Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[MIDisFan]

The thing is, the intermediary doesn't have the inventory supply to just give everyone everything. They aren't a retailer. They don't buy supply then resell it. They just manage the transaction between two individuals and get a piece as compensation (roughly 25%). If they give the owners and renters both 100%, they are giving away 175% with no compensation to show for it. Even as large as Disney is, they wouldn't give that much money away. I don't think you can expect a small business like David's to just give away that kind of cash that they likely don't even have.

Aren't the brokers telling owners that they paid for those points and they belong to the broker now? There have been quite a few stories of Disney compensating a guest over and beyond as a gesture of good will and to ensure future business. Sometimes it's what a business has to do to make things right for their namesake. What attempt have the brokers made as such? How do you issue a voucher good towards the future use of something you don't have since they don't have a supply? Any offer to at least refund the commission, or is that being used to fuel the new luxury yacht? The broker business isn't as small as some would like to portray. Didn't one state they had over 3000 reservations effected? Do the math.

 

[Bearval]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I personally think there is a huge difference when you are voluntarily giving away money vs having it taken away.



Of course you need both sides to make the business work. But I think it's always harder to find people to give you money than it is to find people to give money to.



The thing is, the intermediary doesn't have the inventory supply to just give everyone everything. They aren't a retailer. They don't buy supply then resell it. They just manage the transaction between two individuals and get a piece as compensation (roughly 25%). If they give the owners and renters both 100%, they are giving away 175% with no compensation to show for it. Even as large as Disney is, they wouldn't give that much money away. I don't think you can expect a small business like David's to just give away that kind of cash that they likely don't even have.

Under the language in the new contracts that fully favor the re

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I personally think there is a huge difference when you are voluntarily giving away money vs having it taken away.



Of course you need both sides to make the business work. But I think it's always harder to find people to give you money than it is to find people to give money to.



The thing is, the intermediary doesn't have the inventory supply to just give everyone everything. They aren't a retailer. They don't buy supply then resell it. They just manage the transaction between two individuals and get a piece as compensation (roughly 25%). If they give the owners and renters both 100%, they are giving away 175% with no compensation to show for it. Even as large as Disney is, they wouldn't give that much money away. I don't think you can expect a small business like David's to just give away that kind of cash that they likely don't even have




Imbiguty of a contract goes a against the provider of that contract that is why they are not demanding the owners repay the funds because according to his language in the contract or lack of language they are not required to . As to the renters he has to provide some compensation since for the he did not fulfill the "Consideration " part of the contract and according to the language he would only have to provide this if the owner defaulted in some way and they did not.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Aren't the brokers telling owners that they paid for those points and they belong to the broker now?

Considering the points are in the owners account, and the owner maintains full control, I don't understand how that is even possible .

There have been quite a few stories of Disney compensating a guest over and beyond as a gesture of good will and to ensure future business. Sometimes it's what a business has to do to make things right for their namesake.

Not at 7x the cost in the thousands.

What attempt have the brokers made as such? How do you issue a voucher good towards the future use of something you don't have since they don't have a supply? Any offer to at least refund the commission, or is that being used to fuel the new luxury yacht? The broker business isn't as small as some would like to portray. Didn't one state they had over 3000 reservations effected? Do the math.

Again, let's assume average rental is 150 points at $19/pt. Owner gets 14.50 per points. To make everyone whole, David has to give the owner $2,175 and the renter $2,850, and then paying the commission to the employee (let's say its $1 per point so another $150).. so this relatively small business is out $5,175 per reservation. Let's assume you are correct they have 3000 reservation per year. That's about 250 reservations so far that have been canceled. That's nearly $1.3 million to give away. Now if the average reservation earns them $375 of profit (150 x 4.5 - 2), that would take 3400 future reservations just to break even, which is about 14 months of working for free. Its just not possible.

As it is, the owners in general are getting 100% of the money at the end of the day if they rent the points (according to the policy), and the renter is getting a voucher to get a stay.

I know there are some external factors that may get in the way of everyone being made whole, but atleast they are doing what they can reasonably do. I get why people are upset. But I haven't heard a single reasonable solution here that fixes the problem for everyone. Just like the earlier loss of banked points problem, everyone's solution is "the big business should bail us all out".

 

[Bearval]

Aren't the brokers telling owners that they paid for those points and they belong to the broker now? There have been quite a few stories of Disney compensating a guest over and beyond as a gesture of good will and to ensure future business. Sometimes it's what a business has to do to make things right for their namesake. What attempt have the brokers made as such? How do you issue a voucher good towards the future use of something you don't have since they don't have a supply? Any offer to at least refund the commission, or is that being used to fuel the new luxury yacht? The broker business isn't as small as some would like to portray. Didn't one state they had over 3000 reservations effected? Do the math.

I wouldn't take the voucher if my day of check in has past . The new terms are not the same as the one you signed up for. I would contact my C.C. and demand a refund. Why would you be required to sign a new contract? Could it be it would nullify the original so you then couldn't have a successful charge back??

 

[Bearval]

Considering the points are in the owners account, and the owner maintains full control, I don't understand how that is even possible .



Not at 7x the cost in the thousands.



Again, let's assume average rental is 150 points at $19/pt. Owner gets 14.50 per points. To make everyone whole, David has to give the owner $2,175 and the renter $2,850, and then paying the commission to the employee (let's say its $1 per point so another $150).. so this relatively small business is out $5,175 per reservation. Let's assume you are correct they have 3000 reservation per year. That's about 250 reservations so far that have been canceled. That's nearly $1.3 million to give away. Now if the average reservation earns them $375 of profit (150 x 4.5 - 2), that would take 3400 future reservations just to break even, which is about 14 months of working for free. Its just not possible.

As it is, the owners in general are getting 100% of the money at the end of the day if they rent the points (according to the policy), and the renter is getting a voucher to get a stay.

I know there are some external factors that may get in the way of everyone being made whole, but atleast they are doing what they can reasonably do. I get why people are upset. But I haven't heard a single reasonable solution here that fixes the problem for everyone. Just like the earlier loss of banked points problem, everyone's solution is "the big business should bail us all out".

I didn't see anyone asking to be "bailed out" just to be given what they were promised and signed a contract for. As for a solution, it is not up to the renters or owners to provide one it is up to the entity that has the business that made the contractual promises

 

[McCrae]

There is one DVC point rental place that offers their own cancel for any reason insurance that pays out on a reduced sliding scale. The real joke here is if you read the owners contract you still are obligated to rent your points or return all of the money you received. So if the renter cancels the week before you still have to let the company rent the number of points or you must pay them back. I asked what if the points are going to expire before you can rent them, their answer, you must return payment.

I have no problem with this type of contract as long as it’s clear what my obligations are. I can then make a better informed choice. I wouldn’t agree to rent with those conditions attached.

 

[McCrae]

But if the owner cancelled - wouldn’t that pretty much guarantee that the owner would have to reimburse - since that’s what is in the contract?

Yes, if the owner cancelled they would be liable, not David’s.

 

[VeroGuy]

But if the owner cancelled - wouldn’t that pretty much guarantee that the owner would have to reimburse - since that’s what is in the contract?

I was looking at it from the perspective that if the owner could have banked their points and David’s prevented that, it should now be on David’s to make both parties whole. If the owner was willing to cancel, and return funds so they could bank the points and in turn make the renter whole with a refund from David’s and David’s prevented that then I just looks bad IMO. It’s been said a ton on heat but David’s could have at least worked with both parties to share the loss and salvage a good rep. Instead this is where we are now. I don’t blame any owner, my frustration is with David’s and the poor management of this entire situation.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I didn't see anyone asking to be "bailed out" just to be given what they were promised and signed a contract for. As for a solution, it is not up to the renters or owners to provide one it is up to the entity that has the business that made the contractual promises

Diaclaimer:
A) I'm not an Ontario Lawyer
B) I haven't seen the contracts.

But from my understanding, David is not buying points from the owners and then reselling. They are acting as an intermediary agent in the transaction. At no time does David take legal ownership of those points. At no point does David take control over the points.

If the renter sues David for not providing the accommodations and not refunding the renter, I'd suspect David wouldn't be held responsible. I'd suspect the renter would have a better chance at suing the owner for the refund.

Where the renter may have a case against David is for the act of not acting as an intermediary during the pandemic which didn't allow owners and renters to work things out. They would likely get away with it though given that there was a worldwide pandemic, and the situation evolved too rapidly, with too many reservations affected in such a short time. It was not reasonable to expect David's to have the capacity to deal with that type of volume in that short of a time frame.

Let me give another example. If Disney decided not to refund cash clients who booked through Dreams Unlimited, would the expectation be that you sue Dreams or Disney. (I know dreams doesn't hold funds in escrow, but that's besides the point)

 

[MIDisFan]

Considering the points are in the owners account, and the owner maintains full control, I don't understand how that is even possible .



Not at 7x the cost in the thousands.



Again, let's assume average rental is 150 points at $19/pt. Owner gets 14.50 per points. To make everyone whole, David has to give the owner $2,175 and the renter $2,850, and then paying the commission to the employee (let's say its $1 per point so another $150).. so this relatively small business is out $5,175 per reservation. Let's assume you are correct they have 3000 reservation per year. That's about 250 reservations so far that have been canceled. That's nearly $1.3 million to give away. Now if the average reservation earns them $375 of profit (150 x 4.5 - 2), that would take 3400 future reservations just to break even, which is about 14 months of working for free. Its just not possible.

As it is, the owners in general are getting 100% of the money at the end of the day if they rent the points (according to the policy), and the renter is getting a voucher to get a stay.

I know there are some external factors that may get in the way of everyone being made whole, but atleast they are doing what they can reasonably do. I get why people are upset. But I haven't heard a single reasonable solution here that fixes the problem for everyone. Just like the earlier loss of banked points problem, everyone's solution is "the big business should bail us all out".

The solution for every customer would not necessarily be a refund. It should have been an option and possible imo. 14 months to break even isn't really that bad to be honest. Plenty of businesses loose money over a year and are able to weather through the storm. Quite a few businesses suffer a net loss at some point. Guess it depends on how well its managed. I don't see it as a bail out but rather the consequence of poor business practices.

 

[MIDisFan]

Diaclaimer:
A) I'm not an Ontario Lawyer
B) I haven't seen the contracts.

But from my understanding, David is not buying points from the owners and then reselling. They are acting as an intermediary agent in the transaction. At no time does David take legal ownership of those points. At no point does David take control over the points.

If the renter sues David for not providing the accommodations and not refunding the renter, I'd suspect David wouldn't be held responsible. I'd suspect the renter would have a better chance at suing the owner for the refund.

Where the renter may have a case against David is for the act of not acting as an intermediary during the pandemic which didn't allow owners and renters to work things out. They would likely get away with it though given that there was a worldwide pandemic, and the situation evolved too rapidly, with too many reservations affected in such a short time. It was not reasonable to expect David's to have the capacity to deal with that type of volume in that short of a time frame.

Let me give another example. If Disney decided not to refund cash clients who booked through Dreams Unlimited, would the expectation be that you sue Dreams or Disney. (I know dreams doesn't hold funds in escrow, but that's besides the point)

Wouldn't you sue the party you gave the funds to?

 

[Bearval]

Diaclaimer:
A) I'm not an Ontario Lawyer
B) I haven't seen the contracts.

But from my understanding, David is not buying points from the owners and then reselling. They are acting as an intermediary agent in the transaction. At no time does David take legal ownership of those points. At no point does David take control over the points.

If the renter sues David for not providing the accommodations and not refunding the renter, I'd suspect David wouldn't be held responsible. I'd suspect the renter would have a better chance at suing the owner for the refund.

Where the renter may have a case against David is for the act of not acting as an intermediary during the pandemic which didn't allow owners and renters to work things out. They would likely get away with it though given that there was a worldwide pandemic, and the situation evolved too rapidly, with too many reservations affected in such a short time. It was not reasonable to expect David's to have the capacity to deal with that type of volume in that short of a time frame.

Let me give another example. If Disney decided not to refund cash clients who booked through Dreams Unlimited, would the expectation be that you sue Dreams or Disney. (I know dreams doesn't hold funds in escrow, but that's besides the point)

You have to go by what was written in the contracts and the intermediary in this case provided those contracts and in litigation ambiguity of a contract goes against the provider of the contract which in this case is the intermediary. As an example with the contract in question the renter was expecting a room or a refund if they did not cancel and the owner was expecting full payment as long as they didn't cancel the fact that they was no clause in the contract on what to do if an event such as this would happen falls on the shoulders of the intermediary. The newer contract he is using addresses this now but doesn't help for the old ones. As for your example of comparing Dreams and Disney to this one, that is comparing apples and oranges since the contracts are different.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Owners have at least 70% of their money (unless they voluntarily returned it) plus their points, some in better state than others. David’s has 100% of their money, and in many cases they are holding the owners remaining 30%. Renters are out 100% of their money, 100% of their service purchased, and are left with at best a questionable voucher if we do not escalate to insurance/credit card. Renters are far and away most screwed in the situation if they do nothing and accept status quo.

Renters do accept risks and downsides to renting. There is plenty outside of this pandemic that is way more inconvenient when it comes to renting, that we accept for discounted rooms. I’m sorry but the discount is hardly THAT high that that a major risk should be losing the reservation entirely with little to show for it while none of the other parties take a hit.

I really hate when this conversations turns to pitting owners and renters against each other.

I’m not condoning the actions from David’s or his voucher scheme. Owner with a April or June UY got their points back and in the end the points was extended. Extending points does not mean that all is good, as owner with those UY’s still can’t use the points or at least June owners can’t. When the points are usable the inventory is even more scarce than it use to be.

Those owners which could have or can rebook definitely should have done it also regardless of David’s opinion.

it seems that Davids believe that his contract does not apply to him since he is not paying the remaining 30% so why should owners follow his “paper document”. We have already established that taking David’s, owners or renters to court is way too expensive for the one doing it so why not just help out renters if you can.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

There is one DVC point rental place that offers their own cancel for any reason insurance that pays out on a reduced sliding scale. The real joke here is if you read the owners contract you still are obligated to rent your points or return all of the money you received. So if the renter cancels the week before you still have to let the company rent the number of points or you must pay them back. I asked what if the points are going to expire before you can rent them, their answer, you must return payment.

I may have missed it but I don't recall a single post, not one where someone had insurance that paid. To many are repeating the mantra of 'just insure'. Thank you for reading the policy. thank you understanding it would take your money but not paid off. For C19 in spite of the misleading claim of cancel for any reason in the name, it is just not true. A renter has to cancel within generally 48 hours to qualify and meet the other restrictions. not one renter of a stay cancelled by disney will be paid by insurance.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

I’m not condoning the actions from David’s or his voucher scheme. Owner with a April or June UY got their points back and in the end the points was extended. Extending points does not mean that all is good, as owner with those UY’s still can’t use the points or at least June owners can’t. When the points are usable the inventory is even more scarce than it use to be.

Those owners which could have or can rebook definitely should have done it also regardless of David’s opinion.

it seems that Davids believe that his contract does not apply to him since he is not paying the remaining 30% so why should owners follow his “paper document”. We have already established that taking David’s, owners or renters to court is way too expensive for the one doing it so why not just help out renters if you can.

I realize the issues with the points coming back to owners, which is why I said that some got points back in better states than others. Just pointing out that I don’t think renters want to have their cake and eat it too, and that I think by default we are in the worst scenario before any action taken.

I actually think owners should hold onto every dime they’ve gotten from David’s so far without a guarantee if returned it goes to their renter. His voucher garbage should only apply when owners cannot or will not give money back, IMO. That he is trying to fund them with owner returned money instead of just giving the renter the money back when it’s in hand tells me all I need to know about intentions and also has me questioning the companies financial situation as my guess is they aren’t sending returned money directly to renters because it’s a hardship to return their portion (and possibly the 30% the owner never received).

 

[cmrdgrs]

Considering the points are in the owners account, and the owner maintains full control, I don't understand how that is even possible .

Not at 7x the cost in the thousands.

Again, let's assume average rental is 150 points at $19/pt. Owner gets 14.50 per points. To make everyone whole, David has to give the owner $2,175 and the renter $2,850, and then paying the commission to the employee (let's say its $1 per point so another $150).. so this relatively small business is out $5,175 per reservation. Let's assume you are correct they have 3000 reservation per year. That's about 250 reservations so far that have been canceled. That's nearly $1.3 million to give away. Now if the average reservation earns them $375 of profit (150 x 4.5 - 2), that would take 3400 future reservations just to break even, which is about 14 months of working for free. Its just not possible.

As it is, the owners in general are getting 100% of the money at the end of the day if they rent the points (according to the policy), and the renter is getting a voucher to get a stay.

I know there are some external factors that may get in the way of everyone being made whole, but atleast they are doing what they can reasonably do. I get why people are upset. But I haven't heard a single reasonable solution here that fixes the problem for everyone. Just like the earlier loss of banked points problem, everyone's solution is "the big business should bail us all out".

According to David's own emails it sounds like he potentially is doing 3000-4000 per month, not per year.

Again, I've been hard on David throughout this thread, and feel for both the renter and the owner. But, when owners say "I've had my points tied up all this time with the broker" "I deserve to be paid" that to me is immaterial - yes as an owner your points have been tied up, but if you had rented the points privately instead of with a broker they would have been "tied up" too. The renter never had their stay at the resort.

Obviously, David is not alone in dealing with angry renters and owners. VRBO, HomeAway, RedWeek, etc -- all of them are struggling through this mess.

If David had the money, it would have been helpful to refund renters at least 50% of what they paid and tried to get owners to continue to rebook. But, as the middle man he controls nothing. The DVC points don't belong to David, and the renters are angry because in theory he should have close to the 50% in hand because the rental never happened.

In the case were owners and renters wanted to speak IMO he should not have been the bottleneck stopping that process. And now the onslaught of chargebacks are just going to overwhelm his business.

Not pretty.

 

[cmrdgrs]

AND I just want to point out that only April and June UYs got points back. August UYs have not been helped in this situation. Owners have not been made "whole" by DVCM. They were "helped" but if you had banked 2018 points you only have a 6 months extension and for part of that extension everything has been closed and no announcement of re-opening has been announced. So how helpful was that 6 month extension?

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

According to David's own emails it sounds like he potentially is doing 3000-4000 per month, not per year.

Again, I've been hard on David throughout this thread, and feel for both the renter and the owner. But, when owners say "I've had my points tied up all this time with the broker" "I deserve to be paid" that to me is immaterial - yes as an owner your points have been tied up, but if you had rented the points privately instead of with a broker they would have been "tied up" too. The renter never had their stay at the resort.

Obviously, David is not alone in dealing with angry renters and owners. VRBO, HomeAway, RedWeek, etc -- all of them are struggling through this mess.

If David had the money, it would have been helpful to refund renters at least 50% of what they paid and tried to get owners to continue to rebook. But, as the middle man he controls nothing. The DVC points don't belong to David, and the renters are angry because in theory he should have close to the 50% in hand because the rental never happened.

In the case were owners and renters wanted to speak IMO he should not have been the bottleneck stopping that process. And now the onslaught of chargebacks are just going to overwhelm his business.

Not pretty.

I agree. I will add that David saying to owners originally "Don't cancel" was great advice and probably intended to limit owner's taking liability they did not have. David should have explained this instead of just giving the conclusion of "don't cancel". David got a bennies from this advice as well. I have no idea what renters in general wanted and when. Mine had decided in mid april they didn't want the risk of their trip on May 29. If David has told owners to cancel or do as they wished everything would be different. I don't know how the CC would go if the owner cancelled and the contract required owner and not David to fix. I think it would have made things worse for most renters too.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree. I will add that David saying to owners originally "Don't cancel" was great advice and probably intended to limit owner's taking liability they did not have. David should have explained this instead of just giving the conclusion of "don't cancel". David got a bennies from this advice as well. I have no idea what renters in general wanted and when. Mine had decided in mid april they didn't want the risk of their trip on May 29. If David has told owners to cancel or do as they wished everything would be different. I don't know how the CC would go if the owner cancelled and the contract required owner and not David to fix. I think it would have made things worse for most renters too.

Well, if the renter requested the cancel in exchange for a refund, and the owner was willing to refund because they got points back they could or would use, then things could have worked out,

Again, not all owners would have been willing to refund, but Davids stopped them for one reason only,,,so he didn’t have to refund th e the money,,,

Once an owner cancel, he has to give the refund and then get it from the owner,

We can come up with lots os different reasons why he may have done XYZ, but it still comes down to the fact that he could have worked with all owners and renters effected to see what worked best for that agreement,

But, it is his business and he decided what would happen, and will know the true effect on his business going forward based on how many owners or Renters will or will not work with him.

 

[suemom2kay]

Judging by the thousands of responses in this thread and thousands more on other well known forums, I'd say he's already demonstrated the lack of value in his services moving forward. I think he is destroying his supply chain with this new contract. Owners take on the majority of the risk? No thank you.

Agreed. I chose not to use David's cause I thought his cut was ridiculous. Points used for reservations I made are Feb UY so I have lots of wiggle room. I've offered my renters refunds/rescheduling. No one has asked for a refund (yet) those that needed to re-scheduled. Easy peasy. I believe that the risk is on me. But if I were using a broker taking a steep commission, I wouldn't feel that way. At least shared risk should be in play. He's gotten fat over the years on the backs of owners, its his turn to ante up.