Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Grnl706]

I don't understand why some owners/renters want to talk to the other party so badly. Why did you go through David's if you want to deal directly?

I'd rather go through the rental company and be contacted that way - that's why I used them.

Because this is an unprecedented situation? If you would rather do it that way, good for you. Others may not have a warm and fuzzy with how David's is handling the situation.

Edit: Additionally, for some people like myself, it is their first time renting. If it is your first time why wouldn't you go through David's? It makes perfect sense, does it not? However, we all got slapped in the face with this and are trying to navigate it.

 

[lovethesun12]

Because this is an unprecedented situation? If you would rather do it that way, good for you. Others may not have a warm and fuzzy with how David's is handling the situation.

Edit: Additionally, for some people like myself, it is their first time renting. If it is your first time why wouldn't you go through David's? It makes perfect sense, does it not? However, we all got slapped in the face with this and are trying to navigate it.

I didn't say I had a "warm and fuzzy" with how they are handling it. I think they are a third party (that is why people chose to go through them) and trying to come up with solutions that have to mitigate damages for all contracts not just individual ones.

 

[piccolopat]

It’s this type of response as an owner that makes me reconsider if I should do anything to help. My contact details are not recorded on the DVC title deeds lodged in Florida. I am based in the U.K. I don’t want any hassle and it’s very easy for me to disappear. If you didn’t like the no refunds or changes clause don’t sign the contract.

You may think that it would be easy for you to disappear, but DVC has to have your contact information for notices, billing dues, etc. They can be subpoenaed and would be forced to release that information if this were to go to court.

 

[McCrae]

You may think that it would be easy for you to disappear, but DVC has to have your contact information for notices, billing dues, etc. They can be subpoenaed and would be forced to release that information if this were to go to court.

The contract has been agreed to be covered by Canadian Juridiction, I am based in the U.K. I feel very confident that no one would spend the huge amounts of cash required for an international claim especially when it is far from clear that renters would actually win. For a start how would papers be served?

Personally I am trying to help the renter I am associated with because I want to. I don’t have to.

Some renters have a false sense of entitlement. Renters are owed nothing.

 

[piccolopat]

The contract has been agreed to be covered by Canadian Juridiction, I am based in the U.K. I feel very confident that no one would spend the huge amounts of cash required for an international claim especially when it is far from clear that renters would actually win. For a start how would papers be served?

Personally I am trying to help the renter I am associated with because I want to. I don’t have to.

Some renters have a false sense of entitlement. Renters are owed nothing.

I'm no lawyer but I think two things factor in here. First, Canada is a part of the commonwealth and has close ties with the U.K. Second, you could be sued in the U.S. and if you lost, your property could be seized or a lien placed on it. I don't think you could simply run, hide and escape any liability that a court finds against you.

 

[McCrae]

I'm no lawyer but I think two things factor in here. First, Canada is a part of the commonwealth and has close ties with the U.K. Second, you could be sued in the U.S. and if you lost, your property could be seized or a lien placed on it. I don't think you could simply run, hide and escape any liability that a court finds against you.

You are correct, clearly you ARE no lawyer.

 

[Amymouse13]

The contract has been agreed to be covered by Canadian Juridiction, I am based in the U.K. I feel very confident that no one would spend the huge amounts of cash required for an international claim especially when it is far from clear that renters would actually win. For a start how would papers be served?

Personally I am trying to help the renter I am associated with because I want to. I don’t have to.

Some renters have a false sense of entitlement. Renters are owed nothing.

I resent your opinion renters are due nothing. So we deserve to have paid for something that we cannot receive. Under that premise owners aren't due their 30% as they cannot possibly fulfill their end of contract as check-in cannot occur.

Everyone be darned and David's keeps the bag? The problem is no one here thinks owners and renters should lose while David's suffers no financial impact and gets to keep 30%.

 

[merry_nbright]

So, I’ve got a reservation for June 13-20th. I plan on keeping it unless the resorts are closed and then I want to try and move it to a different date with the same points.

I did reach out to them and they informed me that they are going to try and accommodate everyone and mentioned a rental store credit if all else fails. This whole thing is stressing me out. I never do well with uncertainty.

 

[VeroGuy]

I’m in the same boat. We have an early June check-in and we are “hoping” that the resorts open. Since my reservation is at Vero we are hopeful that maybe it will be opened separately from the Orlando resorts.

 

[Marionnette]

I don't understand why some owners/renters want to talk to the other party so badly. Why did you go through David's if you want to deal directly?

I'd rather go through the rental company and be contacted that way - that's why I used them.

Going thru David’s initially is the easy route, especially for anyone who is new to the DVC rental market - owner or renter. Yes, some prefer that layer of anonymity but the vast majority do so because of the promised protections that brokers tout.

What owners and renters are learning is that, while David’s is supposed to act as an intermediary on the behalf of both parties, David’s is acting in the best interest of David’s. Bypassing the intermediary and dealing directly with each other could allow the owner and renter to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that serves both parties better than what David’s is doing.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Going thru David’s initially is the easy route, especially for anyone who is new to the DVC rental market - owner or renter. Yes, some prefer that layer of anonymity but the vast majority do so because of the promised protections that brokers tout.

What owners and renters are learning is that, while David’s is supposed to act as an intermediary on the behalf of both parties, David’s is acting in the best interest of David’s. Bypassing the intermediary and dealing directly with each other could allow the owner and renter to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that serves both parties better than what David’s is doing.

I wish all that rented from David and all the owners out there they rented through David's are able to come out the other side of this okay.

This entire mess with Covid-19 IMO will change the rental landscape. I personally would never be willing again to pay for a reservation in full. One advantage I see of dealing with the owner directly over the "middleman" is that the owner can do things for you that a "middleman" can't. The owner is the owner and from what I have read most owners are working with their renters. Some fully refunding while losing their points.

 

[lovethesun12]

Some renters have a false sense of entitlement. Renters are owed nothing.

Renters are owed a reservation, it says so in the contract. Since they cannot receive this reservation through no fault of themselves or the owner or the third party, Everyone owes something - everyone has a responsibility to each other to mitigate damages.

 

[Bearval]

I don't know enough of the ins and outs but I know the following scenario is possible as I have seen it happen in another business. If David is smart and shady he could also be using this time and deferred monies to be upping his debt from David's DVC to another organization that he owns or is affiliated with. Ensuring that the highest creditor is owed $1 more than the value of the organization means a scenario where only one creditor potentially gets paid. So say David's travel agency business is legally separate and takes on all these bookings for cash vacations and is the sole secured creditor, guess who the only company / person that gets paid in bankruptcy is?

David's DVC is most likely set up as an LLC which means only the company assets are at risk (none of the owners property can be seized or taken to repay debt) , since this company does not manufacture any product and most likely only consists of employees, leased office space and equipment the only real asset of any value would be David's Goodwill. Right now his company is trying to maneuver thru this to save the goodwill since if it declares bankruptcy they will have to start from scratch and build the business back up which has taken them years to get to where they are now.

 

[Dracula]

I couldn't understand why David's is keeping the renters and owners from working things out. I asked to be linked up with my owner via email but their response to my overall email ignored that point. They just told me to wait until mid-May and if my resort was closed I'd be extended this Travel Voucher mess. I'll be paying extra to book through Disney when I come again. This is so frustrating. They just want to hold on to as much $$ as possible.

I can think of two reasons:
1) By matching a large pool of owners with a large pool of renters, chances of finding resort matches that optimize the resort / date selection for most renters are better;
2) David's owners are by definition more reluctant to deal with renters; if they learn how to do it, next time they may rent direct and bypass David altogether; same goes for his renters.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

It honestly seems like David’s has taken the stance that they are not losing any of their money in this, with the argument that they have to pay their people. Guess what, people all over the world or losing their jobs or taking pay cuts. Just because David’s deals with a luxury product doesn’t mean all of his clients can afford to lose money and he shouldn’t have to.

 

[lovethesun12]

Going thru David’s initially is the easy route, especially for anyone who is new to the DVC rental market - owner or renter. Yes, some prefer that layer of anonymity but the vast majority do so because of the promised protections that brokers tout.

What owners and renters are learning is that, while David’s is supposed to act as an intermediary on the behalf of both parties, David’s is acting in the best interest of David’s. Bypassing the intermediary and dealing directly with each other could allow the owner and renter to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that serves both parties better than what David’s is doing.

*could allow* is the key thing here. I don't think David's is doing what is in only *their* best interest. In your method, every single owner with distressed points and every single renter that has an owner with distressed points loses.

In David's model, none of the renters who were paired with owners with distressed points will lose, they will obtain a credit in a similar way many other companies are doing (my airline for example).

In David's model, all of the owners that have entered into an agreement have the opportunity to just be done with it if they give back their 70% (this is exactly the same outcome for the owner as if they worked directly with the renter). They also have the opportunity to rebook and gain the extra 30% (again, the exact same outcome as if they had worked directly through the renter).

In this case, it is also much more likely that owners with distressed points could get refunded their 30%.

If he comes straight out and does what demanding owners/renters want (100% refunds) the business goes under and no one wins.

 

[CraigInPA]

@CraigInPA thanks for your informative posts.

Do you believe owners are within our right to refund what we've been paid, cancel the reservation and walk away?

I have 3 rentals brokered by David's in Nov/Dec. I was resigned to honouring the reservations (losing the 30%) if David's went into bankruptcy before the check in dates. However if cancel and refund is a legal option that would be preferable.

We don't intend to travel internationally before a vaccine is available. But I'd rather gift a staycation to my US friends (if it's safe for them to do so) than throw away my points for $10pp.

If you have a strong belief that David's will not pay the remaining 30%, refunding the deposit of 70% and walking away is called an "anticipatory breach". It may work in your favor to do that, or, depending upon the exact wording and how it is interpreted by a judge, it may not. You could be liable for nothing more, or you may be liable for consequential damages such as non-refundable airfare and reputational loss by David's. Anticipatory breaches based upon hearsay and innuendo rarely go well. However, if you have correspondence from David's which states that you will not be paid the remaining 30% per the contract, or a posting somewhere on the web from David's that they aren't paying the 30%, it's not an anticipatory breach at all. I recommend, as a first step, to contact David's in writing asking them to have David himself write a letter of personal guarantee of the final payment, stating that you have read that his company has defaulted on paying the remaining 30% of some contracts, and see what his response is. If you don't get a positive response, or a response at all, then I suggest you speak to an attorney.

 

[Deb & Bill]

It honestly seems like David’s has taken the stance that they are not losing any of their money in this, with the argument that they have to pay their people. Guess what, people all over the world or losing their jobs or taking pay cuts. Just because David’s deals with a luxury product doesn’t mean all of his clients can afford to lose money and he shouldn’t have to.

I think David has bills of his own to pay, like boat payments perhaps?

 

[CraigInPA]

Renters are owed a reservation, it says so in the contract. Since they cannot receive this reservation through no fault of themselves or the owner or the third party, Everyone owes something - everyone has a responsibility to each other to mitigate damages.

Under US law, no party to a contract has a responsibility to mitigate damages to another party.

You've also greatly simplified the relationship of the parties, which is how a court would determine who takes the loss.

The owner has a separate agreement with David's which laid out the number of points, when they expire, and how much David's is to pay and when. The payment terms are 70% of the fee at booking, and 30% on check-in day, regardless of whether the renter checks in. David's has, apparently, breached that agreement by withholding the 30% payment for rentals which occurred when the resort was closed, and is asking owners to re-book and wait on that payment until the new reservation check in date or to refund the deposit payment. While the resort closure we now face was not contemplated by the contract, the broker, who drafted the contract, knew that such a situation could and has occurred in the past. If the situation was known, and the broker chose not to include it in the agreement, he cannot then unilaterally re-write the agreement to benefit himself. David's owes the final payment on the original check-in date. Period. Full Stop. Anything else the owner and David's agrees to do is open to negotiation, not what David's says will happen.

The renter has an agreement for a room reservation with a no-refunds and no-changes clause. Strictly under the contract terms, the renter is losing everything. Under consumer protection laws which may be in effect based upon where the parties are located, which supersede the contract terms, the renter is due a full refund. David's has offered a voucher program instead of refunds. Whether that is legal under Canadian law is a question that hasn't been addressed.

 

[Marionnette]

*could allow* is the key thing here. I don't think David's is doing what is in only *their* best interest. In your method, every single owner with distressed points and every single renter that has an owner with distressed points loses.

In David's model, none of the renters who were paired with owners with distressed points will lose, they will obtain a credit in a similar way many other companies are doing (my airline for example).

In David's model, all of the owners that have entered into an agreement have the opportunity to just be done with it if they give back their 70% (this is exactly the same outcome for the owner as if they worked directly with the renter). They also have the opportunity to rebook and gain the extra 30% (again, the exact same outcome as if they had worked directly through the renter).

In this case, it is also much more likely that owners with distressed points could get refunded their 30%.

If he comes straight out and does what demanding owners/renters want (100% refunds) the business goes under and no one wins.

It’s an OPTION. It doesn’t have to be the only solution. You asked WHY owners and renters would want to get in touch with each other. I told you why. SHEESH! Are you this argumentative IRL?

Let’s see...David’s way:
Owner returns whatever money David’s sent them to date. Owner walks away with points that are severely damaged due to David’s dragging their feet and not allowing owner to work directly with the renter. Renter gets a voucher that they may or may not be able to use before it expires.. David’s stays somewhat solvent but reputation with owners is tarnished.