Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[disneypharm]

One thing is for certain... if rental brokers survive this, they will re-write their contracts to avoid being stuck holding the bag if something like this ever happens again.

He has and that's why some renters are refusing to sign the new contract that removes any protection they had before.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

He has and that's why some renters are refusing to sign the new contract that removes any protection they had before.

I was referring to having better written contracts for new rentals moving forward.

What he's doing now is trying to change the terms of existing contracts, which is one of the reasons many who are dealing with this company are fed up.

 

[disneypharm]

I was referring to having better written contracts for new rentals moving forward.

What he's doing now is trying to change the terms of existing contracts, which is one of the reasons many who are dealing with this company are fed up.

Yes, I got that. He probably will be using same paragraphs for future contracts.

 

[cmrdgrs]

As an owner, I did not sign a new agreement with David - just an email exchange confirming I am willing to re-rent, and they notified me that my points are back in the queue.

But, really this situation requires a new contract between everyone. Plus, if David doesn't allow a sublet of the rental, by his own contract aren't you required to do a new rental for the same renters?

 

[CraigInPA]

If the contract David's had with owners was better written, it wouldn't be in question whether they were obligated to return the 70% deposit they were paid and David's should have been able to use those funds to refund 100% of renters.

David's advertises "security" and "simplicity" for the Owner. The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill. The Owner doesn't have to find a Renter. The Owner doesn't have to deal with a Renter who wants to change their reservation. The Owner doesn't have to worry that the Renter will somehow reverse the transaction. For an Owner, the only thing they need to do is make the reservation, maybe order DDP, pay their dues, not cancel the reservation, and get paid by David's. All of these are points that David's advertises in order to get Owners to rent their points through him. For this, David's collects $4.50 per point as a commission, which is about 25% of the total paid by the Renter. Owners view the commission as high, but not for the "security" and "simplicity" that David's advertises for them.

If David's re-wrote his contract to make the Owner's payment reversible in the event of a Force Majeure or resort closure, his business would be done because no Owner will rent through him because his claim of "security" would be bogus.

I expect most of this are moot arguments, since David's has so incompetently handled the present situation and angered so many Owners that he is likely done as a company.

 

[CraigInPA]

But, really this situation requires a new contract between everyone. Plus, if David doesn't allow a sublet of the rental, by his own contract aren't you required to do a new rental for the same renters?

He needs to amend the current contract if the three parties are still the same, or enter into a new contract if the parties have changed.

He actually wants to do a new contract, since he gets to charge the new higher rental fee to his Renters. He is, however, sticking it to the Owners by not giving them the new higher fee paid to Owners, unless there are new points involved. And even then, only the new points are paid at the higher rate.

Such an outstanding example of honorable business practices I have not seen since.....Bernie Madoff.

 

[dragonflymom]

The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill.

How does this work? If the owner were stuck with a DVC bill related to renter, would owner get re-imbursed by the broker who then goes after the renter?

 

[Dracula]

But, really this situation requires a new contract between everyone. Plus, if David doesn't allow a sublet of the rental, by his own contract aren't you required to do a new rental for the same renters?

It is not a sublet of an existing reservation, it would be a new reservation for new renters, at a higher price point, $15.50 instead of $14.50. Yes, I wish the 30% would have been paid to me at the day of check-in, but I think it is understandable that cash is in short supply these days. And for all the owners who say they would rent the points themselves, at this time renting points is many times more difficult than it was just two months ago.

 

[cmrdgrs]

It is not a sublet of an existing reservation, it would be a new reservation for new renters, at a higher price point, $15.50 instead of $14.50. Yes, I wish the 30% would have been paid to me at the day of check-in, but I think it is understandable that cash is in short supply these days. And for all the owners who say they would rent the points themselves, at this time renting points is many times more difficult than it was just two months ago.

The way I view it, and we may disagree, you did a rental for a particular party for a particular amount of points. David can't randomly now give you a new renter. In my mind, you are tied to the old renter under the original agreement, those are the terms of what you, the original renter, and David agreed to.

If David wants you to rent your points to a new renter that (in my mind) requires a new agreement between your old renter, you and David. Without an agreement from all three parties it doesn't seem like a valid contract.

 

[New Mouse]

If he is creating a new contract going forward doesnt that bascially justify both the owners and renters current claims?

 

[cmrdgrs]

David's advertises "security" and "simplicity" for the Owner. The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill. The Owner doesn't have to find a Renter. The Owner doesn't have to deal with a Renter who wants to change their reservation. The Owner doesn't have to worry that the Renter will somehow reverse the transaction. For an Owner, the only thing they need to do is make the reservation, maybe order DDP, pay their dues, not cancel the reservation, and get paid by David's. All of these are points that David's advertises in order to get Owners to rent their points through him. For this, David's collects $4.50 per point as a commission, which is about 25% of the total paid by the Renter. Owners view the commission as high, but not for the "security" and "simplicity" that David's advertises for them.

If David's re-wrote his contract to make the Owner's payment reversible in the event of a Force Majeure or resort closure, his business would be done because no Owner will rent through him because his claim of "security" would be bogus.

I expect most of this are moot arguments, since David's has so incompetently handled the present situation and angered so many Owners that he is likely done as a company.

This is not a true statement. Every broker is just a middleman. If the renter does damage to the room -- you the owner -- you are responsible for working things out between the broker, renter and Disney.

Brokers offer false sense of security to owners. It has always been my opinion that brokers create an artificial ceiling on rental prices. I have never and will never use a broker to do a rental. I regularly rent my points for premium over brokers. My average for renting my points is $20pp without a broker. I never understand why owners settle for the prices brokers pay. To each his own, but I think the extra dollars I make, and put in my own pocket, doing my own rentals, is well worth the work.

 

[Bearval]

David's advertises "security" and "simplicity" for the Owner. The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill. The Owner doesn't have to find a Renter. The Owner doesn't have to deal with a Renter who wants to change their reservation. The Owner doesn't have to worry that the Renter will somehow reverse the transaction. For an Owner, the only thing they need to do is make the reservation, maybe order DDP, pay their dues, not cancel the reservation, and get paid by David's. All of these are points that David's advertises in order to get Owners to rent their points through him. For this, David's collects $4.50 per point as a commission, which is about 25% of the total paid by the Renter. Owners view the commission as high, but not for the "security" and "simplicity" that David's advertises for them.

If David's re-wrote his contract to make the Owner's payment reversible in the event of a Force Majeure or resort closure, his business would be done because no Owner will rent through him because his claim of "security" would be bogus.

I expect most of this are moot arguments, since David's has so incompetently handled the present situation and angered so many Owners that he is likely done as a company.

I am not a lawyer but I did read the renters contract that is currently online and I would not get all warm and fuzzy about owner protection about the renter trashing or damaging the unit? My question is how is the renters forced to pay the damages? I only saw language that stated the renter has to pay the damages to the owner. What happens when the renter refuses or disputes they are responsible but DVC holds the owner responsible for the damage his "guests " did?

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

If David's re-wrote his contract to make the Owner's payment reversible in the event of a Force Majeure or resort closure, his business would be done because no Owner will rent through him because his claim of "security" would be bogus.

Alternatively, he could put the onus on the renter... expanding the "no cancellations/no refunds" policy to include closures as a result of Force Majeure. But then who would be willing to rent under those terms?

And, perhaps more importantly, would it matter what the contract says about "no refunds" if credit card companies and/or courts determine that he's not allowed to keep the money if no accomodations were provided.

I expect most of this are moot arguments, since David's has so incompetently handled the present situation and angered so many Owners that he is likely done as a company.

Very possible.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

This is not a true statement. Every broker is just a middleman. If the renter does damage to the room -- you the owner -- you are responsible for working things out between the broker, renter and Disney.

Brokers offer false sense of security to owners. It has always been my opinion that brokers create an artificial ceiling on rental prices. I have never and will never use a broker to do a rental. I regularly rent my points for premium over brokers. My average for renting my points is $20pp without a broker. I never understand why owners settle for the prices brokers pay. To each his own, but I think the extra dollars I make, and put in my own pocket, doing my own rentals, is well worth the work.

The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill.
It might not be entirely true but the renter has to provide their own credit card for charges and has been checked in on their own and in person. As far as unpaid bills the credit card is charged at least daily (by summary not by asking). I don't see a scenario where an unpaid bill becomes an owner issue. Cash customers can damage as well and as far as I know the association (owners) have never paid for that damage. Maybe be Disney picks it up, to the extent it happens which would be something to think about if it happened. But I have never heard of this occuring.

I tend to agree on the value of using a broker or not.

 

[Sandisw]

The Owner doesn't have to worry about a Renter trashing a room or leaving with an unpaid bill.
It might not be entirely true but the renter has to provide their own credit card for charges and has been checked in on their own and in person. As far as unpaid bills the credit card is charged at least daily (by summary not by asking). I don't see a scenario where an unpaid bill becomes an owner issue. Cash customers can damage as well and as far as I know the association (owners) have never paid for that damage. Maybe be Disney picks it up, to the extent it happens which would be something to think about if it happened. But I have never heard of this occuring.

I tend to agree on the value of using a broker or not.

They run a hold, but do not charge the cards until a certain threshold is met. So, in theory, a renter can leave a balance if there is an issue processing the final bill.

DVC would freeze an owners account until they get the guest to settle. Same with room damages.

My understanding is the broker would help the owner in the sense they would work with the renter to settle things up, but ultimately, owners are held liable for guests, and if they can’t get them to pay, an owner has to or be locked out of using their membership,

Years ago, I read a few posts in which this happened, and owners were forced to settle because they couldn’t get a renter to make good. It is rare though.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Years ago, I read a few posts in which this happened, and owners were forced to settle because they couldn’t get a renter to make good. It is rare though.

I've read a couple too but less than a handful - maybe 2 or 3? And all but one were actually family members. I think people were posting about those because the notice came weeks after the visit. And also recall that it was declined credit cards, not rooms trashed. I don't believe that would happen now because of the way they are handling credit card charges.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

They run a hold, but do not charge the cards until a certain threshold is met. So, in theory, a renter can leave a balance if there is an issue processing the final bill.

DVC would freeze an owners account until they get the guest to settle. Same with room damages.

My understanding is the broker would help the owner in the sense they would work with the renter to settle things up, but ultimately, owners are held liable for guests, and if they can’t get them to pay, an owner has to or be locked out of using their membership,

Years ago, I read a few posts in which this happened, and owners were forced to settle because they couldn’t get a renter to make good. It is rare though.

This was not my understanding at all. I just ended a chat with DVC. DVC says that at check the individual checking in either places a hold on credit card or posts a cash equivalent. There is no liability to me as an owner for any charges by a checked in guest. None.

Then I asked about damage to the room. According to the documents available to the chat person there is NO liability to me as an owner to damage to the room by a checked in guest. Liability for the damage is agreed to by the guest checking in. None for me.

 

[New Mouse]

This was not my understanding at all. I just ended a chat with DVC. DVC says that at check the individual checking in either places a hold on credit card or posts a cash equivalent. There is no liability to me as an owner for any charges by a checked in guest. None.

Then I asked about damage to the room. According to the documents available to the chat person there is NO liability to me as an owner to damage to the room by a checked in guest. Liability for the damage is agreed to by the guest checking in. None for me.

None of that is actually true. If the guest stiffs the bill, which can and has been done, the owner is responsible. One of the reasons Ive used Davids in the past is that he can and should be liable for getting funds from the guest. If not, I would pass the bill along to him.

 

[cmrdgrs]

This was not my understanding at all. I just ended a chat with DVC. DVC says that at check the individual checking in either places a hold on credit card or posts a cash equivalent. There is no liability to me as an owner for any charges by a checked in guest. None.

Then I asked about damage to the room. According to the documents available to the chat person there is NO liability to me as an owner to damage to the room by a checked in guest. Liability for the damage is agreed to by the guest checking in. None for me.

But, none of this has to do with the broker is the point.

 

[Sandisw]

This was not my understanding at all. I just ended a chat with DVC. DVC says that at check the individual checking in either places a hold on credit card or posts a cash equivalent. There is no liability to me as an owner for any charges by a checked in guest. None.

Then I asked about damage to the room. According to the documents available to the chat person there is NO liability to me as an owner to damage to the room by a checked in guest. Liability for the damage is agreed to by the guest checking in. None for me.

That is correct, Disney can not come after you. But, if you have a guest that causes damage or has a guest who ends up for some reason with an unpaid bill...ieL credit card issue after they check out...DVC will freeze your account until you get your guest to pay up. It is even in the POS that you are ultimately responsible for the actions of your guests.

I do agree that with the way they do things now it is less likely, as I believe that is why they do the hold... but, they won’t let you use your account until things are settled.