Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Amymouse13]

There are some owners who have not been paid the rest of what they are owed.

The contract doesn’t allow for owners to cancel and if they do, they risk potential issues,

But, there is a chance an owner may choose to do it anyway, and return funds to the broker just to be done...or cancel and force broker to go after them if they feel they won’t get full payment.

Right so back to can David know if the owner cancelled or Disney cancelled? If my reservation disappeared by April 1 appears owners cancelled as it was for April 18 and 24, but can David actually come after an owner?? Like I get his point don't have owner cancel... But is there any proof anywhere?? Obviously in past if reservation disappeared one could guess owner cancelled, but in this situation??? ...

 

[cmrdgrs]

But plenty of people will. Disney room rates for a BWV room start at something like $500 a night. A rental started at, what? a little over $200 a night. DVC rental was never a good deal for someone who couldn't afford to eat the cost if they had to cancel. Kid breaks a leg the day before you leave. You get the flu right before you are about to board a plane. Grandma dies. Your spouse walks out the door. Those aren't cancellations that are your fault, but they still are non-refundable. I suspect most renters didn't buy insurance (not that insurance will pay out in this case) because they were willing to accept the risk that if they got the flu on Friday before a Saturday flight to Disney they'd just be out the money.

I guess my point is that all the examples that you gave are things that happened in "my world" -- not my fault per se, but they happened in my world and I can easily see that it's probably my fault that I didn't buy the insurance for the unexpected. Lord knows I myself have purchased many vacations without travel insurance and I have also bought travel insurance. Point is I made the choice. (not looking to debate that a pandemic might not have been covered)

All I'm saying is renters can live with the loss if they are at fault.

Everyone differs on this. My perspective is that as the owner, they are my points, I own them, and I own the risk. A renter shouldn't lose their money if my "representative" [DVCM] closes the resort. That's not the renters fault. You don't have to agree with me, other owners may not agree with me, heck no one on this thread has to agree with me, it's just how I personally feel.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

And this...

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.

What do you suggest the "multi million dollar company" do? What seems to be missing from all these responses is that they don't have the bank roll that Disney does. They can't just provide an act of "goodwill". They would likely (its a sole prop, Financials are not public) go
bankrupt well before handing out this goodwill to even a fraction of the clients that took a loss. Which means the majority of clients would end up with nothing rather than a voucher. If I was a renter, Id take my chances on the voucher over nothing.

Yes, they made a mistake in their contracts. It was a mistake. It wasn't malicious. They aren't evil. They probably cheaped out and wrote the contracts themselves instead of hiring a qualified lawyer. But here we are now, and they are atleast trying to resolve the situation to the best that their resources allow.

As has been stated, the contract is between the renter and David. Therefore, there is no negotiation to be had between renter and owner. He also cannot have different terms for different renters. (I know at the beginning they were doing different things for different people, but even Disney was doing the same thing until an official policy came out). The policy has to be uniform.

I have no stake in this. I'm an owner, not a renter, but have never used Davids services. I'm probably as impartial as can be. I just don't understand what anyone expects them to do. Everytime I ask this question I get the same responses. "He should have had a better contract", "he should give everyone the money they are legally entitled to", "your a shill for Davids", "you don't understand the contracts" etc... the problem is, these responses are either hindsight explanations of the problem instead of a solution, personal attacks towards me or David, discussing legal obligations rather than realistic options, or not possible due to resource constraints. Its all bad mouthing without discussion of what an appropriate, realistic response would/could be. This is a discussion forum, not a groupthink rally

I also don't believe someone acting in their own best interest is a bad or morally objective thing. Everyone here complaining about not getting their 30%, losing their rental and not getting a refund, losing their points due to closure are all doing the same thing. I would never expect someone to put themselves into personal bankruptcy just to provide " goodwill" to customers of a business that will no longer exist.

Edited for spelling and grammar

 

[TCRAIG]

David states he is trying to help renters impacted by this because he wants to help them, not because he is obligated to.

My communications from David's have been civil, he hasn't demanded anything. He has asked if I would be willing to help renters caught up in this, by either returning money paid or agreeing to re-rent points. It's very clear it's my choice to do this or nothing.

Same here - I’m an owner with (so far) 3 rentals impacted. At least IN MY COMMUNICATIONS - David’s has been civil and has not demanded anything - but rather to see if I was willing to take back my points and refund the 70% already received or re-rent the points.

 

[Sandisw]

Right so back to can David know if the owner cancelled or Disney cancelled? If my reservation disappeared by April 1 appears owners cancelled as it was for April 18 and 24, but can David actually come after an owner?? Like I get his point don't have owner cancel... But is there any proof anywhere?? Obviously in past if reservation disappeared one could guess owner cancelled, but in this situation??? ...

DVC hasn’t canceled any reservations prior to 7 days prior at most. So, Davids could accuse an owner of doing it if it happened before then.

Other than that, there Is nothing David would have access to that proved or disproved it.

 

[Amymouse13]

DVC hasn’t canceled any reservations prior to 7 days prior at most. So, Davids could accuse an owner of doing it if it happened before then.

Other than that, there Is nothing David would have access to that proved or disproved it.

So he can't really come after owners over suspicion they cancelled...

As I said before, I believe he would have been best off trying to honor original contracts. Seems in many cases Disney extended point life. Granted might not be where the original reservation was, maybe not a studio, maybe less days... But it was possible to as close as possible fulfill the contract under a bad situation.

But instead owners are left with no way to fulfill their contract. Renters may get nothing or pursue chargeback. David may or may not make it, but everyone hates him...

 

[Sandisw]

So he can't really come after owners over suspicion they cancelled...

As I said before, I believe he would have been best off trying to honor original contracts. Seems in many cases Disney extended point life. Granted might not be where the original reservation was, maybe not a studio, maybe less days... But it was possible to as close as possible fulfill the contract under a bad situation.

But instead owners are left with no way to fulfill their contract. Renters may get nothing or pursue chargeback. David may or may not make it, but everyone hates him...

Actually, they extended the life of very few types of points at this points. 2018 April and June UY banked points were given 6 months, but can’t even be used to book something until around June 5th....those April one are only good until Oct 1st...and the June ones until Dec 1st.

All other banked 2018 points have not yet been given that so many are still expiring in the next few months.

Some 2019 points were allowed to be banked late...but again, only a few UYs needed this,

So, many owners are still stuck with points only good for maybe the rest of 2020 and using them won’t be easy.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

But plenty of people will. Disney room rates for a BWV room start at something like $500 a night. A rental started at, what? a little over $200 a night. DVC rental was never a good deal for someone who couldn't afford to eat the cost if they had to cancel. Kid breaks a leg the day before you leave. You get the flu right before you are about to board a plane. Grandma dies. Your spouse walks out the door. Those aren't cancellations that are your fault, but they still are non-refundable. I suspect most renters didn't buy insurance (not that insurance will pay out in this case) because they were willing to accept the risk that if they got the flu on Friday before a Saturday flight to Disney they'd just be out the money.

My insurance would cover some of those types of scenarios. Maybe not the broken bone one. I believe it even covered things like work revoking time off. So no, I was not willing to be out thousands. It actually also covered this pandemic, I imagine because I had the Canadian governments advising not to cross the border working in my favour, my complication was the insurance company wanting me to get money back from David’s first and David’s backing off of their firm no refunds.

For what it’s worth, the BWV savings and BCV tend to be higher, since those two strike a nice balance between relatively low points and higher rack rates. Even BCV though I found an either very similar or better deal from Disney than David’s for certain dates on I think it was a 2 bedroom, after their discount was applied. The other resorts though, especially the newer ones, don’t necessarily see as fantastic of a discount comparing actual Disney rate to rental cost. It can flip flop as to what the better deal is even if you pretending they were the same product for arguments sake. Always worth comparing apples to apples before deciding. One year for approximately the same cost we would have paid to rent the same room we got free dining from Disney on a 1 bedroom at BLT. Long winded point being, (for any future renters reading this) it’s not always cheaper or a crazy discount worth additional risk and downside, do the math every time.

 

[Kevin_W]

I've tried to keep up with this thread and have seen talk of chargebacks and trip insurance. What is the verdict on insurance? I paid with a Chase Sapphire Reserve card which has trip insurance and one of the covered conditions is:

• You or Your Traveling Companion’s lodging accommodations at the destination of the Trip being made uninhabitable

I would think that Disney closing the resort would meet the definition of being uninhabitable. Has anyone filed this way?

 

[starry_solo]

I've tried to keep up with this thread and have seen talk of chargebacks and trip insurance. What is the verdict on insurance? I paid with a Chase Sapphire Reserve card which has trip insurance and one of the covered conditions is:

• You or Your Traveling Companion’s lodging accommodations at the destination of the Trip being made uninhabitable

I would think that Disney closing the resort would meet the definition of being uninhabitable. Has anyone filed this way?

I thought I read in an earlier post that someone’s credit card insurance said being provided a voucher was an appropriate accommodation and to contact them later if the voucher was not used within the appropriate time. I haven’t figured out how to search a thread for keywords though

 

[SherylLC]

@.SherylLC

Post #2861 (from user knockUout)

https://www.disboards.com/threads/d...r-rescheduling.3796922/page-144#post-61861790
Email from David asking the owner for details on the points they rented. IMO, if David has all this information at his fingertips he wouldn't need to send this email. So, you tell me, why is he collecting this information if he already has it all?

My point is that I KNOW for a fact he had the detail on points when he initially make an reservation. You can't even offer them to him to rent without completing this on his request form. Are you asking me to SPECULATE as to why he is asking for this after the fact? (You didn't need to prove to me someone posted that-I would have believed you.) My GUESS is that once the reservation is set he no longer saves the information. Or possibly he is just buying time.

You asked. That's the answer that makes the most sense to me. So there you go.

Edited to add:
I looked at my response to your post as I'm sitting here wondering why anyone would have issue with my comments.
Here are YOUR words in bold:
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
Without this basic knowledge on the points renters reservations were made with finding a way out of this is a huge mess.
I think we can both agree he has made mistakes. My point is being ignorant of how the points system works isn't one of them BUT even if it was, being ignorant of the product you are offering to your clients, is not an excuse to pass the damage on to others who are abiding by your contracts. It just means you're ignorant. I personally don't believe he is ignorant at all. I think he is willing to break his contract with both sides to save his own skin.

 

[banzai75]

I've tried to keep up with this thread and have seen talk of chargebacks and trip insurance. What is the verdict on insurance? I paid with a Chase Sapphire Reserve card which has trip insurance and one of the covered conditions is:

• You or Your Traveling Companion’s lodging accommodations at the destination of the Trip being made uninhabitable

I would think that Disney closing the resort would meet the definition of being uninhabitable. Has anyone filed this way?

I have same card as do a few others. I tried do a chargeback first.

Even though his voucher is terrible I believe the trip insurance will accept that as satisfactory and deny the claim. There was a post on here earlier whose claim was denied because of the voucher.

 

[MIDisFan]

What do you suggest the "multi million dollar company" do? What seems to be missing from all these responses is that they don't have the bank roll that Disney does. They can't just provide an act of "goodwill". They would likely (its a sole prop, Financials are not public) go
bankrupt well before handing out this goodwill to even a fraction of the clients that took a loss. Which means the majority of clients would end up with nothing rather than a voucher. If I was a renter, Id take my chances on the voucher over nothing.

Yes, they made a mistake in their contracts. It was a mistake. It wasn't malicious. They aren't evil. They probably cheaped out and wrote the contracts themselves instead of hiring a qualified lawyer. But here we are now, and they are atleast trying to resolve the situation to the best that their resources allow.

As has been stated, the contract is between the renter and David. Therefore, there is no negotiation to be had between renter and owner. He also cannot have different terms for different renters. (I know at the beginning they were doing different things for different people, but even Disney was doing the same thing until an official policy came out). The policy has to be uniform.

I have no stake in this. I'm an owner, not a renter, but have never used Davids services. I'm probably as impartial as can be. I just don't understand what anyone expects them to do. Everytime I ask this question I get the same responses. "He should have had a better contract", "he should give everyone the money they are legally entitled to", "your a shill for Davids", "you don't understand the contracts" etc... the problem is, these responses are either hindsight explanations of the problem instead of a solution, personal attacks towards me or David, discussing legal obligations rather than realistic options, or not possible due to resource constraints. Its all bad mouthing without discussion of what an appropriate, realistic response would/could be. This is a discussion forum, not a groupthink rally

I also don't believe someone acting in their own best interest is a bad or morally objective thing. Everyone here complaining about not getting their 30%, losing their rental and not getting a refund, losing their points due to closure are all doing the same thing. I would never expect someone to put themselves into personal bankruptcy just to provide " goodwill" to customers of a business that will no longer exist.

Edited for spelling and grammar

Other suggestions have been made, maybe you don't agree with them, but more than simply offering refunds has been suggested. Re-issue vouchers with more favorable terms, refund his commission or forgo future commissions to effected renters, guarantee owners with distressed points priority over new points going into the queue or payout the remaining 30% if points aren't used before expiration. I don't think they had/have evil intentions, although some actions like removing negative comments on their facebook page might appear to have a little malice. I just don't understand the tone that they are simply doing the best they can. I don't think you can fault brokers for not preparing for something of this magnitude. As pointed out by Crisi, carrying that amount of overhead would probably not be feasible. However, IMO, they don't seem to want to take any financial responsibility towards it. I could be completely off, basing my opinion on hearsay, but I haven't heard/read anywhere of any financial relief offered to any client. If they do end up bankrupt, I would imagine it would only be a matter of time before they resurface or the void is filled by others.

 

[dwight16]

this is a lesson for how we are to travel in the future. you now have to be very weary on what the company you choose to do business with handles your deposits. from what i learned all these travel companies small to large (airlines and cruise companies down to dvc rentals) are ponzie schemes. the take massive customer deposits and do what they please with them before their travel dates. hence why cruise and airlines basically went bankrupt after a week or two of this. i get no one planned for this and its not industry standard even for a summer beach rental to hold the money in escrow until the travel date but going forward we are all going to have to need these things. I believe as a DVC owner this has fundamentally damaged the value of this product having to book so far in advance and being left holding the bag is not a great feeling. i have lost a wdw trip with my own points and i am probably going to lose a rented trip for aulani in july even if its open and if its closed looks like zero money back. Davids should be giving back the 30% at least if they cant recover the money. hard lesson learned...

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Other suggestions have been made, maybe you don't agree with them, but more than simply offering refunds has been suggested. Re-issue vouchers with more favorable terms, refund his commission or forgo future commissions to effected renters, guarantee owners with distressed points priority over new points going into the queue or payout the remaining 30% if points aren't used before expiration. I don't think they had/have evil intentions, although some actions like removing negative comments on their facebook page might appear to have a little malice. I just don't understand the tone that they are simply doing the best they can. I don't think you can fault brokers for not preparing for something of this magnitude. As pointed out by Crisi, carrying that amount of overhead would probably not be feasible. However, IMO, they don't seem to want to take any financial responsibility towards it. I could be completely off, basing my opinion on hearsay, but I haven't heard/read anywhere of any financial relief offered to any client. If they do end up bankrupt, I would imagine it would only be a matter of time before they resurface or the void is filled by others.

This is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong.

Owner's have two choices. Keep the 70% and keep the points. They can then take those points and see if they can use them personally, or try and rent them out again which means further profit. Worst case, the points expire and they lose 30%. Second choice is to allow David's to re-rent the points, and then get 100%. Overall, it's not perfect, but it's not too bad.

Renter's get one choice. They get a voucher which can be used for several different options including a future DVC stay, or a booking through his travel agency (which could include booking hotel rooms through Disney). Again, it's not a perfect solution for the renter, but it's still overall not that bad.

In order to allow the owner to keep the 70%, and then issue a 100% voucher to the renter, that requires excess cash. Doing some rough math, David's in general keeps about 24% of the funds as a commission. Now, he gives a chunk of that amount to his employees as their commission. So l assume he (the company) only keeps about 13% as gross profit (which is different than profit. He still has other expenses to cover) under normal circumstances. So far, the owner has received about 53% of the total funds (14.50 / 19 x 0.7) that the renter paid, the employee has about 10% (2 / 19) , and David has 37% (1 - 16.50 / 19). Still following me? He now has to cover a 100% voucher with only 37% of the funds to help. He is taking a 63% loss. Which means, he is taking a major financial loss on those vouchers.

In the circumstances where the owner allows their points to be re-rented, everyone is technically made whole. In the circumstance where the owner keeps the 70%, David is taking a major financial loss, the owner is taking a smaller loss, and the renter is taking zero financial loss (they are taking a qualitative loss). Yes, some of the terms are a bit different on the voucher, but these are basically the terms that everyone is saying were missing from the original agreements that lead to the mess in the first place. Again, it's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's about as much as you can ask for given the scenario. All three parties are sharing the loss, with the broker taking the the brunt of it.

 

[crisi]

I guess my point is that all the examples that you gave are things that happened in "my world" -- not my fault per se, but they happened in my world and I can easily see that it's probably my fault that I didn't buy the insurance for the unexpected. Lord knows I myself have purchased many vacations without travel insurance and I have also bought travel insurance. Point is I made the choice. (not looking to debate that a pandemic might not have been covered)

All I'm saying is renters can live with the loss if they are at fault.

Everyone differs on this. My perspective is that as the owner, they are my points, I own them, and I own the risk. A renter shouldn't lose their money if my "representative" [DVCM] closes the resort. That's not the renters fault. You don't have to agree with me, other owners may not agree with me, heck no one on this thread has to agree with me, it's just how I personally feel.

Covid also happened in your world - or do you live in somewhere that people aren't dying?

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Davids should be giving back the 30% at least if they cant recover the money. hard lesson learned...

It's not 30% of the renter's money. It's 30% of the owner's portion, which is really only 22% of the renter's money. So the choice really is, do you want 22% of your money back, or a 100% credit voucher. Sure the voucher comes with some added risks, but I think by being 4.5X more value, that more than covers the risk.

 

[dwight16]

It's not 30% of the renter's money. It's 30% of the owner's portion, which is really only 22% of the renter's money. So the choice really is, do you want 22% of your money back, or a 100% credit voucher. Sure the voucher comes with some added risks, but I think by being 4.5X more value, that more than covers the risk.

as this goes on there is almost zero chance davids makes it though this or any rental company that operates like this do you have any idea how many lawsuits this guy is going to have to deal with bc i am sure some renters are laywers probably a few. each day that goes by the losses mount up and this could go until june/july. let alone he is losing on the travel agent side of the business. right now i would take 30% over a future credit from a company that probably does not exist in 6 months

 

[Dracula]

This is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong.

Owner's have two choices. Keep the 70% and keep the points. They can then take those points and see if they can use them personally, or try and rent them out again which means further profit. Worst case, the points expire and they lose 30%. Second choice is to allow David's to re-rent the points, and then get 100%. Overall, it's not perfect, but it's not too bad.

Renter's get one choice. They get a voucher which can be used for several different options including a future DVC stay, or a booking through his travel agency (which could include booking hotel rooms through Disney). Again, it's not a perfect solution for the renter, but it's still overall not that bad.

In order to allow the owner to keep the 70%, and then issue a 100% voucher to the renter, that requires excess cash. Doing some rough math, David's in general keeps about 24% of the funds as a commission. Now, he gives a chunk of that amount to his employees as their commission. So l assume he (the company) only keeps about 13% as gross profit (which is different than profit. He still has other expenses to cover) under normal circumstances. So far, the owner has received about 53% of the total funds (14.50 / 19 x 0.7) that the renter paid, the employee has about 10% (2 / 19) , and David has 37% (1 - 16.50 / 19). Still following me? He now has to cover a 100% voucher with only 37% of the funds to help. He is taking a 63% loss. Which means, he is taking a major financial loss on those vouchers.

In the circumstances where the owner allows their points to be re-rented, everyone is technically made whole. In the circumstance where the owner keeps the 70%, David is taking a major financial loss, the owner is taking a smaller loss, and the renter is taking zero financial loss (they are taking a qualitative loss). Yes, some of the terms are a bit different on the voucher, but these are basically the terms that everyone is saying were missing from the original agreements that lead to the mess in the first place. Again, it's not a perfect solution, but IMO it's about as much as you can ask for given the scenario. All three parties are sharing the loss, with the broker taking the the brunt of it.

These are not the choices David gave me as an owner. The choices were:
1) Return the 70% received, and keep the points in whatever condition they were;
2) Keep the 70%, but agree to re-rent the points through David and receive the remaining 30% at the new reservation day of check-in.

I chose #2, but I am struggling with what happens if David is unable to re-rent the points prior to their expiration.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

as this goes on there is almost zero chance davids makes it though this or any rental company that operates like this do you have any idea how many lawsuits this guy is going to have to deal with bc i am sure some renters are laywers probably a few. each day that goes by the losses mount up and this could go until june/july. let alone he is losing on the travel agent side of the business. right now i would take 30% over a future credit from a company that probably does not exist in 6 months

You could be correct. But again, it's only 22%.

However, none of us actually know the real situation. 1) How many people are actually going to sue in Ontario small claims court? Would they even win given that he offered a 100% credit voucher? 2) He likely has liability insurance. How much? I have no clue.