Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[DisneyBB]

I think if David used Paypal as if you pay for goods or services then the recipient pays a fee to PayPal which is quite a bit.

 

[myth2001]

Some more editing to add new information:

Hi newcomer here, and I have an upcoming split stay rental with David in November.

Just trying to see if I got all that is being discussed here, so it seems the current solution being enacted is
1) Owner are being asked to give back the 70% already received and get your points back, David can also try to re-rent out your points for you,.
2) David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld + any fund from owners that are willing to give back their 70% - any incurred cost, will be pooled into a single pool that will support the resolution to the renter.
3) renter will get a travel voucher to be used at David for the next 2 years, this voucher would be essentially backed by the fund collected in 2, and shortfall will be taken out David's profit in the next 2 years
Overall it does not seem that un-reasonable to me?

Benefit to David:

• I am guessing the focus is to try to have a consistent solution for all renter and owner, instead of doing one by one resolution which will take a lot more effort, and also risk renter with bad luck lashing out?
• Having a larger pooled fund will make it less riskier over all?
• Also using voucher system will lock the customers into using David, thus can still get commission

Some of the main objection seem to be:
Renter:
1) what if David can not remain solvent, and then future reservation and voucher will fall through
2) how much of "David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld" is left after incurred expenses
3) wants refund instead of voucher, due to voucher's new term is concerning such as reservation made would be non-refundable
Owner:
1) you might loss out on the points if they can not be used or re-rented before expire (this appear to be less an issue after DVC extended the point expiration?)
2) Some owner want to make sure their specific renter is taken care of
3) Some owner object to being asked to consider giving back the 70%

This sound about right?

 

[cmrdgrs]

I think if David used Paypal as if you pay for goods or services then the recipient pays a fee to PayPal which is quite a bit.

There are still ways to take the payment and allow for the fee. JMHO, but to me, it seems that you're being dishonest with renters. PayPal explicitly doesn't allow for this type of transaction using their services and David's boldly ignores the rule. For me, it doesn't sit well, but I'm too conservative, I don't like blatantly like to breaking rules that has been set. If a company is breaking a rule, and I know about it, I won't do business with them. I follow the rules and I expect others to do the same on a business transaction.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

The rental market would virtually die if all funds were held in Escrow. Owners won't take the risk of losing out in a dispute that could end up with them having points they can't use.

Perhaps, but even under the current system, the owner is only getting about 50% of the funds up-front. David's should be able to keep the rest tucked away until the transaction is complete.

I even go so far as to set the funds for rentals aside in a separate account for both tax reasons, and to ensure I don't spend money I don't really have until it's all said and done. I'm sorry, I just don't see why a broker can't do the same.

I think the bolded is the part that chafes many... there's a strong perception that David went out and blew all the money immediately on yachts and trips around the world, and now has to give vouchers because the money for refunds is no longer available. It appears, at least on the surface, that he was banking on the "no cancellations" policy being iron-clad and, as soon as the renter paid, he was "in the clear."

 

[Dracula]

Hi newcomer here, and I have an upcoming split stay rental with David in November.

Just trying to see if I got all that is being discussed here, so it seems the current solution being enacted is
1) Owner are being asked to give back the 70% already received and get your points back, con being you might loss out on the points if they can not be used or re-rented before expire
2) David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld + any fund from owners that are willing to give back their 70%, will be pooled into a single pool that will support the resolution to the renter
3) renter will get a travel voucher to be used at David for the next 2 years, this voucher would be essentially backed by the fund collected in 2, and shortfall will be taken out David's profit in the next 2 years
Overall it does not seem that un-reasonable to me?

Benefit to David:

• I am guessing the focus is to try to have a consistent solution for all renter and owner, instead of doing one by one resolution which will take a lot more effort, and also risk renter with bad luck lashing out?
• Having a larger pooled fund will make it less riskier over all?
• Also using voucher system will lock the customers into using David, thus can still get commission

Some of the main objection seem to be:
1) Some renter wants refund instead of voucher
2) Some owner want to make sure their specific renter is taken care of
3) Some owner object to being asked to consider giving back the 70%
4) some renter worry what if David can not remain solvent and future reservation and voucher will fall through
This sound about right?

That's about right!
There is another option for #1 - owners can keep the 70% and allow David to re-rent the points. It is essentially the same thing - it reduces David's available cash but provides him with a pool of points to use with the renters redeeming vouchers.
People are also wondering whether there is any cash left at #2 - David's commission and the 30% remainder. As far as the commission goes, much of it may have been spent on credit card fees, wages and other operating costs, and dividends.
Of major concern are the voucher terms - basically David has the right to unilaterally amend the terms, and all reservations made with the voucher would be non-refundable - even when a Disney cruise, for instance, has a clear cancellation policy.

 

[myth2001]

Thanks, added to the list

 

[TheWheel]

Hi newcomer here, and I have an upcoming split stay rental with David in November.

Just trying to see if I got all that is being discussed here, so it seems the current solution being enacted is
1) Owner are being asked to give back the 70% already received and get your points back, David can also try to re-rent out your points for you,. Con being you might loss out on the points if they can not be used or re-rented before expire
2) David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld + any fund from owners that are willing to give back their 70%, will be pooled into a single pool that will support the resolution to the renter.
3) renter will get a travel voucher to be used at David for the next 2 years, this voucher would be essentially backed by the fund collected in 2, and shortfall will be taken out David's profit in the next 2 years
Overall it does not seem that un-reasonable to me?

Benefit to David:

• I am guessing the focus is to try to have a consistent solution for all renter and owner, instead of doing one by one resolution which will take a lot more effort, and also risk renter with bad luck lashing out?
• Having a larger pooled fund will make it less riskier over all?
• Also using voucher system will lock the customers into using David, thus can still get commission

Some of the main objection seem to be:
1) Concern about how much of "David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld" is left
2) some renter worry what if David can not remain solvent and future reservation and voucher will fall through
3) Some renter wants refund instead of voucher
4) The voucher's term has some concern, such as being reservation made would be non-refundable
5) Some owner want to make sure their specific renter is taken care of
6) Some owner object to being asked to consider giving back the 70%

This sound about right?

7) Renters have a case to demand refund, hence why David's is offering. Accepting the voucher terms removes that so renters are essentially signing away rights that they currently have in order to accept the voucher.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I think if David used Paypal as if you pay for goods or services then the recipient pays a fee to PayPal which is quite a bit.

Dave advertised, and I think he still does, that owners get the entire amount and that David's pays pay pal fees

 

[Sandisw]

7) Renters have a case to demand refund, hence why David's is offering. Accepting the voucher terms removes that so renters are essentially signing away rights that they currently have in order to accept the voucher.

To add, his voucher system is depending on his continued success to find enough new owners to rent their points so he can fulfill the terms of the voucher in that two year timeframe,

 

[McCrae]

Hi newcomer here, and I have an upcoming split stay rental with David in November.

Just trying to see if I got all that is being discussed here, so it seems the current solution being enacted is
1) Owner are being asked to give back the 70% already received and get your points back, David can also try to re-rent out your points for you,. Con being you might loss out on the points if they can not be used or re-rented before expire
2) David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld + any fund from owners that are willing to give back their 70%, will be pooled into a single pool that will support the resolution to the renter.
3) renter will get a travel voucher to be used at David for the next 2 years, this voucher would be essentially backed by the fund collected in 2, and shortfall will be taken out David's profit in the next 2 years
Overall it does not seem that un-reasonable to me?

Benefit to David:

• I am guessing the focus is to try to have a consistent solution for all renter and owner, instead of doing one by one resolution which will take a lot more effort, and also risk renter with bad luck lashing out?
• Having a larger pooled fund will make it less riskier over all?
• Also using voucher system will lock the customers into using David, thus can still get commission

Some of the main objection seem to be:
1) Concern about how much of "David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld" is left
2) some renter worry what if David can not remain solvent and future reservation and voucher will fall through
3) Some renter wants refund instead of voucher
4) The voucher's term has some concern, such as being reservation made would be non-refundable
5) Some owner want to make sure their specific renter is taken care of
6) Some owner object to being asked to consider giving back the 70%

This sound about right?

Bit missing is that owners could end up being the losers here.

Dues have been paid on the points rented. The owner could easily have paid thousands of dollars in fees. Points could be returned that are unusable. Therefore the owners loses out.

 

[McCrae]

There are other ways to take a payment with a credit card. Why not just use one that accepts a credit card? I use SquareUp for my credit card transactions. Why break a rule that you know you're breaking (and your renter does not know you're breaking happily thinking they have protection with PayPal) -- that's my question [to David].

Paypal rules vary from country to country. In Canada David’s may not be breaking any rules. Providing you are not doing anything illegal you can use PayPal. Paypal Protect exemptions are however the same across all regions.

 

[suemom2kay]

Hi newcomer here, and I have an upcoming split stay rental with David in November.

Just trying to see if I got all that is being discussed here, so it seems the current solution being enacted is
1) Owner are being asked to give back the 70% already received and get your points back, David can also try to re-rent out your points for you,. Con being you might loss out on the points if they can not be used or re-rented before expire
2) David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld + any fund from owners that are willing to give back their 70%, will be pooled into a single pool that will support the resolution to the renter.
3) renter will get a travel voucher to be used at David for the next 2 years, this voucher would be essentially backed by the fund collected in 2, and shortfall will be taken out David's profit in the next 2 years
Overall it does not seem that un-reasonable to me?

Benefit to David:

• I am guessing the focus is to try to have a consistent solution for all renter and owner, instead of doing one by one resolution which will take a lot more effort, and also risk renter with bad luck lashing out?
• Having a larger pooled fund will make it less riskier over all?
• Also using voucher system will lock the customers into using David, thus can still get commission

Some of the main objection seem to be:
1) Concern about how much of "David's commission + 30% of the fund that was withheld" is left
2) some renter worry what if David can not remain solvent and future reservation and voucher will fall through
3) Some renter wants refund instead of voucher
4) The voucher's term has some concern, such as being reservation made would be non-refundable
5) Some owner want to make sure their specific renter is taken care of
6) Some owner object to being asked to consider giving back the 70%

This sound about right?

To add directly from David's T&C of his "voucher."

1. In the event of a global pandemic, natural disaster, force Majeure or any other event outside the reasonable control of David's Vacation Club Rentals, this Credit remains non-refundable and no modification, cancelations or rebooking will be permitted.
2. David's Vacation Club Rentals does not guarantee the availability of services. The Credit is subject to availability of the selected product at time of booking.
3. David's Vacation Club Rentals reserves the right to change, add, modify, or eliminate any element of the Credit or any type of service or activity currently available with the Credit.

 

[ScubaCat]

I

I think that even if he had done that he would still be short. Because of his contract he has to give a voucher even when the owner can’t pay back the 70% so he has to cover that. But yes everything else should be there and not spent until the checkin date.

The rental market would virtually die if all funds were held in Escrow. Owners won't take the risk of losing out in a dispute that could end up with them having points they can't use.

This is true, I forgot about the initial disbursement in that calculation. The rest should still be held, though. Business should pay itself last. (wishful thinking, I know.).

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

David's Vacation Club Rentals reserves the right to change, add, modify, or eliminate any element of the Credit or any type of service or activity currently available with the Credit.

I thought David's responded to somebody that the sole purpose of the inclusion of this clause is so that they can offer unrestricted flexibility to this unprecedented offering of goodwill so that the voucher program will function at optimum levels to maximize the benefit to their rental customers..........or something like that? That silly goose David, he's always about putting the customer first!

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

I thought David's responded to somebody that the sole purpose of the inclusion of this clause is so that they can offer unrestricted flexibility to this unprecedented offering of goodwill so that the voucher program will function at optimum levels to maximize the benefit to their rental customers..........or something like that? That silly goose David, he's always about putting the customer first!

Unrestricted flexibility in avoiding refunding anyone.

 

[cmrdgrs]

I thought David's responded to somebody that the sole purpose of the inclusion of this clause is so that they can offer unrestricted flexibility to this unprecedented offering of goodwill so that the voucher program will function at optimum levels to maximize the benefit to their rental customers..........or something like that? That silly goose David, he's always about putting the customer first!

Right...I need a legal agreement to void the agreement on the voucher to give a renter something better than what I originally offered, because no one would willingly accept a better offer. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[moab44]

My family and I are talking about hitting accept on the voucher and trying to book again for next April for the BCV or BWV. We have enough of a credit that we won’t have to pay anything extra, I hope. Has anyone hit accept and tried to book again? We have rented the last five years from Dave’s. In those previous year everything worked out well.

 

[cmrdgrs]

My family and I are talking about hitting accept on the voucher and trying to book again for next April for the BCV or BWV. We have enough of a credit that we won’t have to pay anything extra, I hope. Has anyone hit accept and tried to book again? We have rented the last five years from Dave’s. In those previous year everything worked out well.

Have you tried to process a chargeback first? Some reported that David is still honoring the credit if the chargeback if settled in his favor.

 

[CraigInPA]

To add directly from David's T&C of his "voucher."

David's Vacation Club Rentals does not guarantee the availability of services. The Credit is subject to availability of the selected product at time of booking.

i.e., If no owner wants to do business with me, or I can't find you a reservation for your requested dates, you get...nothing.

 

[moab44]

I emailed Dave’s and they said if at the time of the request there is nothing I still hold onto the credits. Only if my request is filled is the voucher released