Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[Sammie]

They very well may have been within the legal confines of the POS but the change was generating a lot of negative PR. Clearly they need to go back and rethink their communications strategy for the future. Should have been prepared with crafted speaking points, etc.

This I completely agree with and obviously they agreed too. I don't think it will change the fact that adjustments will be made, simply that the communication of it will change. Which to me proves two things, they were within their rights to make changes and that they do listen to the membership.

 

[WebmasterDoc]

From the transcript of the video:

"drumroll please...
each Disney Vacation Club Resort has a total number of vacation points assigned to it.
aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

The POS states that information. The transcript you provided does not state that the offset needs to be from the same type of accommodation however.

The use of "any" is much more inclusive then what is stated in the POS. This is especially true in the context of the video as a whole. They taught how they have studios, 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms... for places like SSR. The POS only sees them as 2 bedrooms.

Also I can't find where this frame is covered in the POS with this kinda of clarity:
...

The POS does state the status of lock-off 2BRs as the determining factor for the total points at the resort but allows lock-off Studios and 1BRs to be secured using DVC points.

The point chart pictured was provided in printed form along with documents mailed to members at that time and is still provided in similar fashion on the DVC Member web site each year. Presently the point charts for 2018, 2019 and 202 may be viewed online via the Member site. The provided point chart was even clearer and more readable than the pictured item as there was nothing obscuring the center of the chart.

For a number of years, point charts were sent out each year to be kept in a provided 3-ring binder. Once information became available online, the mailed information stopped in favor of the website.

All of this has been well-documented and discussed throughout this thread.

 

[ParkHoppers]

My question is are there any other times when DVC caved like they just did over the 2020 charts. If they only changed their mind because of negative calls and letters than they must have also done this in the past. Correct? I am asking because I really don’t know the answer and personally think there is a chance they were trying to get away with something they shouldn’t have. And when they saw motivated individuals who were going to point this out they caved. To me it could be either or.

 

[Madame]

My question is are there any other times when DVC caved like they just did over the 2020 charts. If they only changed their mind because of negative calls and letters than they must have also done this in the past. Correct? I am ask9ng because I really don’t know the answer.

The only even remotely similar comparison was the wekend/day reallocation & that was obviously needed if not wanted. IMO they did not cave to member dissatisfaction as much as to the real possibility that even if operating within the limits of their role as defined technically by the POS, the member benefit was too questionable & they could have lost a class action.

Why did they not start with season adjustment first, for example? Perhaps the seasonal adjustment would lead to different room usage patterns. Instead they went straight to the cash grab.

 

[Candlelady]

Maybe, just maybe, someone made a mistake with the point charts. It happens. They're human.

 

[Dean]

From the transcript of the video:

"drumroll please...
each Disney Vacation Club Resort has a total number of vacation points assigned to it.
aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

The use of "any" is much more inclusive then what is stated in the POS. This is especially true in the context of the video as a whole. They taught how they have studios, 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms... for places like SSR. The POS only sees them as 2 bedrooms.

Also I can't find where this frame is covered in the POS with this kinda of clarity:
View attachment 378592

The points formulation is clearly defined in ALL POS I've looked at, and I suspect all of them, specifically and directly stating it's based on the non locked off portions. That IS the legal requirement per the POS AND FL statutes. And thus any changes would be calculated as such.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

The POS states that information. The transcript you provided does not state that the offset needs to be from the same type of accommodation however.



The POS does state the status of lock-off 2BRs as the determining factor for the total points at the resort but allows lock-off Studios and 1BRs to be secured using DVC points.

The point chart pictured was provided in printed form along with documents mailed to members at that time and is still provided in similar fashion on the DVC Member web site each year. Presently the point charts for 2018, 2019 and 202 may be viewed online via the Member site. The provided point chart was even clearer and more readable than the pictured item as there was nothing obscuring the center of the chart.

For a number of years, point charts were sent out each year to be kept in a provided 3-ring binder. Once information became available online, the mailed information stopped in favor of the website.

All of this has been well-documented and discussed throughout this thread.

You see this way different than I do and I am not sure how them sending us the point charts in 3-ring binders way back when has anything to to with this discussion.

Let's just say we don't see this one eye to eye.

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

The points formulation is clearly defined in ALL POS I've looked at, and I suspect all of them, specifically and directly stating it's based on the non locked off portions. That IS the legal requirement per the POS AND FL statutes. And thus any changes would be calculated as such.

Yes I have looked at/read the POS, read this forum and get all that. I am saying if you put this video in front of a jury things may not go so well for Disney. There is the fine print and then there is the selling strategy and they don't seem to be saying the same thing. In my opinion a jury would be willing to put more weight on the sales strategy over the "fine print" of the POS. Sometimes it's not about what is legal or not, it is about what you have promised the consumer.

 

[cruisin5]

each Disney Vacation Club Resort has a total number of vacation points assigned to it.
aside from normal point fluctuation from year to year this number will never increase unless accommodations are added to a resort and
while vacation points may be adjusted from year to year it's important to know that any increase or decrease to any given day must be offset by an equal increase or decrease for another day."

This clearly states my it's the total number of vacation points assigned to the resort. Any increase or decrease to the aforementioned resort points must be be offset. Resort. Not room type.

Please help me understand what I'm missing where it says the balance must be made to the same type of accommodation?

 

[DVCDisneyRunner]

This clearly states my it's the total number of vacation points assigned to the resort. Any increase or decrease to the aforementioned resort points must be be offset. Resort. Not room type.

Please help me understand what I'm missing where it says the balance must be made to the same type of accommodation?

Not sure why you quoted me. I have not said that.

Thanks

 

[4evryoung]

Then I told her I'd be happy to be pointed to the laws that make this reallocation legal, that I may be missing something important that clarifies everything.
But this wasn't what she meant. She told me that they care all their 250,000+ members are happy. She knew that I didn't purchase direct from Disney but on the secondary market (she added it is completely in my rights to do so). She said I didn't purchase direct from DVD so I didn't have a chance to talk with the guides or read the production understanding document I referred to, I replied that when I purchased, I took all rights and obligations from the previous owner and she just replied: "yes that's right".
Then she added that if I'm not happy anymore to be a member she would take my case to the committee and ask to reimburse me even if I didn't purchase direct. I told her I don't want to sell and she repeated the offer a second time. At that point I told her I'm happy to be a owner and that I want to continue to use my DVC, but if they cannot convince me there is nothing wrong with the reallocation I would use my rights as a consumer like talk to a lawyer or make a complain with the federal and Florida authorities.

This, in poker terms, is the "tell". She had clearly been authorized (usually by legal) to offer you a buy out if the conversation strayed into an area they couldn't legally defend. So my reading is that somewhere in that conversation was territory that their legal team did not feel comfortable defending with authorities.

Thank you for all of your efforts.

 

[TheMick424]

This I completely agree with and obviously they agreed too. I don't think it will change the fact that adjustments will be made, simply that the communication of it will change. Which to me proves two things, they were within their rights to make changes and that they do listen to the membership.

My personal opinion is they paused to re-evaluate approach in light of the backlash and make doubly sure their position is solid, legally defensible and there is a well thought out communication strategy. If that had happened in advance they wouldn’t have been so quick to reverse course.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

My question is are there any other times when DVC caved like they just did over the 2020 charts. If they only changed their mind because of negative calls and letters than they must have also done this in the past. Correct? I am asking because I really don’t know the answer and personally think there is a chance they were trying to get away with something they shouldn’t have. And when they saw motivated individuals who were going to point this out they caved. To me it could be either or.

Cupgate.

They just waited another 10 years before they did it again.

(ok - not a legally questionable activity but they implemented one day, got lots of feedback, "due to member feedback we are putting real glassware back" announcement came, and now approx. 10 years later they did it again).

Maybe we'll have another 10 years for new point charts.

 

[cruisin5]

Not sure why you quoted me. I have not said that.

Thanks

It was quoted from post #1400, your transcription of the video. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Matty B13]

Also as an owner in the timeshare, why should I sell??? Why wouldn’t I try to get the management fired or at least try to listen to my opinion in the matter! We own a percentage of these resorts, I understand it’s a business, but really why should owners just give up something they spent a lot of money on and love because of poor management? Wouldn’t it make more since to talk/write to Bob Igor about our concerns about DVC?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Also as an owner in the timeshare, why should I sell??? Why wouldn’t I try to get the management fired or at least try to listen to my opinion in the matter! We own a percentage of these resorts, I understand it’s a business, but really why should owners just give up something they spent a lot of money on and love because of poor management? Wouldn’t it make more since to talk/write to Bob Igor about our concerns about DVC?

Most would consider the cost and aggravation for a vacation option to not be worth it. That may be what timeshares count on and why they have the particular reputations they do and why they require such regulation? Because most people are going to sell or it's going to be recommended that they sell. Or the management/developer will offer to buy out to make the issue go away.

 

[tjkraz]

Maybe, just maybe, someone made a mistake with the point charts. It happens. They're human.

The fact that a senior member of DVC management was not aware of some of the most basic aspects of the point chart changes suggests this could very well be the case.

Kudos to those who reached out to management to pose questions. If there was some grand conspiracy to create points and increase breakage revenue, I suspect DVC would have either been more guarded in its responses or they would have been prepared to stand by the changes.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Yes I have looked at/read the POS, read this forum and get all that. I am saying if you put this video in front of a jury things may not go so well for Disney. There is the fine print and then there is the selling strategy and they don't seem to be saying the same thing. In my opinion a jury would be willing to put more weight on the sales strategy over the "fine print" of the POS. Sometimes it's not about what is legal or not, it is about what you have promised the consumer.

Juries can be a finicky bunch, especially when it comes to civil liability of a bunch of consumers v. corporate America. This can be good or bad. Just pointing out the obvious fact that it certainly exists.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Maybe, just maybe, someone made a mistake with the point charts. It happens. They're human.

And you're certainly fair in choosing to believe that if you please, however; I'm not buying it. Too many smart pen pushers and managers with agendas and MBAs to dismiss this as any sort of accident whatsoever in my opinion. It may pitch to some, but a jury in a civil case would laugh them out of a courtroom for using that one and would make them scratch a HUGE check with a bunch of zeroes on it just for trying.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

The fact that a senior member of DVC management was not aware of some of the most basic aspects of the point chart changes suggests this could very well be the case.

Kudos to those who reached out to management to pose questions. If there was some grand conspiracy to create points and increase breakage revenue, I suspect DVC would have either been more guarded in its responses or they would have been prepared to stand by the changes.

That, or they got caught with their pants pulled down and didn't think enough people would open the door and peek inside. I'm picking the latter.

They oughta be sued for trying it to begin with. I'd bet money that case would be even more likely to win than the original threat. Now they've confessed and cut their losses. The optics on this look REALLY bad. For them. If it looks like Donald, and it quacks like Donald...