Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It occurs to me that all these financial 'mumbo jumbos' may have serious consequences for David. Canada must have fraud statutes and criminal laws that cover the holding of money for a particular purpose.

I am not out any money yet. But for example lets say I agree to do what David asked me to do and agree re-rent my points. David charges a higher sale price but only pays me based on $14.50/point because I have already been paid. Then David keeps the additional sales money?

How is this not a violation of my existing contract with him and my understanding is that if I do agree to re-rent we continue that contract because I have money already.

So there is literally know theory and no travel agency guideline, no Realtor ethic that allows a broker to keep part of the sales proceeds outside the commission or agreed to, paid and receipted advances.

This is so egregious I can't see anyone getting away with it.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

It was brought up in the context of how it might impact chargebacks, but another possible issue he has on his hands is whether or not the manner in which he used Paypal for transactions was legal. It appears from some of the comments that he may have been sending the money as "friends & family" instead of "goods & services" (I can't say for sure this is the case, but that seems to be what's been reported here). Even if that wasn't done intentionally to avoid restrictions of using Paypal for real estate transactions, taxes, Paypal fees, etc., he could face some ramifications for that.

 

[Sandisw]

It was brought up in the context of how it might impact chargebacks, but another possible issue he has on his hands is whether or not the manner in which he used Paypal for transactions was legal. It appears from some of the comments that he may have been sending the money as "friends & family" instead of "goods & services" (I can't say for sure this is the case, but that seems to be what's been reported here). Even if that wasn't done intentionally to avoid restrictions of using Paypal for real estate transactions, taxes, Paypal fees, etc., he could face some ramifications for that.

His payment to me is listed differently then my friends and family payments,

It appears the same as when I was paid for a sale on eBay.

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

It was brought up in the context of how it might impact chargebacks, but another possible issue he has on his hands is whether or not the manner in which he used Paypal for transactions was legal. It appears from some of the comments that he may have been sending the money as "friends & family" instead of "goods & services" (I can't say for sure this is the case, but that seems to be what's been reported here). Even if that wasn't done intentionally to avoid restrictions of using Paypal for real estate transactions, taxes, Paypal fees, etc., he could face some ramifications for that.

I thought most were thinking the payments were consistent with goods & services, but maybe I missed some indicating family & friends. Regardless, with how sensitive PayPal's AML software is, Davids would have had to of had discussions with PayPal simply based on the high volume and dollar amount of transactions he conducts. They simply would not let him move that much money without following the "know your customer" rules and without having an understanding of his business.

 

[CraigInPA]

So, he's issuing a partial cash refund of the 30% to renters (the 30% that some would argue he owes to the owner), and the voucher is only for the remaining 70%?

No matter how I do the math, it appears that he's using everyone else's money to solve the problem, but not giving up his cut. Maybe that's actually happening but, based on what his customers are reporting, it certainly doesn't seem so.

It's actually worse than that; the 30% is 30% of the amount to be paid to the Owner, which is approximately 25% of the total paid by the renter to David's. The 75% remaining is then given as a voucher.

But, what happens when you tell David's you want to stay at a particular resort at a particular time? He collects another fee, which is refunded when the new reservation is secured. But, if he has no owner willing to book that stay for him (a likely outcome of how he is treating the owners), he tells you he can't book your stay after some number of months and then refunds that new fee. This could go on and on, until the voucher expires, each time holding the new booking fee for a few months. Ponzi scheme, indeed...

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

His payment to me is listed differently then my friends and family payments,

It appears the same as when I was paid for a sale on eBay.

I thought most were thinking the payments were consistent with goods & services, but maybe I missed some indicating family & friends. Regardless, with how sensitive PayPal's AML software is, Davids would have had to of had discussions with PayPal simply based on the high volume and dollar amount of transactions he conducts. They simply would not let him move that much money without following the "know your customer" rules and without having an understanding of his business.

I may have misunderstood the way PPs described those Paypal transactions. I thought some of the posters indicated that they weren't "goods and services" but it's possible I just misread the posts.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Thank you for sharing. This is exactly why if my renters reservation is an issue, I will not be refunding what I have been paid,

IMO, vouchers should be for those renters whose owners were not able to help in either refunding or rescheduling,

But, that would be worse for Davids because the more vouchers he issues, the higher percentage that could expire with never being used, and thus he gets it all.

Vouchers are a way for a business to save face IMO. They sound good on the surface and some percentage of them will not be redeemed. Vouchers are only good for a portion of those issued the voucher.

I have a travel voucher on Hawaiian Airlines that was created when my Aulani trip in March was cut short due to the pandemic. My flight was not cancelled, so I was not entitled to a refund, and due to the long hold times, I wasn't able to reschedule my flight and ensure I could actually get off the island before they stopped flights to the mainland (Phoenix in particular).

I'm 80% sure that I'm not going to get the opportunity to use the voucher before it expires because I only have until Dec 31, 2020 to complete my travel. From Phoenix, about the only place my voucher is good for is travel from Phoenix to Hawaii. I haven't fully investigated all my options. However, I don't see a Hawaii trip happening before 2020 ends.

 

[cmrdgrs]

I thought most were thinking the payments were consistent with goods & services, but maybe I missed some indicating family & friends. Regardless, with how sensitive PayPal's AML software is, Davids would have had to of had discussions with PayPal simply based on the high volume and dollar amount of transactions he conducts. They simply would not let him move that much money without following the "know your customer" rules and without having an understanding of his business.

Someone posted on this thread (I believe) that the payment comes (and maybe goes to?) Capital Technologies. Who knows what that means in PayPal's eyes. Capital Technologies, just by the name, IMO doesn't sound like a DVC point rental agency or a travel agency of some type, that's for sure.

For years those of us that rent our points privately have always wondered how David skirts the rules on PayPal about "timeshare transactions" being against their rules. I always just figured he brought PayPal so much money that he had some type of agreement with them to allow him to do these types of transactions. I still don't understand any of the payments, how Capital Technologies fits in the picture, or how any of this is allowed to happen without any type of Escrow account -- I'm sure I never will too.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Vouchers are a way for a business to save face IMO. They sound good on the surface and some percentage of them will not be redeemed. Vouchers are only good for a portion of those issued the voucher.

I have a travel voucher on Hawaiian Airlines that was created when my Aulani trip in March was cut short due to the pandemic. My flight was not cancelled, so I was not entitled to a refund, and due to the long hold times, I wasn't able to reschedule my flight and ensure I could actually get off the island before they stopped flights to the mainland (Phoenix in particular).

I'm 80% sure that I'm not going to get the opportunity to use the voucher before it expires because I only have until Dec 31, 2020 to complete my travel. From Phoenix, about the only place my voucher is good for is travel from Phoenix to Hawaii. I haven't fully investigated all my options. However, I don't see a Hawaii trip happening before 2020 ends.

The difference here, is that your flight wasn't cancelled. Yet the airline is giving you a voucher anyway because of the unusual circumstances that prevented you from being able to be on the flight. That's good customer service because you weren't due ANY refund, but they are giving you a voucher anyway.

In the e-mail posted here earlier, David's asserts that this is the same thing... that he is going "outside of" the no refunds policy to give a voucher as a "gesture of goodwill." This would be true if DVC had remained open but, due to the pandemic, renters were unable to check-in, and he's giving them a voucher anyway even though they are due no refund (in which case his goodwill should not be at the expense of asking owners to return money).

In fact, if the renter is due no refund because of the "no refunds" policy then, by extension, the owner should receive their remaining 30% and no vouchers are necessary for customer recovery, unless David's just wants to take these out of his own pocket as a "gesture of goodwill."

If he was giving vouchers when no refunds are due, then I would applaud him for going above and beyond.

But since the resorts were closed and he's arguably on the hook to refund the renter, these vouchers take on a completely different character.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Someone posted on this thread (I believe) that the payment comes (and maybe goes to?) Capital Technologies. Who knows what that means in PayPal's eyes. Capital Technologies, just by the name, IMO doesn't sound like a DVC point rental agency or a travel agency of some type, that's for sure.

For years those of us that rent our points privately have always wondered how David skirts the rules on PayPal about "timeshare transactions" being against their rules. I always just figured he brought PayPal so much money that he had some type of agreement with them to allow him to do these types of transactions. I still don't understand any of the payments, how Capital Technologies fits in the picture, or how any of this is allowed to happen without any type of Escrow account -- I'm sure I never will too.

I'm pretty sure THIS ^^^ was the discussion that gave me the impression there could be something problematic with using Paypal.

 

[momincolorado]

It's actually worse than that; the 30% is 30% of the amount to be paid to the Owner, which is approximately 25% of the total paid by the renter to David's. The 75% remaining is then given as a voucher.

But, what happens when you tell David's you want to stay at a particular resort at a particular time? He collects another fee, which is refunded when the new reservation is secured. But, if he has no owner willing to book that stay for him (a likely outcome of how he is treating the owners), he tells you he can't book your stay after some number of months and then refunds that new fee. This could go on and on, until the voucher expires, each time holding the new booking fee for a few months. Ponzi scheme, indeed...

Ok, to clarify, in my case, the refund was for 30% of the total amount paid so in other words, the 30% that would normally go to the owner plus (small part) of David’s commission (that’s of course assuming that he doesn’t have the 70% back from the owner). He is still hanging on to a big chunk of his commission. I don’t think it’s their new policy going forward, it’s something they agreed to in my case and they have been, from I have seen, pretty inconsistent. I read of two instances of a full refund very early on, few people that supposedly got something partial, now it’s this voucher. As the time went on, they became more and more insistent on this voucher scheme presumably calculating that that’s the only way they will stay afloat.

Yes, the voucher is a Ponzi scheme. The only possible use of it would be for cash booking but we are most likely talking rack rates, we know it can’t be modified or cancelled (but it can on Disney’s end, in which case he pockets the money) and I would have to trust him to pay not only the one night deposit but actually the remainder on the check-in date. That’s assuming that he is actually still around by then...

 

[cmrdgrs]

The difference here, is that your flight wasn't cancelled. Yet the airline is giving you a voucher anyway because of the unusual circumstances that prevented you from being able to be on the flight. That's good customer service because you weren't due ANY refund, but they are giving you a voucher anyway.

In the e-mail posted here earlier, David's asserts that this is the same thing... that he is going "outside of" the no refunds policy to give a voucher as a "gesture of goodwill." This would be true if DVC had remained open but, due to the pandemic, renters were unable to check-in, and he's giving them a voucher anyway even though they are due no refund (in which case his goodwill should not be at the expense of asking owners to return money).

In fact, if the renter is due no refund because of the "no refunds" policy then, by extension, the owner should receive their remaining 30% and no vouchers are necessary for customer recovery, unless David's just wants to take these out of his own pocket as a "gesture of goodwill."

If he was giving vouchers when no refunds are due, then I would applaud him for going above and beyond.

But since the resorts were closed and he's arguably on the hook to refund the renter, these vouchers take on a completely different character.

I agree with you Grumpy by Birth. My example probably is a bad example -- I'm am not entitled to anything. It was my decision to buy a new plane ticket and take the voucher because I had no other choice. My flight had not yet been cancelled. Part of this is a software issue IMO. If Hawaiian Airlines' software had allowed me to enter my ticket number on their website and reschedule my own flight without needing to talk with a CS representative, I wouldn't have a voucher, I would have been able to use my ticket. But, as I sat on hold for hours to speak with a representative, I could see the seats on the plane filling up because the flights were all being cancelled. On top of that the resort I was staying at was closing with very little notice. Literally, Hawaiian Airlines was cancelling all flights off the Island in 3 days. It was a mad scramble to get out off the island before I didn't have a place to stay or a flight.

In comparison owners are willing to give back the funds to renters, but he isn't willing to give that money back to its rightful owner. That renter could be made whole and David is not allowing that renter to be made whole.

 

[Marionnette]

Someone posted on this thread (I believe) that the payment comes (and maybe goes to?) Capital Technologies. Who knows what that means in PayPal's eyes. Capital Technologies, just by the name, IMO doesn't sound like a DVC point rental agency or a travel agency of some type, that's for sure.

For years those of us that rent our points privately have always wondered how David skirts the rules on PayPal about "timeshare transactions" being against their rules. I always just figured he brought PayPal so much money that he had some type of agreement with them to allow him to do these types of transactions. I still don't understand any of the payments, how Capital Technologies fits in the picture, or how any of this is allowed to happen without any type of Escrow account -- I'm sure I never will too.

Captol Technologies is owned by (wait for it)...David Mullett.

 

[cmrdgrs]

This is a very interesting clause in David's contract with the owner. Technically David asks to be the exclusive channel to the market for the owner's points available for rentals, prohibiting the owner from listing with other brokers or by himself. This is one-sided verbiage in the contract, because David does not guarantee the points would be rented through his service, therefore asking the owner to assume the risk of his points not being rented. However, I would not lose too much sleep over this clause as it is unenforceable - David has no way of knowing what you do with your points; by all means, let David know if the amount of available points on your contract has changed.

Somewhat similarly, when I sold a house through a realtor, I had to sign a time-bound exclusive listing agreement. In that case, the realtor pursued an MLS listing, took pictures of the property and assumed advertising costs. But in this case, David's costs of loading another 160-point contract in his computer are negligible - it is laughable that he requests (and maybe even expects) exclusivity.

Basically sounds like a non compete clause. It doesn't hold water and is ridiculous of him to put in his agreement because its not enforceable, so why bother? IMO, just more arrogance in an effort to control things.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Captol Technologies is owned by (wait for it)...David Mullett.

Opps... sorry for the misspelling. Yes, I realize that David owns that company too. Question is why are DVC rental payments being funneled through this company?

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

The plot thickens...

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

Someone posted on this thread (I believe) that the payment comes (and maybe goes to?) Capital Technologies. Who knows what that means in PayPal's eyes. Capital Technologies, just by the name, IMO doesn't sound like a DVC point rental agency or a travel agency of some type, that's for sure.

For years those of us that rent our points privately have always wondered how David skirts the rules on PayPal about "timeshare transactions" being against their rules. I always just figured he brought PayPal so much money that he had some type of agreement with them to allow him to do these types of transactions. I still don't understand any of the payments, how Capital Technologies fits in the picture, or how any of this is allowed to happen without any type of Escrow account -- I'm sure I never will too.

The payments do come from Capitol Technologies and while I do have additional information on this setup, I will not post about it here other than to reiterate that David's is obviously tied to it.

 

[McCrae]

The payments do come from Capitol Technologies and while I do have additional information on this setup, I will not post about it here other than to reiterate that David's is obviously tied to it.

If you look on Google Maps Capital Technologies is the company listed at David’s address. No signs are visible displaying David’s DVC company. The pictures make it look like a unit in an industrial park.

 

[cmrdgrs]

The plot thickens...

I don't know if the "plot thickens" or not.

The payments do come from Capitol Technologies and while I do have additional information on this setup, I will not post about it here other than to reiterate that David's is obviously tied to it.

Maybe the "plot does thicken?" --- Obviously, don't expect an answer based on your post.

 

[Noodlez]

I’m an owner with two rentals coming up through David’s. At first I was going to ask if I could contact the renter
but now I see why this would be unfair. If this was left to the individuals to sort out I would be offering my renters any booking until June next year, and would happily add another few points if necessary. Another owner may say the booking has to be before December and must be the same number of points or fewer. The fair way is to let all renters have 2 years to rebook, regardless of point expiry.

From the other side, I may have a flexible renter who is happy with whatever I can rebook whereas someone else has one that only want all their money back, which may have already been spent. This way, David’s is giving owners an option of refunding, rebooking, or neither.

I fully understand why they cannot pay owners in full and refund renters in full at the same time. This seems to be a very fair way of doing it.