Hurricane rentals - missed opportunity for brokers?

[pianomanzano]

After seeing posts and stories elsewhere about renters with confirmed reservations that are SOL because they can't get to the airport that can't get any refunds/modifications/cancellations AND those evacuating from areas and looking for emergency accommodations inland, it seems like the brokers could be better about flexibility, re-renting reservations, etc. I know there's no incentive to do so (owner's already have 75% of the rental income, would require potentially long waits on the phone with MS to re-rent/transfer reservations), but have been seeing many posts about renters swearing off DVC rentals again because of the lack of flexibility (despite DVC itself having a somewhat generous hurricane policy), which I think is net negative for the industry that the brokers are not taking into account. Sure, one could simply say "that's what insurance is for" and I know I'm oversimplifying things and there are many considerations to think about (payments, point expirations, etc.), but just feels like at the very least it's a missed opportunity (but is also reminds me of the COVID closures and some of the shenanigans that went on).

 

[VGCgroupie]

This is why when people say dont buy DVC you can spend less just renting points. Well I personally would never rent points because of things like this. I need a cancellation option and many times trip insurance is a hassle and doesn't end up covering what they are supposed to cover.

 

[Sandisw]

The thing to remember is that it’s not the brokers who control the points and reservations. It’s the owners

Both renters and owners agree to terms of the rental and while it’s frustrating I am sure for a renter, they did agree to the terms upfront.

My guess is that brokers are doing what they can within the terms of the contracts with owners to help renters if they can.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but the reason DVc rentals are cheaper than cash stays is that you take the risk that something stops you from going, including out of one’s control.

It is why we never would rent before buying. Didn’t want such a restricted reservation.

 

[pianomanzano]

The thing to remember is that it’s not the brokers who control the points and reservations. It’s the owners

Both renters and owners agree to terms of the rental and while it’s frustrating I am sure for a renter, they did agree to the terms upfront.

My guess is that brokers are doing what they can within the terms of the contracts with owners to help renters if they can.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but the reason DVc rentals are cheaper than cash stays is that you take the risk that something stops you from going, including out of one’s control.

It is why we never would rent before buying. Didn’t want such a restricted reservation.

Not disagreeing with you and agree would never rent points, but as someone who sometimes rents excess points out I would like to see a robust/thriving rental market. And these kinds of events that have renters feeling screwed (even though it was part of the contract they signed) are the kinds of things that deter people from renting.

I just see there being an opportunity to help everyone in these kinds of situations, but it will definitely take the willpower of an owner to stay on the line with member services (since they still need the remaining 25% of the payment from the stay then perhaps that should be enough incentive?). It does beg the question of what happens when a renter can't make the stay, does the owner get the remaining 25% if the renter never checked-in? Does the broker pocket it? Those kinds of uncertainties make me wonder how willing brokers are actually willing to help renters in these types of situations.

Also if DVC didn't have its hurricane policy, then perhaps I wouldn't bat an eye about the situation, but when owners have the flexibility to get points returned and potentially banked even outside of banking windows, it seems that perhaps there should be some leniency for renters. Again I know I'm oversimplifying things and there are a ton of factors at play, but perhaps this is just me just overanalyzing things because it's a slow work day!

 

[disneydreamer1980]

It’s really not fair if they don’t do something for these renters because the owners will be getting the points back, so they’re making money off the points and still possibly getting to use them. It’s wrong.

 

[gregskellington]

This is why rentals make me queasy. I like the option, as an owner, but it seems like the vast majority of people renting have limited to no understanding of what they are actually doing until something goes wrong.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

After seeing posts and stories elsewhere about renters with confirmed reservations that are SOL because they can't get to the airport that can't get any refunds/modifications/cancellations AND those evacuating from areas and looking for emergency accommodations inland, it seems like the brokers could be better about flexibility, re-renting reservations, etc. I know there's no incentive to do so (owner's already have 75% of the rental income, would require potentially long waits on the phone with MS to re-rent/transfer reservations), but have been seeing many posts about renters swearing off DVC rentals again because of the lack of flexibility (despite DVC itself having a somewhat generous hurricane policy), which I think is net negative for the industry that the brokers are not taking into account. Sure, one could simply say "that's what insurance is for" and I know I'm oversimplifying things and there are many considerations to think about (payments, point expirations, etc.), but just feels like at the very least it's a missed opportunity (but is also reminds me of the COVID closures and some of the shenanigans that went on).

What would you expect the rental agencies to do? I'm curious as to what you would do if you ran one of these agencies.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

It’s really not fair if they don’t do something for these renters because the owners will be getting the points back, so they’re making money off the points and still possibly getting to use them. It’s wrong.

What if the owner rented their points out and they have no use for those points? Imagine having a December UY and you made a good faith reservation 11 months ago using your banked points. Those points would have to be used between now and November 30 of this year. Naturally at this late date there's not much left to book and even if you did, you would still have to find a new renter and sell those points for a much reduced price.

There's a reason that some owners go through an agency to rent out their points even though they could get more by eliminating the middleman. Not having to deal with last minute cancellations is among those reasons.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Not disagreeing with you and agree would never rent points, but as someone who sometimes rents excess points out I would like to see a robust/thriving rental market. And these kinds of events that have renters feeling screwed (even though it was part of the contract they signed) are the kinds of things that deter people from renting.

I just see there being an opportunity to help everyone in these kinds of situations, but it will definitely take the willpower of an owner to stay on the line with member services (since they still need the remaining 25% of the payment from the stay then perhaps that should be enough incentive?). It does beg the question of what happens when a renter can't make the stay, does the owner get the remaining 25% if the renter never checked-in? Does the broker pocket it? Those kinds of uncertainties make me wonder how willing brokers are actually willing to help renters in these types of situations.

Also if DVC didn't have its hurricane policy, then perhaps I wouldn't bat an eye about the situation, but when owners have the flexibility to get points returned and potentially banked even outside of banking windows, it seems that perhaps there should be some leniency for renters. Again I know I'm oversimplifying things and there are a ton of factors at play, but perhaps this is just me just overanalyzing things because it's a slow work day!

Agree with all of this.

 

[disneydreamer1980]

What if the owner rented their points out and they have no use for those points? Imagine having a December UY and you made a good faith reservation 11 months ago using your banked points. Those points would have to be used between now and November 30 of this year. Naturally at this late date there's not much left to book and even if you did, you would still have to find a new renter and sell those points for a much reduced price.

There's a reason that some owners go through an agency to rent out their points even though they could get more by eliminating the middleman. Not having to deal with last minute cancellations is among those reasons.

They still at least have a chance to try and use or rent the points. And if they don’t, they’re out nothing except for unused points. They’ve lost no money. The renter however has lost thousands

 

[pianomanzano]

What would you expect the rental agencies to do? I'm curious as to what you would do if you ran one of these agencies.

For starters they can post some of the reservations renters wish to cancel as a confirmed reservation and advertise it to the many people looking for emergency reservations now. FB rental groups are flooded with ISO rentals from folks looking to evacuate. Owner isn't fully paid yet anyway until the renter checks-in so would be incentivized to transfer reservations. Many private rentals allow such re-rentals all the time, it's not revolutionary by any means. Hell, they could even charge the original renter $50-100 inconvenience fee that they can keep a portion of and give to the owner for having to call MS. The brokers come up with gimmicky promotions all the time to advertise rentals, I'm sure they could come with ideas better than this.

Just seems like a no brainer to me for a broker to try and implement to establish some goodwill with locals in need of lodiging during an emergency and relief for renters at the same time. Instead you have brokers telling renters sorry, the hotels not closed so there's nothing we can do, meanwhile there's a DVC hurricane policy that provides some flexibilities.

 

[Sandisw]

Not disagreeing with you and agree would never rent points, but as someone who sometimes rents excess points out I would like to see a robust/thriving rental market. And these kinds of events that have renters feeling screwed (even though it was part of the contract they signed) are the kinds of things that deter people from renting.

I just see there being an opportunity to help everyone in these kinds of situations, but it will definitely take the willpower of an owner to stay on the line with member services (since they still need the remaining 25% of the payment from the stay then perhaps that should be enough incentive?). It does beg the question of what happens when a renter can't make the stay, does the owner get the remaining 25% if the renter never checked-in? Does the broker pocket it? Those kinds of uncertainties make me wonder how willing brokers are actually willing to help renters in these types of situations.

Also if DVC didn't have its hurricane policy, then perhaps I wouldn't bat an eye about the situation, but when owners have the flexibility to get points returned and potentially banked even outside of banking windows, it seems that perhaps there should be some leniency for renters. Again I know I'm oversimplifying things and there are a ton of factors at play, but perhaps this is just me just overanalyzing things because it's a slow work day!

When I rented via a brokers as long as the resort is open, then the owner still gets paid. Now not sure what language exists today but I think it is similar.

If the resorts are closed as in Covid, then it is different

Where I probably don’t agree with you is an owner needing to do more in this situation regardless of DVC and what it does, that is outside what was expected from them.

I guess the way I see it is why should a renter be able to agree to terms, not consider the risk, not take steps to limit in the way of insurance and then be upset that the owner isn’t more flexible.

I get it can be a drawback on the rental process as a whole and like I said, the brokers may have a contract that deals with it.

But, how many owners are going to sign a contract to rent that says if the renter can’t get there due to weather, they don’t get full pay?

I know I wouldn’t. I guess my stance is that if renters want better cancellation and change polices, then renting DVC isnt a good choice.

And, as an owner who might rent, I want to know the terms that both of us agreeed to ahead of time were accepted when things go wrong.

 

[Sandisw]

It’s really not fair if they don’t do something for these renters because the owners will be getting the points back, so they’re making money off the points and still possibly getting to use them. It’s wrong.

Honestly, when I rented years ago for below market with no cancels and refunds, I did not seek my points back.

The renter could not go but I wasn’t going to cancel because it was their reservation up until the dates passed

So, not every owner is getting or wants to be involved in a future rental.

However, I don’t rent often and if I do, it to good friends for the cost of dues and in those cases, have terms with them on agreed upon outcomes if they can’t go.

I know..I am in the minority here.

 

[VGCgroupie]

What if the owner rented their points out and they have no use for those points? Imagine having a December UY and you made a good faith reservation 11 months ago using your banked points. Those points would have to be used between now and November 30 of this year. Naturally at this late date there's not much left to book and even if you did, you would still have to find a new renter and sell those points for a much reduced price.

There's a reason that some owners go through an agency to rent out their points even though they could get more by eliminating the middleman. Not having to deal with last minute cancellations is among those reasons.

I would say that a clause that whatever Disney policy is, is what the policy should be in situations such as these. If owner is out of the points per Disney DVC policy then renter is out of the money. But if Disney is giving points back to the owner or some form of compensation a renter should not be out the money.

 

[Sandisw]

For starters they can post some of the reservations renters wish to cancel as a confirmed reservation and advertise it to the many people looking for emergency reservations now. FB rental groups are flooded with ISO rentals from folks looking to evacuate. Owner isn't fully paid yet anyway until the renter checks-in so would be incentivized to transfer reservations. Many private rentals allow such re-rentals all the time, it's not revolutionary by any means. Hell, they could even charge the original renter $50-100 inconvenience fee that they can keep a portion of and give to the owner for having to call MS. The brokers come up with gimmicky promotions all the time to advertise rentals, I'm sure they could come with ideas better than this.

Just seems like a no brainer to me for a broker to try and implement to establish some goodwill with locals in need of lodiging during an emergency and relief for renters at the same time. Instead you have brokers telling renters sorry, the hotels not closed so there's nothing we can do, meanwhile there's a DVC hurricane policy that provides some flexibilities.

What you have to wonder though, is whether it then becomes an issue with having to consider which situations would count for this type of exception.

I would imagine it is much easier for the broker to have clear cut rules within their contracts and have a hard line for it to prevent people constantly trying to change.

Plus, in this situation, wouldn’t it be so last minute that might be more rooms to try and re rent than those that want them? How does a broker decide which renter ends up with relief and which one does not?

Whatever policy they’d have would have to br consistent for all renters, not just ones who were lucky enough to have another person want it, wouldn’t they?

While it sounds nice, I am not sure in practice it is something the brokers can offer…although I am pretty sure some have cancel polices with Future credit.

 

[Sandisw]

I would say that a clause that whatever Disney policy is, is what the policy should be in situations such as these. If owner is out of the points per Disney DVC policy then renter is out of the money. But if Disney is giving points back to the owner or some form of compensation a renter should not be out the money.

I think that would be a very hard sell for brokers to find owners to accept those terms.

Plus, DVC doesn’t refund the points unless the owner asks for the reservation to be canceled and the points returned.

If the owner chooses to do nothing then the points will be lost…see my post above.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

They still at least have a chance to try and use or rent the points. And if they don’t, they’re out nothing except for unused points. They’ve lost no money. The renter however has lost thousands

What kind of value do you put on points? Let me know how little it is and we can arrange to transfer some of yours to me.

Our points have a value. That's why we rented them out when we decided not to go to Disney the past 2 years. The money we got for those rentals was spent on dues, taxes and a few other things. If we just allowed those points to expire, we would still have paid dues on them.

 

[Brian Noble]

have been seeing many posts about renters swearing off DVC rentals again because of the lack of flexibility

Those people should never have been renting in the first place, because this was always possible. Lots of people like the lower cost of point rentals, but no one seems to want to acknowledge that one of the reasons the cost is lower is that the renter is assuming more risk vs. renting directly from Disney.

It’s really not fair if they don’t do something for these renters because the owners will be getting the points back, so they’re making money off the points and still possibly getting to use them. It’s wrong.

Fair has nothing to do with it--this is determined by the rental contract. One popular rental site's contract is very clear:

Guest understands and agrees that all funds paid by Guest are NON-REFUNDABLE at all times and under all circumstances, including, but not limited to, hurricanes, pandemics, natural disasters, meteors
and alien invasions.

That rental site also allows you to cancel and apply part of your payment to a future trip, but it has to be more than four days in advance of check-in, and even then you're only getting 25% back.

 

[Willow Ufgood]

For starters they can post some of the reservations renters wish to cancel as a confirmed reservation and advertise it to the many people looking for emergency reservations now. FB rental groups are flooded with ISO rentals from folks looking to evacuate. Owner isn't fully paid yet anyway until the renter checks-in so would be incentivized to transfer reservations. Many private rentals allow such re-rentals all the time, it's not revolutionary by any means. Hell, they could even charge the original renter $50-100 inconvenience fee that they can keep a portion of and give to the owner for having to call MS. The brokers come up with gimmicky promotions all the time to advertise rentals, I'm sure they could come with ideas better than this.

Just seems like a no brainer to me for a broker to try and implement to establish some goodwill with locals in need of lodiging during an emergency and relief for renters at the same time. Instead you have brokers telling renters sorry, the hotels not closed so there's nothing we can do, meanwhile there's a DVC hurricane policy that provides some flexibilities.

I cannot imagine the nightmare this would be to coordinate. First, the renter would need to contact the agency. Then the agency would have to contact the owner to see if they would be available to change the names on the reservation. Then the agency would need list the reservation. Someone would have to claim that reservation. The owner would then be notified with the new names and would have to call MS to make the changes. The agency would then have to collect funds from the new renter once the change has been confirmed. And all of this would have to happen in a very narrow window of time.

Keep in mind that many of those evacuating only want a couple of nights in a safe place. They aren't seeking a last minute vacation. They don't want a week in a RIV 2BR. They want 2 or 3 nights in a studio anywhere. And they want it for an affordable price.

 

[atthebeachclub]

Most of these rental sites are VERY CLEAR that they advise renters to seek trip insurance in case issues like this arise.

Willow Ufgood’s post above illustrates why re-renting and refunds would be a difficult proposition for owners to sign up for. I would require a much higher reimbursement amount if this was a clause in the contract.