Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[DGsAtBLT]

How much overhead would they have had to have added to the reservation to be able to have cash to cover the possibility that months of reservations would be cancelled? The amount they would have needed to charge you to have the business model you suggest they have would have made it price prohibitive to rent points - CRO would become a much much more attractive option. With a DVC rental you get a good deal, but part of the good deal involves risk.

So what exactly is the point of the intermediary, besides matchmaking?

There is a lot of downside to a DVC rental. Most renters accept these happily. They include more difficulty booking, planning further out needed, subject to availability of both DVC and a suitable owner (a big one, as it makes getting certain desirable resorts/times very difficult), inability to modify, inability to cancel, lack of housekeeping, lack of ability to add things like DDP or requests without doing it through a third party, and any other glaring ones I’m missing. The discount over Disney rates is hardly that large that it should account for the loss of the entire reservation and your money through no fault of your own, IMO.

Even if they should not be expected to have cash reserves on hand, they clearly had no plan in place for a scenario even approaching the magnitude of this one. They did not have this written into their contracts, like some private owners have show us they do, leading to the unprecedented move to back off the no refund policy. They did not have a system in place to facilitate communication between renter and owner to resolve issues. The voucher program was created on the fly. Those of us with early reservations saw tons of wishy washy answers and different rules depending on who you talked to since they really had no idea what to do. So as renters, we’re supposed to anticipate the chance of this and “accept the risk” but the intermediary who has made a living in this space was okay to carry on accepting that most reservations go off without a hitch and he’ll cross that bridge when he comes to it, I guess.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Dang. It’s very hard to keep up with this thread. If you don’t read it for a few hours, all of a sudden there are 4 more pages of updates

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Short summary, a force majeure clause and spelling out in contracts exactly who would owe who what, if anything is owed, would have covered David’s behind and protected from a lot of this aggravation. This is not unheard of, we have DIS posters who have it written into their own private contracts.

So renters should accept renting risk, owners should know better than to use points nearing expiry and should “follow their hearts”, but David’s, the leader in this space couldn’t be expected to predict this and plan for it. That doesn’t mean having a giant bank account to refund months worth of people.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

Dang. It’s very hard to keep up with this thread. If you don’t read it for a few hours, all of a sudden there are 4 more pages of updates

I seem to lose it for a few days when I miss clicking the notification once, then I come back to pages and pages missed.

 

[Sandisw]

I really like the thought and will extend to the possibility that as a "RESORT" no DVC property is being evaluated for opening outside the larger package of opening parks as well. To me this is another sign that the management company needs a real review on decision making v the taking of orders to help the larger business and its profitability.

Many FL resorts never closed. DVC was not required to be closed by the emergency and so saying it was 'cover' merely means that what was really going on is unseen. Owners are entitled to see what is underneath the 'cover'. Our financial situations and 'fiduciary' require it.

DVC is owned (obviously) by the owners who never voted or were consulted about closing. Clearly this is a major decision, a material decision. As far as I have seen, and I have looked there is literally no indication management looked at staying open without the parks. If resorts staying open would have mitigated even minimum costs we should know. It seems that protecting the larger DISNEY was more important.

This is not remotely like a fiduciary and barely a 'reasonable business decision'.

I do think the point you need to understand is that the property management agreement right now is with Disney. They run the resorts and from my understanding...although I have not requested a copy of it even though we can,,,is that terms of this played a role as well in supporting the closure,

So, if Disney as property managers had the ability to not provide staff, which is what was implied..then DVCM cant force them to.

Trying to get DVCM replaced or a change in who is hired as a property manager is not something easily done. In order for the board vote of the unit to be dictated by owners....not just our representative...60% of all owners of that specific unit have to agree on what that vote would be. Trying to find all the owners of a unit, then contacting them, then getting them at least 60% of them to agree on how to vote...each unit gets only one vote...would be near impossible, And that is just for one unit at a resort. To make any real changes, this would have to be done for every unit at every resort,

This is off topic so I will leave it there, but DVD set this up in such a way that as owners, we have very little power in deciding who runs things,,,and to be honest, most DVC owners are probably oblivious to all of this and have no issue with how things are done.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Don't mistake my point here. I agree that renters were potentially the losers more in this situation, OUTSIDE the CC. But there is a CC. If David tried to force the no refund policy then the CC would have ended his business. Period.

In short and a nutshell the CC enforces the legal 'impossible to perform' standard outside of court and outside mitigation of losses. This also covers the 'owners closed it due to management' issue. CC simple at the core. You paid for a place to stay. If you didn't get it and it wasn't your fault you get the money back. If the room was not there it doesn't matter to CC if it was because of the 'owners' or 'management' or 'hurricane' or C19. It would only matter if it was the renters fault because the renter didn't get what you paid for.

There is no fault on renters here and outside something changing the no refund policy; David losses all. Maybe someone better at numbers could figure this amount but I don't see anyway the CC does not force David to bankruptcy. A bankrupt David is not a help to anyone. The court and trustees do not move fast and while it is dangerous to say what a court would do without extensive experience in that court in an environment of expiring points bankruptcy would have made things far worse. Eg, It leaves some owners with a double dip and some with unpaid money due from David.

"INTERMEDIARY" then is key. David exists to make money matching owners and renters. There is no other point to David. I can't imagine a scenario where an intermediary allows, much less facilitates direct owner/renter contacts. It would liken to MickeyD referring hamburger customers to the king.

As for no plan..... look from the converse side on effective plans or even any plan. Did Disney have a plan? Did the federal government have a plan? Any of 50 state governments or thousands of local governments? The airline industry? As businesses did fox or cnn or msnbc have plans? The other intermediaries?

Nobody had a plan for this and while people can 'post' they had it covered in their contract the real possibility that it was impossible to check in would void their contracts as well. Without seeing those contracts my gut feeling is if paid by CC then the renters get their money back. the key to the private contracts is the sense of fairness and willingness to work the problem out.

So what exactly is the point of the intermediary, besides matchmaking?

There is a lot of downside to a DVC rental. Most renters accept these happily. They include more difficulty booking, planning further out needed, subject to availability of both DVC and a suitable owner (a big one, as it makes getting certain desirable resorts/times very difficult), inability to modify, inability to cancel, lack of housekeeping, lack of ability to add things like DDP or requests without doing it through a third party, and any other glaring ones I’m missing. The discount over Disney rates is hardly that large that it should account for the loss of the entire reservation and your money through no fault of your own, IMO.

Even if they should not be expected to have cash reserves on hand, they clearly had no plan in place for a scenario even approaching the magnitude of this one. They did not have this written into their contracts, like some private owners have show us they do, leading to the unprecedented move to back off the no refund policy. They did not have a system in place to facilitate communication between renter and owner to resolve issues. The voucher program was created on the fly. Those of us with early reservations saw tons of wishy washy answers and different rules depending on who you talked to since they really had no idea what to do. So as renters, we’re supposed to anticipate the chance of this and “accept the risk” but the intermediary who has made a living in this space was okay to carry on accepting that most reservations go off without a hitch and he’ll cross that bridge when he comes to it, I guess.

 

[Bing Showei]

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,,,

This is a major jump in logic. Without knowing all of the details it's impossible to know for sure, but there are plenty of other reasons (some of which I already laid out in this thread) for why he didn't allow owners to refund the cash to renters.

And this...

it could take a year before they'd be able to resolve all of these issues, with the vast majority of owners probably not willing to refund the renters anyways.

Pot, meet kettle.

And this after the repeated admissions that you have not read the entirety of this thread, nor have you taken the time to understand the legal language and contractual obligations between David's and the owner and David's and the renter. You even seemed to not understand how those contractual structures make it matter NOTHING whether or not an owner sends money back.

Despite all of this, you continue to shill for David's despite proclamations that you're not defending his actions; deflecting blame from David's does exactly that. Portraying the multi-million dollar company (sole proprietorship notwithstanding) as a poor struggling business owner who's making best efforts to save his little mom & pop business is far more destructive narrative than any assertions you may have read from owners you believe to be acting entitled.

You also push owners to come up with a solution, yet absolve David's the from the piss poor decisions they made every step of the way which include:
- preventing owners from working directly with renters despite repeated requests
- insisting that owners allow Disney to cancel the reservation as opposed to proactively canceling reservations that would require a refund (this continues today for May reservations)
- turning around and suggesting that owner are liable for the actions of DVCMC

The list goes on.

I sympathize with renters. More than that, I believe they are owed a reservation that doesn't come replete with all the risks that David's is now refusing to shoulder. David's then goes on to additionally shift risk to owners in case of another shutdown.

You have to look at the actions of this company as a whole to recognize that they are either doing everything they can in the name of self-preservation to come out of this taking on the least amount of financial exposure as possible, or it is so incompetently run, that they don't see how these actions will doom their business.

This isn't just a contract issue, it's an issue of a company that doesn't seem to understand how demonstrating some good will (as opposed to just asking others to do it from their "hears" on their behalf) will go a long way. Any decent business owner knows without your customers, you are nothing. That voucher is a big **** you to every renter. If not calculated, it is the epitome of destroying your brand; shooting oneself in the foot. If David's are struggling to survive, they will be more responsible for their own demise than any virus.

 

[cmrdgrs]

A lot of what is being discussed here is a rehashing. JMHO, but I really think that part of the problem with working out a solution is tied to software. I don't work for David and I know nothing about David's software, but from what has been posted here, I think his software cannot do some of the things that would help him help renters and owners.

David doesn't even seem to have a basic understanding of what the status of points were that were used to book the various renters (i.e. current UY points, banked points from 2018 or 2019, or borrowed points). I say this because owners have posted emails form David asking these questions to the owner about the points the owner gave David and he used from those owners to book rooms for renters.

Without this basic knowledge on the points renters reservations were made with finding a way out of this is a huge mess. Again, just my opinion, but it's one of the reasons the only way out of this is to issue a voucher to the renter. It just seems like his is clueless about how the reservations where made. I could be completely wrong, but from what has been posted here, that what seems to be true in my eyes.

 

[SherylLC]

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!

This is so true! People don't even have to be slighted, they just need to fell slighted and off they go with internet review revenge. Has this started with David's business yet? On Facebook he has made himself look like a saint. Has he been reported anywhere else?

 

[Krandor]

Want to add a news item that is tangentally related. Many people have had their trip insurance say they are not going to pay out. Well, in Georgia, a dentist is trying to start a class action against his business insurance company for denying a business interruption claim due to COVID.

I have a feeling we are going to see more lawsuits like this against insurance companies denying claims over COVID. Legal seafood has filed one as well.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/cobb...-coronavirus-business/LdcgmYmpKQu1nxG6jRLJEM/

 

[crisi]

So what exactly is the point of the intermediary, besides matchmaking?

There is a lot of downside to a DVC rental. Most renters accept these happily. They include more difficulty booking, planning further out needed, subject to availability of both DVC and a suitable owner (a big one, as it makes getting certain desirable resorts/times very difficult), inability to modify, inability to cancel, lack of housekeeping, lack of ability to add things like DDP or requests without doing it through a third party, and any other glaring ones I’m missing. The discount over Disney rates is hardly that large that it should account for the loss of the entire reservation and your money through no fault of your own, IMO.

Even if they should not be expected to have cash reserves on hand, they clearly had no plan in place for a scenario even approaching the magnitude of this one. They did not have this written into their contracts, like some private owners have show us they do, leading to the unprecedented move to back off the no refund policy. They did not have a system in place to facilitate communication between renter and owner to resolve issues. The voucher program was created on the fly. Those of us with early reservations saw tons of wishy washy answers and different rules depending on who you talked to since they really had no idea what to do. So as renters, we’re supposed to anticipate the chance of this and “accept the risk” but the intermediary who has made a living in this space was okay to carry on accepting that most reservations go off without a hitch and he’ll cross that bridge when he comes to it, I guess.

For renters:
Matchmaking is why many people use them
You won't get scammed by an owner - this situation is not getting scammed.
You won't be out your money if an owner doesn't pay their dues or sells their contract
You get a great room at a great price - but WITH SOME RISK. Don't like that risk, you should have rented via CRO.

For owners:
Ease in rental
Not having to deal with the renters themselves
A fair price per point

Our GOVERNMENT had no plan in place for a scenario on this scale. Most major companies were (and many still are) scrambling. It took three weeks for Wells Fargo to get a friend of mine a laptop so she could work from home. And you expect a small business to have planned for it and have set the reserves aside? That's a nice thought, but it isn't reality based.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Want to add a news item that is tangentally related. Many people have had their trip insurance say they are not going to pay out. Well, in Georgia, a dentist is trying to start a class action against his business insurance company for denying a business interruption claim due to COVID.

I have a feeling we are going to see more lawsuits like this against insurance companies denying claims over COVID. Legal seafood has filed one as well.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/cobb...-coronavirus-business/LdcgmYmpKQu1nxG6jRLJEM/

It is literally impossible for a 'normal' person to read this insurance jibber dash where 'cancel for any reason' means something quite different and be protected. I have not found the person who allegedly got paid yet. I was hoping someone might step up and say 'yes it was me'.

Insurance companies spend hundred of millions of dollars and employ upteen lawyers and marketing and 'word play' pros to see the product sell and an equal amount to avoid paying.

I can laugh now but once I had a computer stolen in GA and the insurance company denied coverage because it was not in the world at the time. In writing. In my experience people pushing insurance as a solution have either never had an insurance claim that was not an every day thousands of times a day claim or they get money in some way from insurance.

 

[crisi]

Despite all of this, you continue to shill for David's despite proclamations that you're not defending his actions; deflecting blame from David's does exactly that. Portraying the multi-million dollar company (sole proprietorship notwithstanding) as a poor struggling business owner who's making best efforts to save his little mom & pop business is far more destructive narrative than any assertions you may have read from owners you believe to be acting entitled.

I own a multi million dollar company - well, me and my business partner do. This year I might clear $40k - most of which I'll take in salary to meet my IRS obligations to actually pay myself. It isn't like I would be in a position to make any of my consultants whole if their contract with my client were to end early due to business circumstances. So we sign contracts for six months or a year - but reality is that the contract terms all have an out - the client can't sue us if our consultant leaves - because it isn't slavery and life happens - we had a consultant end a contract early last year due to cancer. And our contractors can't sue us if the client declares bankruptcy and lets them go before their term is up (as happened with one of our clients in March).

We expect that the consultant and the client will do their best to meet the start and end date of the contract. But no one is going to court if that doesn't happen because life happens and it isn't worth anyone's attorney's fees - you can't get blood from a stone.

A multi million dollar company merely means millions pass through my hands every year. I keep very little of it.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

For renters:
Matchmaking is why many people use them
You won't get scammed by an owner - this situation is not getting scammed.
You won't be out your money if an owner doesn't pay their dues or sells their contract
You get a great room at a great price - but WITH SOME RISK. Don't like that risk, you should have rented via CRO.

For owners:
Ease in rental
Not having to deal with the renters themselves
A fair price per point

Our GOVERNMENT had no plan in place for a scenario on this scale. Most major companies were (and many still are) scrambling. It took three weeks for Wells Fargo to get a friend of mine a laptop so she could work from home. And you expect a small business to have planned for it and have set the reserves aside? That's a nice thought, but it isn't reality based.

Being out a reservation and all your money through no decision of your own (ie. wanting to cancel) has never been the referred to risk of renting through David’s and I think it’s incredibly disingenuous to act as such.

David’s couldn’t have prepared for this (there are ways beyond months worth of cash reserves, like the clauses our very own DISers have written into their contracts), the entire US government is getting a pass, but individual renters should have accepted this as risk or gone cash through Disney instead? Okay.

 

[cmrdgrs]

<snip...> "INTERMEDIARY" then is key. David exists to make money matching owners and renters. There is no other point to David. <...snip>

You are 100% correct. David (and all brokers) are overpaid match makers. Owners that used them think for some reason they are "protected" (what has been a shock to some owners) we have learned is brokers protect nothing. They are just way, way, way overpaid match makers for owners that are not interested in finding their own renters. Basically a 25% commission on a match making transaction? PLUS zero protection?

Is some cases for renters what you have [hopefully] learned is that working with a solid owner is 100% better than dealing with a high paid broker. An owner can do things for you that a broker cannot. But, there is work to be done on the renters part too in order to find that "solid" owner, so working with the broker was easier from them as well.

And let us not forget the cancelled reservations from the past that have been buried by David. It's always unicorns and rainbows when you deal with him. Even now on his FB page he is manipulating bad press -- so renters are fooled and continue to be fooled.

<snip...> Nobody had a plan for this and while people can 'post' they had it covered in their contract the real possibility that it was impossible to check would void their contracts as well. <...snip>

I can agree with you that nobody saw a pandemic coming. However, some owners at least tell their renters what type of points they rented (current UY, banked 2018 or 2019, borrowed points) and the consequence of what could happen in an emergency. Some owners do educate their renters on the points they are renting -- clearly David did none of this. Some owners had a force majeure clause in their contracts -- which David didn't. That was a pretty huge oversight on his part. Also some owners don't spend the money until the renter checks in. Since David can't seem to refund any portion of the money paid to him by the renter it's assumed he doesn't have it to give.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

You are 100% correct. David (and all brokers) are overpaid match makers. Owners that used them think for some reason they are "protected" (what has been a shock to some owners) we have learned is brokers protect nothing. They are just way, way, way overpaid match makers for owners that are not interested in finding their own renters. Basically a 25% commission on a match making transaction? PLUS zero protection?

Is some cases for renters what you have [hopefully] learned is that working with a solid owner is 100% better than dealing with a high paid broker. An owner can do things for you that a broker cannot. But, there is work to be done on the renters part too in order to find that "solid" owner, so working with the broker was easier from them as well.

And let us not forget the cancelled reservations from the past that have been buried by David. It's always unicorns and rainbows when you deal with him. Even now on his FB page he is manipulating bad press -- so renters are fooled and continue to be fooled.



I can agree with you that nobody saw a pandemic coming. However, some owners at least tell their renters what type of points they rented (current UY, banked 2018 or 2019, borrowed points) and the consequence of what could happen in an emergency. Some owners do educate their renters on the points they are renting -- clearly David did none of this. Some owners had a force majeure clause in their contracts -- which David didn't. That was a pretty huge oversight on his part. Also some owners don't spend the money until the renter checks in. Since David can't seem to refund any portion of the money paid to him by the renter it's assumed he doesn't have it to give.

Can you expand on the cancelled reservations in the past? I don’t think I know what you’re referring to.

 

[crisi]

Being out a reservation and all your money through no decision of your own (ie. wanting to cancel) has never been the referred to risk of renting through David’s and I think it’s incredibly disingenuous to act as such.

David’s couldn’t have prepared for this (there are ways beyond months worth of cash reserves, like the clauses our very own DISers have written into their contracts), the entire US government is getting a pass, but individual renters should have accepted this as risk or gone cash through Disney instead? Okay.

It was never spelled out....it was ALWAYS a risk. 9/11 should have taught us that. What if there had been a mass shooting in Downtown Disney. Or a bomb exploding on Space Mountain. Caveat Emptor - David was not responsible for spelling out all of your risk.

Why do renters THINK they were getting this great deal? They were getting this great deal because there was RISK.

 

[cmrdgrs]

This is so true! People don't even have to be slighted, they just need to fell slighted and off they go with internet review revenge. Has this started with David's business yet? On Facebook he has made himself look like a saint. Has he been reported anywhere else?

He looks like a saint on FB because he deletes anything negative that gets written. He isn't on Yelp. Probably not on Google reviews. His main presence is on FB which he can 100% control. On the BBB site I just don't think people think to write there, I saw, like, three reviews. One from someone who's owner cancelled on them and they were left without a reservation. On their David replied in defense, but that's about it from what I see.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

It was never spelled out....it was ALWAYS a risk. 9/11 should have taught us that. What if there had been a mass shooting in Downtown Disney. Or a bomb exploding on Space Mountain. Caveat Emptor - David was not responsible for spelling out all of your risk.

Why do renters THINK they were getting this great deal? They were getting this great deal because there was RISK.

Like I have said multiple times, there is tons of downside and risk that comes with renting that is generally accepted.

If these contracts are sound and the renters shoulder all the risk, can I ask why David’s has made the decisions they have including but not limited to angering owners trying to get money back, and losing out real cash having to pay out new owners when vouchers are used, if this should all have been known risk renters accepted? They are pretty obviously giving vouchers to stop the immediate bleeding and spread it over time, flattening the bleeding curve if you will, because they disagree with you and believe renters are owed something.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Can you expand on the cancelled reservations in the past? I don’t think I know what you’re referring to.

Renters have been left without a reservation due to owner cancellations. No one knows how often this has happened because brokers bury it. One example I could find was on the BBB site. It has and does happen. I'm not saying that the broker doesn't work to fix it, but it does happen.