Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Marionnette]

Then gift them out.

Or don't rent if no changes/no refunds means something other than NO CHANGES and NO REFUNDS to you.

 

[poofyo101]

OK, but why should the renter bear all the risk of loss? A formula should be found, either by brokers or by the owners community, in which such risks are shared by owners and renters.

If the owners want to bear some risk thats fine, but then the price per point rental average has to go up.

 

[VeroGuy]

So a friend of mine who is an owner sent me an email from Disney about their banked points that were due to expire. They have banked points expiring in August and have until mid June to bank those points with RCI. That is a 6 week window to bank banked points that will then be good for 2 years with RCI.

I am still of the opinion that owners are really in control here. All those with canceled reservations were returned your points and you are now holding 70% of the money also. As I have stated in previous pages I think an owner should be willing to work with David’s and/or the renter to return the money they were paid.

Thoughts?

 

[McCrae]

So a friend of mine who is an owner sent me an email from Disney about their banked points that were due to expire. They have banked points expiring in August and have until mid June to bank those points with RCI. That is a 6 week window to bank banked points that will then be good for 2 years with RCI.

I am still of the opinion that owners are really in control here. All those with canceled reservations were returned your points and you are now holding 70% of the money also. As I have stated in previous pages I think an owner should be willing to work with David’s and/or the renter to return the money they were paid.

Thoughts?

Why should the owner lose out?

 

[Angeliki19]

Question about the credit and chargebacks.. is my ultimate goal is to rebook, the credit is fine for me as long as I get to use it. It doesn’t really matter to me which owner I am renting with. Are people just worried that David’s will go out of business and that’s why the credit isn’t a good option for them and they would prefer a chargeback?

 

[VeroGuy]

Why should the owner lose out?

The owner isn’t losing out if the banked points can be transferred to RCI where they can be used on a non-disney vacation.

Yes it would be a non-disney vacation but the points would still be usable.
The email also stated that Disney sis still looking into how to handle owners points that expired during all of this and they were waiting to see how long this lasted before coming to a final decision.

 

[VeroGuy]

Question about the credit and chargebacks.. is my ultimate goal is to rebook, the credit is fine for me as long as I get to use it. It doesn’t really matter to me which owner I am renting with. Are people just worried that David’s will go out of business and that’s why the credit isn’t a good option for them and they would prefer a chargeback?

Yes that is what people seem to be worried about, my self included. I would be fine with rebooking or a voucher if that voucher was worth something or could be backed up by an insurance policy purchased by David’s to ensure that it has some value. At this point I’m not sure it does have any value.

 

[McCrae]

The owner isn’t losing out if the banked points can be transferred to RCI where they can be used on a non-disney vacation.

Yes it would be a non-disney vacation but the points would still be usable.
The email also stated that Disney sis still looking into how to handle owners points that expired during all of this and they were waiting to see how long this lasted before coming to a final decision.

What you Do you suggest if none of these options work for the owner? Maybe points will expire and become worthless. Perhaps options available through RCI are not attractive.

David’s position is that the contract the owner has is with him and not an individual owner. Renters only have a contract with David’s.

Perhaps renters are not aware that owners don’t have to do anything. David’s accepts the contract they have with him has been completed. I could easily keep the points returned to me if I wanted to. I have no obligation to help anyone. I like, many other owners however do want to help if we can.

 

[Matty B13]

So a friend of mine who is an owner sent me an email from Disney about their banked points that were due to expire. They have banked points expiring in August and have until mid June to bank those points with RCI. That is a 6 week window to bank banked points that will then be good for 2 years with RCI.

I am still of the opinion that owners are really in control here. All those with canceled reservations were returned your points and you are now holding 70% of the money also. As I have stated in previous pages I think an owner should be willing to work with David’s and/or the renter to return the money they were paid.

Thoughts?

Why do you think owners should be on the hook for all of this???? Most of them are already out $10k plus already to purchase the points to begin with. If you want control of your reservation/points then you need to buy them yourself! This is what my family did because we didn't like having someone else controlling our reservation. If renters want the huge discounts off of their vacations then they need to take the risk and accept it.

 

[zskid00]

Renters aren't getting what they paid for. Points are going back to owners and they have already received 70% of the value of those points. If points are expiring and are not usable and can't be banked that's one thing, but I am going to guess owners can do something with those points. Hopefully owners are willing to work with renters since they have paid 100% to David's and right now they have nothing to show for it.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Why do you think owners should be on the hook for all of this???? Most of them are already out $10k plus already to purchase the points to begin with. If you want control of your reservation/points then you need to buy them yourself! This is what my family did because we didn't like having someone else controlling our reservation. If renters want the huge discounts off of their vacations then they need to take the risk and accept it.

What do the purchase price of points have to do with anything? With that huge chunk of change they’ve also purchased decades of points on top of this relatively small amount in question. We’re veering towards that weird territory again where it’s implied that owners are doing renters a favour renting their points out, as if they see no benefit too. Mutually beneficial relationship.

I thought we had moved past all this and we all united in our annoyance with the middle man lol.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Why not? Do you think there is a higher than 25% chance that the resort will close? Because you are giving up saving $600 to not risk losing $2200.

The only thing that changed was the newly exposed chance of loss with extended resort shut down due to pandemic. Again, company wide resort shutdown happened three times in the history of Disney prior to this, and each time for one day. Last major pandemic was the Spanish flu in 1918. We are talking about hundred year events here.

I agree that $600 is no longer enough in savings to rent here, assuming we’re not talking a very short reservation, like one night.

It’s not even just what this exposed. The booking process can be challenging as well. We generally require large amounts of points, which puts us in a position where we’re waiting a long time on the wait lists to get what we want. So we need both DVC availability to hold out and the perfect owner to come along. It has worked out mostly fine for us this long, but definitely plays a part (along with what this scenario exposed) as to why renting is almost definitely off the table for us without ridiculously large and unrealistic savings.

 

[Dracula]

Renters aren't getting what they paid for. Points are going back to owners and they have already received 70% of the value of those points. If points are expiring and are not usable and can't be banked that's one thing, but I am going to guess owners can do something with those points. Hopefully owners are willing to work with renters since they have paid 100% to David's and right now they have nothing to show for it.

I agree with you in principle - just wanted to clarify that owners did not get 70% of their points’ value, but 70% of the adjusted value after David retained its $4.50 to assume the transaction risk and act as an intermediary between owner and renter. This leaves owners with just about 50% of their points’ value.

 

[Dracula]

If the owners want to bear some risk thats fine, but then the price per point rental average has to go up.

Indeed, commensurate with the risk (one pandemic closing every 100 years).

 

[VeroGuy]

What you Do you suggest if none of these options work for the owner? Maybe points will expire and become worthless. Perhaps options available through RCI are not attractive.

David’s position is that the contract the owner has is with him and not an individual owner. Renters only have a contract with David’s.

Perhaps renters are not aware that owners don’t have to do anything. David’s accepts the contract they have with him has been completed. I could easily keep the points returned to me if I wanted to. I have no obligation to help anyone. I like, many other owners however do want to help if we can.

I agree that the contract you signed is between you and David’s, just as the contract that the renter signed is between David’s and the renter. If David’s has accepted that the contract between the owner and him has been completed based on his contract language then I agree that the owner has no further obligation to do anything.

I am very great full for owners like you who are willing to help the renter and as I have stated before I don’t think it should all fall on the owner and would be more than willing to work with my owner and/or David’s to salvage somethingout of all this.

David’s is now stuck with trying to fulfill a contract between him and the renter which has not been completed as he can not produce a reservation for a stay. Hence why he is offering a voucher to the renter.

His poor contract language is what got his company in this predicament and he is going to pay dearly for that mistake by massive chargebacks, unfortunately.

I have said it before but will say it again, I don’t put sole blame or fault on the owner and would like to come to an amicable agreement between the three parties if at all possible.

 

[lovethesun12]

Or don't rent if no changes/no refunds means something other than NO CHANGES and NO REFUNDS to you.

Many renters are fine with no changes and no refunds as outlined, as long as they receive the points they purchased to the best of the owner's ability (i.e., the owner attempts to minimize these unforseen damages).

I see 4 types of people here:
1) Renters who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook alternate dates/rooms/resorts/length of stay or take some sort of loss
2) Owners who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook the renter with a new contract offered or take the 70% return (because they are willing to use/rerent their points). (Disclaimer: I would include owners with distressed or recently expired points in this category and they should be made whole quickly if their points expire - this is the loss David's takes)
3) Renters who demand a 100% upfront refund solely focused on themselves
4) Owners who demand 100% of cash upfront solely focused on themselves

And then also David the mediator of all of the contracts.

I think the larger the number of people that opt for 1 and 2 the larger chance more people (including David's) will be made as close to whole and satisfied given the circumstances. In this case, EVERYONE is trying to minimize the damages for everyone else, (i.e., all victims) and there will be money available for helping those that are unable to rebook. No "what if this happens" or "what if that happens" - just take the best current option available at present because it is the option currently there.

The people that opt for 3 & 4 will result in the most difficulties and potentially largest damages. They are making no attempt to minimize the losses for the other person which could result in more loss for them (if it ever went to court), as well as David's.

 

[McCrae]

Many renters are fine with no changes and no refunds as outlined, as long as they receive the points they purchased to the best of the owner's ability (i.e., the owner attempts to minimize these unforseen damages).

I see 4 types of people here:
1) Renters who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook alternate dates/rooms/resorts/length of stay or take some sort of loss
2) Owners who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook the renter with a new contract offered or take the 70% return (because they know they are able to use it. (Disclaimer: I would include owners with distressed or recently expired points in this category)
3) Renters who demand a 100% refund solely focused on themselves
4) Owners who demand 100% of cash upfront solely focused on themselves

And then also David the mediator of all of the contracts.

I think the larger the number of people that opt for 1 and 2 the larger chance more people (including David's) will be made as close to whole and satisfied given the circumstances. In this case, EVERYONE is trying to minimize the damages for everyone else, (i.e., all victims) and there will be money available for helping those that are unable to rebook. No what if this happens or what if that happens just take the best current option available at present because it is the option currently there.

The people that opt for 3 & 4 will result in the most difficulties and potentially largest damages. They are making no attempt to minimize the losses for the other person which could result in more loss for them (if it ever went to court), as well as David's.

As time has moved on we have more information. Whilst many owners think they have a relationship with the renter they made a reservation for, David’s does not regard it that way. If anything David’s policy and actions have been to distance owners from any clear link to a specific renter. Owners are being asked to help David’s. In return they will be able to help renters.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Many renters are fine with no changes and no refunds as outlined, as long as they receive the points they purchased to the best of the owner's ability (i.e., the owner attempts to minimize these unforseen damages).

I see 4 types of people here:
1) Renters who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook alternate dates/rooms/resorts/length of stay or take some sort of loss
2) Owners who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook the renter with a new contract offered or take the 70% return (because they know they are able to use it. (Disclaimer: I would include owners with distressed or recently expired points in this category)
3) Renters who demand a 100% refund solely focused on themselves
4) Owners who demand 100% of cash upfront solely focused on themselves

And then also David the mediator of all of the contracts.

I think the larger the number of people that opt for 1 and 2 the larger chance more people (including David's) will be made as close to whole and satisfied given the circumstances. In this case, EVERYONE is trying to minimize the damages for everyone else, (i.e., all victims) and there will be money available for helping those that are unable to rebook. No what if this happens or what if that happens just take the best current option available at present because it is the option currently there.

The people that opt for 3 & 4 will result in the most difficulties and potentially largest damages. They are making no attempt to minimize the losses for the other person which could result in more loss for them (if it ever went to court), as well as David's.

I think the biggest problem here has been the breakdown in communication between all parties caused by David’s, leading to way more 3s and 4s than there would be otherwise. If David’s had been open and communicated well from the start I bet you see way more people willing to compromise and be patient.

Their own mishandling of this has led to owners who are scared to book again with their points and don’t trust that their other 30% will show up down the road so they want it now, and renters who have been given no choice but to attempt to get back the entire amount back by way of things like credit card disputes because they’re getting the run around from David’s.

 

[foodiddiedoo]

Many renters are fine with no changes and no refunds as outlined, as long as they receive the points they purchased to the best of the owner's ability (i.e., the owner attempts to minimize these unforseen damages).

I see 4 types of people here:
1) Renters who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook alternate dates/rooms/resorts/length of stay or take some sort of loss
2) Owners who think all parties involved are doing their best given the circumstances, so they are trying to be flexible and willing to rebook the renter with a new contract offered or take the 70% return (because they know they are able to use it. (Disclaimer: I would include owners with distressed or recently expired points in this category)
3) Renters who demand a 100% refund solely focused on themselves
4) Owners who demand 100% of cash upfront solely focused on themselves

And then also David the mediator of all of the contracts.

I think the larger the number of people that opt for 1 and 2 the larger chance more people (including David's) will be made as close to whole and satisfied given the circumstances. In this case, EVERYONE is trying to minimize the damages for everyone else, (i.e., all victims) and there will be money available for helping those that are unable to rebook. No what if this happens or what if that happens just take the best current option available at present because it is the option currently there.

The people that opt for 3 & 4 will result in the most difficulties and potentially largest damages. They are making no attempt to minimize the losses for the other person which could result in more loss for them (if it ever went to court), as well as David's.

I think most people want to be in group 1 and 2 as well, but are so worried that David's business won't make it through this that they might not even be able to rebook. I know I would love to reschedule my vacation to Hawaii, but at this point we have 0 idea when the country would be back to normal enough that Hawaii would even let tourism begin again. Since none of us are WHO or CDC scientists, it's an almost impossible situation to predict when/where we will be able to go either later this year (or whenever this voucher would expire, since David's hasn't emailed any information on it and it's been two weeks since they "announced" thier solution). I feel like we're going to devolve further into the groups 3 & 4 as David's is overstressed and perhaps too low in cash resources to be able to keep this plan afloat.

 

[foodiddiedoo]

I think the biggest problem here has been the breakdown in communication between all parties caused by David’s, leading to way more 3s and 4s than there would be otherwise. If David’s had been open and communicated well from the start I bet you see way more people willing to compromise and be patient.

Their own mishandling of this has led to owners who are scared to book again with their points and don’t trust that their other 30% will show up down the road so they want it now, and renters who have been given no choice but to attempt to get back the entire amount back by way of things like credit card disputes because they’re getting the run around from David’s.

Yes, one blanket "don't bother me email" when I asked if they could reschedule my vacation back early March, and one blanket "we're going to give you details on a credit at some point email" doesn't constitute communication. In my earlier post, I said I was not the type of person who initiates chargebacks because I don't want to be a jerk, but the window of opportunity for me to do something with the bank will be closing very soon after the start of my canceled trip. I hope David's steps up by then, but I imagine all the people whose vacations were canceled in March/early April are getting antsy if David's hasn't even reached out to do rebooking. I also feel like I'd be kind of creepy to look up the owner online and try to contact them on my own.