David’s wants to keep the original renter on the hook with a voucher while collecting a new rental fee from any lead name change.
This. A million times, this. It’s a point worth underscoring as I think those who don’t appreciate what David’s is actually doing is mistakenly seeing their endeavors as a “we’re-all in-this-together/united-we-stand” effort. If that is one’s starting point, the logical progression is that Owners need to also do their part.
This is not what is happening.
David’s are not being altruistic. It’s a calculated move to shift risk to everyone else but David’s. It’s a vehicle to generate liquidity; converting an already-paid-for reservation into an IOU and second booking on the same points. Renters risk holding onto a worthless voucher. Is it better than a non-refundable cancellation? Sure. But at the cost of owners being asked to assume new risks/terms far less favorable than the previous agreement. Regardless of what David’s are saying to owners, their message to new renters could not be more explicit: if the reservation becomes unavailable for ANY reason, David’s are off the hook, the onus is on the owners to issue a refund to the renter and David’s hands are washed of it. They send these terms and conveniently now copy owners on that same communication... in case there’s any question down the line that the owner was aware of this bit of language.
It feels like those who perpetuate the notion that David’s is allowing their non-refundable/non-cancelable rentals to suddenly be exchanged for a voucher are doing this out of some newly discovered empathy given the pandemic is prone to misplace any sense of obligation on the part of
DVC owners. I would argue that owners who agree to the new terms are supporting a system that transfers all risk from the mediator to the owner and provides renters with a false sense of being made whole.
Everyone can agree that renters are in a bind. They are without a doubt the most risk-exposed out of any party. But pre-pandemic, David’s would’ve told these same renters to go pound sand if they aren’t able to go for
whatever reason. Instead now, under cash crunch, David’s suddenly found religion and are so sympathetic to the plight of others?
Maybe. Or maybe they are taking advantage of renter desperation to kick the can down the road, double book points and shift the risk to owners.
The challenge for a lot of owners is that had David’s shown some good a good faith effort from the start to honestly shoulder some of the risk (e.g., offered to pass returned Owners monies directly to the renter, removed language that would screw renters with vouchers in a second forced closure, removed language that would screw owners in a re-rented forced closure, etc.), owners wouldn’t be questioning if it’s worth putting in any effort, especially if it means being left holding the bag as David‘s ropes in a second rental on the owner’s points.
the DIS 
