They don’t from my understanding. They just ask you let them know so they can pull them. I’d bet anything that some of these duplicates (same dates and room) that show in multiple brokers are simply the same rental.
Wow, that’s interesting. That means that renters should not be getting free parking. Lol. Never mind that I doubt anyone has let dvc know they are renting. I really think Disney is about to quash the rental market big time.
Wow, that’s an insane amount of rentals for one week— and that’s only one broker!!!
No that’s not a benefit that’s a right. Anything paid by dues isn’t excluded there, parking is entitled the same as use of the room because it’s a deeded part of the common elements you own. The benefits are defined in the paragraph above that one and exclusively refer to things (that as far as I know never been extended to anyone but the owner) like the membership extras.
It’s two brokers and three distinct rentals. The site they pulled from is an aggregation site. So unlikely this is a broker doing this but an owner not tied to either broker.
Regardless, that’s only one week at one resort and one room type!! That’s huge. Disney has got to address this. They basically have outside brokers profiting at the expense of buyers. This isn’t casual renting.
They book them right away without a renter in order to get the reservation— in hopes of then finding a renter (speculative reservation). They call MS and change the name on the reservation.
I think you and I would have to beg to differ. It’s a moving goal post in this thread. This particular room is not hard to get, was easy to get at 7 months this year, is only 3 rooms out of how many at VGF (347 max units and 200 resort studios). These are also the most expensive studios and generally in a building most consider worse than the DVC building. It’s just 3 out of 200 for all resort studios and 3 out of 28 for theme park views (again not popular usually because of high point costs) and 3 out of 112 if you throw in theme park and lagoon views.
It’s not occasional. It’s patterns and it’s speculative and I’m annoyed if I see that and I’m trying to get that reservation with my own points. It’s not a good look. And now that I know that people are giving renters illegal free parking— I’m even more annoyed.
That definitely seems like a blue/white issue as you mentioned. Renters won't be able to show digital membership cards when making purchases, or trying to access lounges etc... so perhaps prompting members to disclose will open the opportunity for CMs to explain that Renters won't have access to benefits.
They aren't getting illegal free parking, first off parking is free at all resorts now regardless (don't charge for cash stays anymore, except AUL/VDH/VGC) and secondly owners have a right to the parking because our dues pay for it. It isn't a benefit (which again is defined in the Rules and Regulations) but an entitlement do to ownership. It would be a kin to saying renters can't use the bathroom in the room, the swimming pool, the bed in the room because we pay/own for those things.
Cool, can you check on this one for me, that you claim was updated today?:
Or how about this one, almost four pages in:
Also not wrong given that those 3 rentals (that seem to be the topic of conversation) listed on David's and DVC Rental Store for VGF in a Theme Park view aren't on the sites. I can't find them at all.
I went searching out to August, September and October, just in case closer rentals had been taken or dropped off for other reasons (and skipped early December for the same reason), but it seems to be ridiculously inaccurate regardless of when you look.
There is no “commercial rental” prohibition in our membership contract. The contract prohibits using the membership for commercial rather than personal purposes. Occasional rentals, using whatever means, do not violate this rule. Incidentally the contract also states that DVD can use “reasonable” discretion to define commercial use. This made up distinction of renting “ on the internet” or through use of 3rd party brokers, clearly doesn’t pass the “reasonable” threshold requirement.
No, it's not just you. IMO, any"fix" to the perceived problem, would be worse than the "problem" it's trying to fix.
