Clarification on David's rental situation

[CanadaDisney05]

Replies highlighted in the quote

Renters get their vacation At the new higher rate

About half of that increase is inflation. But I'll give you that one.

Davids get their broker fee X 2

Outside of the slightly higher price, how are they getting the broker fee 2x?

If the owner allows David to re-rent the points, there is no new money at play.

if the renter refunds the money, they still owe that money to the new owner. They aren't getting more money from the renter to pay the new owner.

Why did you say WE?

the generic "we".....

Ad Hominem: Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I am not David. I do not know David. I have never met David. I have never interacted with David. I have never used Davids services. You can choose to believe that or not.

 

[suemom2kay]

the generic "we".....

Ad Hominem: Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I am not David. I do not know David. I have never met David. I have never interacted with David. I have never used Davids services. You can choose to believe that or not.

Except your are not one of the parties in the argument. "They" would have been a much more appropriate pronoun.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

If you do your homework and rent from a user on the Rent/Trade board, it is a rare occurrence. Using the Rent/Trade board and only using an owner with references, not very common at all; Some random person on the internet, higher risk.

David's markets his business by making renters feel anxious about renting from owners privately. He also markets to owners that he has people lined up and that they give a safety net to owners. Him not paying the 30% balance due to PP when renter cancelled proves this is not the case at least in the current climate.

Honestly, renting from an owner's perspective is not very risky at all. You can ask for a hefty deposit or even payment in full once reservation has been confirmed.

I agree. I never suggested it was.

As a renter I would be more nervous about renting from a private owner.

While it may be a rare occurrence of getting scammed by an owner if you follow proper due diligence, its more common than a global pandemic that forces all of the resorts to be shutdown at the same time.

I never suggested that renting from a broker provides zero risk. Given the current climate that would be pretty silly. I'm just suggesting that it provides less risk. How much people are willing to pay to limit that risk (in other words, insurance) will be set by the market going forward.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Except your are not one of the parties in the argument. "They" would have been a much more appropriate pronoun.

It would have been .... its 930 am on a Saturday morning and I'm typing quickly on my phone. I wasn't typing up a legal contract.

 

[suemom2kay]

Have we? I'll admit I haven't followed the brokerage business for the past 5 to 10 years, but is it common for people to lose all of their money when an owner cancels (I'm talking about prior to the current Covid situation)?

I was just answering you're question.

 

[MIDisFan]

About half of that increase is inflation. But I'll give you that one.



Outside of the slightly higher price, how are they getting the broker fee 2x?

If the owner allows David to re-rent the points, there is no new money at play.

if the renter refunds the money, they still owe that money to the new owner. They aren't getting more money from the renter to pay the new owner.



the generic "we".....

Ad Hominem: Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I am not David. I do not know David. I have never met David. I have never interacted with David. I have never used Davids services. You can choose to believe that or not.

When they match new renters to current owners they will receive another commission. You seem to pick and choose which questions you would like to answer in your responses. Why are you so defensive about brokers? You don't seem to give owners the benefit of the doubt as you say. I just find it strange that your a DVC owner and yet you can never see the owners side of it.

 

[piccolopat]

He never replied to my email...

Send him a registered letter requiring a signature. There is absolutely no justification for David's not giving you the remaining 30% since it was the renter and not you or Disney that canceled the reservation. It amounts to theft and should be pointed out as such. Keep sending those emails too and make a note of the dates sent with no reply when you send the letter.

 

[piccolopat]

Where travel insurance is not paying out is because is most insurance contracts have what is known as a 'Force Majeure' clause. Which is a 'get out of jail free' card for the insurer in the event that the insurer is asked to cover unforeseeable circumstances caused by governmental action that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.

So Travel insurance would cover a rental failure if Disney itself decided to close a resort.

But in this case Disney closed it's resorts due to government action i.e. 'Force Majeure' to prevent the spread of a pandemic. So the insurer is off the hook so to speak.

Insurrection, disease outbreaks, riots, nuclear accidents , war and government actions are all considered force majeure events and inability to fufull a contract even if insured against it if one of these conditions exist allow the insurance company to deny payment now most force majeure clauses also call for repayment of premium to the policyholder as the contract is null and void.

It sucks but there it is, David's probably carried insurance against rental failures which was probably voided for the same reason yes David is in Canada but force majeure is long established in British law and legal systems which are derived from it Canada/US/Commonwealth nations etc.

Perhaps I am remembering this wrong, but didn't Disney close down voluntarily just before the government would have forced the shutdown? If so, reservations that occurred during that time should be considered closed by Disney and not due to a force majeure, correct?

 

[CanadaDisney05]

When they match new renters to current owners they will receive another commission.

But that will be offset when they connect vouchers with new owners....

You seem to pick and choose which questions you would like to answer in your responses. Why are you so defensive about brokers? You don't seem to give owners the benefit of the doubt as you say. I just find it strange that your a DVC owner and yet you can never see the owners side of it.

A) I don't think it really matters what my motives are as long as the arguments are true and valid.

B) a discussion board is meant for discussion, not groupthink. It would be pretty boring if we all came on here and repeated the same thing.

C) would I like the outcomes to be pro owner? Of course. I'd have a vested interest in seeing that happen. But instead of allowing my biases affect my opinions and decision making, I like to take a step back and see the problem for what it is.

 

[Marionnette]

Perhaps I am remembering this wrong, but didn't Disney close down voluntarily just before the government would have forced the shutdown? If so, reservations that occurred during that time should be considered closed by Disney and not due to a force majeure, correct?

A closure due to a pandemic, whether by government order or by the resort management, is still a force majeure. It’s a moot point since David’s original intermediary agreements do not address instances of a force majeure. That has been changed going forward.

 

[Bing Showei]

the generic "we".....

Ad Hominem: Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I am not David. I do not know David. I have never met David. I have never interacted with David. I have never used Davids services. You can choose to believe that or not.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by consistently giving David’s and their vouchers every benefit of the doubt in terms of motives and intent for the former, and viability (of which there is no factual backing that they have proven to be of any value to anyone yet) for the latter.

All the meanwhile choosing to cast owners as unreliable, unsafe, greedy, among other suggestions you’ve made.

In this respect, you have been steadfastly consistent.

Plus it doesn’t help that ‘05 was the year David’s started his company.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Ad Hominem: Typically it refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I am not David. I do not know David. I have never met David. I have never interacted with David. I have never used Davids services. You can choose to believe that or not.

This is not a lobby group. Choose to believe what you want.

 

[stfxkid]

 

[MIDisFan]

But that will be offset when they connect vouchers with new owners....


A) I don't think it really matters what my motives are as long as the arguments are true and valid.

B) a discussion board is meant for discussion, not groupthink. It would be pretty boring if we all came on here and repeated the same thing.

C) would I like the outcomes to be pro owner? Of course. I'd have a vested interest in seeing that happen. But instead of allowing my biases affect my opinions and decision making, I like to take a step back and see the problem for what it is.

Not entirely. Since the vouchers are restricted, not all of them will be redeemed for the full value and no further credits will be issued for remaining balances. Personally, I don't care what your motives are or if you do in fact have an affiliation with David's. I wouldn't use a broker in the future, so i have no care if I was banned by any of them. There have been examples pointed out on both threads on this forum, as well as other forums of suspect business practice by Brokers. One was even banned and sponsorship removed on another board. Facts certainly have an affect on my decision making.

 

[fancymouse]

Renting privately can provide a level of transparency and control that is not available with a broker.

You can find out if the points would be distressed in the event of a cancellation. You can negotiate contract terms and price based upon that information. Vacation will use points right before their expiration? You can agree to the no refund clause, but ask for a better deal. If the points would still be bankable, you could offer to pay more per point but require a 75% refund policy. You can ask to have it in writing to have the option to adjust dates. Want escrow? Demand escrow. You will get far more information about the points used for the reservation, and adjust any of the above to match your comfort level, or walk away and try someone else. Just being able to talk to the owner will go a long way to fix any problems.

On a minor scale, its like ordering pizza via ubereats instead of the pizza places website. The pizza place will have a better price (maybe even a coupon), the full menu without errors, accurate availability information, and a quicker turnaround time. And if they forget your soda, you call and complain to the actual manager of that store and they fix it. Ever tried to dispute a messed up order in ubereats? Sure, eventually you can an arbitrary credit equal to the forgotten soda, but by then my pizza is cold and I won't ever have a tasty beverage to wash it down. Same product, better and quicker service.

Private rental owners aren't in the business of screwing over their renters. They want to rent out their points again in the future; and that won't happen if the owner finds a legal but "wrong" loophole to abuse their renters.

This makes sense and I can see how individual situations could end up being better. But from a consumer's perspective, now you are talking about spending time to sort through various owners, contracts, and finding the one that fits your needs. Perhaps renters would be willing to do this, but personally it would not be my preference. The nice thing about a broker is they do this for you which is why they started in the first place. They saw a need for matchmaking which saves owners and renters time. *note, I am not saying I would ever use a broker now, but that's mostly because I don't think I will ever rent points again period*

At some point you do have to factor in personal time as an advantage or disadvantage when it comes to savings. Might I get a deal on a site like Ebay? Sure, but now I am having to put in a lot of extra work to stalk listings and in the end I might not even get the item. Sometimes I have the time and can accept the risk. But for me, once I know I want to go on vacation, I want to be able to book my dates and preferred resort quickly. It sounds like what you have described would work best if a renter was extremely flexible as finding an owner with the best terms and resorts options sounds arduous. Honestly I haven't spent a lot of time looking into private owners, so maybe it's easier than it looks, but just a cursory glance at the forum here looks like a lot of work.

Please understand I am not trying to offend owners in any way. Even though I am on the line with a November rental through David's, I hold no ill feelings toward owners. Out of this whole mess I have since realized how naively I entered into a contract that was apparently too vague and now I actually understand the pitfalls of renting. Out of curiosity I was just wondering how the process would work better if most owners end up leaving brokers to rent points privately. My personal observations are that a lot people interested in renting know absolutely nothing. Case in point- the owner who posted above who said someone rented their points through David's in April for October!! (I'm not blaming the owner at all) Honestly I think it's shady that David's took that reservation, but in the end the fault falls completely on the renter for what I can only imagine is absolutely no research. However I do feel that the new contract which promises the voucher is probably enough for new renters to feel safe and therefore I go back to it being sketchy that David's took the reservation considering the messy situation they are in. Regardless it will just be interesting to see if demand stays as high if the process requires a lot more knowledge. Brokers just look easy to consumers

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Not entirely. Since the vouchers are restricted, not all of them will be redeemed for the full value and no further credits will be issued for remaining balances.

While that is true, the same can be said for any coupon/voucher system. Davids is hardly the first company to use a system like this. They aren't even the only ones currently in the travel industry using these. While not the best outcome for the consumer, it hardly demonstrates shady business tactics.

Personally, I don't care what your motives are or if you do in fact have an affiliation with David's. I wouldn't use a broker in the future, so i have no care if I was banned by any of them. There have been examples pointed out on both threads on this forum, as well as other forums of suspect business practice by Brokers. One was even banned and sponsorship removed on another board. Facts certainly have an affect on my decision making.

With the volume of different people and opinions here, its hard to keep track what everyone's stance is.

I am not arguing that you should use Davids going forward. Everyone has to make their own decision based on the facts and risks presented. For me personally, as a renter, I was never willing to use them because I wasn't willing to accept the risk of a non refundable reservation booked nearly a year in advance. Id rather book a value resort directly with Disney. As an owner, I would probably try and rent the points myself first. If that wasn't working out, I may be willing to risk it.

My side of this debate is that I don't feel there is enough evidence so far to demonstrate that the company is acting shady, or nefarious. If it proves true that he is only allowing renters to use their vouchers towards rack rates, while still paying Disney discounted prices, or rerenting owners points but only giving them 70%, I will change my mind. I'm currently in a wait and see mode.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

“We”. Interesting. .

View attachment 495012

They didn't rent points, they rented a reservation.

On a serious note (regardless of who CanadaDisney05 is or isn't), the statement above really gets to the heart of the conundrum faced in this situation. Owners provided a specific set of points with a specific expiration to David's, not to the renter. David's offered a reservation to the renter against those points. The $60 million dollar question is whether the renter was locked in to those specific, expiring points or not? There are merits to both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, the ambiguity of this issue in the contracts has greatly complicated matters.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

View attachment 495021



View attachment 495023



On a serious note (regardless of who CanadaDisney05 is or isn't), the statement above really gets to the heart of the conundrum faced in this situation. Owners provided a specific set of points with a specific expiration to David's, not to the renter. David's offered a reservation to the renter against those points. The $60 million dollar question is whether the renter was locked in to those specific, expiring points or not? There are merits to both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, the ambiguity of this issue in the contracts has greatly complicated matters.

Outside if the personal attacks, I agree....

Just for some clarity, does the owner/davids contract specifically state which points are being used (including use year and banked, current or borrowed status)? I know they ask for that information upfront, but is that included in the contract?

 

[Sandisw]

I am not siding with David's . His contract states he pays remaining 30% upon guest checkin. Is there a clause in the contract for what he does when guest cancels? I'm genuinely curious if he just left that piece out of the contract for his own benefit.

Contract is non refundable so when a renter cancels, they get nothing and owner gets it all,

I do think with the resorts closed, things are different and believe an owner has an obligation in some part of that, Just not sure what it is, What I do not believe is that Davids, gets to unilaterally decide what the remedy is when the contract doesn’t state it,

He has said to owners that Disney canceling triggers the Owner being on the hook to refund the 70% or re rent points, So, he seems to Be arguing owners are held liable for Disney actions, But the contract says when owners are liable, renters are entitled to a refund, However. he is telling renters the exact opposite, Disney canceling is not the act of the owner and therefore, it doesn’t entitle them to the refund,

Well, which is it? Now with reports that guests not going still didn’t get an owner the 30% owed is just another example that he Is doing things in a way that make no sense for anyone but him.

 

[suemom2kay]

Outside if the personal attacks, I agree....

Just for some clarity, does the owner/davids contract specifically state which points are being used (including use year and banked, current or borrowed status)? I know they ask for that information upfront, but is that included in the contract?

From his new and improved contract...
https://dvcrequest.com/information/sample-agreement6. The Intermediary has received from Renter a NON REFUNDABLE payment of _______________ US Dollars in return for a confirmed reservation, using Owner's Disney Vacation Club points, at Disney’s _______________ in a _______________ unit to arrive on _______________ and depart on _______________ with a confirmation number of _______________.
I'm sure someone has an actual contract to share...