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

[Madame]

A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?

I have colleagues that trade into SSR 1bds...........

 

[mustinjourney]

I did some poking around and found a class action from a timeshare group that ultimately settled with the company. The facts aren't the same as our situation, but what I did find interesting was that their causes of action would be likely similar to ours.

• Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants by improperly reallocating reservation points
• Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants for failing to give proper notice of the reallocation
• Breached the fiduciary duty owed to the timeshare owners
• Violated Section 721.18(5) of Florida’s timeshare law

What's interesting about that last point is that 721.18(5) states "The failure of an exchange company to observe the requirements of this section, or the use of any unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with the operation of an exchange program, is a violation of this chapter."

I would argue lining their own pockets with increased breakage as a result of this reallocation should certainly be considered an unfair practice. Arguably, the old program understanding checklists being changed very recently, as @drusba noted, and without giving notice, would also tend to show that they're being deceptive.

And this publication discusses some recent victories against timeshare companies due to the lies made during sales pitches.

Hilton agreed to drop a clause in its timeshare contracts that denied responsibility for representations in sales pitches about reservations, hotel use rights, rentals, resales, and buybacks of timeshare interests.

https://www.redweek.com/resources/ask-redweek/timeshare-owners-vs-developers

Curious to know if timeshare companies also fall under the Florida version of the deceptive trades and unfair practices act -- or if they are specifically carved out of that since they have their own statutes covering them.

 

[zavandor]

I did some poking around and found a class action from a timeshare group that ultimately settled with the company. The facts aren't the same as our situation, but what I did find interesting was that their causes of action would be likely similar to ours.

I have contacted them, they're looking at the case.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

@drusba - this statement kind of caused a revelation with me. While I realize it is somewhat sarcastic, it may well be wrong for us to assume that Disney is looking at this with MORE sophisticated tools than what we (the members) have at our disposal. My assumption has always been that they look at each resort and respond in kind.

In a thread heavy with posts I want to note:
THIS MAKES A CASE THAT DISNEY IS BEING ABOVE BOARD IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

So one of the things I've noticed - and mentioned here - is while working on the availability tools is that while the 2-bedrooms appear to be generally more available than 1-bedrooms at most resort, at SSR I am seeing the 2-bedrooms as being more available, albeit in this case the difference is very small. (Say 1-beds are still well available 2 months in advance while 2-beds are available at 1-month or less.)

But @drusba's comment made me realize something - what if Disney's data analysis is LESS sophisticated than what we as the more observant members of the DVC community are using. What if instead of analyzing every resort - they are only looking at the whole thing - and specifically what's left at the end. They could in fact care less that say at WLV the studios are gone at 9 months advance, 2-beds are gone at 7 months advance, and 1-beds are gone at 4-months advance. All they look at is that the studios, 1-beds, and 2-beds are all occupied at that resort - and therefore are equally "in demand".

So if we piled ALL the data together across the 10 WDW resorts, what we might just see is this - the most unoccupied rooms that are left across an entire year in the entire WDW system are 2-bedrooms. Yes, all of these rooms are at SSR (and maybe occasionally at OKW or AKV) but WHERE they are doesn't matter. So, even though 1-beds as a generally rule book later - to Disney's way of thinking they ARE more occupied, and they are equaling "occupancy" with "demand".

Also, because so many two bedrooms become split into studios and 1-bedrooms by the drive for people to get studios, the total number of studios and 1-bedrooms - again across ALL resorts - may be VERY high. So if they are seeing this - combined with my underlined point above - there is a clear path to the internal logic that "Across all of the resorts - we need to find a way to drive more people to occupy two bedrooms." The logic becomes if we can increase occupancy of 2-bedrooms everywhere, it will drive occupancy of 2-bedrooms at SSR, which benefits the entire system, and in fact increases overall occupancy which reduces breakage.

This also would be what is being used to drive the shift of points to make magic season 1-beds and 2-beds cheaper. Perhaps more of both are sitting unoccupied at that time of year than any other.

Though I think there are some flaws in the logic - I can see where this data would be enough to prove that the moves they made are in "the best interest of the members as a whole". And with that - I think any hope for an actionable case against Disney would fall apart.

As I read the POS there is a mechanism where The Management company can reallocate and establish charts and there also appears to be a mechanism for BVTC - who is in control of the inter-resort trades could also implement charts and reallocate. (I suspect the two overseers - the Management Co and BVTC are comprised of one and the same people). As you describe the scenario that should be under the consideration of BVTC and what we get as point charts from The Management company should only consider resorts as stand alone. They might very well be combining across the two when it ought to be separated.

 

[skier_pete]

Then I’d argue that they are incompetent. Incompetent or underhanded. Neither is acceptable.

Incompetence is not against the law.

Isn’t the point reallocation language supposed to limit point reallocation only within a specific resort?

They aren't re-allocating across resorts - I'm suggesting they are reallocating ALL resorts based on data that encompasses ALL resorts in a single lump.

If this is the DVCMC train of thought, it’s even more likely in violation of the POS. That’s not how reallocation is supposed to be used. When buying into any property, one is taking a real estate interest in that specific property.

Issues that arise out of the exchange, regardless of its impact on other resorts, should be addressed as an exchange issue separately.

I suppose you could argue this - that each resort should be taken as a separate entity. But the problem with this is with few date exceptions, no resorts are even close to fully occupied by their own owners. Again, Disney could argue that the issue is in fact cross all resorts - and the balancing is required across them all. This even matches with what they actually DID, because to the best of my knowledge, they DIDN'T do this rebalance of studio/1-bed/2-bed at VB, HHI, Aulani, or VGC. Only at the 10 WDW resorts.

I don't own DVC. It was on my wishlist - finances aren't such that I could make that happen yet, but I'd hoped to.

However, after the shenanigans that are going on right now, I've completely changed my mind. The belief that Disney was different than other timeshare companies has evaporated completely. It was quite an eye-opener that the laws in this area do very little to protect the consumer, and that the POS, the rules that govern how things are run, can be changed by (just) one party, apparently at-will. I'd be crazy to enter in a long-term expensive contract under conditions like that.

And that all Disney has to do to avoid breaking the law is say, "We aren't going to actually show you any proof, but trust us, it's in your best interest."

I am not sure I would buy-in now either compared to when I bought in 5 years ago. That said, there is still value to be had in DVC, but the value has shifted, and you would have to go into it with the atitude it could shift further. (Though again, what they can do in this regard IS limited.)

 

[Dean]

For CRO? Absolutely. For DVC other than to apparently reserve AKV value & concierge before the 11 month window when they seemingly have insider knowledge that something big is coming down (ie SWGE)? I don’t believe they could be bothered unless it’s to benefit them in some way.

Perhaps you’re correct and we should be challenging them on having member representation on the board level.

They're going to have CRO type data plus internal demand data. The idea they don't have the data is not logical even if one doesn't agree with the change.

I see a lot of back and forth in these 48 pages which is a good thing. However, I don't see a lot of support for the initial premise except for a few people. Not sure how a dozen members intend to organize and finance a legal action if it does have merit.

They're not. What will have to happen is either to get a lawyer to take it up hoping for a class action or to get an individual or small group to move forward that might evolve into a true class action suit.

Isn’t the point reallocation language supposed to limit point reallocation only within a specific resort?

It's by resort but they will use the data across all resorts.

A question for who trades into DVC using RCI: which are the most common rooms to get?

It depends on when you look, the last few years SSR 1 BR for the most part. I don't think any of us have to be convinced that 1 BR are overall the lowest demand along with certain high cost villas. This has long since become a circular argument.

 

[Madame]

Incompetence is not against the law.

Nor did I imply that it was. I said it was "unacceptable." I believe, however, that incompetence does not fulfill the requirements of their fiduciary responsabilty to act on behalf of the members.

 

[zavandor]

It depends on when you look, the last few years SSR 1 BR for the most part. I don't think any of us have to be convinced that 1 BR are overall the lowest demand along with certain high cost villas. This has long since become a circular argument.

This is related to @skier_pete 's theory. If they deposit mostly SSR 1BR and then reallocate because they finish before 2BR, then it's comical, they would be fixing a (not really) "problem" they created themselves.

 

[Madame]

They're going to have CRO type data plus internal demand data. The idea they don't have the data is not logical even if one doesn't agree with the change.

I'm actually a logical person, believe it or not. All passion aside, I do not believe that Disney nor DVC has shown any interest lately in tracking the DVC data for MEMBER benefit. So, for myself, I believe that data they had to the contrary would be ignored or manipulated in such a way to be interepreted in the most advantageous/revenue generating fashion for DVD. I would love to be proven wrong, but they'll just pat us on the head and tell us to trust them. I'm wondering how many on this thread would be so trusting of a government entity touting the same line...

 

[Dean]

This is related to @skier_pete 's theory. If they deposit mostly SSR 1BR and then reallocate because they finish before 2BR, then it's comical, they would be fixing a (not really) "problem" they created themselves.

I don't think any of us can completely answer the questions related to the 1 BR and I've offered some thoughts on what MIGHT be the thought process. I'm certainly not willing to crucify them on one second hand report of a phone discussion that has not yet been completed. The number of exchanges is minimal in the total numbers so it doesn't have much meaning IMO. I think you're assuming the reason they deposit them is availability but that's not the only possible explanation. Another is that it eats points and fulfills part of the RCI expectations. Thus this change might result in more 1 BR being deposited to RCI but it's still a very small # comparatively speaking.

I'm actually a logical person, believe it or not. All passion aside, I do not believe that Disney nor DVC has shown any interest lately in tracking the DVC data for MEMBER benefit. So, for myself, I believe that data they had to the contrary would be ignored or manipulated in such a way to be interepreted in the most advantageous/revenue generating fashion for DVD. I would love to be proven wrong, but they'll just pat us on the head and tell us to trust them. I'm wondering how many on this thread would be so trusting of a government entity touting the same line...

As I said before, if I believed that I would proceed along the ladder resulting in legal action or vote with my feet. I would not waste hours of my time trying to do this by phone, it can't possibly lead anywhere unless one is willing to move up the ladder. Regardless of what one thinks of the change, to believe they don't have and didn't look at the data is simply illogical.

 

[skier_pete]

I have colleagues that trade into SSR 1bds...........

I've heard ancedotally that it used to be possible to trade into a lot of the resorts - but that it has gotten harder in the last 5-10 years and most availability is SSR.

 

[Madame]

As I said before, if I believed that I would proceed along the ladder resulting in legal action or vote with my feet. I would not waste hours of my time trying to do this by phone, it can't possibly lead anywhere unless one is willing to move up the ladder. Regardless of what one thinks of the change, to believe they don't have and didn't look at the data is simply illogical.

Nope. I'll just work the system and benefit without my conscience twisting me in knots the way it would normally should I profit at another's expense (even if it is perfectly legal). The "if you don't like it then leave" line is over-used in today's society. I never implied they didn't look at the data (providing such detailed data on DVC exists), just manipulated its interpretation to their benefit and the members' detriment.

 

[Madame]

I've heard ancedotally that it used to be possible to trade into a lot of the resorts - but that it has gotten harder in the last 5-10 years and most availability is SSR.

I'm sure it has, but at my little school in small town Ontario Canada my classroom is right smack beside someone who last year traded into a 1bd SSR through RCI.

 

[skier_pete]

This is related to @skier_pete 's theory. If they deposit mostly SSR 1BR and then reallocate because they finish before 2BR, then it's comical, they would be fixing a (not really) "problem" they created themselves.

I'm not implying that they are trying to cheat the system doing this. That would end up pretty clearly on the illegal side of the law.

I'm sure it has, but at my little school in small town Ontario Canada my classroom is right smack beside someone who last year traded into a 1bd SSR through RCI.

My comment was not intended to contradict you - more to agree with you. I've heard of people trading into SSR but not the room category.

I would actually expect relatively few people on this board to have done an RCI -> DVC trade. Probably better off checking on the TUG BBS - though I just did a search with no luck.

 

[Madame]

My comment was not intended to contradict you - more to agree with you. I've heard of people trading into SSR but not the room category.

I would actually expect relatively few people on this board to have done an RCI -> DVC trade. Probably better off checking on the TUG BBS - though I just did a search with no luck.

Absolutely, but I've seen a couple of times the impression on here that trades via RCI are unicorn status now, even at SSR. Also, for me, it is important that the one person I know that trades via RCI in real life has gotten SSR 1bds in the last several years during March/summer, given that it's a home resort, and all that has happened with the SSR chart for 2020.

 

[DougEMG]

Do I think that Disney would manipulate the numbers to work in their favor, absolutely. Do I think some companies cheat and lie in order to increase profits, absolutely, just take a look at Volkswagen. I had been looking at buying one of their TDI Jetta models before the scandal broke) Do I think Disney is as bad as Volkswagen, absolutely NOT.

Now just cause I think owners are being taken with this latest point allocation, that doesn't mean I'm going to sell all my contracts and never go there again. The fact is that there is still some value to owning, especially at the price I bought at and the fact that my points are all grand fathered in. The point reallocation is reducing the value. Are more changes coming that will reduce that value, who knows? With each change I will re-evaluate the value and make the decision at the point to stay or go.

But that doesn't mean consumers are totally powerless. In today's interconnected world we can all express our displeasure in public forms, applying pressure to try and have companies change their behaviour. It might not be a lot, but their are already few people here and on other forums who have already said they have changed their mind about buying the Riviera.

 

[DVC92]

Now just cause I think owners are being taken with this latest point allocation, that doesn't mean I'm going to sell all my contracts and never go there again. The fact is that there is still some value to owning, especially at the price I bought at and the fact that my points are all grand fathered in. The point reallocation is reducing the value. Are more changes coming that will reduce that value, who knows? With each change I will re-evaluate the value and make the decision at the point to stay or go.

I concur.

 

[Dean]

I've heard ancedotally that it used to be possible to trade into a lot of the resorts - but that it has gotten harder in the last 5-10 years and most availability is SSR.

Lots. I've had AKV, BCV, BWV, SSR, OKW and BLT. We had 10 units at one time between BCV & BWV about half & half 1 vs 2 BR.

Nope. I'll just work the system and benefit without my conscience twisting me in knots the way it would normally should I profit at another's expense (even if it is perfectly legal). The "if you don't like it then leave" line is over-used in today's society. I never implied they didn't look at the data (providing such detailed data on DVC exists), just manipulated its interpretation to their benefit and the members' detriment.

My point was life's too short, not if you don't like it leave. Why would anyone want to participate if they felt the way some do here, there's not enough benefit or savings for that aggravation IMO.

 

[klbrow11]

So help me understand. I bought poly. I, like many others, bought for studios because well thats pretty much all there is outside of bungalows which who really can afford? So do they raise points based on dvc as a whole (all resorts) or just particular resorts? If the thought was to get more people from studio to 1 or 2 bed at the poly there is no 1 bed and there is still no way to stay in the bungalow. Just having a hard time seeing how at this particular resort it helps those who have bought in. We thankfully bought a little more than we needed. I would have hoped they would have added views and raised points that way. I would not mind knowing I would be getting a garden or pool view and spending a few extra points for it.

As far as lawsuit I have read a lot about the lockoff premium which Poly does not have. Would there be a point for poly owners to even attempt to fight it?

 

[freediverdude]

So help me understand. I bought poly. I, like many others, bought for studios because well thats pretty much all there is outside of bungalows which who really can afford? So do they raise points based on dvc as a whole (all resorts) or just particular resorts? If the thought was to get more people from studio to 1 or 2 bed at the poly there is no 1 bed and there is still no way to stay in the bungalow. Just having a hard time seeing how at this particular resort it helps those who have bought in. We thankfully bought a little more than we needed. I would have hoped they would have added views and raised points that way. I would not mind knowing I would be getting a garden or pool view and spending a few extra points for it.

As far as lawsuit I have read a lot about the lockoff premium which Poly does not have. Would there be a point for poly owners to even attempt to fight it?

I agree, decreasing the bungalows by a few points is not going to increase the bungalow occupancy away from the studios, and they didn't give the studio people what they would have wanted, like the guaranteed castle view on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Moorea for more points, or a guarantee not to get the parking lot view for more points/acceptance of a parking lot view for less points. So I don't see how they benefitted the members here.