New Definition of Rental Activity?

[eticketplease]

If I recall correctly, Mousekeeping (full service) is for stays > X number of days at a villa. At least for us, if we requested garbage/towels, it was no issue on a daily basis. I have to imagine the costs for short-term, non-full service Mousekeeping is negligible vs. having the room sit truly unoccupied.

Ever since the Vegas shootings Disney comes into the rooms every day to empty the trash. Yes they will also bring fresh towels if requested but no additional cleaning is happening.

Having the room unoccupied does cut down on maintenance issues with no AC hot water and lights to deal with.

 

[eticketplease]

And we are the type of guests that do not go to a WDW DVC resort for a staycation unless we scored a last-minute, somewhat desperate owner looking to rent a booked reservation. We were/are fortunate to have that ability due to where we live, etc. But, I also fully recognize we are likely a very, very small subset of renters in the market. So, I will be keeping an eye on future booked reservations that are 1-2 weeks out and continue to strike the best deals we can. So far, it's opened up some fantastic stays in the 2/3 BR villas we would have never been able to.

I'm glad you have enjoyed your stays and have been able to get good deals.

On the other hand I'm sad that the owner whos' points you used was not able to partake in the magic and didn't get compensated anywhere near the value of said points.

Last minute rentals are like the house in Vegas where DVC Rental Store and Davids always come out ahead and the owner of points not so much.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Documents were not filed until after!!!

I know for CFW, you are correct; however, didn't someone report the same verbiage in the RIV documents also?

 

[JackosinDIS]

There is a post further up the thread with a comparison of the CFW v RIV declarations… almost exactly the same except for a slight expansion in relation to the wording for connected companies.

 

[Sandisw]

I know for CFW, you are correct; however, didn't someone report the same verbiage in the RIV documents also?

Some was in there…but there is additional language in CFW

 

[drusba]

There is a post further up the thread with a comparison of the CFW v RIV declarations… almost exactly the same except for a slight expansion in relation to the wording for connected companies.

A major difference is that the Riviera POS did not include a DVC Resort Agreement that had those new commercial purpose restrictions or that they could be enforced by BVTC. That agreement also never had provisions allowing BVTC to reallocate points among room sizes, e.g., lowering 2BRs while raising studios year round.

All the POS documents for a resort apply only to the given resort, here CFW, except one. The document that can apply to non-CFW owners is the DVC Resort Agreement since other resort members will be using the DVC Reservation Component to make reservations at CFW. Thus, those additions to the CFW DVC Resort Agreement were created so they could potentially be applied to other resort owners. For example, declaring in the CFW DVC Resort Agreement that BVTC can do a reallocation of annual points needed per night based on room size obviously is something designed by DVD to allow BVTC to go after non-CFW owners, because all CFW cabins are the same size and require the same points per night.

Particularly all the pre-Riviera resort owners should be asserting the CFW DVC Resort Agreement is improper, including because your DVC Resort Agreement declares that any Resort Agreement for a new resort added to the system must have terms that are the same in all material respects as your DVC Resort Agreement.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

A major difference is that the Riviera POS did not include a DVC Resort Agreement that had those new commercial purpose restrictions or that they could be enforced by BVTC. That agreement also never had provisions allowing BVTC to reallocate points among room sizes, e.g., lowering 2BRs while raising studios year round.

All the POS documents for a resort apply only to the given resort, here CFW, except one. The document that can apply to non-CFW owners is the DVC Resort Agreement since other resort members will be using the DVC Reservation Component to make reservations at CFW. Thus, those additions to the CFW DVC Resort Agreement were created so they could potentially be applied to other resort owners. For example, declaring in the CFW DVC Resort Agreement that BVTC can do a reallocation of annual points needed per night based on room size obviously is something designed by DVD to allow BVTC to go after non-CFW owners, because all CFW cabins are the same size and require the same points per night.

Particularly all the pre-Riviera resort owners should be asserting the CFW DVC Resort Agreement is improper, including because your DVC Resort Agreement declares that any Resort Agreement for a new resort added to the system must have terms that are the same in all material respects as your DVC Resort Agreement.

since it is the first trust resort,
‘maybe it is not going to be part of the current BVTO

 

[Sandisw]

since it is the first trust resort,
‘maybe it is not going to be part of the current BVTO

It is.

 

[Bearval]

So those owners who rent a lot and all the time could be out of luck too right? They wouldn't be able to utilize their points to renters. It seems to me like a cascading effect and a symbiotic relationship.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case if there is a regular pattern of different people on the reservation for a particular contract all the time.

 

[Bearval]

Yes you may not know if a resort is sold out or not. If the DVC site or kiosk doesn’t show promotional information it is considered sold out. Aulani, Cabins at Ft. Wilderness (later this month for new members), Riviera and Villas at Disneyland are the only non sold out locations.

I stated you will add to the bottom line with Food/merch no matter where you stay so not sure about that part of your post.

As I pointed out earlier and as @Robbie Cottam stated you are hurting Disney’s bottom line by not renting directly from Disney. Yes it is good for your wallet but not them.

Renting is one of Disney’s biggest revenue stream. Would they like to sell you DVC? Absolutely but that is a one time cash infusion as opposed to renting from them at their prices. If they crack down on rentals they then take out the rental competition and you are forced to rent from them if those are the accommodations you want.

I think three things are going to be a given;
One, resale restrictions are here to stay.
Two, Disney is going to actively look to curtail the commercial renting not by them or an approved affiliate.
Three, Disney is always looking to maximize profits and will attempt to plug any holes in it's revenue stream.

 

[Bearval]

Well, it’s been defined since 2007 as 20 or more reservations in a rolling 12 month period to trigger a review. So, someone who rents at or above that level is what I consider renting a lot.

If I was someone who was close to that, I’d certainly be a bit worried moving forward that DVC might be calling.

Does Disney consider ( or can they consider) each night of a stay as a "reservation" ?

 

[eticketplease]

I think three things are going to be a given;
One, resale restrictions are here to stay.
Two, Disney is going to actively look to curtail the commercial renting.
Three, Disney is always looking to maximize profits and will attempt to plug any holes in it's revenue stream.

I agree except for #2.

#2 there is a twist, curtail commercial renting by any entity not related to the Disney Corporation.
Disney is the #1 renter of DVC points after all.

 

[eticketplease]

Does Disney consider ( or can they consider) each night of a stay as a "reservation" ?

It depends if they were booked together or not.

We will use 5 nights as the example.

If there is full availability for 5 nights at a resort for the type and view of accommodation is available it would be counted as 1 reservation.

Boardwalk Pool Garden view studio is available you are good to book all 5 nights.

If you have to piece together a last minute stay you may end up with up to 5 different reservations on a 5 night stay.

Boardwalk Pool Garden view studio is available for 2 nights.
Boardwalk Boardwalk view studio is available for 2 nights.
Night 5, no studios are available so you get a Boardwalk Pool Garden 1 bedroom is available for the last night.

You effectively now have 3 reservations even though the are all at Boardwalk.

 

[Cyberc1978]

It depends if they were booked together or not.

We will use 5 nights as the example.

If there is full availability for 5 nights at a resort for the type and view of accommodation is available it would be counted as 1 reservation.

Boardwalk Pool Garden view studio is available you are good to book all 5 nights.

If you have to piece together a last minute stay you may end up with up to 5 different reservations on a 5 night stay.

Boardwalk Pool Garden view studio is available for 2 nights.
Boardwalk Boardwalk view studio is available for 2 nights.
Night 5, no studios are available so you get a Boardwalk Pool Garden 1 bedroom is available for the last night.

You effectively now have 3 reservations even though the are all at Boardwalk.

Even though that you are correct that there would be 3 reservations, I think that Disney would consider them as one reservation. They can see that the guest(s) coming are the same. Had it been for different guests then they would have treated them as separate reservations.

 

[Sandisw]

Does Disney consider ( or can they consider) each night of a stay as a "reservation" ?

I don’t think they would ever do that. It’s why I said I think it’s not as cut and dry as that…which is why we might have seen some updated and more specific language in identifying it.

Even with the 20 reservation in the name of others rule, it simply triggered a review of the account, and wasn’t an automatically deemed one was renting outside the rules.

I think if someone is renting one or two reservations every year, even If they are larger, they’d be okay. However, if someone is renting one or two reservations a year, year after year, and it’s the bulk of the membership, with the owner never using it, they could decide it is an issue…

Someone who is renting lots of small rentals, even if it’s less points than above, might get flagged sooner….but, I still believe the goal of any such update is to put the brokers on notice…

 

[eticketplease]

Even though that you are correct that there would be 3 reservations, I think that Disney would consider them as one reservation. They can see that the guest(s) coming are the same. Had it been for different guests then they would have treated them as separate reservations.

I could be wrong but I don't think so as look at ADRs.
This is also true for the dining plan. I might buy the counter service if checking in for 1 night in a studio before moving to a 1 bedroom. The mug is good for "Length of Stay" not per reservation so I can get the $22 mug I would be buying anyway and still use the meal credits on checkout day and the mug for my entire stay.

With doing the example of the 5 night split stay that I gave above the ADR 60 day window is reset on each reservation.

i.e. First 2 nights check in on 6/7/24 the 60 day window is 4/8/24
Second 2 nights check in on 6/9/24 the 60 day window is 4/10/24
Last night check in on 6/10/24 the 60 day window is 4/11/24

With one reservation and checking in 6/7/24 the 60 day window is 4/8/24 where you are able to make ADR for the entire trip.

 

[Sandisw]

Even though that you are correct that there would be 3 reservations, I think that Disney would consider them as one reservation. They can see that the guest(s) coming are the same. Had it been for different guests then they would have treated them as separate reservations.

In this case, they would be considered theee because they are all different rooms sizes.

However, in terms of reviewing one’s membership for potential commercial renting, if all three reservations had the exact same guests then my guess is DVC would look at it as one “reservation” that could be a rental.

That is why the rules have never been cut and dry. The reservation threshold was to trigger someone to review things…not a hard and fast rule that you were renting outside the rules.

If those three reservations were all in different names, then it would be viewed differently by DVC in evaluating someone’s membership for potential violations.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

It is.

Well, then that might get interest…

 

[hertamaniac]

However, if someone is renting one or two reservations a year, year after year, and it’s the bulk of the membership, with the owner never using it, they could decide it is an issue…

Someone who is renting lots of small rentals, even if it’s less points than above, might get flagged sooner….but, I still believe the goal of any such update is to put the brokers on notice…

This made me question legacy DVC contracts. Suppose someone inherits a contract from their heir as a means of income (yes, I know it's not designed/supposed to be used in that manner). And the new owner doesn't want to enjoy the onsite use of the DVC contract. How could DVC regulate situations like that? Wouldn't that be punishing the potential intent of the original purchaser?

 

[Brian Noble]

I'm pretty sure that "no commercial use" has been there from the beginning. Arguably, all the language added since then has been to clarify what DVC considers "commercial use" and not a fundamental change.