Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Bearval]

Evil? Self-interested and short-sighted is more like it.

I think I’ve said it before, as a small business owner I know that if you have good business practices, and make your customer happy, they will tell 2-5 people how wonderful you are. Piss off just one customer and they will tell the whole internet about your poor treatment of them!

He is going to need a lot of owners to sign the new convoluted contracts with him for his vouchers to work. I hope they are printed out on toilet paper so they will at least be useful.

 

[lovethesun12]

Please keep in mind David does business under his own name, as a sole proprietorship. Why in the world would he go in the hole up to $6M in order to keep operating? Also, small businesses in Canada can get emergency loans for up to Cdn$40,000 - this is about $30k, probably good for the renters booked on 1/4 of a resort closure day.

I don't think he would take a loan for that much; that just happens to be the max amount available so I quoted it instead of some random number because I don't know what he needs. Just that there is access.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Case by case for 2 weeks is completely and totally different from case by case to a world where it is EVERYONE for 2.5 months. Go back to the beginning of the threat and see how people were mad at Disney for the Disney response.

Fixing 14 days of bookings as was originally thought is just not the same. As more is learned responses have to change. Disney changed, David changed restaurants changed. the government changed

On March 14 there were 200 some deaths. The public was being reassured the worst was over. Businesses have to plan and did. That March 14 world did not exist nor did it come close to existing and all planning for it was wrong. Of course if you are expecting David to know more and be more accurate than the US government and Disney then we have different worlds.

I would certainly be interested to find out the name of the 'good will' business that went bankrupt to stand by a contract that did not exist.

The fact is the best argument on the contract is not 2nd guessing as is so easy to do. It is that the contract became impossible to perform and that means something. It is not a question of 'who can go to court' or 'where do you sue'.

As a business in order to keep your customers and your revenue you follow your word - it is your good will - without going into all the accounting rules etc
Go back to the beginning of this thread and read what David posted on His websites stating he Would work on a case by case basis - then read this Whole thread for example after example of him changing his his tune to the same people time and again
Any business who I have dealt with who were awesome for years does not earn a free pass to screw me over just because they decided to look out for their own interest in a bad time and not their customers

 

[GoingSince1990]

Update on my chargeback: Chase came back and approved the credit. I received my letter this afternoon. Dispute resolved, credit approved. Mind you my dispute was less than 1k, so I don't know if he even fought it. I started 4/21....and he had two billing cycles to respond. I did not have to send anything.

Having had every dispute I have ever filed with a CC company approved, I did expect this outcome. My understanding of the dispute process is that the credit card company will ask the questions:
1. Did you pay for goods or a service?
2. Were the goods, or the service, supplied?
3. If the first answer is "yes" and the second answer is "no", the dispute is resolved in the cardholder's favor, with any gray areas interpreted to favor the cardholder.
One message from this is that it is great to pay for things by credit card, because of this extra protection.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

If the contracts are frustrated then everyone should be put back where they were before / renters receive refunds / owners receive points - period

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Yes they should. Bu that was also impossible because of banking rules. There was no one size fits all solution. There was a finger and a hole in the dyke. Then more holes starting popping through.

If the contracts are frustrated then everyone should be put back where they were before / renters receive refunds / owners receive points - period

 

[Sandisw]

Yes they should. Bu that was also impossible because of banking rules. There was no one size fits all solution. There was a finger and a hole in the dyke. Then more holes starting popping through.

Correct, but Davids decided to make it one size fits all when he began refusing to let owners who could help renters work it out, which IMO, would have been seen as a much better move than what he did.

Like I said, I will not work with him again, and at this point, will refuse anything beyond what is in my contract,,,thst means, no rebooking and no refunding,

 

[Bearval]

Correct, but Davids decided to make it one size fits all when he began refusing to let owners who could help renters work it out, which IMO, would have been seen as a much better move than what he did.

Like I said, I will not work with him again, and at this point, will refuse anything beyond what is in my contract,,,thst means, no rebooking and no refunding,

I believe it would be better stated that his decisions were based upon the magic slipper only being the right size to fit his foot.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I agree - this situation is fluid and like it it not it needs to be handled on case by case basis by David’s

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I haven't read all 148 pages, but what did the other rental companies do?

They way I see it, there is no good solution.

Option 1) owner gives money back to renter. Owner's points expire. Owner is pissed.

Option 2) owner keeps 70% then David gives additional 30% on check in date. Renter is pissed.

3) owner keeps 100%, and David gives renter back 100%. David (as the middle man), ends up covering the entire cost. Customers are happy. David takes a massive loss. (Even a company as large as Disney would never do this. Disney wasn't exactly giving out free hotel rooms to those DVC members who's points expired. Their solution was to take inventory away from those who's points didn't expire).

4) Do what he's doing. Owner keeps 70%. Renter gets a 100% credit. David keeps 30%. It's not perfect for anyone. David is still taking a loss. He's using the 30% to offset the 100% credits. Of course, some won't get used, and he's spreading the negative cash flow over a longer period of time.

None of the solutions are good. I don't think its as simple as just letting owner and renter hash things out for a multitude of reasons such as.

1) privacy laws.
2) giving customers the opportunity to gain confidence that they won't need his service in the future. Etc....

 

[Bearval]

I haven't read all 148 pages, but what did the other rental companies do?

They way I see it, there is no good solution.

Option 1) owner gives money back to renter. Owner's points expire. Owner is pissed.

Option 2) owner keeps 70% then David gives additional 30% on check in date. Renter is pissed.

3) owner keeps 100%, and David gives renter back 100%. David (as the middle man), ends up covering the entire cost. Customers are happy. David takes a massive loss. (Even a company as large as Disney would never do this. Disney wasn't exactly giving out free hotel rooms to those DVC members who's points expired. Their solution was to take inventory away from those who's points didn't expire).

4) Do what he's doing. Owner keeps 70%. Renter gets a 100% credit. David keeps 30%. It's not perfect for anyone. David is still taking a loss. He's using the 30% to offset the 100% credits. Of course, some won't get used, and he's spreading the negative cash flow over a longer period of time.

None of the solutions are good. I don't think its as simple as just letting owner and renter hash things out for a multitude of reasons such as.

1) privacy laws.
2) giving customers the opportunity to gain confidence that they won't need his service in the future. Etc....

Essentially Disney is doing number 3 giving the renter back 100% and taking a 100% loss since there is no 3rd party . Davids would be the in the same boat if they were owners.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Correct, but Davids decided to make it one size fits all when he began refusing to let owners who could help renters work it out, which IMO, would have been seen as a much better move than what he did.

Like I said, I will not work with him again, and at this point, will refuse anything beyond what is in my contract,,,thst means, no rebooking and no refunding,

I am certainly not advocating anyone sign with David again or for the first time. Maybe I have not been clear. When the issues started no business would allow the parties to the contract try and change the contract obligations, change the requirements and obligations without the business being present. It just would not happen.
In addition solving the immediate 2 week problem, which was beyond them, to allow the other parties outside that 2 week window to move into the future is just a waste of time. Likewise with simply cancelling. David did not have enough time. to allow a renter and owner to agree to change a reservation, perhaps for different points from April 3 to May 12 would have simply wasted everyone's time. If David allowed one set of owner/renter to circumvent the contract it could have been the end to David. For all the faults with David that exist all of them would be far worse if David were in bankruptcy.

The problems with the contract seem to all be 20 20 from the future looking back. Can anyone expect a business to immediately reject their own contract that had worked well for years and years and tens of thousands of transaction?

Disney cash sales were directly with purchasers and refunded. It can not be compared to a 3rd party services contract. It is different.

 

[Sandisw]

I am certainly not advocating anyone sign with David again or for the first time. Maybe I have not been clear. When the issues started no business would allow the parties to the contract try and change the contract obligations, change the requirements and obligations without the business being present. It just would not happen.
In addition solving the immediate 2 week problem, which was beyond them, to allow the other parties outside that 2 week window to move into the future is just a waste of time. Likewise with simply cancelling. David did not have enough time. to allow a renter and owner to agree to change a reservation, perhaps for different points from April 3 to May 12 would have simply wasted everyone's time. If David allowed one set of owner/renter to circumvent the contract it could have been the end to David. For all the faults with David that exist all of them would be far worse if David were in bankruptcy.

The problems with the contract seem to all be 20 20 from the future looking back. Can anyone expect a business to immediately reject their own contract that had worked well for years and years and tens of thousands of transaction?

Disney cash sales were directly with purchasers and refunded. It can not be compared to a 3rd party services contract. It is different.

I just don’t agree he was forced to handle it this way. Very simple emails to all owners who had renters to try and reach out if they had points that could be rescheduled,

Remember, from the very beginning he asked for changes to the contract...No one is saying he should have refunded every renter, I am not even sure it’s because of his contracts,

I am saying that he had a way to limit the number of frustrated renters and owners and save his business at the same time. His choice, IMO, doesn’t do that.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I just don’t agree he was forced to handle it this way. Very simple emails to all owners who had renters to try and reach out if they had points that could be rescheduled,

Remember, from the very beginning he asked for changes to the contract...No one is saying he should have refunded every renter, I am not even sure it’s because of his contracts,

I am saying that he had a way to limit the number of frustrated renters and owners and save his business at the same time. His choice, IMO, doesn’t do that.

I am totally on board with the lack of communication. From where I sit it seems child's play to be able to send group emails to every one at the beginning. But I am not an IT person and I have no idea of the cost or requirements from this. I just know how to do it and have the ability to take advantage of it. I have no idea if the software for a small company like David would have this. I don't recall seeing any of the similar companies did a better job of communications.

My daughter works for a major public university in IL. When she wants to group email she is required to submit the email and all attachments for review a week in advance. then no changes. This is unthinkable to me because my software does all this on its own including picking the groups if i want

I also don't have any idea what kind of volume is done. I would only guess the first days were a nightmare for them to try and respond to, hence the finger and dyke reference.

It does seem like hiring someone new to only send FYI letters to owner/renters could have been done. I am not offering this as a text book management solution. I am only saying this is what actually happens and that I don't think it was originally a question to David or how David survives. I think it was panic.

 

[spinchy]

Speaking as a renter, I'm understanding of his need to change directions and some degree of uncertainty during all of this. In the end, I'd personally be fine with the voucher if he hadn't A) raised his prices since I bought and B) added all the new conditions. I respect his need to navigate some pretty difficult financial waters here, but I'm going to try the charge back route simply because of those factors. "Here's a voucher that buys you less than what you had and, if Covid is still around next time, you have to sign off on me keeping all of your money and giving you nothing."
If he'd offered me a voucher for an equivalent number of premium points, and not with all the new conditions I'd be happy to go along with the voucher plan.

 

[Bearval]

I am certainly not advocating anyone sign with David again or for the first time. Maybe I have not been clear. When the issues started no business would allow the parties to the contract try and change the contract obligations, change the requirements and obligations without the business being present. It just would not happen.
In addition solving the immediate 2 week problem, which was beyond them, to allow the other parties outside that 2 week window to move into the future is just a waste of time. Likewise with simply cancelling. David did not have enough time. to allow a renter and owner to agree to change a reservation, perhaps for different points from April 3 to May 12 would have simply wasted everyone's time. If David allowed one set of owner/renter to circumvent the contract it could have been the end to David. For all the faults with David that exist all of them would be far worse if David were in bankruptcy.

The problems with the contract seem to all be 20 20 from the future looking back. Can anyone expect a business to immediately reject their own contract that had worked well for years and years and tens of thousands of transaction?

Disney cash sales were directly with purchasers and refunded. It can not be compared to a 3rd party services contract. It is different.

If the company went into bankruptcy the renters would be better off if they paid with a credit card.

 

[Bearval]

If the contracts are frustrated then everyone should be put back where they were before / renters receive refunds / owners receive points - period

What i have noticed by looking at other sites that rent DVC points is that all of the contracts in the fine print now stick it to the owners of the points for making the renters whole by having to refund the money they received if an event like this happens again. I would be willing to bet this is being driven by the credit cards companies so that they are not on the hook for paying out for credit cards protection to their customers and if a business wants to accept C.C.s then they have to have this language in the contract.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I just don’t agree he was forced to handle it this way. Very simple emails to all owners who had renters to try and reach out if they had points that could be rescheduled,

If he does this, he basically demonstrates that the value of his service is essentially nil. That is not a strong marketing strategy

 

[WDWEPCOT]

Chase stated you can’t offer something like a hotel room take the money and not receive hotel room and not receive a refund - it is not allowed an it is a chargeback

 

[cm8]

What i have noticed by looking at other sites that rent DVC points is that all of the contracts in the fine print now stick it to the owners of the points for making the renters whole by having to refund the money they received if an event like this happens again. I would be willing to bet this is being driven by the credit cards companies so that they are not on the hook for paying out for credit cards protection to their customers and if a business wants to accept C.C.s then they have to have this language in the contract.

If this is in fact true. I hope the Owners will now just rent the points out themselves. Less headaches and you are free to move about the cabin so to speak when it all hits the fan.

As an Owner who rents sans “Intermediary” I have the ability to meet the needs of my Renters as we both see fit (within the parameters of our terms). I see no use for those types of services to still be around if this is the case. Owners should really look into the rental threads here and read up. I promise you it’s easier than you think! The people are friendly and the competition is fierce! . You won’t regret it! Just make sure to use a contract, and make sure that you can stand by that piece of paper.

All I know is that you need to be able to honor your word. No one else will ever use you again if you fail to honor the commitment made. Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war