Advice needed! Room canceled accidentally

[KAT4DISNEY]

This thread is a learning thread for many I'm certain. Often a broker is touted as providing the insurance - which they do for money only. As we have learned that is it.

Looking at it as an owner I must admit that somehow in my head I felt that David would provide some help or insurance for example in a situation where the renter trashed a room or left an unpaid bill. At least some help in getting the renter to pay. Now I don't have that same thought. Learning for me.

This is hilarious. David will, and has in the past, book alternative arrangements when something has fallen through. He absolutely will do that. If it's available. There is no "reasonable alternative" here. There are no other DVC rooms available. So he's left with his final recourse, refunding the money.

What you are referring to is a little bit different than what others have referred to I believe. You say that David has brokered a different deal for a new a room in the past when there were issues - if available. That is simply another room transaction for him and fits 100% within his business model. I think others are stating that he either should or shouldn't set the precedence of finding accommodations that are suitable and covering the difference. ie - making it right even at a cost to himself.

 

[Dean]

The bottom line is that David can't win here. IF they stick to the contract, they come across as insentitive and the rentee has lost their vacation they were planning. If they try to do anything else, they are out an enormous amount of money and nothing they can do will truly make everyone happy, possibly not anyone. Then in the future when other things happen, if they didn't stick by the contract, people are expecting something different as well. I'm not a big fan of the broker set up and feel the model with NO flexibility to even try to reschedule is off but David is as much the victim here as the renter, possibly more so.

 

[sndral]

...
Services such as David's are really of more benefit to owners than renters it seems to me. As an owner I can quickly rent my points at a pretty good rate, with much less hassle and stress than tracking down a renter personally. Whereas as a renter, you really are in no better position than if you dealt with an owner directly. You still have the risk the owner will flake, and you are paying about the same rates.
...

I've been thinking about this aspect of the whole thing. I've never rented points, but if I decided to do so via the private owner route I'd be researching the heck out of the owner, looking for references, etc.. Whereas w/ a brokerage I'd assume everything was on the up and up and that the broker had done that vetting for me. I don't know how much of that is done - but would an owner who's never rented before and thus doesn't have references or even one who has rented before and flaked and has bad references find it easier to offer the points through a broker thus hiding prior issues?
I recognize that issues can arise even w/ the most thorough research, but caveat emptor whether you are renting directly or via a broker, I guess. When people rent through a broker do they know the owner's name and address so the can do their own vetting?

 

[crisi]

I've been thinking about this aspect of the whole thing. I've never rented points, but if I decided to do so via the private owner route I'd be researching the heck out of the owner, looking for references, etc.. Whereas w/ a brokerage I'd assume everything was on the up and up and that the broker had done that vetting for me. I don't know how much of that is done - but would an owner who's never rented before and thus doesn't have references or even one who has rented before and flaked and has bad references find it easier to offer the points through a broker thus hiding prior issues?
I recognize that issues can arise even w/ the most thorough research, but caveat emptor whether you are renting directly or via a broker, I guess. When people rent through a broker do they know the owner's name and address so the can do their own vetting?

The member name is on your reservation paperwork, but by that time, you have a reservation you have paid for with no refunds.

Renting simply isn't for everyone. Even with a background check, over the eleven months it takes to secure a high demand reservation, a lot could change. Your owner could die and the asset go into probate. If the estate was settled quickly with new title, the contract could be sold with your reservation cancelled and all that could happen in eleven months. Or a divorce could have a similar effect - and your perfectly responsible owner could have no idea her husband was on the verge of moving all the joint assets into secret accounts and making off to Barbados with a 24 year old girl.

If you need certainty, renting is not a good idea.

 

[Minniesgal]

I've been thinking about this aspect of the whole thing. I've never rented points, but if I decided to do so via the private owner route I'd be researching the heck out of the owner, looking for references, etc.. Whereas w/ a brokerage I'd assume everything was on the up and up and that the broker had done that vetting for me. I don't know how much of that is done - but would an owner who's never rented before and thus doesn't have references or even one who has rented before and flaked and has bad references find it easier to offer the points through a broker thus hiding prior issues?
I recognize that issues can arise even w/ the most thorough research, but caveat emptor whether you are renting directly or via a broker, I guess. When people rent through a broker do they know the owner's name and address so the can do their own vetting?

As an owner who has rented points successfully I am totally uncomfortable with the idea of giving my renter my full name and address. to the point where if this was required I would just keep my points.

I think the point is that the renter is protected by the broker due to the full money back guarantee so the risk is really on the broker not the renter as the renter gets a full refund.

I see it as normal to do more due diligence on a private renter.

The refund is the protection.

 

[Minniesgal]

Which would have been better than the squat that they did offer.

I understand you are upset and disappointed but a full refund is very far from squat

 

[Minniesgal]

I have used David for next year. I must say I am not over impressed by this either. I am sorry for your aunt and you. You booked early you deserve to be in the same location. What if this happens when you check in! Not good enough to say ah well here is your money back when my international flight arrives at 10pm!

However, that is the risk you take when you save money by renting points. When it goes wrong (it does very rarely) a full refund might not be good enough but it is all you are entitled to and likely the best you will get. Something to take into account when you are booking.

 

[Sandisw]

I have read through most of this thread and that those upset with David's shows they have a complete lack of understanding of what it means to "rent" a DVC reservation. There is absolutely NO situation in which someone enters into a DVC rental, whether through an individual or a broker, that protects them from what happened. Absolutely nothing. Going through David's reduces the risk of losing both the reservation AND your money, but you assume the risk that at any point in time, right up to the time you check in, the reservation is owned and controlled by the owner, plain and simple, and can be canceled by them. The fact that when going through David's you know that if the worst possible situation happens and you have no room, at least you get your money back. And, those that do understand the risks involved, will continue to use someone like David because they understand things.

I am very sorry and feel bad for both the renters who find themselves without a cheap room at a deluxe resort of their choice when they want to go. But, they still have the option of getting a cash room from Disney (assuming there are rooms) or at another resort and go on the trip. Will it be more expensive? Of course, but there is a way to still adjust and travel. I know...they might not be able to afford it, etc., but again, if you want a guarantee that your room can't disappear and if it does, you are going to be compensated above and beyond what you paid, then one should go with the option that might give you that and that option is Disney!

 

[JimMIA]

You booked early you deserve to be in the same location.

Do you honestly believe that David (or even Minnie Mouse, for that matter!) can manufacture a BWV room out of thin air? And at 4 months out from Food & Wine? Seriously?

What if this happens when you check in! Not good enough to say ah well here is your money back when my international flight arrives at 10pm!

If someone needs an absolute guarantee, they really need to book through Disney.

 

[crisi]

Do you honestly believe that David (or even Minnie Mouse, for that matter!) can manufacture a BWV room out of thin air? And at 4 months out from Food & Wine? Seriously? If someone needs an absolute guarantee, they really need to book through Disney.

Its Tinkerbell and The Fairy Godmother that can manufacture rooms out of thin air - duh.

(And, as I said above, even Disney isn't an absolute guarantee. They can have pipes burst or a fire the week before you arrive and not have serviceable rooms available. Even if you throw the Fairy Godmother together with Flora, Fauna and Merriweather, their isn't enough Pixie Dust for that situation.)

 

[JimMIA]

Its Tinkerbell and The Fairy Godmother that can manufacture rooms out of thin air - duh.

Darn, crisi...you gave it away!

 

[Minniesgal]

Darn, crisi...you gave it away!

Awww you just destroyed my faith in Minnie...

 

[Minniesgal]

Its Tinkerbell and The Fairy Godmother that can manufacture rooms out of thin air - duh.

But I am fairly sure they don't own DVC points to rent through David's.....

 

[gonzalj1]

I'm sure we'd all agree in general terms but the "customer is always right" is simply not accurate or reasonable. Companies can't avoid a certain amount of bad press, esp in the days where competitors will seed companies reviews and ratings. In this situation to suggest that David's should eat a replacement cost on top of their other losses to avoid "bad press" would be unreasonable IMO. On top of that once you stop sticking with the rules in place you really don't have rules or contracts.

Where did I ever imply the "Customer is always right"? You have a right to your opinion as to whether my opinion is reasonable but you don't have a right to twist my words Dean.

I believe David's exposure is already in the $1,500 - $2,000 range just on the money already paid to the member. Add the extra cost of accommodations, which might not even be acceptable, and you're in the $3,000-$4,000 range. This isn't "less than hundred dollars" territory.

I encourage you to go back through the thread and check the math of the previous poster. It shows quite clearly what David's exposure is and I have not seen anything to dispute it so I consider it at least close at this point.

If I understand correctly you're suggesting they owe more than they contractually agreed to. While I understand the frustration, I don't agree they owe additional and I doubt anyone who was truly upset would have seen a $50 bribe as having much meaning and I suspect most would have seen it as insulting.

You like twisting words Dean. I don't see any implication in this post that David's "owes" anything. As you said, all David's owes is what is in the contract. But, and I said this before, companies go above and beyond their contractual obligations every day. It doesn't mean they "owe" anything more than the contract. Just that they have decided that doing more is better in the long run.

 

[sndral]

As an owner who has rented points successfully I am totally uncomfortable with the idea of giving my renter my full name and address. to the point where if this was required I would just keep my points.
...

I'd probably feel the same way, fortunately (or unfortunately) I could use more points than I have so am unlikely to rent them out.

 

[Minniesgal]

I'd probably feel the same way, fortunately (or unfortunately) I could use more points than I have so am unlikely to rent them out.

Me too usually but renting was very handy when work cancelled leave in the only period when we could travel as the kids were preparing for exams in other holiday periods.

 

[Dean]

Where did I ever imply the "Customer is always right"? You have a right to your opinion as to whether my opinion is reasonable but you don't have a right to twist my words Dean.

I apologize if I misread the meaning of your posts, in the context of this thread, suggesting they should do more than legally obligated "to avoid bad press" seems the same as I stated, if that was not your intent, I'm sorry.

I get that this isn't really their fault, but on the other hand I feel if you are going to profit as a middleman, you should compensate when the rare thing doesn't go well.I encourage you to go back through the thread and check the math of the previous poster. It shows quite clearly what David's exposure is and I have not seen anything to dispute it so I consider it at least close at this point.

There have been lots of number thrown around. I assume you're discussing the shorter stay for $96 more at a different and cheaper resort, of course that's plus the amount David paid the owner already and cash for the 2 nights not covered. In a perfect world it would have simply been double unless he could have gotten cheaper points (which is possible) to get the same exact reservation.

You like twisting words Dean. I don't see any implication in this post that David's "owes" anything. As you said, all David's owes is what is in the contract. But, and I said this before, companies go above and beyond their contractual obligations every day. It doesn't mean they "owe" anything more than the contract. Just that they have decided that doing more is better in the long run.

Semantics, the post you referenced is in response to the suggestion that had David offering $50 above what they did do might have made a difference. If you want to quibble about the wording of owe vs offer, so be it. Here is a post from the same poster (& OP) suggesting otherwise.

I get that this isn't really their fault, but on the other hand I feel if you are going to profit as a middleman, you should compensate when the rare thing doesn't go well.

 

[gonzalj1]

Semantics, the post you referenced is in response to the suggestion that had David offering $50 above what they did do might have made a difference. If you want to quibble about the wording of owe vs offer, so be it. Here is a post from the same poster (& OP) suggesting otherwise.

Owe and offer have VERY different meanings Dean. I owe my mortgage payment. I offer to buy you a beer if we ever are in the same place at the same time. One must happen the other not so much....

 

[Dean]

Owe and offer have VERY different meanings Dean. I owe my mortgage payment. I offer to buy you a beer if we ever are in the same place at the same time. One must happen the other not so much....

In the context of this thread and other posts by that author, they seem pretty much the same to me. But I'll take the beer, non the less, just a light one though.

 

[supersnoop]

I encourage you to go back through the thread and check the math of the previous poster. It shows quite clearly what David's exposure is and I have not seen anything to dispute it so I consider it at least close at this point.

Maybe you should define "exposure" before we get into this. David is out the $1,300 that he has to refund, and at least $650 that he already paid to the member. That falls in the initial range I quoted.

The previous poster tried to calculate what it would take to "make it right" by booking the client a split stay at a value and SSR. That came out to a couple hundred dollars, which is what I responded to. It's a false argument to calculate against such incomparable accomodations.

Since that post also included the idea that David should book alternative accomodations, I included something comparable, which would add almost $2,000 to his "exposure." Note my original post:

David charged $1,288 for that room. There are none available, even for cash. The hotel rooms are available, and a standard view is $2,987.