Lost DVC points

[Novakm]

Im confused, What banking rules have been changed?

They changed the rule that said any points from a reservation canceled within 30 days of check in can’t be banked. Most of the points from those canceled reservations are being banked, even with a rule in place saying they can’t.

I hear people argue that April/June use years knew they were taking a risk by planning a vacation at the end of thier year. To that I say that All the people in the other use years KNEW they were taking a risk by not cancelling before day 30. They choose to accept that risk. And then this rule change bailed them out.

Even if DVC did everything the way some would like...move all expiring points forward, there Still won’t be enough rooms next UY to book, and instead of owners losing use of points now, it would happen next year,

They only difference is which DVC owner suffers that loss

This is why it does not make sense to treat April /June differently. No matter how many points I lose personally today, I will still be impacted by whatever needs to be done in the future, even if it’s just reduced availability for a few years.

DVC is shared ownership. Owners bear the shared risk. There should be no question about which owner. ALL owners will be impacted based on how many points they own. Maybe it’s just reduced availability, or maybe something more drastic. But it will impact everyone. Why should April/June be impacted twice? Once now by losing points, and then again later when everyone else is impacted?

 

[Sandisw]

They changed the rule that said any points from a reservation canceled within 30 days of check in can’t be banked. Most of the points from those canceled reservations are being banked, even with a rule in place saying they can’t.

I hear people argue that April/June use years knew they were taking a risk by planning a vacation at the end of thier year. To that I say that All the people in the other use years KNEW they were taking a risk by not cancelling before day 30. They choose to accept that risk. And then this rule change bailed them out.



This is why it does not make sense to treat April /June differently. No matter how many points I lose personally today, I will still be impacted by whatever needs to be done in the future, even if it’s just reduced availability for a few years.

DVC is shared ownership. Owners bear the shared risk. There should be no question about which owner. ALL owners will be impacted based on how many points they own. Maybe it’s just reduced availability, or maybe something more drastic. But it will impact everyone. Why should April/June be impacted twice? Once now by losing points, and then again later when everyone else is impacted?

You have wrong information here. The only rule about less than 30 days changed was a waiving for holding.

The only thing that did happen for a few days, for a few members with April and June UY was some CMs allowed them to bank late.

Then DVC stopped that...probably because it was never an official policy. They decided to hold steady with all banking rules.

People with Aug UY and beyond are still within their banking windows and that is why they are being allowed to bank still Because no rules have changed.

In terms of April and June UY, again, they decided to travel outside banking and toward the end of the UY with banked points. That is always risky because you increase the loss if something happens.

The only reason DVC is even considering helping out if they can IS because this is such a unique case, and trying to help out those owners

 

[CanadaDisney05]

No one can convince me that DVCM is doing this out of "an obligation to all owners". The points I am losing is difference between a one and two bedroom - which means I have to tell three children they lost their room at Disney in the "interest of the membership as a whole." All I want is to use the points nine months later for a tripped planned for over 2 years. You think Disney would welcome the business.

They already have your business. You already bought those points.

If you're trying to tell me that DVCM thinks their resorts are going to be busting at the seems once this crisis is over you've got to be kidding. With all the people losing their jobs and the lingering effects of international travel restrictions and stigma there will be rampant vacancies. Of course DVCM will never offer deals to its members but watch how they willingly rent out the empty rooms they create at discount prices to non-members - pocketing our dues in the process.

Those rooms can also be rented out at discounted prices to members.

It does clearly point out that too many people roll over and accept this type of treatment from DVCM. When word of Disney taking points from its members due to a world pandemic the value of the membership/ownership will be tarnished forever. And it will get out.

Disney isn't taking any points from its members. Disney is not profiting off of this is any way. Disney's profit in DVC was already made when they sold you the points. Expenses with running the operation are paid for by the members. Whether your points get used or expire does not affect Disney's bottom line.

The issue is, if they allow you to bank points that otherwise couldn't be banked, you would use those points to book a room next year that you otherwise wouldn't have rented. Because you rented that room, now there is no room for me. Because my points are now going to expire and there are no rooms left to book, I am now the one who loses my points without compensation due to no fault of my own.

It is well known that travelling on banked points, especially towards the end of your use year is the most risky proposition in DVC. One of us is going to lose our points no matter what. Who should though? The one who took the risk of travelling at the end of their use year on banked points, or the one who limited their risk by trying to use points in their actual use year? There really is nothing DVC can do. The only option is for the Disney corporation to bail out DVC owners (which I think they should do).

 

[Novakm]

The only rule about less than 30 days changed was a waiving for holding.

They have never changed any banking rules, so you are Mistaken that they suspending banking. They did not.

I’m not saying they suspended banking. I’m saying that they changed rules to ALLOW banking points impacted by resort closure that would normally not be bankable, for all use years EXCEPT April/June.

There is a rule that says points from any reservation canceled within 30 days of checking in can’t be banked. I call that a banking rule. They suspended that rule.

 

[Deb & Bill]

The way I look at it, at least I think, is the phrasing "ownership interest in real estate" or something like that that keeps cropping up when they try to sell me more points. Ownership in real estate has risks, and not being able to use your real estate interest because the entire world is fighting a global pandemic is one of those risks. We are "owners" not "renters" so as "owners" the brunt of the loss falls on us. That's how ownership works. It seems like some want the benefits of ownership but none of the responsibility.

I do agree, however, that the distribution of the loss is not equitable across the membership (many members are not affected at all). I would be okay with a 'point haircut' where all members lose some percentage of their points to cover the pandemic losses. I don't know if they can legally do that though.

I didn't lose any points (except maybe two that I borrowed, we'll see if they move them forward). But I don't plan on losing my points because others booked late in their UY.

Then, in my opinion, you should give something to or compensate those who are feeling that pain. Not everybody is feeling that pain, yet those members that are are like everybody else in that they’ve purchased a contract that allows them the opportunity to book a certain percentage of nights at a resort every year or save some of that value for the following year if they follow certain parameters. Yes, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have padded every contract to protect them from circumstances like this, but Disney charges a pretty penny over what other timeshares cost for the Disney name and reputation. They trade on that reputation of putting their guests/members first and doing what is right and best for them, even when they don't have to. Over the last year, I've heavily researched DVC and am now in a financial place where I could become a member; it's something I'd really, really like to do. I'd even buy direct to get the Membership Magic perks. I've been a WDW passholder for many years and love the Disney Resorts, but my standards for a $900 AP an at least $20-30k 50-year contract are very different. I have to have absolute confidence and trust in DVC, and while that hasn't really been an issue in my mind before this, this circumstance has turned me off from buying for the time being. The idea that somehow, in some way I could lose any points at all through no fault of my own doesn't instill confidence in me, and seeing how they've handled it (and the complete botched communication) gives me even less. Meanwhile, the cash side and AP services have been wonderful and very flexible. No monthly AP payments (and unexpected options in how I can proceed with my AP). A special free dining offer. Clear communication and incentives to rebook at a Disney Resort. While I'm sure this may upset some here, I feel more comfortable staying with the cash side now for the time being, and that's a recent development. Even if they don't have a problem upsetting their membership, I'd hope DVC would care about turning off potential new members.

What amazes me is that while this may be an unprecedented situation for WDW/DVC/TWDC, an unexpected temporary closure of a timeshare resort is far from unprecedented. Go up and down the East Coast (even in Florida) and I promise you that you'll find many beach timeshares that have had to close for weeks due to hurricanes and cleanup thereafter and deal with dislocated owners as a result. Those properties seem to have found ways in the past to compensate those owners beyond just a "too bad" email. I have a friend who has a fixed-week timeshare on a beach in SC and when he couldn't stay his week due to hurricane cleanup, the timeshare took care of his maintenance fees for the following year. Until DVC can point me to a specific statute in FL timeshare law that prohibits them from doing something like that or offering some sort of financial compensation or special offer or something to its members, I will assume they are just choose not to.

You may be willing and able to swallow the loss, and I commend your positive attitude, but I don't think it's fair to expect every member (each in their own different situation) to just do the same.

My other timeshare on the Gulf Coast of SW Florida (since sold since we moved to the same town where it was located) gave us a credit for our annual fees for the next year when we weren't able to go the week we had scheduled one week after Irma hit. I'm not sure if DVC could give a credit per point that was lost, but it might be nice. Except for banked points. Those are already long gone dues-wise. There always is a risk with banked and borrowed points. DVC will never get a free dining offer on points. And if DVC cared about turning off potential new members, they would have done something long ago (like pre-Jim Lewis). You just have to realize that timeshares are not hotels. You aren't a member, it's not a club, you are a real estate owner. I'm sure you already do. If I were you, I wouldn't buy DVC and just book it through Disney if you like the DVC resorts. In a very short while, there won't be many Disney employees working at all with the furloughs.

I’m not saying they suspended banking. I’m saying that they changed rules to ALLOW banking points impacted by resort closure that would normally not be bankable, for all use years EXCEPT April/June.

There is a rule that says points from any reservation canceled within 30 days of checking in can’t be banked. I call that a banking rule. They suspended that rule.

There isn't any rule that says points from any reservations cancelled within 30 days of checking in can't be banked. That's the holding rule. Those points go into holding and can only be used to book a stay 60 days out and will expire at the end of the UY they are currently in. The banking rule is that you must bank any current year points no later than four months and one day from the end of your UY. MS did give a few members the ability to bank their points after their banking deadline, but that stopped quickly when it started to look worse than it was at that point. There has been a "Once in a Lifetime" Opportunity to bank after the deadline to bank, but it appears that is not going to be offered to everyone who would have to bank late.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

There is a rule that says points from any reservation canceled within 30 days of checking in can’t be banked. I call that a banking rule. They suspended that rule.

That's not a rule. The two things they changed we're

1) temporarily eliminate the holding account for reservations cancelled in the final 30 days. They can do this because it's a rule that's put in place to benefit Disney, not owners.

2) allow owners who borrowed points to return points to their proper use year. Normally this is not allowed, but it does make sense. The inventory that those points belong to have not been lost.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m not saying they suspended banking. I’m saying that they changed rules to ALLOW banking points impacted by resort closure that would normally not be bankable, for all use years EXCEPT April/June.

There is a rule that says points from any reservation canceled within 30 days of checking in can’t be banked. I call that a banking rule. They suspended that rule.

Okay, that is the holding rule. I see what you are saying that owners who were not penalized with holding requirements, could still bank if they were in the window,

The April and June UY points are not bankable for a different reason. You can’t equate the two because it’s apples and oranges.

 

[10CJ]

I’m not saying they suspended banking. I’m saying that they changed rules to ALLOW banking points impacted by resort closure that would normally not be bankable, for all use years EXCEPT April/June.

There is a rule that says points from any reservation canceled within 30 days of checking in can’t be banked. I call that a banking rule. They suspended that rule.

So do you think everyone with reservations in this time period should have had their points go into holding?

 

[nagshead]

I had to cancel a trip and now I have 185 points that will expire end of August I can not use them I put them up of rental sites but have had no action and that is understandable. I am on the fence I don’t want any problems in the future booking but when I made this reservation coved-19 did not even exist. Bc Disney makes us plan so far in advance we are forced to tie up points 7-11 months out and so much can change. We don’t have choice since nothing would be available 2-3 months out. Going forward I believe this is very damaging to the value of dvc. We are forced to tie up points and money so far in advance that if things get canceled last minute we are left holding the bag. Where has a cash payer can unwind their trip very easily. I While I am ok with losing this trip bc of what is going on going forward when I make another reservation in the fall for spring I am again going to be committing banked points and who knows if next spring this is still not going on and outbreaks are popping up and things get canceled again. Dvc might have worked well for the last 25ish years but things change and now their processes are not working very well. I wonder even for us Disney people if things will change and we will won’t want to commit to things so far in advance with out any recourse. I don’t know what the answer is but I do know the model is now broken and us the members need to push for changes.

I agree completely.

 

[Novakm]

The April and June UY points are not bankable for a different reason. You can’t equate the two because it’s apples and oranges

But in both cases reservations were made with valid, unexpired points that members paid for. In both cases the reservations were not honored. In both cases the vacation was ruined. In both cases the points were not bankable under normal rules. Sounds like both are apples to me.

So do you think everyone with reservations in this time period should have had their points go into holding?

I think they should have treated everyone the same.

If you believe, like I do, that all members should share the burden, just as all members share the risk of owning real estate, Then ALL points for reservations while the resorts are closed should have been put back into unrestricted status so the members don’t lose them. Then figure out how to fix the point imbalance. It could probably be spread over a number of years so no one is terribly impacted. I think this would be the least likely scenario to cause a lawsuit, because no one member would lose enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. And they could never win it if they did.

If you believe, as some others do, that by making the reservation, the member making the reservation assumed all the risk for that day, then ALL of the points used for reservations during the closing should have been expired immediately. Not fair to the people who had reservations, but the result would be no point imbalance.

Some people think that the rules are the rules and should not have been changed at all. While I disagree, I do think this could have been defensible. It would still leave a point imbalance problem, but it would be hard to challenge.

But changing the rules in a way that helps some owners with affected reservations but not others, and still creates a point imbalance is just not defensible. In my mind the route they took is the least desirable, because it leaves the door wide open for a lawsuit. There are enough people with April/June use years that were affected to make it worthwhile for an enterprising lawyer to make money off of it. And each of those people lost thousands of dollars worth of points, so it would be pretty easy to sign them up. This is definitely not in the best interest of the membership as a whole, because it’s our dues that will pay the lawyer.

I hope they realize this out before the lawyers start circling.

 

[nagshead]

Yes, it goes without saying that with any real estate purchase, there is always a chance (and in some cases, a likelihood) of unexpected losses during the tenure of your ownership. But if you are a co-owner, the other party in the agreement is also expected to minimize losses and act in the best interest of the ownership as a whole, not just their specific stake. I do happen to know FL timeshare law includes stipulations that aim to ensure that. On DVC's part that means making concessions to affected members to minimize their loss to the greatest extent possible. On affected members' part, it means accepting those concessions and accepting any remaining losses. But the balance there is integral. DVC shouldn't be just sending an email to all members saying, "Too bad," and members shouldn't be expecting the full value of everything that's been lost. If that means direct financial payments (perhaps from insurance) that don't necessarily equal the explicit value of the lost points, then that would satisfy me. But there has to be a give-and-take. Disney shouldn't be using its leverage and somewhat advantageous position in an ownership agreement to tip that balance against the affected membership to minimize any more losses on DVC's part

Knowing Disney and all of the leverage and resources they have at their disposal, I think you and I agree that is more they *could* do, even if in the form of good will. No, it may not be in members' best interest to just extend banked points into the next year, but they certainly have other options like financial compensation. I know every Disney Resort (DVC and cash) has an insurance policy designed for closures just like this. They're not huge but perhaps affected DVC members get a tiny cut of ones at their resort. Idk. Yes, those remedies would undoubtedly result in increased expenditures on DVC's part (which right now would translate to losses), but I go back to the give-and-take balance I was discussing.

That's not even mentioning how they sell DVC, marketing it as with "Leave it to Disney dependability." When buying direct, DVC sells not only the real estate interest itself but the Disney reputation. This isn't just a timeshare anywhere, it's timeshare at Disney, by Disney. I remember a Guide advising me not to look at this as "just another timeshare because Disney advocates for its membership." He said something about them "remaining our Guests" or something like that. While that marketing is largely irrelevant in this circumstance, one has to question the ethics of marketing a purchase one way and then doing business in a way that might be perceived as undercutting those claims.

I also respectfully ask that you just stick to the argument here. I have put a lot of time and research into purchasing DVC, including seeking advice from members on this Board on whether it's a fit for me. That conclusion is ultimately my calculation, based on circumstances and factors to which nobody else is privy. Me questioning how DVC is handling this does not necessarily mean DVC never was for me because I somehow misunderstood what I was looking at. As I said, I respect and appreciate your perspective, and I'd hope you'd respect mine.

Really great explanation!!

 

[nagshead]

But in both cases reservations were made with valid, unexpired points that members paid for. In both cases the reservations were not honored. In both cases the vacation was ruined. In both cases the points were not bankable under normal rules. Sounds like both are apples to me.




I think they should have treated everyone the same.

If you believe, like I do, that all members should share the burden, just as all members share the risk of owning real estate, Then ALL points for reservations while the resorts are closed should have been put back into unrestricted status so the members don’t lose them. Then figure out how to fix the point imbalance. It could probably be spread over a number of years so no one is terribly impacted. I think this would be the least likely scenario to cause a lawsuit, because no one member would lose enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. And they could never win it if they did.

If you believe, as some others do, that by making the reservation, the member making the reservation assumed all the risk for that day, then ALL of the points used for reservations during the closing should have been expired immediately. Not fair to the people who had reservations, but the result would be no point imbalance.

Some people think that the rules are the rules and should not have been changed at all. While I disagree, I do think this could have been defensible. It would still leave a point imbalance problem, but it would be hard to challenge.

But changing the rules in a way that helps some owners with affected reservations but not others, and still creates a point imbalance is just not defensible. In my mind the route they took is the least desirable, because it leaves the door wide open for a lawsuit. There are enough people with April/June use years that were affected to make it worthwhile for an enterprising lawyer to make money off of it. And each of those people lost thousands of dollars worth of points, so it would be pretty easy to sign them up. This is definitely not in the best interest of the membership as a whole, because it’s our dues that will pay the lawyer.

I hope they realize this out before the lawyers start circling.

100% agree with you.

 

[Sandisw]

But in both cases reservations were made with valid, unexpired points that members paid for. In both cases the reservations were not honored. In both cases the vacation was ruined. In both cases the points were not bankable under normal rules. Sounds like both are apples to me.




I think they should have treated everyone the same.

If you believe, like I do, that all members should share the burden, just as all members share the risk of owning real estate, Then ALL points for reservations while the resorts are closed should have been put back into unrestricted status so the members don’t lose them. Then figure out how to fix the point imbalance. It could probably be spread over a number of years so no one is terribly impacted. I think this would be the least likely scenario to cause a lawsuit, because no one member would lose enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. And they could never win it if they did.

If you believe, as some others do, that by making the reservation, the member making the reservation assumed all the risk for that day, then ALL of the points used for reservations during the closing should have been expired immediately. Not fair to the people who had reservations, but the result would be no point imbalance.

Some people think that the rules are the rules and should not have been changed at all. While I disagree, I do think this could have been defensible. It would still leave a point imbalance problem, but it would be hard to challenge.

But changing the rules in a way that helps some owners with affected reservations but not others, and still creates a point imbalance is just not defensible. In my mind the route they took is the least desirable, because it leaves the door wide open for a lawsuit. There are enough people with April/June use years that were affected to make it worthwhile for an enterprising lawyer to make money off of it. And each of those people lost thousands of dollars worth of points, so it would be pretty easy to sign them up. This is definitely not in the best interest of the membership as a whole, because it’s our dues that will pay the lawyer.

I hope they realize this out before the lawyers start circling.

All UYs points were returned without holding restrictions.

The only reason April and June UY points are at risk is because the owner chose to book them when they knew they couldn't be banked if the reservation was canceled,,,,so, they were not bankable regardless of the what decision DVCM had made,,

No lawsuit because DVCM has done nothing they are not allowed to do, whether any of us like or agree with that decision.

The rules have been consistently applied. April and June UY people are asking for a different rule...late banking...had they booked trip before that window closed, and this happened, they would have been eligible to bank points too

ETA. As of today, it’s now April,June and August who are beyond window. Once May hits, 4 of the 8 UYs will not be able to bank late if they wait to cancel .

 

[nagshead]

Then, in my opinion, you should give something to or compensate those who are feeling that pain. Not everybody is feeling that pain, yet those members that are are like everybody else in that they’ve purchased a contract that allows them the opportunity to book a certain percentage of nights at a resort every year or save some of that value for the following year if they follow certain parameters. Yes, I'm sure Disney's lawyers have padded every contract to protect them from circumstances like this, but Disney charges a pretty penny over what other timeshares cost for the Disney name and reputation. They trade on that reputation of putting their guests/members first and doing what is right and best for them, even when they don't have to. Over the last year, I've heavily researched DVC and am now in a financial place where I could become a member; it's something I'd really, really like to do. I'd even buy direct to get the Membership Magic perks. I've been a WDW passholder for many years and love the Disney Resorts, but my standards for a $900 AP an at least $20-30k 50-year contract are very different. I have to have absolute confidence and trust in DVC, and while that hasn't really been an issue in my mind before this, this circumstance has turned me off from buying for the time being. The idea that somehow, in some way I could lose any points at all through no fault of my own doesn't instill confidence in me, and seeing how they've handled it (and the complete botched communication) gives me even less. Meanwhile, the cash side and AP services have been wonderful and very flexible. No monthly AP payments (and unexpected options in how I can proceed with my AP). A special free dining offer. Clear communication and incentives to rebook at a Disney Resort. While I'm sure this may upset some here, I feel more comfortable staying with the cash side now for the time being, and that's a recent development. Even if they don't have a problem upsetting their membership, I'd hope DVC would care about turning off potential new members.

What amazes me is that while this may be an unprecedented situation for WDW/DVC/TWDC, an unexpected temporary closure of a timeshare resort is far from unprecedented. Go up and down the East Coast (even in Florida) and I promise you that you'll find many beach timeshares that have had to close for weeks due to hurricanes and cleanup thereafter and deal with dislocated owners as a result. Those properties seem to have found ways in the past to compensate those owners beyond just a "too bad" email. I have a friend who has a fixed-week timeshare on a beach in SC and when he couldn't stay his week due to hurricane cleanup, the timeshare took care of his maintenance fees for the following year. Until DVC can point me to a specific statute in FL timeshare law that prohibits them from doing something like that or offering some sort of financial compensation or special offer or something to its members, I will assume they are just choose not to.

You may be willing and able to swallow the loss, and I commend your positive attitude, but I don't think it's fair to expect every member (each in their own different situation) to just do the same.

well said! We stand to lose 200 points with our May booking if they don’t reopen and I’m past our banking window.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

But in both cases reservations were made with valid, unexpired points that members paid for. In both cases the reservations were not honored. In both cases the vacation was ruined. In both cases the points were not bankable under normal rules. Sounds like both are apples to me.

There is a significant point you are missing here.

The holding account is built into the system for the benefit of Disney.

The banking window is built into the system for the benefit of the membership.

The reason Disney can waive the holding account is because they are forfeiting their benefit as a gesture of goodwill to members. If Disney waived the banking window restrictions it would be to the detriment of the vast majority of members, which goes against their mandate.

Personally, I think maybe their could be an argument to allowing those with reservations during this period bank current use year points even if it is outside of the normal banking window. I do not think in anyway they can allow any points to be banked a second time.

However travelling during the last 4 months of your use year is always well known risk. There are a lot of things that could happen that could force your points to expire under more normal circumstances. Hurricanes, other natural disasters, terrorist attacks, death in the family, medical issues, work issues, etc..... None of which are yours or Disney's fault. Those that were travelling within their banking window were easily able to bank their points without issue. They didn't put themselves in a vulnerable position.

 

[Gary Carter]

Quick question for any lawyers out there. Does Disney or DVC or whoever have a fiduciary duty to us as members/owners?

 

[zumfelde]

You have wrong information here. The only rule about less than 30 days changed was a waiving for holding.

The only thing that did happen for a few days, for a few members with April and June UY was some CMs allowed them to bank late.

Then DVC stopped that...probably because it was never an official policy. They decided to hold steady with all banking rules.

People with Aug UY and beyond are still within their banking windows and that is why they are being allowed to bank still Because no rules have changed.

In terms of April and June UY, again, they decided to travel outside banking and toward the end of the UY with banked points. That is always risky because you increase the loss if something happens.

The only reason DVC is even considering helping out if they can IS because this is such a unique case, and trying to help out those owners

Had a call with member services today I rescheduled a May trip to end of July and I had banked 23 points because I did not need them for the May trip. I asked today to have my points unbanked because the points needed in July were higher. They absolutely refused even after I asked why are you bending rules for people the borrowed points but not others. Extremely dissaponted in them.

 

[Sandisw]

Had a call with member services today I rescheduled a May trip to end of July and I had banked 23 points because I did not need them for the May trip. I asked today to have my points unbanked because the points needed in July were higher. They absolutely refused even after I asked why are you bending rules for people the borrowed points but not others. Extremely dissaponted in them.

I know it’s frustrating and To be honest, it would probably have helped for them to explain how putting borrowed points back is helping with the situation as we are looking at such a huge loss of rooms,

However, they did say they may try to find a solution. I was just reading a section of the POS for loss of use and while under no obligation, it is possible, if I understand it correctly, that they can allow the association to pay for other types of rooms through some sort of assessment....but it doesn’t say anything about reinstatement of expiring points.

The issue is this is related to one resort going offline and offering owners the ability to use a different resort. Not sure it works when all 15 are closed,

Once this is over, there could still be a chance they will try.

 

[TinkFan74]

I had a reservation at OKW from May 6-15, but when it became obvious that this would not be happening I rebooked at Aulani for the last week of August. I am not an expert on UY and expiring points because I made the choice to use points when I was young enough to still ride the roller coasters. But would it not make sense to suspend borrowing for a couple of years and give the people who have points expiring while WDW is closed a two year period to use those points? I have no problem not going on my annual vacation next year as I am not actually losing anything.

 

[Novakm]

They didn't put themselves in a vulnerable position.

They did put themselves in a vulnerable position. When they didn’t cancel before 30 days, those points were no longer eligible for banking.

How does it matter who the rule was meant to protect? Can you explain to me how August points banked into 2020 because of the rule change are less damaging to the system than June points? I’d say the June points are less damaging because they expire sooner.

The second question is if April/June are the only ones who lose current UY points due to the closing, how will they be protected from any future impact caused by allowing other UY’s to bank? Or do you think April/June should pay twice?