Aggressive anti-rental email response from MS

[take36]

Confirmed reservations are going for $30 per point, some even $35 (I can list a bunch right now). Not just any confirmed reservations, specifically targeted resort-room-date categories that have the highest profit margins and demand. Businesses have a huge advantage here over casual owners. It’s their sole focus to secure their best profit options asap. Year on year this has escalated. There’s a huge difference from personal use booking trends. Other timeshares have already reacted.

I am sure they can see how many of these best of the best resort-room-date categories are going to renters versus owner personal use. Math wise it probably doesn't matter to them as they already got their money and their operating fee is the same renter or owner.

 

[GoingSince1990]

Surely if Disney’s policy really was that point rentals done “over the internet” are considered “commercial” and are likely to be canceled, they would send letters to companies like David’s and the DVC Rental Store, warning them that because of this policy any reservations made through them could risk being canceled? I’m sure this has not happened as these companies would have quite possibly a legal obligation (and definitely a moral obligation) to inform their customers of this, and we would all have heard about it.

 

[Sandisw]

Surely if Disney’s policy really was that point rentals done “over the internet” are considered “commercial” and are likely to be canceled, they would send letters to companies like David’s and the DVC Rental Store, warning them that because of this policy any reservations made through them could risk being canceled? I’m sure this has not happened as these companies would have quite possibly a legal obligation (and definitely a moral obligation) to inform their customers of this, and we would all have heard about it.

DVC would have no authority to contact the rental brokers for trips booked on someone else’s membership.

The POS rules are for owners so if they would contact anyone, it would be the owners whose membership has the bookings.

In the end, if DVC wants to define “for commercial purposes” in a stricter manner than they currently do, they can…but they still have to make sure any definition is not in conflict with the Right of owners to rent reservations.

As posted, the term commercial purpose has a legal meaning and thus DVC has to work within that or risk owners calling them on violating the POS.

 

[Anthony1971]

I would more interpret this as a renting a confirmed week rather than points. The difference is all members who own at X resort have an equal opportunity and at 7 months resorts open to most everyone else (new rules for Riv for example). Someone could bus enough points to rent out Christmas week every year and a week they usually go and turn a profit.

 

[Nursemanit]

Disney already knows that renting is happening. More importantly, they know what renters are spending.

If renters acted like unfavorable owners (like me) and came with APs and a sandwich from home, they'd be cracking down. Wildly speculating here that those families spend more than me in the parks, at least per night. And let's be clear about the goal here. This is all about revenue for the mouse.

Love the sandwich from home part !

 

[take36]

Love the sandwich from home part !

If renters spend more then DVC members then Disney will love their DVC members to rent to others! Disney already got the money for the rooms up front.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

But the issue is, there is no "old rule". DVC has never tied themselves to any codified definition of what "commercial" means. Sure, there is the tangential reference to "20 reservations", but nowhere do they tie themselves down to that. It's about as undefined and ambiguous as the ROFR process.

I'd have to dig but I think I might have kept the letter they sent about a decade ago that outlined 20 reservations as possibly being a trigger. It left ambiguity but defined it as much as we've ever seen,

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Rest my case

Just for an overview:
Limited solely for personal use is the outline for all use cases that are allowed except for corporations that can have people use it for recitational purposes only.

You want to act like renting or repeating renting in volume is not a commercial act. Thats fine thats your interpretation but Disney could say thats wrong and enforce it if you are profiting from the rentals you conduct.

I will step away from the thread at this point because people seemingly are unwilling to read how Disney could interpret the contract and unlike the point charts this would only impact a small segment of DVC owners making it a minority instead of majority issue that Disney could outline in the best interest of the general ownership and would likely be right since most people don't rent their points out likely.

Perhaps a re-read of the POS would be beneficial. I've gone to look at this part more than once. It's pretty clear - renting is allowed. You may not transfer points for cash however per the POS.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I've booked a reservation that I intend to offer for rent on a well-known timeshare rental/sale platform.

An advisor at the platform emailed and indicated they would be verifying the rental details and asked me to contact the resort to let them know they would be calling to "expedite" verification.

So, I emailed Member Services and told them this and just gave them a heads up. In hindsight, on a better day, I would have been more coy about what I was doing and maybe not bothered contacting MS at all. I have a bad cold today

But regardless I am frankly stunned by the email response I received:

Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club®.

While Members of Disney Vacation Club do have the ability to rent out Disney Vacation Club accommodations through their Membership on an occasional basis, use of Disney Vacation Club accommodations for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited. Commercial purposes include a pattern of rental activity. We view rentals of Disney Vacation Club accommodations over the Internet as a pattern of rental activity, which is prohibited under the Membership rules. Furthermore, we reserve the right not to honor any accommodations purchased or rented on the Internet. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance. Thank you and have a magical day I am well aware of the restriction on commercial renting, but the suggestion that a rental "over the internet" constitutes a "pattern" of prohibited rental activity is surely wrong, is it not? It's 2023 -- unless we are limited to renting to our personal friends, any rental will be conducted "over the internet." And it can't be because of my past activity -- although I have rented from time to time in the past, I've used my membership 3x since my last rental! I took them up on their offer of further assistance and asked for the email of a supervisor to complain. Either the advisor is off base, or the approved messaging is off base, IMHO.

Over the years, every now and then, a DVC CM will pop in stating renting is not allowed etc etc etc. I would not let one uninformed, bored, CM making up info create too much of a worry.
And I think you've now been informed that your request wasn't possible anyway. MS should not and hopefully will not ever speak to a non-owner about an account. You'd have to add that person as an associate member on your account which takes me to.......
The only change that was due to rentals that immediately comes to mind is prohibiting a singular person to be an associate member on multiple accounts. That was directly related to David's.

 

[kes601]

Just saw somebody else (I am assuming) on Facebook who got the same email.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Just saw somebody else (I am assuming) on Facebook who got the same email.

View attachment 762584

lol - that's what brought me here today to read what was up. As I read it that was just a post about this thread.

 

[KVacc]

There are several Facebook pages where individuals have as many as a dozen or more 2 and 3-night confirmed reservations available. At one time.

I saw that the other day and was like what the whaaaat is this? How can someone have so many reservations they need to rent??? Clearly someone doing it to make money and not just get rid of extra points they can’t use.

 

[Shelly F - Ohio]

I was about to say the same thing. Since they prohibit renting for commercial purposes, perhaps they are going to start viewing these third party rental sites as commercial and therefore not enforcing it by number of rentals, but rather the way it is being rented. From what I gather there is no set in stone definition so they could change what constitutes commercial whenever they want to.

ETA: I'm also not sure how the rental company could contact MS (or the resort) to confirm the reservation. They'd need all of your other information (membership #, last 4 of social, etc) just to get MS to release the info.

They can if the rental company owner owns over 30 DVC contract. Yep there is 1 company that they owner has over 30 DVC contract.

 

[Shelly F - Ohio]

I saw that the other day and was like what the whaaaat is this? How can someone have so many reservations they need to rent??? Clearly someone doing it to make money and not just get rid of extra points they can’t use.

RIght why would someone own over 30 contracts?? Unless you are running a DVC rental business

 

[dwg]

I have not read through the entire thread so forgive me if this comment is repeating what someone else might have said and I am not in any way making a comment on the rental policy. I believe what happened with the OP is that because the question/comment to Member Services was in the form of a written email, Member Services had no choice but to respond in the strictest way possible regard the rental policy as DVC knows the written response will be seen by the recipient and anyone else who sees it as a hard rule. Companies would not respond in writing to a customer question other than by taking the most conservative position. A phone call to MS instead of an email might have provided a different response but then MS could have claimed the cast members response was I error if an issue came up later. Much harder to make a claim like than when the response was in writing.

 

[Genie+]

Could a commercial pattern include contracts that never or very rarely get used by the actual owner(s)? This conversation is timely to discussions DH and I are having. Beside wondering the impact of DVC implementing stronger rental rules on resale values, we’re curious to the risk buying our third contract mostly just to rent out. We’re not interested in using it ourselves, mostly just for family joining us and rental. DH sent an email inquiring. Hopefully no issue here.

 

[Pens Fan]

RIght why would someone own over 30 contracts?? Unless you are running a DVC rental business

We've bought quite a few resale contracts. I always research the owners online to make sure they are legit. Two of them that we have purchased from have bought and sold hundreds (yes hundreds) of contracts. Both of them also owned contracts in various combinations with other owners - I assume - to get past the 20 rental per year guideline.

So yes, you are correct. They are running a commercial business of buying contracts, renting them out, and then reselling them for a profit. And yet DVC has (up until now at least) looked away.

 

[sndral]

Nothing like a deep dive into contract analysis on a DIS DVC thread.

…
In the end, if DVC wants to define “for commercial purposes” in a stricter manner than they currently do, they can…but they still have to make sure any definition is not in conflict with the Right of owners to rent reservations.

As posted, the term commercial purpose has a legal meaning and thus DVC has to work within that or risk owners calling them on violating the POS.

So I went in search of the “Right of owners to rent reservations” and didn’t see any such express ‘right’ in the POS. I used VGF’s, since it’s a resort I own, but assume the others have the same language.
There are several references to ownership interests being for “personal use and enjoyment only …” as well as several warnings to not buy expecting rental income.
I see clauses that regulate rentals when they occur such such as requiring you to have a contract w/ specific terms, but I didn’t find any language granting owners an affirmative right to rent. It’s a long contract & maybe I missed that clause & if someone else has spotted it I’d appreciate a cite/quotation. OTH there is no language forbidding rentals except the commercial purpose language cited previously.
The POS states that “…, the Board may in its sole and absolute discretion, adopt policies to provide what constitutes a commercial enterprise, practice or purpose…..” Given the sole and absolute discretion the Board has reserved for itself if they want to define using the internet as a commercial enterprise, practice, or purpose I suppose they could. More likely they’d do like they did w/ the 20 rentals per annum limitation & say using the internet created a presumption of commercial practice which the owner would have to rebut. I don’t know how they’d know if you used the internet to find your renters, unless you do what @lawboy2001 did & tell them , so it seems to me that if they adopted that definition it would be mostly an unenforceable restriction.
I also noted this clause “DVD’s approval of a rental by an owner is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name” [emphasis added] and could see a scenario where DVC made it more difficult to change the lead guest - I believe most spec confirmed reservations are made in the owner’s name & once a renter has been secured they must call MS to change the lead guest to the renter - as a way to crack down on spec reservations which likely are impacting availability for your average owner who just wants to use their points at their home resort during high demand times.

 

[crvetter]

.

 

[Sandisw]

Nothing like a deep dive into contract analysis on a DIS DVC thread.

So I went in search of the “Right of owners to rent reservations” and didn’t see any such express ‘right’ in the POS. I used VGF’s, since it’s a resort I own, but assume the others have the same language.
There are several references to ownership interests being for “personal use and enjoyment only …” as well as several warnings to not buy expecting rental income.
I see clauses that regulate rentals when they occur such such as requiring you to have a contract w/ specific terms, but I didn’t find any language granting owners an affirmative right to rent. It’s a long contract & maybe I missed that clause & if someone else has spotted it I’d appreciate a cite/quotation. OTH there is no language forbidding rentals except the commercial purpose language cited previously.
The POS states that “…, the Board may in its sole and absolute discretion, adopt policies to provide what constitutes a commercial enterprise, practice or purpose…..” Given the sole and absolute discretion the Board has reserved for itself if they want to define using the internet as a commercial enterprise, practice, or purpose I suppose they could. More likely they’d do like they did w/ the 20 rentals per annum limitation & say using the internet created a presumption of commercial practice which the owner would have to rebut. I don’t know how they’d know if you used the internet to find your renters, unless you do what @lawboy2001 did & tell them , so it seems to me that if they adopted that definition it would be mostly an unenforceable restriction.
I also noted this clause “DVD’s approval of a rental by an owner is not required after a reservation has been made in the renter’s own name” [emphasis added] and could see a scenario where DVC made it more difficult to change the lead guest - I believe most spec confirmed reservations are made in the owner’s name & once a renter has been secured they must call MS to change the lead guest to the renter - as a way to crack down on spec reservations which likely are impacting availability for your average owner who just wants to use their points at their home resort during high demand times.

The Multi-site POS has the language. It defines the Personal Use and specifically defines it as owner's guests and lessees. Since a lessee is someone who rents, I'd say it is pretty clear we can rent out the use of our ownership interests.