Penalized For Being Prudent

[dismedvc]

I think it's a bit more muddled.

We agree to pay dues on the points we purchase and the agreement back is that we can book a room. DVC took away the rooms that were booked all per the requirement we agree to follow in the POS. We all acknowledge of course that a pandemic is something outside of DVC's control however in a way they have breached their contract with us. We pay - we get to reserve a room based on availability at the time of booking. Then - no room like DVC has agreed per the POS to provide. We don't have an agreement to just have points - we have an agreement to be able to book a room as long as we have paid.

Yes, DVC has what I call the bit at the end of the contract - "never mind what you just spent a couple of hours reading - we can change it at will" but then what you are holding up as them following the legal requirements actually isn't correct either because any of the banking and borrowing and holding point provisions are under their control to modify or change too. They can make this right. They do need more information to do that well. And making it right might or probably will cost them some of the profits they make off of us if they choose to do that.

I responded with a like to your post, but I would like to say more.
Our contract at BVW runs through 2042. Our contract at BLT runs through 2060. Our daughter may be one of the worlds most Disney World fanatics. Her husband, and now their two sons (both currently under 3 years old), will almost certainly inherit their mother's love for Disney. There is almost nothing DVC could do to make us sell our DVC membership (where we added our daughter and son to our deed when they turned 18). I think there are a lot of unknowns at this point, but I think Disney (DVC) will "do the right thing" and do what they can once all the information is in.

 

[TisBit]

What you stated is true for borrowed points that would have expired after DVC reopens.

However, for borrowed points that would have expired before DVC reopens, it would have been better for those with expiring points (and almost all other members) for them to have held firm on all rules. If those borrowed points had expired instead of being returned, they would not be competing for the rooms once DVC reopens.

If DVC is closed for 3 months, we will have 12 months of points competing for 9 months of availability. Not having those returned borrowed points, that would have expired, in the mix would be better for almost all members, not just the members who had points expire.
(The only members it would not be better for, are the members who would have had their borrowed points expire if DVC had not changed the rules)

I don't necessarily think this is true. Just like this year, if we say 12 months of points are compressed into 9 months, if borrowed points were not returned and allowed to expire, you may have only 9 months of points for 12 months next year. That would likely cause an influx of borrowing and continue to throw the system off balance with excess rooms vs points.

Theoretically, next year should cause the ship to (almost) right itself. If all borrowed points are returned, you will have 12 months of availability and 12 months of points for all members. Banking and borrowing will complicate this, but they generally work themselves out. Some members will bank next year and some will borrow. I think reservations may be rough to find to an extent, but that could be true for the next two or three years while these points work through the system.

There is no "right way" to do this to fix the points system, there is no way to add room inventory to a fixed timeshare setup. The only way I could see Disney to try to do this is to allow points be used in normal CRO for any resort and waive fees, etc. Maybe even extend use for expired points as a result of this, that would in essence add rooms to the system. But, that is a big step and have its own repercussions.

 

[dismedvc]

I don't necessarily think this is true. Just like this year, if we say 12 months of points are compressed into 9 months, if borrowed points were not returned and allowed to expire, you may have only 9 months of points for 12 months next year.

I disagree. I think next year will have had a surplus of points, even if borrowed points were not returned. Returning the borrowed points will make it worse. Members with August UY's undoubtedly banked almost all current UY points that were unused by March 31st, into next year since they were not sure if they would be able to use their current UY points before they expire on July 31st. Members with September UY's will likely do the same by April 30th. I would wager the points banked into next year from just those two UY's will be far greater than the points that were borrowed out of next year from all UY's. However I obviously have no data, it is just my opinion.

In addition, if the parks had not closed this year, and all the borrowed points had been used as planned this year, under your argument we would have had 9 months of points for 12 months next year. That almost certainly would not have been the case.

 

[Sandisw]

I disagree. I think next year will have had a surplus of points, even if borrowed points were not returned. Returning the borrowed points will make it worse. Members with August UY's undoubtedly banked almost all unused current UY points into next year since they were not sure if they would be able to use their current UY points before they expire on July 31st. Members with September UY's will likely do the same. I would wager the points banked into next year from just those two UY's will be far greater than the points that were borrowed out of next year from all UY's. However I obviously have no data, it is just my opinion.

In addition, if the parks had not closed this year, and all the borrowed points had been used as planned this year, under your argument we would have had 9 months of points for 12 months next year. That almost certainly would not have been the case.

Which is why it’s hard to understand that decision because we do not have all the data to know which type of points were in the buckets.

Plus, the return of borrowed points could end up causing problems later, and if it does, DVcM will have to figure out how to fix it.

For me, it seems that they made the easiest choice first and are working behind the scenes to figure out what to do with the points that are harder to deal with,

If they had bent no rules, all owners with reservations during closure would have suffered loss, but at least now, they seem to be trying to find a way to limit losses for as many owners as they can.

 

[TisBit]

I disagree. I think next year will have had a surplus of points, even if borrowed points were not returned. Returning the borrowed points will make it worse. Members with August UY's undoubtedly banked almost all current UY points that were unused by March 31st, into next year since they were not sure if they would be able to use their current UY points before they expire on July 31st. Members with September UY's will likely do the same by April 30th. I would wager the points banked into next year from just those two UY's will be far greater than the points that were borrowed out of next year from all UY's. However I obviously have no data, it is just my opinion.

In addition, if the parks had not closed this year, and all the borrowed points had been used as planned this year, under your argument we would have had 9 months of points for 12 months next year. That almost certainly would not have been the case.

Yes, there would have to be tons of data needed to know the implications. Yes, some people may have banked points, but some may have rescheduled before they could, in the hopes that the parks reopened. Even speculating that it will be a three month closure is not a guarantee, that is just a guess. The closure could go longer than three months, I agree there will likely be more banked points than normal this year, but that is where you may have a domino effect. People who would have used points might now bank them and then not need to borrow as many next year. Who really knows.

I go back to this is unprecedented and highly unusual. Even when someone referenced the points rules based on if you or Disney cancelled your reservation, which is not an accurate statement. DVC has never ever cancelled a members reservation, until a month ago, we wouldn't even be able to fathom that. But, under the theory that I made a reservation, during the reservation process I requested to borrow points to complete that reservation. If DVC closes and cancels your reservation, it would make sense to return those points to the original Use Year. Which is why I think their initial outlook was to return all points to original use years, until members who were past their banking period (or use year) would be guaranteed to lose the banked points, which would be more of a negative impact than allowing them to still try to use them before they expired. It appears they have decided to impact the membership the least, while still maintaining some of the rules around points. Again, who knows what they might do in the future for members that do lose points. I am sure it will be based on how many members and points are impacted. Until this is over, they can't even figure anything out, because the impact will continue to grow.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I think everyone is pretty much saying the same thing at this point.... Disney cannot play with the system by allowing banked points to be banked a second time. It would have a cascading affect on the overall system. The only thing at this point Disney can do is to offer "compensation" for those who lost points. This compensation could be done in various ways such as offering a cash credit to book cash rooms, an actual cash pay out etc.... Even with the losses the company will face in the short term, I think Disney is probably large enough that they can offer this without having a material affect on their bottom line. The gross number of people this has affected in DVC is actually probably relatively small. Having said that, any compensation would be coming out of Disney's profits and should be considered as a gesture of goodwill, not a legally required compensation.

The thing is, this may be a large wake up call to everyone about what buying into a timeshare really means. We are not the same as annual pass holders or hotel guests. We are real estate owners. A renter has limited risk when it comes to their home while an owner/landlord accepts responsibility of the risk. They have options to limit their risk such as buying insurance for an additional cost, but even that doesn't protect you from everything. In exchange for taking on the risk, they have the opportunity to profit on their asset through several methods such as cost savings, rental income or asset appreciation.

 

[Minniesgal]

When we bought in, our CM told us to pick a UY that was close to (slightly before) when we usually visit so that if our plans changed, we’d have many months to book other dates.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank that CM.

This we were also told to take a UY so we travel at the beginning of our UY.

We travel in August. So we tend to go for the last couple of days of July so we can use any leftover points if we have any from previous UY and then use the bulk in August. We always cross our fingers about the July points.

No two ways about it travelling with current UY points but beyond your banking deadline is risky. You cans ave up points for a big trip without taking this risk.

 

[dismedvc]

The only thing at this point Disney can do is to offer "compensation" for those who lost points.

As I posted on another thread,

(click on the up arrow to go to that post)

It would not necessarily be just a gesture of goodwill. There are scenarios where Disney could structure "compensation" in such a way that would not only benefit members whose points expired, but also possibly improve, or at least not reduce the bottom line for The Walt Disney Company. However, I do agree with you it is not legally required.

Not trying to start an argument, but at this point I am using the term expired points instead of lost points, since if there is compensation those points will not be completely lost.