Clarification on David's rental situation

[stfxkid]

I would have no confidence that David’s would pay anyone their remaining money. And what could you do about it realistically? I‘m not flying to Canada to take him to small claims court over less than $1000.

I would file a complaint with TICO and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services of Ontario. https://www.tico.ca/consumers/file-a-complaint

 

[starry_solo]

I would file a complaint with TICO and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services of Ontario. https://www.tico.ca/consumers/file-a-complaint

You can file a complaint, but I went to go look them up about reimbursement (curiosity value) and found TWO interesting (and relevant) Q&As in the FAQs:

I was provided with a credit voucher by a travel agency, tour operator, an airline or cruise line prior to it ceasing operations, for use at a later date. Can I file a claim for the credit amount?

No. As a general rule, credits are provided to consumers for a variety of reasons ranging from cancellation of travel services to dissatisfaction of travel services received or due to some other customer service issue. Credit vouchers have no cash value and are not eligible for reimbursement. The current legislation states that a customer is not entitled to be reimbursed for consequential or indirect damages incurred as a result of the failure to provide the travel services.

Can I claim against the Compensation Fund for the non-provision of travel services due to weather, a strike, mechanical problems or force majeure?

There is no provision under Ontario Regulation 26/05 to allow a claim against the Compensation Fund when the travel services are not provided due to weather, a strike, mechanical problems or force majeure. The Compensation Fund can only reimburse consumers who have purchased their travel services from an Ontario registered travel agency and who have not received the travel services due to the bankruptcy or insolvency of an Ontario registered travel retailer, travel wholesaler or due to the cessation of an airline or cruise line.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

Well then I guess that’s not any help !

 

[connorlevismom]

I actually rented my points through David for 2 separate trips one was a week or two before the closure. The family backed out about a week before check-in. I kept the 70% since Disney was still open and the family could have gone. David did not provide the remaining 30%... The 2nd rental would have occurred during the official Disney closure. For the second case, David asked for the 70% back... even with the contract. I provided the 70% back because I was able to get the DVC to allow me to apply those point to an August trip of mine. So I didnt lose any points on the 2nd contract.

I eventually called DVC over the first cancellation and they retroactively allowed me to use the points from the 1st cancellation also towards my August trip.

So he refused to give you your remaining 30% even though the resorts were open and he OWED you that money and you agree to give him back the 70% from your other reservation? Why on earth would you give him that back? I would have at least deducted your 30%!

 

[New Mouse]

So he refused to give you your remaining 30% even though the resorts were open and he OWED you that money and you agree to give him back the 70% from your other reservation? Why on earth would you give him that back? I would have at least deducted your 30%!

This is why companies get away with the things they do.

 

[AaronEuth]

I was just trying to make sense from a consumer's side as to if renting privately afford any more benefits. I see direct communication can be better, but that doesn't necessarily change the outcomes for the ones with no solution to be had (meaning points expired, no availability etc). David's could 100% fold and people left with nothing, but they could be left with nothing from a private rental as well. If by some miracle, David's is able to make good on all the vouchers there is actually a lot more flexibility to the 2 year usage and some people might appreciate that. I was a teacher a know if I was in a situation where I had to reschedule it would not have been as easy for me to pick new dates as I would be bound by the school calendar. Anyway, to me the risk seems the same and renting privately has other risks that (under normal circumstances) David's does not. It's all about tradeoffs I guess and how much people are willing to risk for savings. I hope your niece get to go in November! We also have a November reservation

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.

 

[McCrae]

I had a renter checking in before the resorts closed, but after the parks closed. On the day of checkin, I never received the remaining 30%. I finally called later in the afternoon to see what the holdup was. I was told that they were too busy with the current situation to pay me my money. They said maybe they could pay me later in the week. After I told them to check their records and see how many of my points they had rented over the years, they relented and sent the money. I’m sure the decision was made that they did not want to lose me as a customer - too late though, that ship has sailed.

I would have no confidence that David’s would pay anyone their remaining money. And what could you do about it realistically? I‘m not flying to Canada to take him to small claims court over less than $1000.

David’s decision not to pay the remaining 30% due is a key factor in me not rushing to re-rent points with him. If he had paid I would have offered my points to him straight away and would have asked for nothing more in return.
I would have done my best to help them, now I feel no obligation to help.

I don’t know if I can trust David’s anymore.

 

[Yinn]

There seems to be quite bit of disagreement here about the interpretation of the contract. Going through the other thread, there is a group of people (myself included), who believe the owner's may actually have a legal obligation to refund the money.

Does that matter if the renter doesn’t see a dime?

The definition of “refunding” Is to return funds paid to the customer, typically due for unsatisfactory goods or services.

Even if owners send Davids the money, they’re not refunding as the money never gets to the customer/renter.

It makes me wonder. What IF....

Owners: Got paid their 30% but HAD to reschedule their original renters based on how their points were returned or extended.

Renters: Instead of a voucher, got to reschedule with their original owners, but HAD to use the original points rented. Meaning abiding by any expiration/extension/banking.

Davids: Gets nothing.

Would we all still be as upset? Or would renters prefer the voucher? Would owners prefer to keep their returned points but not get the 30%?

 

[McCrae]

Does that matter if the renter doesn’t see a dime?

The definition of “refunding” Is to return funds paid to the customer, typically due for unsatisfactory goods or services.

Even if owners send Davids the money, they’re not refunding as the money never gets to the customer/renter.

It makes me wonder. What IF....

Owners: Got paid their 30% but HAD to reschedule their original renters based on how their points were returned or extended.

Renters: Instead of a voucher, got to reschedule with their original owners, but HAD to use the original points rented. Meaning abiding by any expiration/extension/banking.

Davids: Gets nothing.


Would we all still be as upset? Or would renters prefer the voucher? Would owners prefer to keep their returned points but not get the 30%?

I would expect most owners would be willing to reschedule if they were given the opportunity to do so. David’s would have a much smaller problem to deal with if he was just working on a solution for renters whose owners points were expiring.

 

[meremac]

Reading all of these posts just solidifies my decision to never book through David's again. We go to WDW quite often, but we decided to give David's a try for the first time in April. When it became clear that WDW would be closed for our trip, I reached out to David's. Like many people have said, it was an unmitigated disaster. It ended up working out in the end because our owners were fantastic and they had lots of time left until their points expired, so they gave us a refund. But our good fortune was only because of the owner's benevolence. I was appalled by David's handling of the situation: excuses, delays, accusations that I should have bought travel insurance (I did buy it, just not through him), etc. Once I told him that I'm a TA and I know for a fact that the vast majority of insurance policies do not cover pandemics (even CFAR policies), he backed off that argument. But the next excuse was that he had hundreds of people to take care of so it might take weeks for him to get to us. Well, my agency also has hundreds of clients who were impacted by the closure, yet we were able to service them all within a matter of days (working virtually around the clock of course, but that's part of the job). Obviously, this business model works very well in good times, but I don't think he had any sort of safety net and this took him by complete surprise.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Does that matter if the renter doesn’t see a dime?

The definition of “refunding” Is to return funds paid to the customer, typically due for unsatisfactory goods or services.

Even if owners send Davids the money, they’re not refunding as the money never gets to the customer/renter.

That would be between the renter and David. I don't think a judge would let the owner off the hook because they didn't feel David was being fair to the renter.

It makes me wonder. What IF....

Owners: Got paid their 30% but HAD to reschedule their original renters based on how their points were returned or extended.

Renters: Instead of a voucher, got to reschedule with their original owners, but HAD to use the original points rented. Meaning abiding by any expiration/extension/banking.

Davids: Gets nothing.

Would we all still be as upset? Or would renters prefer the voucher? Would owners prefer to keep their returned points but not get the 30%?

Outside of a couple of small variations, that is what the voucher program is. There is speculation about the company's solvency (which is really nothing more than conjecture at this point), and whether David will have the capacity to make good on those vouchers, but if we assume he does make good on it, everyone is left in the same position.

Owners get 100% of their money
Renters get their vacation
Davids get their broker fee

The parts of your plan that I disagree with are

Renters: Instead of a voucher, got to reschedule with their original owners, but HAD to use the original points rented. Meaning abiding by any expiration/extension/banking.

I don't think this is fair to the renter. They didn't rent points, they rented a reservation. At no point did they take possession of the points and the risks associated with them.

I also don't understand why everyone is so gung-ho about the renter having to rent from the same owner. Why not mix and match so that we can fit the owner who can best offer what the renter wants?

Davids: Gets nothing.

Why? The owner got their money, the renter got their reservation, why does the broker get nothing? Where does their money go?

 

[MIDisFan]

That would be between the renter and David. I don't think a judge would let the owner off the hook because they didn't feel David was being fair to the renter.



Outside of a couple of small variations, that is what the voucher program is. There is speculation about the company's solvency (which is really nothing more than conjecture at this point), and whether David will have the capacity to make good on those vouchers, but if we assume he does make good on it, everyone is left in the same position.

Owners get 100% of their money
Renters get their vacation At the new higher rate
Davids get their broker fee X 2

The parts of your plan that I disagree with are



I don't think this is fair to the renter. They didn't rent points, they rented a reservation. At no point did they take possession of the points and the risks associated with them.

I also don't understand why everyone is so gung-ho about the renter having to rent from the same owner. Why not mix and match so that we can fit the owner who can best offer what the renter wants? Why did you say WE?



Why? The owner got their money, the renter got their reservation, why does the broker get nothing? Where does their money go?

Replies highlighted in the quote

 

[suemom2kay]

Thanks for sharing, Your example of him not paying the additional 30% when it was the renter who backed out is why I have lost faith in his practices, and IMO, shows his decision on how to handle this is only in his interests

There is absolutely no reason you were not given the extra 30%.

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.

 

[peaceluv&mickeymouse]

Replies highlighted in the quote

“We”. Interesting. .

 

[Marionnette]

“We”. Interesting. .

Yes. Good pick up, @MIDisFan! It certainly explains a lot.

 

[McCrae]

I also don't understand why everyone is so gung-ho about the renter having to rent from the same owner. Why not mix and match so that we can fit the owner who can best offer what the renter wants?

If you were to accept your suggestion by default you would be agreeing that Owners contracts are with David’s and not individual renters. This removes any liability from owners to renters.

David’s has no basis to make a claim against owners.

 

[Marionnette]

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.

The agreement does not say “upon guest check in”. It says “at the time of check-in”. It might be splitting hairs but in contracts, how you word things matters.

According to the website, David’s promises to pay owners in full, even if the renter cancels or does not show up.

 

[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)?

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.

 

[suemom2kay]

The agreement does not say “upon guest check in”. It says “at the time of check-in”. It might be splitting hairs but in contracts, how you word things matters.

According to the website, David’s promises to pay owners in full, even if the renter cancels or does not show up.

Ah, that changes everything.

 

[suemom2kay]

Why not mix and match so that we can fit the owner who can best offer what the renter wants? Why did you say WE?