Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Amymouse13]

Not to mention didn't he say he's not booking over the summer? So the soonest one could use a magical voucher is next fall.

 

[fsjking]

But in essence he does if the renter with the travel voucher doesn't use it. This entire system of him not keeping the money is dependent on those travel vouchers being cashed in. The chances that they all will, given the nature of DVC availability, and the need for owners renting, IMO, isn't going to be a high percentage. So, he will get to keep some of that money.

And there will be owners who get their points back and refuse to re-rent or refund. How many reservations is he going to have to pay for out of pocket because an owner refused to work with him? Based on the sample size of the posters in this thread, I'd say quite a few. He's at least making the offer to try to rebook the renters. He's not taking the hard line "no refunds" that some here are clinging to. Most likely, he's going to lose his business here through no real fault of his own. If he files bankruptcy, he's not going to get to take any money from the business. He doesn't get to keep it. The opposite is more likely. Depending on how all this goes, and how his business is set up, he could lose more than just his business. A lot of people here have benefitted from his services, but are trashing it and acting like he's a criminal because they might not get their 30%. Then they call David's greedy....

It’s a little bit true though. If the business goes under before the renter can use the credit, it’s his. If due to a number of reasons traveling again to even use the credit is not possibly for the renter it’s his again too.

The only reasons I can think of to not pass it along is to have it to use as needed immediately, to prevent from having to immediately pay out the remainder of the owners profit as well as his own cut as part of a refund, or in the hopes that it never actually gets used. None of those reasons are for anyones benefit but theirs. In the credit situation the immediate loser is the owner, renter may lose out in the future, David’s loses nothing. No shared pain. Im very frustrated that they won’t pass along the money to the renter when received. They should consider themselves lucky when the owner is even doing that, and maybe listen to their own advice to follow their conscience.

No. If he goes out of business, the bankruptcy court gets it to distribute to creditors. He can't drain the accounts and say sorry folks we are out of business. It doesn't work that way. The reason you do it this way rather than direct refunds is if you have to refund all of that money, you would have to have a huge amount of cash on hand/in bank to refund all of those reservations. As owners, on here at least, have shown they are going to tell him too bad and keep the money, it's instant bankruptcy and it's up to the courts to go after the owners who don't refund. By doing it this way, you keep liquid and hope to have enough owners and renters over the next year or two to get the vouchers covered. If you really think David's loses nothing in this, how do you account for owners who have been paid not working with him and renters who do chargebacks? What about the employees he's paid to handle these reservations in the first place, but now have to handle all of these returns, chargebacks, vouchers, and rebookings? The renters aren't going bankrupt or losing everything if they lose their reservation. The owners aren't going to go bankrupt over not getting their 30%. David's might though.

 

[Sandisw]

And there will be owners who get their points back and refuse to re-rent or refund. How many reservations is he going to have to pay for out of pocket because an owner refused to work with him? Based on the sample size of the posters in this thread, I'd say quite a few. He's at least making the offer to try to rebook the renters. He's not taking the hard line "no refunds" that some here are clinging to. Most likely, he's going to lose his business here through no real fault of his own. If he files bankruptcy, he's not going to get to take any money from the business. He doesn't get to keep it. The opposite is more likely. Depending on how all this goes, and how his business is set up, he could lose more than just his business. A lot of people here have benefitted from his services, but are trashing it and acting like he's a criminal because they might not get their 30%. Then they call David's greedy....



No. If he goes out of business, the bankruptcy court gets it to distribute to creditors. He can't drain the accounts and say sorry folks we are out of business. It doesn't work that way. The reason you do it this way rather than direct refunds is if you have to refund all of that money, you would have to have a huge amount of cash on hand/in bank to refund all of those reservations. As owners, on here at least, have shown they are going to tell him too bad and keep the money, it's instant bankruptcy and it's up to the courts to go after the owners who don't refund. By doing it this way, you keep liquid and hope to have enough owners and renters over the next year or two to get the vouchers covered. If you really think David's loses nothing in this, how do you account for owners who have been paid not working with him and renters who do chargebacks? What about the employees he's paid to handle these reservations in the first place, but now have to handle all of these returns, chargebacks, vouchers, and rebookings? The renters aren't going bankrupt or losing everything if they lose their reservation. The owners aren't going to go bankrupt over not getting their 30%. David's might though.

If owner A sends back money, and Davids gives it to renter A, then he doesn’t have to issue a travel voucher to renter A And doesn’t need a new owner.

If Owner B offers new reservation to Renter B then he doesn’t have to give any travel voucher, but does have to pay the 30%.

Owner refuses either, he keeps 30% plus his commission which covers close to 50% of travel voucher.

Using only the voucher system makes it more likely he gets extra money. Anyway you slice it, he wants an outcome that works the best for him while creating a system that does nothing, in my eyes. but lose respect of owners or rentals.

I agree his business is on shaky ground, but his current plan definitely works in his favor to keep money when those vouchers are not used by renters,

ETA: I also believe his softening of the no refunds was because he got some legal advice that indicated his contract wasn’t enforceable.

 

[wench]

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make you feel like the bad guy. I just wanted to point out that David’s isn’t doing the great service some people think.

No worries. I get lazy & don’t read through all the posts, so I wasn’t caught up on everything. You just gently looped me in to the knowledge of what’s actually happening. No bad feelings here.

 

[fsjking]

If owner A sends back money, and Davids gives it to renter A, then he doesn’t have to issue a travel voucher to renter A And doesn’t need a new owner.

If Owner B offers new reservation to Renter B then he doesn’t have to give any travel voucher, but does have to pay the 30%.

Owner refuses either, he keeps 30% plus his commission which covers close to 50% of travel voucher.

Using only the voucher system makes it more likely he gets extra money. Anyway you slice it, he wants an outcome that works the best for him while creating a system that does nothing, in my eyes. but lose respect of owners or rentals.

I agree his business is on shaky ground, but his current plan definitely works in his favor to keep money when those vouchers are not used by renters,

ETA: I also believe his softening of the no refunds was because he got some legal advice that indicated his contract wasn’t enforceable.

If Owner C Refuses either option, and Renter C does a chargeback, he's out 170%.

I don't know why you are assuming renters won't use their vouchers. Have you seen something that says they have a limited date? I see people making snarky "i bet they have to be used this year" comments, but internet crankiness is rarely rooted in reality. I'm sure there will be some that won't use them, but I'm willing to bet he's going to have more owners refusing to work with him than renters just giving up the voucher. I'm betting the amount of renters who use their voucher or do a chargeback will be over 95%.

The problem with refunding renters is when you do that for one, you have to do it for all. If you have a renter with two reservations and one owner refunds his money and the next tells David's too bad, how do you reconcile that to the renter contractually? Once you crack no refunds on one, you set up precedent on all.

On your ETA: I'm pretty sure that was one poster who said that and that was before the voucher plan came about unless I missed something. That tells me that he realized that he would go bankrupt if he had to refund all of the canceled reservations. Especially if this runs into June.

One thing all the owners need to realize, the only way they are getting their 30% is if he stays in business. Unless he just has large cash reserves to ride this out, the voucher deal is probably the only way that can happen.

 

[Galun]

One thing all the owners need to realize, the only way they are getting their 30% is if he stays in business. Unless he just has large cash reserves to ride this out, the voucher deal is probably the only way that can happen.

I hope more owners and renters understand this. If he goes out of business, owners lose the 30% that has not been distributed, and renters with travel vouchers lose everything. The winners are the owners who kept the 70% AND the cancelled points returned to the account, and renters who's credit card company issued the chargeback before David's goes under.

Again, stub hub - who was valued at $4.5 billion mere months ago - wasn't issuing cash refunds on canceled events either. They issued a 120% toward a future credit, but not refunding cash. People who have not run businesses do not understand the importance of working capital / cash flow.

I think his current plan is really the best one given the cards that are dealt. On the other hand, I don't think he will survive, but I hope he does. I've had him rent my points multiple times in the past, generally it had been a flawless experience. Disneyland closed three times in its history, each time for a single day. Now they are going to close for most likely 1 - 1.5 months. This really isn't something you can plan for. If he does go under, someone else will take his place, and they better hire good lawyers to draft the contracts. I also think future brokers will retain more, perhaps 50/50, to account for closure risk.

 

[Cyberc1978]

With David’s issuing vouchers he is more or less clinging to the “non refund “ part of his contract as renters do not get their money back.

Only reason he may be giving the vouchers is because of bad PR and if he does not go bankrupt then he needs all the owners and renters he can get.

Some renters may do a charge back some will win others might not so the extra cash can ensure that he can continue in business.

So basically it’s just damage control x 1000

 

[Maddiesmum03]

My issue is that if the owner is being asked to either refund or offer points for rent again, it should be for the original renter, not a future one. In essence, he is asking the owner to void the original contract that was made between himself, the renter, and the owner, and replace it with a new contract with a new renter.

If he were asking me to void my contract with the renter by sending back the funds, those funds should go to that renter. If he were asking me to modify my contract with the renter to allow a change...ie: making new reservation...then it should be for the original renter.

I realize this is what me may feel he needs to do to save his business, but as someone with a contract, I have lost all faith in his business model and think it is a shady way to do things.

Sandi, the way I see it is the original contract I had/have with David’s is completed at check in day. As you know, I received all 100% of funds for March rental, so in my mind at least, those points belong to the original renter, or David’s (if he refunds the renter) but I would expect a new contract of sorts when I re rent. I have no idea how it would be worded considering No funds are being withheld until check in day!
As far as the April reservation, I have been told I will receive the final 30% when I make a new reservation, but I have real doubts about doing that. If he doesn’t pay up, then I could just cancel it which would mess up yet another persons vacation, and I would be stuck with points in holding I guess.

 

[Amymouse13]

What I can't figure out with his plan is... So it seems his argument for vouchers is that many owners points may expire by the time a renter might be able to rebook with original owner. So if the supply of rentable points drops, is only option is to rob Peter to pay Paul. If he doesn't have enough points to cover the vouchers then what? He just keeps telling renters he is unable at this time to secure a reservation but he will let them know when he can despite no possible way to magically make points appear as he has to pay a new owner from his available funds. This may presume owners with expiring points are willing to refund and lose their points but I'm not sure anyone would actually do that... That is the owner take a hypothetical loss of 5k to make David's whole.

 

[lovethesun12]

While this contract is "non-refundable", I really don't think the owner can walk away, keep 70% of the funds and go have an awesome vacation with 100% of the points (or get paid again for those points) and think there will be no legal ramifications with that decision. The terms of the contract were unfulfilled (plus that would be double dipping which is illegal).

I think David's is offering the owner the absolute most fair option and they shouldn't really consider the renter (David's is the middle man after all), just the fact they have an unfulfilled contract. The renter cannot check in so the owner does not get paid the extra 30%. If the owner still wants 100% of the funds that option is still there they will simply have to wait for that to happen. On the other hand, they can also return what was paid and wash their hands clean.

I also think he is offering the renter a very fair option. The renter entered a non-refundable contract. David's is given them an option so they do not lose everything. Like the owner, they should also be very flexible because if they are not, well they entered into a non-refundable contract and could get nothing. As for those saying there is no availability, again there is some still there. I checked for a week in July, August, Christmas and all of them have options. I think it is in the best interest of the owner to be as flexible as possible on this.

Now both the owner and renter can refuse what was offered and that is their choice. But that could open up a can of worms for both of them in my opinion (and also be more of a headache for David's of course).

 

[Cyberc1978]

What I can't figure out with his plan is... So it seems his argument for vouchers is that many owners points may expire by the time a renter might be able to rebook with original owner. So if the supply of rentable points drops, is only option is to rob Peter to pay Paul. If he doesn't have enough points to cover the vouchers then what? He just keeps telling renters he is unable at this time to secure a reservation but he will let them know when he can despite no possible way to magically make points appear as he has to pay a new owner from his available funds. This may presume owners with expiring points are willing to refund and lose their points but I'm not sure anyone would actually do that... That is the owner take a hypothetical loss of 5k to make David's whole.

As mentioned I think the only reason why he is providing the vouchers is to avoid bad PR. The contract after all did state they were non-refundable. That will ensure that his company can continue operating if he survives. I know that one of his employees did write that the contract was void - not why it was so. When everything settles down Davids will increase the price for renters (not owners) that will ensure that en renter with a vouchers needs to pay a little more on top for the same vacation.
This all assumes that he is able to get an owners to rent their points.

Some renters may be able to do a charge back and others wont. If renters have like 12 months to use the vouchers then davids in most cases will be able to pocket the cash as I dont think most renters will be able to get anything for their vouchers due to no availability.

Had I been renting through Davids I would not have refunded or re-rented my points unless I got my 30% as originally agreed. If Davids didn't pay I would get to keep both points and 70%

If my points were to expire 1st of June then I would offer to re-rent them before they expire if that was not an option "bad-luck-davids"

Davids is not gonna send you a thank you card for refunding and hoping to re-rent points later on, so why should you re-fund the 70%.

Davids is "in-it-to-win-it" or survive-it

 

[Bearval]

A rental company such as David's if it were to go bankrupt wouldn't be out much since it is most likely formed as a corporation or LLC and would only lose the company assets and goodwill. Since they do not own nor create the product they are selling he can easily reopen under a new business but will have to rebuild his customer base from scratch since he would not want the new business associated with the old that went under. Bottom line here is that financially David would lose the least ( except for business goodwill which will impact his future business) and the owners and renters will lose the most.

 

[Amymouse13]

While this contract is "non-refundable", I really don't think the owner can walk away, keep 70% of the funds and go have an awesome vacation with 100% of the points (or get paid again for those points) and think there will be no legal ramifications with that decision. The terms of the contract were unfulfilled (plus that would be double dipping which is illegal).

I think David's is offering the owner the absolute most fair option and they shouldn't really consider the renter (David's is the middle man after all), just the fact they have an unfulfilled contract. The renter cannot check in so the owner does not get paid the extra 30%. If the owner still wants 100% of the funds that option is still there they will simply have to wait for that to happen. On the other hand, they can also return what was paid and wash their hands clean.

I also think he is offering the renter a very fair option. The renter entered a non-refundable contract. David's is given them an option so they do not lose everything. Like the owner, they should also be very flexible because if they are not, well they entered into a non-refundable contract and could get nothing. As for those saying there is no availability, again there is some still there. I checked for a week in July, August, Christmas and all of them have options. I think it is in the best interest of the owner to be as flexible as possible on this.

Now both the owner and renter can refuse what was offered and that is their choice. But that could open up a can of worms for both of them in my opinion (and also be more of a headache for David's of course).
[/QUOTE

The nonrefundable is probably why he's telling owners not to cancel reservations. As my reservations aren't until April 18 and 22 and were cancelled as of at least April 1 would appear my contract is voided by David's. He knows if they are cancelled by owners the contract is void. My dispute claim with credit card is my reservation was cancelled already without a refund. Disney didn't cancel weeks out. I'm not going after owner either as my contract isn't with them. The no refunds presumes I just didn't go when my reservation was not that the reservation no longer exists. Simple goods not received. Fingers crossed that is lol... I screen shot no reservations as of April 1 from my Disney app.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Governor DeSantis is telling owners to cancel all rentals starting March 29 for at least a month.

 

[lovethesun12]

The nonrefundable is probably why he's telling owners not to cancel reservations. As my reservations aren't until April 18 and 22 and were cancelled as of at least April 1 would appear my contract is voided by David's. He knows if they are cancelled by owners the contract is void. My dispute claim with credit card is my reservation was cancelled already without a refund. Disney didn't cancel weeks out. I'm not going after owner either as my contract isn't with them. The no refunds presumes I just didn't go when my reservation was not that the reservation no longer exists. Simple goods not received. Fingers crossed that is lol... I screen shot no reservations as of April 1 from my Disney app.

Every situation is different and I think you would have a better case than most for receiving a full refund.

 

[Krandor]

What I can't figure out with his plan is... So it seems his argument for vouchers is that many owners points may expire by the time a renter might be able to rebook with original owner. So if the supply of rentable points drops, is only option is to rob Peter to pay Paul. If he doesn't have enough points to cover the vouchers then what? He just keeps telling renters he is unable at this time to secure a reservation but he will let them know when he can despite no possible way to magically make points appear as he has to pay a new owner from his available funds. This may presume owners with expiring points are willing to refund and lose their points but I'm not sure anyone would actually do that... That is the owner take a hypothetical loss of 5k to make David's whole.

I would assume that after things restart he plans to put a certain amount of his commissions aside (and likely raise rates) to cover the vouchers he is gooing to have to pay for. It's building a house of cards and making covering the people who lost reservations today on future revenue. I've seen a few ccompanies try this before and I've never seen it work well because for one the people waiting on the future revenue to get made whole are not likely to be saying good things about the company which then hurts that future revenue.

I said earlier, I think the end result is going to be both owners and renters getting screwed.

 

[Sandisw]

If Owner C Refuses either option, and Renter C does a chargeback, he's out 170%.

I don't know why you are assuming renters won't use their vouchers. Have you seen something that says they have a limited date? I see people making snarky "i bet they have to be used this year" comments, but internet crankiness is rarely rooted in reality. I'm sure there will be some that won't use them, but I'm willing to bet he's going to have more owners refusing to work with him than renters just giving up the voucher. I'm betting the amount of renters who use their voucher or do a chargeback will be over 95%.

The problem with refunding renters is when you do that for one, you have to do it for all. If you have a renter with two reservations and one owner refunds his money and the next tells David's too bad, how do you reconcile that to the renter contractually? Once you crack no refunds on one, you set up precedent on all.

On your ETA: I'm pretty sure that was one poster who said that and that was before the voucher plan came about unless I missed something. That tells me that he realized that he would go bankrupt if he had to refund all of the canceled reservations. Especially if this runs into June.

One thing all the owners need to realize, the only way they are getting their 30% is if he stays in business. Unless he just has large cash reserves to ride this out, the voucher deal is probably the only way that can happen.

Assume a June 1st open date, the availability of rooms is slim. Any new renter wanting to rebook is going to struggle to use it before January.

That is a long time to wait to use something if there is no guarantee there will be owners to handle all those vouchers as well as availability.

You are right, he hasn’t put a time limit, but do you really think it will be open ended.

We can go round and round but any money he offers back..limits his risk with charge backs.
IMO it would also help his PR more than the road he is taking.

That Renter C whose owner didn’t do anything might take the 50% from the held 30% and commission and cut their losses.

But yes, I believe many feel the voucher will be useless and why they are doing charge backs because they know if they accept it and a year from now still can’t secure a reservation when they want, they’ve lost their chance.

 

[CraigInPA]

If Owner C Refuses either option, and Renter C does a chargeback, he's out 170%.

That is not accurate. David's pays the owner 70% of the amount that he rents the points for. If the rental price of the points is $14.50, he is out $10.15. $10.15 is 53% of the $19 total price paid by the renter. Thus, he is out 153%, not 170%. Note, too, that "Option C" may very well be the result of the owner's points expiring before a booking could be made due to availability, or the decision of David's to not book rentals during this summer when the owner's points may still be valid.

The math and procedure question I'd like to hear answered by David's is what he intends to charge the renters who use a voucher, and what he will pay the owners, given his recent price hikes? David's could create additional margin for themselves by paying owners $13.50 or $14.50 (the original contracted price, as opposed to the new price of $14.50 or $15.50) and charging renters the new price of $19 or $20 for the replacement rental.

 

[toniosmom]

While this was a decent and generous thing to do, I would caution other owners to think long and hard about going this route as there are serious implications.

On the negative side, by canceling whatever reservation an owner has (as opposed to waiting for Disney to do so), the owner will be in violation of the terms of the contract between the owner and David’s and expose themselves to liabilities that would require at least the return of all monies.

On a potentially positive side, by canceling whatever reservation an owner has in place, a renter would then have a case to demand a refund as the owner failed to hold up their side of the agreement. This is likely the reason why David’s has been curiously explicit and repeatedly insistent that the owners must NOT cancel their reservation. In all likelihood, that would be grounds for a renter refund (less David's commission, of course).

All that said, if owners started doing this, I suspect that will only expedite David's eventual demise. And despite an owner opening a new avenue for their renter to become whole, that avenue will shut down instantly with David's bankruptcy declaration, and as an owner, you would still owe that money back to David's.

The reality at this point is that David’s is going down the course of insolvency, and no one should have any faith that when it comes time to either collect the remaining 30% of their booking, or to cash in on their travel credit that David's will be around to honor either. As we all sit around trying to figure out the right thing to do, David’s realizes this and every decision they are making is to insulate themselves from this inevitability.

That's exactly why I did NOT cancel the reservation myself. I waited until DISNEY cancelled it and returned my points to me.

 

[tallguy001]

The renters aren't going bankrupt or losing everything if they lose their reservation. The owners aren't going to go bankrupt over not getting their 30%. David's might though.

“Going bankrupt” is the bar here? What about the renters who saved for 5 years to take a once in a lifetime trip? They are now supposed to be out a trip AND their money? The owner should just suck up the 30% so David can continue? Let’s face it - David brought some of this on himself with the poor contracts. It doesn’t seem like any other travel agencies are in this situation.