rental concerns

[skierrob]

With availability getting more and more scarce for those that book five or six months out, I'm beginning to get worried about some individuals that are consistently and repeatedly 'abusing' the rental system to make a large volume of profit off their DVC membership.

Now, have NO problems with people renting points to friends or family, or even someone placing a property for rent when they decide they can't "make their stay" three months before their trip.

But when people try to score a huge profit off a reservation they book that they have no intention of using themselves, then I have a concern and issue. IE -- "I just booked a 7 night stay at BLT theme park view 11 months from now. Please give me $30 a point!" Some people GET those reservations rented, and it simply reduces inventory for those of us looking for something closer to when we can actually book airfare and such. And the fact is, some of these people do this every year with every point they have in an effort to make a profit. They never had an intention of using their DVC membership to stay at Disney themselves.... or they bought hundreds (or thousands) of points simply to game the system for profit purposes. And the DVC rental sites obviously have no problems with this.

I'm not sure what Disney can do about it, but it really isn't fair to those that can't book at exactly 11 months every year out. Sigh. And yes, I DO consider the DIS "platinum rental plan" to encourage such just abuse.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, it doesn’t really reduce any inventory from anyone because the people who did the booking are owners. They have ever right to take those rooms and book them.

This topic comes up a lot and I get why it’s frustrating for some.

Personally, it doesn’t bother me because owners are allowed to rent.

DVD had defined what triggers a review thst one is using the membership for commercial purposes and that is having more than 20 rentals in the names of others over a rolling 12 month period.

Even if they crack down on that, they simply can’t stop someone from spec renting a popular week since, as I said, owners can rent out a reservation under the personal use clause.

 

[Jwaire]

Never really understood this issue. Is it jealousy because they beat you to a specific room type? If someone can get $30/pt for their BLT points, great!

Most renters are just trying to break even by the time they factor in TMV, taxes, dues and finance fees—they aren't making much at all. In many cases, these are cancelled trips because of life.

They'd much rather be at Disney.

I also noticed you didn't mention the big DVC rental companies that own their own contracts, charge in some cases upwards of $40+ per point and only pay the owner $12-19 before taxes.

If Disney was going to crack down on something, it would be those companies.

 

[Royal Consort]

I'm not sure what Disney can do about it, but it really isn't fair to those that can't book at exactly 11 months every year out. Sigh. And yes, I DO consider the DIS "platinum rental plan" to encourage such just abuse.

Everyone has the same rules. If people don't book at 11 months, that's on them. It's neither abuse or any other hyperbole. You are contractually provided a one month home resort booking advantage: Disney allow 11 months at your home resort (with 4 month home resort advantage). That's it. The points cannot be ever oversold as there is finite inventory whether they are rented or owner occupied. It is up to the owner to choose how they participate in the system, including the decision not to book at the 11 month window. To expect other owners not to rent their own property so other members can benefit sounds more akin to entitlement.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Owners are allowed to rent, which means Disney is allowed to rent.

If owners weren't allowed then weren't Disney. That might be the reason why Disney is not doing something. Anything they do, would impact themselves.

Owners renting their points is not taking inventory from anyone. As owners You and I have the same possibility to book a room, during our home resort period.

If I want to rent a BWV standard view room, all owners at BWV have the same chance or option to book the room as I do.

 

[Genie+]

There is more than one way to look at this. Whatever DVC decides to do or not is what will happen. That's what I kept in mind while purchasing. They could crack down on commercial renting by further defining it. We thought about the ripples effects if such changes were made down the line. It was one of many things we considered while deciding which resort and how many points. Maybe that's overly cautious. I'd rather avoid headaches where possible.

 

[zavandor]

With availability getting more and more scarce for those that book five or six months out, I'm beginning to get worried about some individuals that are consistently and repeatedly 'abusing' the rental system to make a large volume of profit off their DVC membership.

Now, have NO problems with people renting points to friends or family, or even someone placing a property for rent when they decide they can't "make their stay" three months before their trip.

But when people try to score a huge profit off a reservation they book that they have no intention of using themselves, then I have a concern and issue. IE -- "I just booked a 7 night stay at BLT theme park view 11 months from now. Please give me $30 a point!" Some people GET those reservations rented, and it simply reduces inventory for those of us looking for something closer to when we can actually book airfare and such. And the fact is, some of these people do this every year with every point they have in an effort to make a profit. They never had an intention of using their DVC membership to stay at Disney themselves.... or they bought hundreds (or thousands) of points simply to game the system for profit purposes. And the DVC rental sites obviously have no problems with this.

I'm not sure what Disney can do about it, but it really isn't fair to those that can't book at exactly 11 months every year out. Sigh. And yes, I DO consider the DIS "platinum rental plan" to encourage such just abuse.

Looking at it in another way. If the people you describe are forced to sell their contracts because spec renting is not allowed anymore, then the contract would be purchased by someone who might also book the same rooms you're interested in.

 

[RoseGold]

It's not "abuse," it's the design of the product. It's written in the rules what renters and are aren't entitled to. If you read your paperwork or did any research you would know that.

If you want a timeshare that can't be rented out, then buy into a system that restricts this kind of behavior, like Wyndham.

You bought into this neighborhood. And the rules are NOT that you have to buy it for yourself or only rent to your buddies or whatever rule you are making up in your head. Reality is professionals keep your resale value high, when many timeshares are worthless. If you want to buy a worthless timeshare you can't sell or rent out, there are plenty of those. DVC is not one of them.

Disney would probably rather have a one-off renter buying plushes and day tickets than me, honestly, with my sandwich from home and my AP. DVC has shown no sign they are cracking down on this, and why would they?

 

[FrannyFrogs]

I started reading this completely on the same page with the OP. It's frustrating as a DVC owner to be stalking/waitlisting a certain room and then see it available as a for-profit rental from another owner!

Reading the comments here has actually changed my mind. I suppose all the owners have the same opportunity to reserve the rooms and use them however they want, and I like the value of my contracts staying high!

Thanks for bringing up the topic, OP!

 

[RapunzelRN]

I appreciate having the option to rent dvc. As an owner who cannot afford as many points as the trips I’d like to take, I benefit from the kind folks who rent me their extra points, especially when they even pay the dues!!?

However, I’m convinced there must be a group of room walkers who grab up all those highly coveted AKL value studios to hoard for rent as a “confirmed reservation”

 

[Cyberc1978]

However, I’m convinced there must be a group of room walkers who grab up all those highly coveted AKL value studios to hoard for rent as a “confirmed reservation”

Im an AKV owner and I occasionally rent my AKV points and when I do I book the studio value rooms. They rent for a premium and I have opposed to others no issue booking those rooms.

 

[Disfamwa]

It's not "abuse," it's the design of the product. It's written in the rules what renters and are aren't entitled to. If you read your paperwork or did any research you would know that.

If you want a timeshare that can't be rented out, then buy into a system that restricts this kind of behavior, like Wyndham.

You bought into this neighborhood. And the rules are NOT that you have to buy it for yourself or only rent to your buddies or whatever rule you are making up in your head. Reality is professionals keep your resale value high, when many timeshares are worthless. If you want to buy a worthless timeshare you can't sell or rent out, there are plenty of those. DVC is not one of them.

Disney would probably rather have a one-off renter buying plushes and day tickets than me, honestly, with my sandwich from home and my AP. DVC has shown no sign they are cracking down on this, and why would they?

It actually specifically says you aren’t allowed to use your contract for commercial purposes. The occasional renting seems to be allowed under this, but this is a broad legal term that DVC could attempt to define in many ways.

This is directly from my contract:
“Purchase of an Ownership Interest or use of the Vacation Homes and facilities of the DVC Resorts for commercial purposes (except for commercial use of the Vacation Homes and facilities of the DVC Resorts by any of The TWDC Companies) or for any purpose other than the personal use (except for use by any of The TWDC Companies) described in this Public Offering Statement is expressly prohibited.”

 

[Cyberc1978]

It actually specifically says you aren’t allowed to use your contract for commercial purposes. The occasional renting seems to be allowed under this, but this is a broad legal term that DVC could attempt to define in many ways.

This is directly from my contract:
“Purchase of an Ownership Interest or use of the Vacation Homes and facilities of the DVC Resorts for commercial purposes (except for commercial use of the Vacation Homes and facilities of the DVC Resorts by any of The TWDC Companies) or for any purpose other than the personal use (except for use by any of The TWDC Companies) described in this Public Offering Statement is expressly prohibited.”

According to this thread from 2008: https://www.disboards.com/threads/dvc-commercial-use-policy-added-to-pos.1687889/

Members are allowed to make up to 20 reservation per year per membership.

Also after reading the thread it seems that DVC just can't change the wording to their liking, because if members have been allowed by the POS in the past(when they purchased) then it can't be changed to not allow it at least not for current owners - for future owners I would assume its a possibility. Since the wording was vague about commercial renting, then DVC can try and explain.

Furthermore Disney can write anything they like in the POS, but that does not necessarily mean that it will be legal or legally binding for the owners. Additionally, whatever limitations DVC put on owners they can't do themselves, at least seen from a legal perspective.

Remember that all owners have the same rights and options to book. Also FL law is above the POS, so if the POS limits your rights and FL Law gives you the rights then you have the rights.

Below text is from the thread.

DVC does not have an unfettered right to unilaterally amend and have it apply retroactively to existing owners. As the documents say, and as the law requires, it cannot make changes that materially alter the rights of members granted when they purchased. For example, there is no way DVC can just double the number of points everyone needs to reserve a room all times of year. Moreover, by state law, it cannot eliminate a right to rent.

What it can do is provide reasonable restrictions to the right to rent if such restrictions are made in the documents a member receives at the time he purchases. In this instance, there has always been a restriction against using the ownership for "commerical purposes." However, that ambiguous term was never defined. In such cases, DVC can attempt to provide riules that explain the term. In this case it has created a rebuttable presumption that reserving more than 20 times a year shows you are using the ownerhip for commercial purposes. Could that withstand a legal challenge asserting it is an improper change to exisitng member's rights? Possibly but you should not assume it is a foregone conclusion. You should also not assume that simply because DVC has a lot of lawyers to look at this, it must be acting ocrrectly. These are the kind of rules where DVC sat down and tried to come up with an objective test to deal with what would likely be construed as being for a commerical purpose -- someone being in the business of renting points. As I am familiar with lawyers and have actually dealt with Disney lawyers, I am quite certain that the lawyer's letter giving DVC the opinion that its new restrictions were proper came with the caveat that said "but a court could hold otherwise."

 

[RoseGold]

Let's be clear, the 20 reservations is a joke. That's not an accident. Any professional can work around that restriction, even in a massive 2,000 point contract or something. Just look at the transfers, Plenty of those are going to LLCs. Maybe that's smart estate planning, and maybe it's professionals.

DVC has NOT cracked down on renting, like other systems have. And there have been some real horror stories out there.

DVC has no incentive to stop renting because it keeps resale (and direct) pricing high, and it brings in one-off families instead of unfavorable cheapskate APs like me.

Who cares what the owners want, this is about the mouse. Until renting hurts DVC, they won't change the rules.

 

[DonMacGregor]

I posted a screen shot of a rental listing off Facebook that was deleted (I realize now that it could have been perceived as some sort of offer to rent, even though they aren't my reservations, and my post was critical not supportive). I'll try to scrub it down some more and re-post with less information, but it really is an interesting screen shot.

 

[Sandisw]

I posted a screen shot of a rental listing off Facebook that was deleted (I realize now that it could have been perceived as some sort of offer to rent, even though they aren't my reservations, and my post was critical not supportive). I'll try to scrub it down some more and re-post with less information, but it rally is an interesting screen shot.

Just to elaborate, one can’t post any information, screenshots that show any confirmed reservations, offers to rent, or resorts, dates, etc. for rental offers. That was the reason for its deletion.

in addition, screenshots that are shared, must also include the link to the site showing it, which includes FB.

Please keep any info general in nature.

 

[DonMacGregor]

In addition, screenshots that are shared, must also include the link to the site showing it, which includes FB.

If you provide the link, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of redacting the information? I mean, anyone can now go and get all the info I just took time to black out on the screen shot...

 

[Brian Noble]

As many have mentioned, those who book to rent are just owners like anyone else, and everyone has to play by the same rules.

However, as folks may not have mentioned, the booking patterns of a landlord are likely to be at least somewhat different than that of an owner booking for personal use. For example, a landlord is likely to look for the absolute highest delta between the cost of a DVC booking and the effective rate of that same room from Disney. An owner booking for personal use is influenced in part by the cost of booking the room, but also by their own vacation desires.

The governing documents say that the ownership can't be used for commercial purposes, but that's never been clearly defined, and Disney does not appear to be doing much to curtail renting in any meaningful way. They've chipped around at the edges over the years, including: limiting points transfers, limiting the number of associate members, and the 20 reservation rule. But, those are all in the margins.

I believe Disney could do more, and there are plenty of examples of other timeshare developers who have done more--in some cases, a LOT more. Will Disney? Who knows. However, I would be careful with any assumptions that Disney looks at private rentals with benevolence. Furthermore, if I were a landlord I'd want to make sure that I had an exit plan if for some reason I got caught holding the bag. Those dues payments can be punishing if you suddenly lose your rental income stream.

This is another reason why I think the bigger players are more likely to be using a buy-strip-flip strategy, because the risk of getting stuck with lots of non-performing assets is lower.

 

[Sandisw]

If you provide the link, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of redacting the information? I mean, anyone can now go and get all the info I just took time to black out on the screen shot...

If you provide the link, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of redacting the information? I mean, anyone can now go and get all the info I just took time to black out on the screen shot...

Given that the link is sending people to confirmed reservations, which we don’t allow, the post has been temporarily deleted as it goes through the review process with other mods.

But in general, as long as one links to a site regarding content that isn’t banned, then what other information that site has is not micromanaged by this site,

We don’t allow posts that share specific rentals or contracts for sale, which is why I asked you talk in general terms. Screenshots do need to be linked but if they contain information not allowed, then those should not be shared, even with the link.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

As many have mentioned, those who book to rent are just owners like anyone else, and everyone has to play by the same rules.

However, as folks may not have mentioned, the booking patterns of a landlord are likely to be at least somewhat different than that of an owner booking for personal use. For example, a landlord is likely to look for the absolute highest delta between the cost of a DVC booking and the effective rate of that same room from Disney. An owner booking for personal use is influenced in part by the cost of booking the room, but also by their own vacation desires.

The governing documents say that the ownership can't be used for commercial purposes, but that's never been clearly defined, and Disney does not appear to be doing much to curtail renting in any meaningful way. They've chipped around at the edges over the years, including: limiting points transfers, limiting the number of associate members, and the 20 reservation rule. But, those are all in the margins.

I believe Disney could do more, and there are plenty of examples of other timeshare developers who have done more--in some cases, a LOT more. Will Disney? Who knows. However, I would be careful with any assumptions that Disney looks at private rentals with benevolence. Furthermore, if I were a landlord I'd want to make sure that I had an exit plan if for some reason I got caught holding the bag. Those dues payments can be punishing if you suddenly lose your rental income stream.

This is another reason why I think the bigger players are more likely to be using a buy-strip-flip strategy, because the risk of getting stuck with lots of non-performing assets is lower.

One thing that could always come into question is that DVC is the largest owner at any resort and also rents out their own points. They book at 11 months and have an exchange location (WDW website) to list those rentals. Yes, developers get some exceptions as they write most of the rules but I have wondered if this might be one that DVC senses could become a sticky situation if they considered a massive swipe at other owners.