Rented points from Davidsfirst week of feb 15

[Chuck S]

My guess is that most private renters would allow at least some accommodation here, contract or not. Even if they couldn't change the date, I think a reasonable person would try to help out in this situation, even if only by changing parties on the reservation.

Maybe, but also consider this. In a private transaction, the DVC Owners contract and contact has been with the initial renter. If we allowed that renter to sublet, WE, as owners, are still responsible for damages and charges made by the new renters. I would be sure to have all the contact info, and have spoken personally with the new renters....and I would be sure that they agreed to the original terms of the contract and that I personally felt comfortable with the new renters. Also I'd be making any refund to the original renter after the new renter has paid in full.

A lot of hassle for a broker, like David, considering they are working with both the owner and the renter and considering the volume of customers once you start allowing modifications. I can understand a broker not allowing changes.

 

[JimmyV]

Changing the names on the reservation takes 5 minutes, the time to log in on the website and send an email to MS with the new names. One could expect such a service could be possible with a little fee. Maybe David and other companies could take this thread as a suggestion to improve their service.

I don't think that it is a matter of difficulty or inconvenience. The reason why they do not allow changes to the reservation is because it would be too easy for a secondary market (or would it be a tertiary market?) to develop. An enterprising person out there could book up numerous units for high-season weeks through David's site and then sub-let them for a profit through Craig's List or Ebay or what-have-you. They would then pay a small fee to change the reservations and before you know it, the original renter is profitting from David's work. Not cool. Of course, the OP is not doing that, but a hard and fast rule is needed to prevent the exceptions from swallowing the rule.

 

[ziravan]

I don't think that it is a matter of difficulty or inconvenience. The reason why they do not allow changes to the reservation is because it would be too easy for a secondary market (or would it be a tertiary market?) to develop. An enterprising person out there could book up numerous units for high-season weeks through David's site and then sub-let them for a profit through Craig's List or Ebay or what-have-you. They would then pay a small fee to change the reservations and before you know it, the original renter is profitting from David's work. Not cool. Of course, the OP is not doing that, but a hard and fast rule is needed to prevent the exceptions from swallowing the rule.

But, that would also have the potential to raise the market for both David and the owner. All they would have to do is crowd out that middleman.

Your concern points to real market cap. Is $15/pt doable? $17? Should there be a premium attached to premium reservations? Are BWV points 11 months out at Christmas time worth more than SSR at 6 months?

Certainly, an algorithm for such a premium could be developed and used by David (or someone else) that would both squeeze out a secondary market and provide better return to him and the owners.

 

[JimmyV]

But, that would also have the potential to raise the market for both David and the owner. All they would have to do is crowd out that middleman.

Your concern points to real market cap. Is $15/pt doable? $17? Should there be a premium attached to premium reservations? Are BWV points 11 months out at Christmas time worth more than SSR at 6 months?

Certainly, an algorithm for such a premium could be developed and used by David (or someone else) that would both squeeze out a secondary market and provide better return to him and the owners.

David uses flat pricing based on high, shoulder and low season. There is no question that there is at least a fourth season, which is really, really high season. And while he could crowd out the middle man by adjusting his prices to account for the tertiary market making re-sale unprofittable, he has chosen not to do that. And I think we as consumers are better off for it. Would you rather rent at current prices over Christmas, or at three times that price? (I suppose the answer depends on whether you are a buyer or a seller.) If David's system allowed for re-sale, then he would have to try to capture that profit up front by raising prices.

 

[ziravan]

David uses flat pricing based on high, shoulder and low season. There is no question that there is at least a fourth season, which is really, really high season. And while he could crowd out the middle man by adjusting his prices to account for the tertiary market making re-sale unprofittable, he has chosen not to do that. And I think we as consumers are better off for it. Would you rather rent at current prices over Christmas, or at three times that price? (I suppose the answer depends on whether you are a buyer or a seller.) If David's system allowed for re-sale, then he would have to try to capture that profit up front by raising prices.

So, the winners here would be David, owners, renters willing to pay extra for premium time, and most/all renters that would have a extra layer of protection if something comes up.

Also, that lack of extra protection is what keeps people from renting. If you add that in, demand would explode and put upward price pressure on contracts, another win for David and owners.

Losers? People renting premium and other deals at below potential market demand.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

I agree that the no change policy if fully disclosed should preclude this from being a valid contractual complaint.

That being said it is poor business practice from a number of perspectives.

First is that it invites innovation and competition, since it is not "customer friendly" which is always important in any customer service business.

It is not hard to simply ask those members renting out points if they would be willing to make any changes if any up front.

Second is that it never pays to leave potential $ on the table. Charging $1 per point to check if reservation changes are available or to do other changes and another $1 to execute the reservation change split between the facilitator (David's in this case) and the member would be a major profit driver and appropriately compensate the member renting out for the extra work. And yes for those members who are renting out who are not willing to make changes then their points will be the least desirable to rent and likely bring a low return.

Some businesses are happy to just keep doing the same thing do to lack of capacity or a dislike of additional complexity, but in most cases those businesses have a limited life span.

ITA with all points listed here.

 

[Dean]

I agree that the no change policy if fully disclosed should preclude this from being a valid contractual complaint.

That being said it is poor business practice from a number of perspectives.

First is that it invites innovation and competition, since it is not "customer friendly" which is always important in any customer service business.

It is not hard to simply ask those members renting out points if they would be willing to make any changes if any up front.

Second is that it never pays to leave potential $ on the table. Charging $1 per point to check if reservation changes are available or to do other changes and another $1 to execute the reservation change split between the facilitator (David's in this case) and the member would be a major profit driver and appropriately compensate the member renting out for the extra work. And yes for those members who are renting out who are not willing to make changes then their points will be the least desirable to rent and likely bring a low return.

Some businesses are happy to just keep doing the same thing do to lack of capacity or a dislike of additional complexity, but in most cases those businesses have a limited life span.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said but I also think the "no good deed goes unpunished" mantra applies here as well. I guess the questions would center around how much would be charged for a possible change, what would happen if the change couldn't be made (as it wouldn't be able to most of the time), what the qualifying events would be and what documentation would be required. From a business standpoint I'd say that IF you were going to do this you include terms related to availability issues and expiration of the points involved and a fee, likely 25% or so and don't worry about reasons. But as at least 2 of us said in this thread, it's very unlikely that there could have been a workable reschedule even if all parties were theoretically willing.

 

[BrerNashville]

Actually, the problem was that she did NOT rent from a private owner but from a company that acts as an intermediary. Most private owners, such as myself, would be happy to work with her adjust her vacation (within use year limitations) at BCV or to find a reservation at a different resort or to change the names on her reservation at her request. Sure, it's a PITB but once you have a personal relationship with someone you go to bat for them in situations like this. And yes, I have changed dates for renters when their honeymoon dates changed and they were very grateful.

I understand that "a contract is a contract" but there are legitimate reasons to cancel and attempting to vacation on Feb 1st when you are due to deliver on Feb 28th is one of them. That's 36 weeks when she leaves and her return trip will be 21 days before she's due. Frankly, I'm disappointed with David's DVCByRequest on this one and I have been a proponent of his business long before it was a sponsor here on the DIS. I remember when we could not even whisper his name around here. I hope that someone from his company will reach out to the OP and help her out of this mess along with some kind of non-disclosure agreement that she not mention it online.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. If what the OP reported is true -- that David would not reach out to an owner in the case of a child's DEATH!!!**## to see if they would be willing to make an accommodation, then that is just awful and reflects very poorly on his business judgment, not to mention basic human decency. Again -- IF what the OP said is true.

Sure, we can all concoct scenarios where any such changes would not be feasible (said event occurred a week before check-in, etc. etc.) -- and if those were the circumstances, then fine, owners definitely shouldn't have to bear the cost for another's misfortune. But here, the OP is talking about a February trip and it is now just July. And David reportedly won't even send an email. And for all you people saying, "Oh, you'll only be 36 weeks, which is 30 minutes before airlines advise against travel" -- oh come on. My first child was four weeks premature, and my wife suffered from pre-eclampsia. There's no way we could have traveled even after 25 weeks. And we had no idea of this condition until many many weeks into her pregnancy. The OP is doing the responsible thing and trying to reschedule things well in advance of her trip, to take no chances, and she is being encouraged, "Oh, it's no big deal"? Good grief.

The fact of the matter is that any reasonable person would be willing to at least send an email to an owner in this situation to see if they would be willing to accommodate. If they were not willing, end of story. If so, then kudos to them. The beauty of an unwritten policy is that it is unwritten and can be availed of as is appropriate to fit the circumstances. To hide behind an "inflexible" contract in these circumstances to not even to see if an owner were willing to accommodate is unkind at best. Remember -- the OP is not demanding a refund or even to move dates at this point -- she just wants to put a different name on the reservation.

No, it would not be a slippery slope -- one would think if David asked the putative renter to not disclose the accommodation, they would be happy to oblige. And if not -- so what. An unwritten accommodation is just that -- unwritten and subject to change because no one would know. If David noticed an increase in the number of renters that became pregnant and contacted him seven months ahead of time asking to change the name on a reservation during a nonpeak period, he ought to be savvy enough to find a way to weed out the scammers (whatever scam they were trying to run) and still do the right thing.

It's like the cop who gives a father-to-be a speeding ticket even after learning he was speeding 5 mph over the limit to get his wife to the hospital after her water broke. Did dad break the law? Yes. But what do we say about the cop: "Good going cop, the law's the law"? I don't. "Good going cop, if you let that person go then you'd have to let everyone go and then we'd be living in a lawless city"? No, we say "What a jerk." Don't be a jerk.

David is well within his rights to refuse to email an owner inquiring about an accommodation for a renter who has experienced an unexpected pregnancy or the death of a child. But he should not be applauded, or even defended, for exercising those rights.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I haven't seen it mentioned but this is where travel insurance comes into play. You can get travel insurance with a private rental and through David's.

 

[DebbieB]

I'm not sure that an uncomplicated pregnancy would be covered by travel insurance.

 

[ziravan]

I agree with this whole-heartedly. If what the OP reported is true -- that David would not reach out to an owner in the case of a child's DEATH!!!**## to see if they would be willing to make an accommodation, then that is just awful and reflects very poorly on his business judgment, not to mention basic human decency. Again -- IF what the OP said is true.

Sure, we can all concoct scenarios where any such changes would not be feasible (said event occurred a week before check-in, etc. etc.) -- and if those were the circumstances, then fine, owners definitely shouldn't have to bear the cost for another's misfortune. But here, the OP is talking about a February trip and it is now just July. And David reportedly won't even send an email. And for all you people saying, "Oh, you'll only be 36 weeks, which is 30 minutes before airlines advise against travel" -- oh come on. My first child was four weeks premature, and my wife suffered from pre-eclampsia. There's no way we could have traveled even after 25 weeks. And we had no idea of this condition until many many weeks into her pregnancy. The OP is doing the responsible thing and trying to reschedule things well in advance of her trip, to take no chances, and she is being encouraged, "Oh, it's no big deal"? Good grief.

The fact of the matter is that any reasonable person would be willing to at least send an email to an owner in this situation to see if they would be willing to accommodate. If they were not willing, end of story. If so, then kudos to them. The beauty of an unwritten policy is that it is unwritten and can be availed of as is appropriate to fit the circumstances. To hide behind an "inflexible" contract in these circumstances to not even to see if an owner were willing to accommodate is unkind at best. Remember -- the OP is not demanding a refund or even to move dates at this point -- she just wants to put a different name on the reservation.

No, it would not be a slippery slope -- one would think if David asked the putative renter to not disclose the accommodation, they would be happy to oblige. And if not -- so what. An unwritten accommodation is just that -- unwritten and subject to change because no one would know. If David noticed an increase in the number of renters that became pregnant and contacted him seven months ahead of time asking to change the name on a reservation during a nonpeak period, he ought to be savvy enough to find a way to weed out the scammers (whatever scam they were trying to run) and still do the right thing.

It's like the cop who gives a father-to-be a speeding ticket even after learning he was speeding 5 mph over the limit to get his wife to the hospital after her water broke. Did dad break the law? Yes. But what do we say about the cop: "Good going cop, the law's the law"? I don't. "Good going cop, if you let that person go then you'd have to let everyone go and then we'd be living in a lawless city"? No, we say "What a jerk." Don't be a jerk.

David is well within his rights to refuse to email an owner inquiring about an accommodation for a renter who has experienced an unexpected pregnancy or the death of a child. But he should not be applauded, or even defended, for exercising those rights.

I agree that if someone told the OP that they wouldn't even budge for the death of a child, that's unkind if true, and even unkind to say to the OP. I certainly wouldn't make that my official line in the sand (If I won't budge for them, I won't for you). I'd also correct anybody who said that to ensure that it wasn't said again.

That's a poor business practice, all the way around.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I'm not sure that an uncomplicated pregnancy would be covered by travel insurance.

Unless it was a pre-existing condition, it is a medical condition that would be covered with a doctors note prohibiting travel. In this case it seems she found out she was pregnant after she booked the reservation. Still, some policies have a pre-existing clause and having the necessary documentation from her doctor, could be reimbursed her travel expenses.

 

[chloelovesdisney]

I agree with this whole-heartedly. If what the OP reported is true -- that David would not reach out to an owner in the case of a child's DEATH!!!**## to see if they would be willing to make an accommodation, then that is just awful and reflects very poorly on his business judgment, not to mention basic human decency. Again -- IF what the OP said is true.

Sure, we can all concoct scenarios where any such changes would not be feasible (said event occurred a week before check-in, etc. etc.) -- and if those were the circumstances, then fine, owners definitely shouldn't have to bear the cost for another's misfortune. But here, the OP is talking about a February trip and it is now just July. And David reportedly won't even send an email. And for all you people saying, "Oh, you'll only be 36 weeks, which is 30 minutes before airlines advise against travel" -- oh come on. My first child was four weeks premature, and my wife suffered from pre-eclampsia. There's no way we could have traveled even after 25 weeks. And we had no idea of this condition until many many weeks into her pregnancy. The OP is doing the responsible thing and trying to reschedule things well in advance of her trip, to take no chances, and she is being encouraged, "Oh, it's no big deal"? Good grief.

The fact of the matter is that any reasonable person would be willing to at least send an email to an owner in this situation to see if they would be willing to accommodate. If they were not willing, end of story. If so, then kudos to them. The beauty of an unwritten policy is that it is unwritten and can be availed of as is appropriate to fit the circumstances. To hide behind an "inflexible" contract in these circumstances to not even to see if an owner were willing to accommodate is unkind at best. Remember -- the OP is not demanding a refund or even to move dates at this point -- she just wants to put a different name on the reservation.

No, it would not be a slippery slope -- one would think if David asked the putative renter to not disclose the accommodation, they would be happy to oblige. And if not -- so what. An unwritten accommodation is just that -- unwritten and subject to change because no one would know. If David noticed an increase in the number of renters that became pregnant and contacted him seven months ahead of time asking to change the name on a reservation during a nonpeak period, he ought to be savvy enough to find a way to weed out the scammers (whatever scam they were trying to run) and still do the right thing.

It's like the cop who gives a father-to-be a speeding ticket even after learning he was speeding 5 mph over the limit to get his wife to the hospital after her water broke. Did dad break the law? Yes. But what do we say about the cop: "Good going cop, the law's the law"? I don't. "Good going cop, if you let that person go then you'd have to let everyone go and then we'd be living in a lawless city"? No, we say "What a jerk." Don't be a jerk.

David is well within his rights to refuse to email an owner inquiring about an accommodation for a renter who has experienced an unexpected pregnancy or the death of a child. But he should not be applauded, or even defended, for exercising those rights.

Common sense prevails.

 

[Finally DVC]

One thing I don't think I've seen addressed is that David's business model relies on convincing as many owners as possible to deposit their points with him. I would wager that most owners who are willing to do additional legwork, however minimal, are not willing to settle for the $11/point that David offers. If, as an owner, I thought there were a possibility he might be coming back to me with change requests, I would be inclined to just donate the points to a local charity auction or find a relative who could use a vacation. Like I said, I just don't think the points David's sells belong to owners who want any hassle at all.

Non-refundable means non-refundable. Nobody should book a non-refundable rate that they can't afford to lose.

 

[Dean]

David is well within his rights to refuse to email an owner inquiring about an accommodation for a renter who has experienced an unexpected pregnancy or the death of a child. But he should not be applauded, or even defended, for exercising those rights.

I don't know David and I'm not a big fan of his business model. However, to suggest he is doing something wrong by sticking to his contract is unreasonable. And that's from someone who has waived a full weeks summer HH rental the day of arrival based on lesser circumstances. As a private rental, I'd have handled it differently subject to the limitations of the points but in David's situation I don't think he has a choice. I think he'll change his position based on this by adding additional exclusions to the contract, not flexibility. And I don't think he could be flexible in this situation at this point and retain the current provisions or prevent others from being upset who had past issues. I think all he could have done would be to change his entire policy for all current and future renters.

Plus we really don't necessarily have all the facts, we only have one side of the story.

 

[BrerNashville]

Plus we really don't necessarily have all the facts, we only have one side of the story.

This is absolutely a very important point -- in my view these individual cases turn on individual facts.

But I disagree that we shouldn't judge someone on how they exercise their rights under a contract. That really goes to the core of what kind of business you are dealing with. I have directed people to David's in certain circumstances at work who have asked about the "whole point rental thing". Knowing what I know now about how he goes about actually conducting his business makes it less likely I will refer people to him and more likely to refer them to people such as you, who evidently inject a little more compassion into their business dealings.

 

[ziravan]

One thing I don't think I've seen addressed is that David's business model relies on convincing as many owners as possible to deposit their points with him. I would wager that most owners who are willing to do additional legwork, however minimal, are not willing to settle for the $11/point that David offers. If, as an owner, I thought there were a possibility he might be coming back to me with change requests, I would be inclined to just donate the points to a local charity auction or find a relative who could use a vacation. Like I said, I just don't think the points David's sells belong to owners who want any hassle at all.

Non-refundable means non-refundable. Nobody should book a non-refundable rate that they can't afford to lose.

If an enterprising entrepreneur came up with a business model that started at 11/pt, added premiums for premium points, and allotted $0.25/pt per each additional search, and $1.00/pt per change, a business that aggregates points could do the swaps necessary to make most accommodations.

The ability to make changes, in fact, would change the current market. A DVC rental with the ability to cancel and/or make changes - for a price - would be a new market, with a new demand. Only a point aggregator could do this. The over under on bids like that could be buy at 13, sell at 17/pt, or even higher.

Such an entrepreneur, paying out $13/pt plus premiums, would attract more owners. The guarantees would attract more renters. The market would change.

Customer service, in a customer service model market, can't be underestimated in value.

The real question is if David is that entrepreneur, or if he'll face such a competitor someday.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

If an enterprising entrepreneur came up with a business model that started at 11/pt, added premiums for premium points, and allotted $0.25/pt per each additional search, and $1.00/pt per change, a business that aggregates points could do the swaps necessary to make most accommodations.

The ability to make changes, in fact, would change the current market. A DVC rental with the ability to cancel and/or make changes - for a price - would be a new market, with a new demand. Only a point aggregator could do this. The over under on bids like that could be buy at 13, sell at 17/pt, or even higher.

Such an entrepreneur, paying out $13/pt plus premiums, would attract more owners. The guarantees would attract more renters. The market would change.

Customer service, in a customer service model market, can't be underestimated in value.

The real question is if David is that entrepreneur, or if he'll face such a competitor someday.

Sorry don't agree here. If renters want flexibility they can pay rack rate. My points are rented for 50% less and with that comes conditions. One being no refund no cancellations.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I admit that I am shocked David's has not received a cease and desist order as it seems pretty clear to me this is "commercial" renting

I also think a hard line may turn around and bite them. Lately I have noticed posters seem to be posting about renting from David's with the same tone they used when making a reservation with something like Expedia. Yes, there is a contract etc... But I don't think the casual new user realizes this is in no way "sanctioned" by WDW. So when Disney starts getting complaints they will be more likely to say "NO".

And it would not be that hard for them to follow the money.

 

[ziravan]

Sorry don't agree here. If renters want flexibility they can pay rack rate. My points are rented for 50% less and with that comes conditions. One being no refund no cancellations.

Yes, and you get away with that because there is no competitor that advertises anything else. Several owners will make accommodations when they rent, but there is no way to flesh that out except to look through those offering points for rent at any given time.

If a point aggregator made those changes, the market would change. You'd adapt, or your points would be worth far less than market value. It would be a different market, and inflexibility would carry a price.

Or, put another way, flexibility would command a premium. You could be inflexible, but you'd be leaving money on the table.

Or, put another way, what if I told you that you could get $15/$16 per point? To do so, however, would require more flexibility on your part...