Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Amymouse13]

I don’t see where it specifically states that “if the reservation CANNOT be fullfilled due to any action outside of the renters (sic) control” that the renter is due a refund or other accommodation. It only refers to actions or omissions by the owner. DVCM is not mentioned at all.

It's been previously mentioned dvcm acts on behalf of owners. Also in early says some owners cancelled reservations before David changed his tune.

 

[VeroGuy]

Where does it refer to DVCM cancelling?

It doesn’t but it has been mentioned on here that an argument can be made that DVCM is an extension of the owner and acted on behalf of the owner and still is.

Most resorts have announced reopening dates in Florida but crickets are coming from DVCM and Disney. Yes the logistics of opening these resorts may be more complex but no statement is a statement. You have owners who are losing value In their membership by the day with no response from the management company an owner trusted would act in their best interest. Has any owner reached out to DVCM and asked for an explanation or a time frame for when their timeshare will be made available to them? Serious question.

 

[Donna M]

Where does it refer to DVCM cancelling?

I would have the same question. From what I remember, there is wording about DVC resorts being closed, but it does not use the words.. DVCM cancelling...

 

[VeroGuy]

My wife and I have looked into DVC ownership for a while and just have never pulled the trigger on it. We liked renting to try out resorts and I guess you can say we are still in the trial phase.

I would still entertain the idea, even to this day and after this event. But I do question DVCM just as I would question my HOA if they decided something on my behalf for common areas theat required me to take a financial loss.

 

[crisi]

It's been previously mentioned dvcm acts on behalf of owners. Also in early says some owners cancelled reservations before David changed his tune.

Yeah, that's not a legal argument that holds any water. DVCM does not represent me in regards to your rental. They represent me in their negotiations with the general Walt Disney Company. Their representation is limited and does not extend as far as you are implying.

 

[Sandisw]

This is a major jump in logic. Without knowing all of the details it's impossible to know for sure, but there are plenty of other reasons (some of which I already laid out in this thread) for why he didn't allow owners to refund the cash to renters.



If its true and he has 2000 to 3000 reservations per month, judging by the size of his staff listed on the website, it could take a year before they'd be able to resolve all of these issues, with the vast majority of owners probably not willing to refund the renters anyways. You can see it in this thread. By in large almost all owners believe they are entitled to the funds because it was "non refundable", while renteres believe they are entitled to full refund because they don't believe the non refundable applies to this situation. Davids is a small to medium sized company who's staff is probably not trained to make judgment calls like that and handle negotiations.

My point was he is stopping owners from canceling to preserve points because then he has to refund renters , which he does not want to do, Plain and simple,

So, any owner who was willing to send the money back, and be allowed to cancel so they had usable points has been told they can’t do that...they must wait for Disney,..why?

He wants the ability to change the contract, but won’t let owners out when it doesn’t fit his needs,

 

[Amymouse13]

Yeah, that's not a legal argument that holds any water. DVCM does not represent me in regards to your rental. They represent me in their negotiations with the general Walt Disney Company. Their representation is limited and does not extend as far as you are implying.

So you're saying dvcm doesn't decide when to replace carpet or paint buildings on your behalf but when it comes to operating status they don't? I'm not saying owners should refund renters as the contract merely says I'm due a refund... Not that owners are paying. My contract is with David's.

 

[VeroGuy]

So you're saying dvcm doesn't decide when to replace carpet or paint buildings on your behalf but when it comes to operating status they don't? I'm not saying owners should refund renters as the contract merely says I'm due a refund... Not that owners are paying. My contract is with David's.

I agree with you, and I was just trying to point out the flaw in David’s contract language.

 

[Marionnette]

It's been previously mentioned dvcm acts on behalf of owners. Also in early says some owners cancelled reservations before David changed his tune.

The point is that the PP stated that the rental agreement specifically mentions cancellations by DVCM. It doesn’t. And it could be argued that actions by DVCM are not actions by the owner. That point has never been clarified and gets repeated by renters who want to put owners on the hook for the pandemic cancellations.

 

[Sandisw]

It doesn’t but it has been mentioned on here that an argument can be made that DVCM is an extension of the owner and acted on behalf of the owner and still is.

Most resorts have announced reopening dates in Florida but crickets are coming from DVCM and Disney. Yes the logistics of opening these resorts may be more complex but no statement is a statement. You have owners who are losing value In their membership by the day with no response from the management company an owner trusted would act in their best interest. Has any owner reached out to DVCM and asked for an explanation or a time frame for when their timeshare will be made available to them? Serious question.

Yes, I have contacted them and the state of emergency issued in Florida,,,and now extended...gives DVCM the legal authority to keep the resorts closed in the interest of health and safety, Disney is the one with the property management contract so that plays into this as well,

So, as long as those orders are in play, they can delay opening until they have the procedures in place to safely open the resorts,,,and these emergency powers do allow them to keep owners out.

 

[VeroGuy]

The point is that the PP stated that the rental agreement specifically mentions cancellations by DVCM. It doesn’t. And it could be argued that actions by DVCM are not actions by the owner. That point has never been clarified and gets repeated by renters who want to put owners on the hook for the pandemic cancellations.

I am a renter and am not trying to put you as an owner on the hook. I am putting David on the hook for not clarifying the difference in the contract.

I am owed a refund by the intermediary that created the contract.

 

[VeroGuy]

Yes, I have contacted them and the state of emergency issued in Florida,,,and now extended...gives DVCM the legal authority to keep the resorts closed in the interest of health and safety, Disney is the one with the property management contract so that plays into this as well,

So, as long as those orders are in play, they can delay opening until they have the procedures in place to safely open the resorts,,,

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

 

[crisi]

So you're saying dvcm doesn't decide when to replace carpet or paint buildings on your behalf but when it comes to operating status they don't? I'm not saying owners should refund renters as the contract merely says I'm due a refund... Not that owners are paying. My contract is with David's.

I'm saying they decide to replace carpet on my behalf, and close the resort, but that doesn't extend to them being my representative in an agreement between me and David and a renter. Its a little like saying my homeowners association is my representative when replacing my siding - but they aren't when Instacart delivers groceries to my door. An agent has limited authority and liability, and I have limited liability regarding the actions of my agent.

 

[Marionnette]

I am a renter and am not trying to put you as an owner on the hook. I am putting David on the hook for not clarifying the difference in the contract.

I am owed a refund by the intermediary that created the contract.

According to your rental agreement, you are owed a refund if an omission or action by the owner results in no room being available. By extending DVMC’s actions to be included as an action by the owner, you are, in effect, making the owner responsible to David’s for a refund.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

I am a renter and am not trying to put you as an owner on the hook. I am putting David on the hook for not clarifying the difference in the contract.

I am owed a refund by the intermediary that created the contract.

Right.

I’m assuming that clause is in there to protect a renter from an owner cancelling and leaving the renter without a reservation and without money. If that did happen, I couldn't care less what went on between owner and David’s, Davids gives me the money back and how they obtain it is their problem. This is why we all use them. They are the middle man and offered some (false) layer of protection.

It frustrates me that they have created an entire business around lowering risk in these transactions being the intermediary, yet some seem willing to excuse them for not having plans in place when something goes majorly wrong. Yes this scenario is huge and unprecedented, but it appears they are flying by the seat of their pants even when the closure was 2 weeks.
Surely that should have been planned for in some way, even just a single resort. What if a fire took out a DVC resort?

 

[VeroGuy]

According to your rental agreement, you are owed a refund if an omission or action by the owner results in no room being available. By extending DVMC’s actions to be included as an action by the owner, you are, in effect, making the owner responsible to David’s for a refund.

I get what you are saying but my contract is between David’s and I. Just as the owners contract is between the owner and David’s.

I was not privy to contract language between the owner and David’s and therefore I am not going after owners for a refund but I am going after the company who I paid for a reservation that can’t be fulfilled.

It is up to David’s and the owner to hash out how that happens between themselves. If David’s believes the owner owes him something that is on him to go after those funds and he can do so outside of giving me a refund for the non-existing reservation that was paid for.

It has been said many times before in this thread that this situation has really exposed what the intermediary does for there heavy fee, and that is not a lot. If I rent going forward I will do so with private owners that have a clear and concise contract, likely to be one of my many friends that are DVC members who I have a personal relationship with.

 

[Grnl706]

Maybe I'm missing something but the rental contracts says it is for XX days at XX resort with a reservation number. If that does not exist because the resort is closed what contract does a renter even have? The contract isn't for a specific number of points, it is for a specific reservation. Is the entire thing not voided the second that reservation doesn't exist? David's is on the hook to fix that to the renter, not the owner. When it comes to David's and the owner, I understand that creates entirely different issues and is a different contract. But I'm just not seeing that anyone is expecting the owner to do anything? It is all David's on both sides, Renter vs. Davids and Owner vs. Davids, not Renter vs. Owner.

 

[yankeesfan123]

Right.

I’m assuming that clause is in there to protect a renter from an owner cancelling and leaving the renter without a reservation and without money. If that did happen, I couldn't care less what went on between owner and David’s, Davids gives me the money back and how they obtain it is their problem. This is why we all use them. They are the middle man and offered some (false) layer of protection.

It frustrates me that they have created an entire business around lowering risk in these transactions being the intermediary, yet some seem willing to excuse them for not having plans in place when something goes majorly wrong. Yes this scenario is huge and unprecedented, but it appears they are flying by the seat of their pants even when the closure was 2 weeks.
Surely that should have been planned for in some way, even just a single resort. What if a fire took out a DVC resort?

I think Disney would do their best to accommodate the guests into a different resort... and I think the original contract covered that. I think the closest and realistic comparison is the resorts close due to a hurricane. But as we have seen, the resorts typically stay open even if the park is closed, which I’m sure David knows.

 

[crisi]

Right.

I’m assuming that clause is in there to protect a renter from an owner cancelling and leaving the renter without a reservation and without money. If that did happen, I couldn't care less what went on between owner and David’s, Davids gives me the money back and how they obtain it is their problem. This is why we all use them. They are the middle man and offered some (false) layer of protection.

It frustrates me that they have created an entire business around lowering risk in these transactions being the intermediary, yet some seem willing to excuse them for not having plans in place when something goes majorly wrong. Yes this scenario is huge and unprecedented, but it appears they are flying by the seat of their pants even when the closure was 2 weeks.
Surely that should have been planned for in some way, even just a single resort. What if a fire took out a DVC resort?

How much overhead would they have had to have added to the reservation to be able to have cash to cover the possibility that months of reservations would be cancelled? The amount they would have needed to charge you to have the business model you suggest they have would have made it price prohibitive to rent points - CRO would become a much much more attractive option. With a DVC rental you get a good deal, but part of the good deal involves risk.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It doesn’t but it has been mentioned on here that an argument can be made that DVCM is an extension of the owner and acted on behalf of the owner and still is. Most resorts have announced reopening dates in Florida but crickets are coming from DVCM and Disney. Yes the logistics of opening these resorts may be more complex but no statement is a statement. You have owners who are losing value In their membership by the day with no response from the management company an owner trusted would act in their best interest. Has any owner reached out to DVCM and asked for an explanation or a time frame for when their timeshare will be made available to them? Serious question.

I really like the thought and will extend to the possibility that as a "RESORT" no DVC property is being evaluated for opening outside the larger package of opening parks as well. To me this is another sign that the management company needs a real review on decision making v the taking of orders to help the larger business and its profitability.

Many FL resorts never closed. DVC was not required to be closed by the emergency and so saying it was 'cover' merely means that what was really going on is unseen. Owners are entitled to see what is underneath the 'cover'. Our financial situations and 'fiduciary' require it.

DVC is owned (obviously) by the owners who never voted or were consulted about closing. Clearly this is a major decision, a material decision. As far as I have seen, and I have looked there is literally no indication management looked at staying open without the parks. If resorts staying open would have mitigated even minimum costs we should know. It seems that protecting the larger DISNEY was more important.

This is not remotely like a fiduciary and barely a 'reasonable business decision'.