timeshares that sell just fine with resale values at zero or less.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Wyndham Bonnet Creek started cancelling reservations (when people arrived for their stay!) based on what they though were excessive rentals by certain owners. One of the Wyndham Onsite salepeople (so roughly as credible as the Disney Shuttle Drivers) said Wyndham found that action increased "new" memberships since people were afraid to rent points from anyone they did not know directly. FWIW I know it made me shy away (and I bought more personal use points at DVC lol).

This is the reason I bought a resale Wyndham contract, so at least for me, their strategy worked.

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t agree, and I bet a lot of people would fall on my side of this. If renting was disallowed, spec bookings for hard to get times would cease (and more points would necessarily go to breakage and not get used until 60 days before) increasing 11 month and 7 month availability for the rest of us. I rented points once for a reservation I ended up not being able to use, through David’s, but I would be absolutely fine with renting going away. I bought my contract to use it and if I ever reach a point where I’m not using it, I’ll sell it.

Renting can never go away so unfortunately it’s going to be tough for those who wish it would.

I still think there is a lot of speculation that this is happening on a large scale with brokers who are violating the rules without specifics in how one knows that or that DVC is ignoring it and not addressing with those who are reaching those limits.

Even this thread has turned one email from a CM into it’s now a change in policy vs just a simply an uninformed CM.

 

[OKW Lover]

Even this thread has turned one email from a CM into it’s now a change in policy vs just a simply an uninformed CM.

exactly. We seem to be making a big deal out of it and I'm not really concerned about rentals. I've been a member since 1995 and have never rented my points. But I know other members who have and also non-members who took advantage of the rental market.

I suppose that on one basis I'd object to any restriction on my ability to use my real estate interest as I see fit. But I do recognize that the documents I signed include some limitations.

 

[DonMacGregor]

Disney would probably really want your points to expire if you cannot use them so they can rent your room for a cash stay.

True. Then they get my money and TWO rooms rented with cash. Point remains though: two filled and paid for rooms are better than one.

 

[RoseGold]

I still think there is a lot of speculation that this is happening on a large scale with brokers who are violating the rules without specifics in how one knows that or that DVC is ignoring it and not addressing with those who are reaching those limits.

Even this thread has turned one email from a CM into it’s now a change in policy vs just a simply an uninformed CM.

All you have to do is go thumb through the confirmed reservations on several sites and Facebook, and you can see this is happening at a fairly large scale in exactly the rooms you think would be targeted. And that's just confirmed reservations.

That doesn't mean they are violating "the rules" because the current rule of the 20 reservations is very difficult to violate. That's a big difference from the rogue email that started this thread that anything on the "internet" is a violation.

 

[TinkAgainU]

Not sure they could for booking the home resort. The rules have to be the same for everyone and since our contract currently defines personal use as owners and guests, they can’t make it so an owner has to be on the reservation.

DVC has a lot of latitude on "priority" booking. You don't keep owners from renting points by changing the priority of owners (or associates or extended family) booking trips, you just make it easier for owners to use the points they already have vs competing as much with rental bookings.

 

[conandrob240]

Issue 1: asking this kind of question to MS, the official representation for DVC, a product which you aren’t allowed to rent out.

Issue 2: if I ever have a question about a rental I’m doing, the conversation on the recorded line is “my friend is going to use this reservation”…

 

[Sandisw]

DVC has a lot of latitude on "priority" booking. You don't keep owners from renting points by changing the priority of owners (or associates or extended family) booking trips, you just make it easier for owners to use the points they already have vs competing as much with rental bookings.

The only priority they can do is the special list which means everyone is entered into a random pull. There is no way per our contracts to give certain owners priority booking over other owners at the home resorts...well, I don't see anything in your contract or the Home Resort Rules and Regulations that would allow what you are suggesting.

If you have something that I am missing, please share where you are finding the information.

 

[Sandisw]

All you have to do is go thumb through the confirmed reservations on several sites and Facebook, and you can see this is happening at a fairly large scale in exactly the rooms you think would be targeted. And that's just confirmed reservations.

That doesn't mean they are violating "the rules" because the current rule of the 20 reservations is very difficult to violate. That's a big difference from the rogue email that started this thread that anything on the "internet" is a violation.

I have seen them but I am not sure how one knows for sure that the owners of those confirmed reservations are in violation of the contract...or our memberships that are running it for commercial purposes.

Unless someone has information specifically that X confirmed reservations are indeed all being sold by the broker via multiple LLCs, then it is still speculation that seeing a lot of confirmed reservations means it is a professional renter doing it.

No question lots more rentals, especially confirmed ones out there, but that is not the same as having data or information that supports the position that because there are so many, they must be the broker doing it.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Even this thread has turned one email from a CM into it’s now a change in policy vs just a simply an uninformed CM.

I may have lost the thread here a bit, but do we have confirmation that the facebook reports of people (a person?) getting this email are all from the same person? It sounded like multiple reports to me.

 

[Sandisw]

I may have lost the thread here a bit, but do we have confirmation that the facebook reports of people (a person?) getting this email are all from the same person? It sounded like multiple reports to me.

It was the same person because the post on FB was a copy of the first post started by the OP. I don't know if the person who shared it via FB was the OP, or another DIS member who saw this and added it there, but it looked like that person did a screenshot of this thread. It specifically mentioned the Disboards

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

It was the same person because the post on FB was a copy of the first post started by the OP. I don't know if the person who shared it via FB was the OP, or another DIS member who saw this and added it there, but it looked like that person did a screenshot of this thread. It specifically mentioned the Disboards

Got it. Yes, I agree we can't draw any conclusions from one email then.

 

[RoseGold]

I have personally rented from professionals twice. I always pull the owner's deeds, as any renter should, and they were held by LLCs. Mine were affiliated with general real estate companies, not timeshare specific brokerages, exactly.

The contact I made to get the bookings was with professional administrative staff from a real estate company.

Professional renting is happening, and it has been for a long time. That shouldn't be particularly surprising. You can see it when you see who is buying resale deeds in the publicly available records. Plenty of these buyers are companies that aren't that hard to find.

And no, it's not against the (current) rules, but who knows what is "against the contract."