Not So Irate At Dvc Right Now! UPDATED & Resolved

[Goofy's apprentice]

I'm glad everything worked out.

I guess I understand the holding of units for cash reservations. One reason I guess is that we trade out. While it is frustrating I kind of except it....But here's a question...does it bother you more that it is a GV, a room type in relatively short supply? We have used the Vero beach cottages and have a SSR GV next March, but really I don't see using them that much. However, I almost feel like there shouldn't be GV's held for cash.

But then, the OP wouldn't have had a happy resolution....I'm not in the hotel/timeshare business. Maybe this is just like those prime concert tickets that never seem to be available until the last night when the band has finally taken what they want and a few prime ones come up for sale....

 

[keishashadow]

It is a law that if they are taping the conversation they must inform you!!!

Not quick enough it seems. ADP great minds think alike.

when you call the recording says something like your call is being recorded for training purposes so I guess that is the notice about recording.

Joe

i've never noticed the disclaimer...probably too anxious just hoping to get my ressie to hear it lol

congrats to the OP

 

[Laxmom]

I am really glad you posted here for future reference! Where else would you run to - somewhere where people would understand. I am also really glad that it all worked out! On Disney's behalf, I don't know of too many organizations that would have admitted their mistake and then made it right these days.

That would have been 3 long hours with lots of pacing and and a seriously upset stomach for me!!

 

[pilferk]

Well... kind of, maybe.... These days everyone puts a discaimer that they MAY record for quality purposes or training or something like that. Usually just a fluff announcement to give the impression of caring. Hopefully though Disney does in fact record.

I am afraid that Jim is right also, so push them to be creative... maybe a GV at a different resort or a couple of two bdrms with a hole knocked out between them... ok that last one probably won't happen.... Good luck.

....or one of the presidential suites scattered around WDW.....WITH free dining, of course, to offset the loss of the full kitchen.



Glad to see it all worked out for you, though, in the end.

 

[Dean]

Like JimMIA says tho, they can't just create a new GV ... so they'd have to take it from the someone who's waitlist filled. If they cancelled other plans, then what?

I'm thinking their only options at this point is to bump you to the top of the GV waitlist and hope someone else cancels and/or comp your points for a 2BR+S

Actually their best option with no real choices is to bump the person that got their unit assuming that was the last one filled or the best one that would work out. Sure it'll make someone else unhappy but that is the lessor of evils in this situations as described.

 

[Dean]

Hey!!! What the ?^&*@*&% Happened to my OKW Villa Reservation!!!!!!

We may see this post for real.

 

[evaready51]

I have had the same issues with travel agents. I am always relieved they say they will pull the tape because I know that I am right.

Just my opinion, be glad they have a tape. DVC will clearly see that it was their fault and fix it. If they did not have the tape, I think they would just keep telling you they are sorry (but they would not believe you). The tape is hard evidence.

Before you get too irrate, give them a chance to fix it.

It is good to know that DVC tapes things.....

I don't have a problem w/them taping but they should be telling us upfront they are taping the converstation. To not do that is just so against the law.

 

[Telcogirl]

Well... kind of, maybe.... These days everyone puts a discaimer that they MAY record for quality purposes or training or something like that. Usually just a fluff announcement to give the impression of caring.

It depends on state law as to whether or not the parties are to be informed that their call is being recorded. In some states, both parties have to be informed in order for a recording to be legal, in other states, only one party has to know.

The reason the "generic" disclaimer is usually played to all callers is that is covers all states laws.

 

[Laxmom]

I was on the horn with MS this am and the disclaimer is there. I paid special attention to hear it!

 

[MdmMim]

The disclaimer has been there for awhile (few months?) regarding the recording.

 

[Cricket2]

Isn't there always a room or two out of service for rehab? I know we were moved to a second GV at OKW after a stove fire from when housekeeping ran the auto clean cycle and somehow started a fire. We showed up to smoke floating out of our chocked open front door. I looked at the room # like 8 times before I said, "Um, is that my room on fire?"

A super nice guy said something in Spanish over a walkie-talkie and boom, we were golf carted to another GV. He told us there was always at least one room set aside for stuff like that at all times.

 

[LisaS]

I looked at the room # like 8 times before I said, "Um, is that my room on fire?"

 

[lllovell]

I actually think that it is best that they checked the tapes. I am not saying that OP is not telling the truth (I fully believe her!) but what if they didn't check? It would eventually get around that if you called and raised sand, you could get a room that is not available.

Can you imagine the phone calls?

LLL

 

[Mickey Moose]

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

The U.S. federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. 38 states and the D.C. permit recording telephone conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so.

12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

It is illegal under all jurisdictions to record calls in which one is not a party.

Florida


Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.

Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.

A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).

 

[DebbieB]

I actually think that it is best that they checked the tapes. I am not saying that OP is not telling the truth (I fully believe her!) but what if they didn't check? It would eventually get around that if you called and raised sand, you could get a room that is not available.

Can you imagine the phone calls?

LLL

I agree, I don't have a problem with checking the tapes. I could see unscrupulous people trying to pull one over. It protects both sides.

I am a corporate trainer and I've often wished that my sessions could be taped. Many people claim I didn't tell them something when they make mistakes. I'm the easiest to blame.

 

[Kim&Chris]

I actually think that it is best that they checked the tapes. I am not saying that OP is not telling the truth (I fully believe her!) but what if they didn't check? It would eventually get around that if you called and raised sand, you could get a room that is not available.

Can you imagine the phone calls?

LLL

I totally agree. I'm glad they had taped my conversation because it was solid proof that I was telling the truth. If they had no tape, it would be my word against theirs, and the ball would have been in their court completely.

The taping of conversations is a win/win situation all around.

 

[WDWRR_ENGINEER]

Something to ponder. If they give you the notice that your coversation will be recorded is that sufficient if say you decide to do the same or do you need to notify them you are recording the coversation also?

I wonder?

Joe

 

[Telcogirl]

Something to ponder. If they give you the notice that your coversation will be recorded is that sufficient if say you decide to do the same or do you need to notify them you are recording the coversation also?

If you want the recording to be recognized as a legal recording, then the person doing the recording needs to announce that the conversation is being recorded. The announcement must be made in accordance with state law.

For example, in Rhode Island, at least one party must know that the call is being recorded.

 

[Mtnman44]

Most laws I've seen are similar to this so basically a 3rd party cannot record without notice, but if YOU are recording it and you are the one on the call then you do not need to announce anything, since you are one of the parties.

If you want the recording to be recognized as a legal recording, then the person doing the recording needs to announce that the conversation is being recorded. The announcement must be made in accordance with state law.

For example, in Rhode Island, at least one party must know that the call is being recorded.

 

[DisDaydreamer]

But isn't it amazing what a difference the title/topic makes.

This post is 2 days old and has over 5300 views.