Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Stitch_Is_King]

Thanks for posting. I am not trying to imply whether you are in a better or worse position in obtaining a refund relative to those rented from David's. However, the excerpt seems to be more restrictive on a potential renter's claim for reimbursement/refund when issues arise outside of the broker or owner's control.

LAX

No problem. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

I’m kind of surprised there was never a clause in there for resort closures. I know it’s incredibly rare up until now, if it even has ever happened, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that an event could shut down a resort. This widespread months and months of it, no that wouldn’t have really crossed anybody’s mind, but what about a single resort shut down because of a fire or something else more common than a pandemic? I guess maybe they would deal with those isolated cases as they came, but someone has to have considered that possibility right?

 

[Yinn]

Well, it sounds like he opened himself up by putting it in an email to at least one owner, That was sent before this travel credit idea was decided so maybe he realized that Might-not have been a good choice

It was also during a time of Disney’s changing policy. It could have been based on an understanding on Disney returning all points. It also could be to a member who’s within banking range, etc.

 

[lovethesun12]

I am thinking about saying to David’s keep the 30%, and walking away. Would like a clean break.

I really don't understand why people think this is a good option. If you reuse the points yourself or re-rent them you are opening yourself up to the argument of double dipping which is illegal. If you let them sit and do nothing, you lose the 30% anyway and again open yourself up to an argument that you did nothing to honor the terms of the contract (remember, the owner may not have done anything to invalidate the contract themselves but neither did the renter or David's. Or even Disney for that matter).

The only thing that makes sense is to either return the funds or rebook, which is exactly what David's is offering.

Also in Canada there was a 75% wage subsidy for small/medium business as well as interest-free loans so I'm not sure why everyone is defaulting to bankruptcy being the only answer.

 

[momincolorado]

Few (very few) details on the “travel credit” (received in an e-mail from David’s today). It “will enable [the renter] to apply it towards another rental at a Disney Vacation Club Resort, or apply it towards other travel venues that we offer such as Disney Cruise Line, Adventures by Disney, Regular Disney Resort Bookings and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, subject to the guidelines and conditions of the Travel Credit.” No word on effective dates but it sounded like it might be some time before it goes into effect and of course it will come with an expiration date.

Just an FYI re legal, sounds like they are heavily leaning on the clause in the 3 party contract that was put in to protect them from resort construction, pool or restaurant closing etc. “David’s...is not liable for any operations changes by the Disney Vacation Club with respect to where you have booked your travel. This would include but is not limited to operations of resort restaurants, pools, playgrounds and other amenities controlled by the Resort...While Disney might offer you access to alternate amenities, David’s Vacation Club Rentals assumes no responsibility for situations that are not under its control.”

 

[Sandisw]

I think the contract was voided when the resorts closed. Now there is a valid question of whether he can make the changes he is making with a void contract. I think it certainly wouldn't hold up under scrutiny in court. He'd lose that. But if the contracts are void, are the owners legally obligated to return the money they were paid? This is a mess on so many levels.




The property is deeded in Florida. You being in the UK actually puts you at a disadvantage trying to defend it if it goes that far. But you clearly have your mind made up, so I'm not going to keep trying to explain the problem with your logic.

The three way contract may or may not be void, but the point is that it is a three way contract, with him as the intermediary.

Lets assume it is...It doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t get to decide on his own on what happens. I would even say that the owner and renter would have more say than him,

Point is, if all agree it’s void, then everyone should go back to where they started, or agree to come up with a remedy that ALL parties are in agreement with to deal with it,

He wants to void all the parts of the contract except the non refundable part...not giving money back to renter,,,because that benefits him,

Im not sure I can explain it any better, and we just don’t agree that what he is doing is wrong.

 

[Sandisw]

I really don't understand why people think this is a good option. If you reuse the points yourself or re-rent them you are opening yourself up to the argument of double dipping which is illegal. If you let them sit and do nothing, you lose the 30% anyway and again open yourself up to an argument that you did nothing to honor the terms of the contract (remember, the owner may not have done anything to invalidate the contract themselves but neither did the renter or David's. Or even Disney for that matter).

The only thing that makes sense is to either return the funds or rebook, which is exactly what David's is offering.

Also in Canada there was a 75% wage subsidy for small/medium business as well as interest-free loans so I'm not sure why everyone is defaulting to bankruptcy being the only answer.

But Davids is NOT offering owners the option to refund or rebook the renter, That is the point. He wants the owner to refund the money to him or agree to rebook a different renter.

I would love to offer him the ability to keep my 30% and then tell the renter I will deal with him privately just to severe my contract with a broker who I have no faith in anymore,

I won’t because my renter has almost 5 months so they should be all set, but if this isn’t worked out by then, that is exactly what I will do.

 

[lovethesun12]

But Davids is NOT offering owners the option to refund or rebook the renter, That is the point. He wants the owner to refund the money to him or agree to rebook a different renter.

I would love to offer him the ability to keep my 30% and then tell the renter I will deal with him privately just to severe my contract with a broker who I have no faith in anymore,

I won’t because my renter has almost 5 months so they should be all set, but if this isn’t worked out by then, that is exactly what I will do.

Even then though that is not really the owner's issue. The owner then did their part to honor the contract so is not liable. If David offered the refund to one person, everyone would expect it. I think it is reasonable to offer credit. He then has a pool of points to draw from for dates for people who want to rebook. He also has a pool of cash for reservations where he is unable to rebook and offer some level of refund.

I'm not 100% certain on the details but it is also quite possible David will also have received a 75% wage subsidy and interest free loans from the government to help sort out any reservations that cannot be rebooked.

 

[Sandisw]

Even then though that is not really the owner's issue. The owner then did their part to honor the contract so is not liable. If David offered the refund to one person, everyone would expect it. I think it is reasonable to offer credit. He then has a pool of points to draw from for dates for people who want to rebook. He also has a pool of cash for reservations where he is unable to rebook and offer some level of refund.

I'm not 100% certain on the details but it is also quite possible David will also have received a 75% wage subsidy and interest free loans from the government to help sort out any reservations that cannot be rebooked.

I absolutely see it as an owners concern because I am a member of the contract, No one party gets to decide what is and is not enforceable and Davids is doing the deciding,

In terms of others, his response is that all are individual contracts and not all will be settled the same way.

Of course, from Davids side, what he is proposing makes sense for him.

But why should he be the only one who gets to say what happens? Three people are involved, He can suggest, and so can the renter, and so can the owner. Like I said, I can cancel the reservation, tell the renter that I did, he can then tell Davids that the owner breached, and he is entitled to the refund.

Just as valid of a solution as what he has proposed, if we are simply changing terms of contracts at whim,

But, if you are saying the owner is not liable, so they can walk away with the 70%, then sure, he can do whatever he wants with the renters, As long as he involves the owner and renter in doing something, the owner and renters should have a say as well,

 

[Krandor]

As an owner myself, I certainly want a vibrant rental market for the occasional time that I end up not using the points myself. However, a vibrant rental market doesn't have to include brokers like David's. I realize this may sound harsh, but David's has really screwed this one up. While he may not have other choices, screwing the owners is definitely not the way to make things right. I will look for another broker in the future if I end up needing to rent my points.

LAX

Like I said above I'm not an owner or anybody who has rented but a company that deletes social media posts and hides reviews is not one I'd ever deal with. If people have complaints/questions answer them and help them don't delete them. I don't like some other aspects of how david is handling things but the deleting any complaints is enough for me never to deal with him.

 

[Amymouse13]

Like I said above I'm not an owner or anybody who has rented but a company that deletes social media posts and hides reviews is not one I'd ever deal with. If people have complaints/questions answer them and help them don't delete them. I don't like some other aspects of how david is handling things but the deleting any complaints is enough for me never to deal with him.

Or posts the same canned response no matter what is asked?? Will it snow tomorrow? We are currently working on... Haha

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Like I said above I'm not an owner or anybody who has rented but a company that deletes social media posts and hides reviews is not one I'd ever deal with. If people have complaints/questions answer them and help them don't delete them. I don't like some other aspects of how david is handling things but the deleting any complaints is enough for me never to deal with him.

And it’s not even like its complaints for the sake of complaints. A lot of it is legit questions and comments that address major real issues going on here, comments made by people stuck in this mess, that they apparently don’t want detracting from the grateful thanks for the credit going on on their page. That really bugs me.

 

[Krandor]

Maybe I’m not saying it right, The owner has a three way contract with Davids and the renter, Davids has decided, on his own, to void the terms of that contract, with both people, by telling the renter they get a voucher for points from a different owner, and telling the owner to return money or rent your points to a different renter,

Unilaterally deciding to simply void contracts and changing the terms IS a problem, regardless of his reasons or motives.

As I said, I have a renter in August coming and we will see by then what happens. I won’t leave the renter without a reservation but I definitely, will not be choosing one of these options because I don’t believe he has the legal right to handle it this way.

You summed it up well.

David's right now is focused on keeping David's from going bankrupt. They don't really care about the renters or owners but only about what will keep them afloat.

 

[lovethesun12]

I absolutely see it as an owners concern because I am a member of the contract, No one party gets to decide what is and is not enforceable and Davids is doing the deciding,

In terms of others, his response is that all are individual contracts and not all will be settled the same way.

Of course, from Davids side, what he is proposing makes sense for him.

But why should he be the only one who gets to say what happens? Three people are involved, He can suggest, and so can the renter, and so can the owner. Like I said, I can cancel the reservation, tell the renter that I did, he can then tell Davids that the owner breached, and he is entitled to the refund.

Just as valid of a solution as what he has proposed, if we are simply changing terms of contracts at whim,

But, if you are saying the owner is not liable, so they can walk away with the 70%, then sure, he can do whatever he wants with the renters, As long as he involves the owner and renter in doing something, the owner and renters should have a say as well,

I can see what your saying; it's considering the one agreement but not the big picture. One person might rent from an owner who offers a refund but they want to rebook for September and there is availability. Another renter might rent from an owner whose points expire in October but they cannot travel until Christmas for which there is no availability. If he goes contract by contract 1 is unhappy and 1 isn't. If he offers all owners/renters the same option both are happy in this case because he could play match up.

 

[ziravan]

David’s business model is sunk no matter what support the Canadian govt offers him.

His model was built by word of mouth and by promising security in a private rental transaction. He will no longer have the former and this event has proven that the latter was merely an illusion.

Both owners and renters will avoid that business model like, if you’ll excuse, the plague in the future.

 

[Krandor]

And it’s not even like its complaints for the sake of complaints. A lot of it is legit questions and comments that address major real issues going on here, comments made by people stuck in this mess, that they apparently don’t want detracting from the grateful thanks for the credit going on on their page. That really bugs me.

Totally agree. David's is saying to the owners "Have compassion for the X family and send your 70% to David" but if an owner says "I have compassion for X family and would like to reschedule their vacation" THAT gets deleted? Isn't offering to reschedule if you don't have points that expire quickly being compassionate to them?

 

[starry_solo]

Third party beneficiary. Might be a good idea to look it up.

 

[Sandisw]

I can see what your saying; it's considering the one agreement but not the big picture. One person might rent from an owner who offers a refund but they want to rebook for September and there is availability. Another renter might rent from an owner whose points expire in October but they cannot travel until Christmas for which there is no availability. If he goes contract by contract 1 is unhappy and 1 isn't. If he offers all owners/renters the same option both are happy in this case because he could play match up.

Exactly! I agree it is about the big picture, but only for Davids, not me as an owner,

For me as an owner, it is about the contracts I signed and agreed to and what and how I want to support the renters regardless of whether I have to or not,

If I am going to have to swerve from the terms of the contract I signed, then I am going to have a say in what that swerve is.

Now that Davids has made the choice he has, I have lost faith in him and honestly, have no desire to work with him in any way if it doesn’t benefit the renter or myself.

 

[LAX]

You summed it up well.

David's right now is focused on keeping David's from going bankrupt. They don't really care about the renters or owners but only about what will keep them afloat.

This is the impression I am getting and I am not even involved in this whole mess directly. I understand that a business owner has to do what he/she needs to do to save the business, but I think there are some lines that can't be crossed even if the intent is to save the business. What good is the business if it ends up alienating its suppliers (limited) and its customers (now & future)?

LAX

 

[Krandor]

This is the impression I am getting and I am not even involved in this whole mess directly. I understand that a business owner has to do what he/she needs to do to save the business, but I think there are some lines that can't be crossed even if the intent is to save the business. What good is the business if it ends up alienating its suppliers (limited) and its customers (now & future)?

LAX

Agreed and im not directly involved either. Im
Also normally a pro business try person but that doesn’t mean supporting businesses deleting questions and concerns on social media.

In a time like this be up front and honest. “We don’t have an answer to your question yet but will have one soon” is a better response then deleting the question. People will understand this is not a normal time.