Rented points problem

[jlewisinsyr]

I just caught up with this thread and would like to chime in regarding people saying to try to catch the person at their place of work or by embarrassing them at work with faxes, multiple calls, etc.

I'd be VERY cautious doing this as you are acting as a debt collector (licensed or not) and using forceful methods of collecting a debt is illegal. If the person you are trying to collect the debt from says to stop contacting them at their office, you have to abide by that. You can be sued for using embarrassing or threatening methods. It's best to leave the legal leg work to attorneys and follow the law in terms of appropriate contact methods (ie. certified letters).

I agree this situation is unfortunate, but just as we expect those we do business with to be ethical, we must too be ethical in our actions to settle an unethical situation.

 

[BrentR]

I just caught up with this thread and would like to chime in regarding people saying to try to catch the person at their place of work or by embarrassing them at work with faxes, multiple calls, etc.

I'd be VERY cautious doing this as you are acting as a debt collector (licensed or not) and using forceful methods of collecting a debt is illegal. If the person you are trying to collect the debt from says to stop contacting them at their office, you have to abide by that. You can be sued for using embarrassing or threatening methods. It's best to leave the legal leg work to attorneys and follow the law in terms of appropriate contact methods (ie. certified letters).

I agree this situation is unfortunate, but just as we expect those we do business with to be ethical, we must too be ethical in our actions to settle an unethical situation.

I don't know that the OP has to worry too much about the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), the law that protects consumers against unfair collection practices. That law is written for 3rd party debt collectors not original creditors. It is true that certain portions of the FDCPA have been used in court cases against original creditors with limited success in various circuits. However, such actions are brought against corporations. I have never heard of the FDCPA being used against an individual trying to collect a debt from another individual.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I don't know that the OP has to worry too much about the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), the law that protects consumers against unfair collection practices. That law is written for 3rd party debt collectors not original creditors. It is true that certain portions of the FDCPA have been used in court cases against original creditors with limited success in various circuits. However, such actions are brought against corporations. I have never heard of the FDCPA being used against an individual trying to collect a debt from another individual.

Would it be a risk you'd be willing to take? In short, although $1,400 is not a small amount of money, fighting in court over agressive collection practices as a person seems to be an additional cost waiting to happen. There is also the point of making sure you're not throwing stones from a glass house, depending on how far it got, the person could retaliate and find some stuff about you or make your life more difficult (ie. filing a complaint to the IRS that someone failed to report income from the rental of the property).

 

[sweetdana]

I think they would just counter sue for the 1,400$ and call it a win.. when they ended up ahead still 1,000$.


Although I am not stating it is a great idea to stalk/embar/ect someone.. Any wins would be taken out of the 1,400$ and the "stalker" would still be ahead..

 

[Anal Annie]

OMG now I am paranoid!! I JUST YESTERDAY started an agreement with David's service as I thought it might be easier to use him to rent than to try to find a renter myself. I've been hanging out on the cruise board & haven't been over here much lately so I JUST saw this thread. I feel like an idiot. I had no idea we could be stiffed for a renter's charges!! Now I don't know if we should continue the agreement?! I would really prefer to just do a transfer but we have 37 points that were banked that can't be transferred, only rented but so THEN I decided to peek at the R/T board to read the posting rules again and it's GONE!! There is no link for it anymore! It's not even a choice in the drop down list!! What did I miss here????? Has the DIS removed it?? I feel like I'm in a time warp!!!

ETA: WHOA! It's back. I am REALLY in a time warp now!!

 

[Chuck S]

OMG now I am paranoid!! I JUST YESTERDAY started an agreement with David's service as I thought it might be easier to use him to rent than to try to find a renter myself. I've been hanging out on the cruise board & haven't been over here much lately so I JUST saw this thread. I feel like an idiot. I had no idea we could be stiffed for a renter's charges!! Now I don't know if we should continue the agreement?! I would really prefer to just do a transfer but we have 37 points that were banked that can't be transferred, only rented but so THEN I decided to peek at the R/T board to read the posting rules again and it's GONE!! There is no link for it anymore! It's not even a choice in the drop down list!! What did I miss here????? Has the DIS removed it?? I feel like I'm in a time warp!!!

ETA: WHOA! It's back. I am REALLY in a time warp now!!

Perhaps you weren't logged into the site. The Rent/Trade board is only visible if the user is logged-in.

Truly, these kinds of problems are few and far between, but an owner should be aware of the possibility before choosing to rent. I've not heard of any problems using David's site at all. Not to say it couldn't happen, but I am not aware of any problems.

 

[UConnJack]

I understand (and generally agree with) the opinion that since this risk is due to clear rules in the POS that we all signed, that we have no right to complain that Disney takes the position they do. I certainly agree that this should apply to any damage a renter may wreck on a room or at the resort. I also understand legally why it may apply to charges made to a room. I do wonder where this would end though? Would a renter be responsible if a rentee wrecks havoc in a Disney park while staying on-site at a rented DVC? What if the park tickets were bought by charging the room? I guess I don't really see where this line would be drawn? Would it be only limited to resort issues, or would it go beyond that?

That said, I do think it is BS that an owner cannot restrict room charging to any reservation on their account. If DVC is making us as owners responsible for anything that renters, guests, family member, etc. do in connection to the room reservation, then we as owners should have that kind of control over our reservations. It is not the same as other resort amenities, as you CAN put this restriction on you room if you are the one staying in it. I just don't think the right to put this restriction on the room or not should be given to occupants; it should be given solely to the owner of the membership.

Not that anyone would spend the $$ required to go up against the Disney legal machine, but I wonder if something like this was taken to court, what the outcome would be. Particularly if a documented request was made by the owner to restrict room charging privileges.

 

[Chuck S]

Not that anyone would spend the $$ required to go up against the Disney legal machine, but I wonder if something like this was taken to court, what the outcome would be. Particularly if a documented request was made by the owner to restrict room charging privileges.

I think that the court would probably side with Disney, as they simply do not offer (and have never offered) an owner the ability to decline a room charge...and given that room charging is a standard Disney onsite perk, and that the fact the DVC is onsite, with all those perks, gives the owners the ability to easily rent that reservation. In other words, ALL the standard onsite perks, as a whole, are what makes DVC rentals attractive to renters.

 

[Brian Noble]

What if the park tickets were bought by charging the room?

Park tickets (including upgrades) are one of the very few things that are charged to the card on file *immediately*, rather than simply added to your room account. I added hopping to some tickets at VWL this past summer, and my folio clearly listed them as paid for, charged to the card on file, on the day I added, rather than at the end of the trip. (And no, I wasn't over my $1500 limit...yet. )

 

[LIFERBABE]

Park tickets (including upgrades) are one of the very few things that are charged to the card on file *immediately*, rather than simply added to your room account. I added hopping to some tickets at VWL this past summer, and my folio clearly listed them as paid for, charged to the card on file, on the day I added, rather than at the end of the trip. (And no, I wasn't over my $1500 limit...yet. )

Considering what happened in my situation, my guest was charged almost daily for meals, purchases, tix etc. Both my guests checkout bills were botched by the front desk which caused balances to be left behind.

The owner should be able to call research and billing and or the Front Desk, (which I know is a phone bank, but it is possible to reach the "real" front desk with some trying) during the guests stay and request the card on file be charged with more frequency (daily).

YMMV, but IF you had a concern about your guests folio, I would call DURING their stay and request frequent billing. Disney wants their money and they dont want to wait 6 months to get it, so they may oblige.
There seems to be some differences depending on the Front Desk staff on which process is followed. (daily/frequent billing or $1500 limit billing)

 

[Brian Noble]

No, this wasn't a mistake. And, I did not mind. In fact, I think the concierge even said something about "can I put this on your card on file" so it is not like it was a surprise. I've seen this before too---tickets are handled differently, as is the $95 fee that exchange inbounds pay. That is also charged to your card immediately on check-in, rather than added to your "line of credit."

 

[BrentR]

Would it be a risk you'd be willing to take? In short, although $1,400 is not a small amount of money, fighting in court over agressive collection practices as a person seems to be an additional cost waiting to happen. There is also the point of making sure you're not throwing stones from a glass house, depending on how far it got, the person could retaliate and find some stuff about you or make your life more difficult (ie. filing a complaint to the IRS that someone failed to report income from the rental of the property).

Anybody can file any legal action they would like as long as they have the money for the filing fees and the service of process fees. Then you would have to defend yourself and that may be very inconvenient to say the least. Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating harassing tactics for collecting any debts, by corporation, individual or any other. I just find it a little far fetched to believe the FDCPA could be successfully used against an individual trying to enforce a contract against another individual.

I would agree that if you do plan on going to court... attempt a few phone calls and/or letters and try to get it resolved in a civil manner and if that cannot be accomplished then file the court action and follow it through. Better than having to explain yourself to the judge when the harassment argument is brought up against you!!!

 

[Bell30012]

I believe that the OP should absolutely pursue civil action against the renter. However, I would discourage sending any letters or informing third parties about the issue. While it may embarrass a person into paying, if sued for liable or slander you will spend more on legal fees defending the case than the $1400 you are out.

Get a judgment in small claims court and then follow up with the legal collection remedies provided by TN law. Many states allow collection of judgments through wage garnishments or even the wonderful tool called a Writ of FiFa.

I collected a small claims judgment by having a tow company AND a deputy sheriff accompany me to the person's home. We loaded his truck up on the flatbed and hauled it away. It was amazing. The next day I received a cashier's check for the judgment and he got his truck back.

 

[maminnie]

Let's all keep in mind that when you check in, the front desk rep asks you what cards you want charging privileges on. So it would be simple for DVC to mark the reservation with "no charging privileges" and NO KTTW card to have this option. Individual renters could simply use their charge card at the Disney ticket booths, restaurants, stores, etc. to pay for their purchases. A swipe of a card is quite simply a swipe of a card whether it is a credit card or a KTTW card.

Seems rediculous that we as owners cannot request no charging privileges should we wish.

Why am I not surprised that something SO SIMPLE and a reasonable request would be made difficult or denied by DVC and Disney.

 

[vicki_c]

Let's all keep in mind that when you check in, the front desk rep asks you what cards you want charging privileges on. So it would be simple for DVC to mark the reservation with "no charging privileges" and NO KTTW card to have this option. Individual renters could simply use their charge card at the Disney ticket booths, restaurants, stores, etc. to pay for their purchases. A swipe of a card is quite simply a swipe of a card whether it is a credit card or a KTTW card.

Seems rediculous that we as owners cannot request no charging privileges should we wish.

Why am I not surprised that something SO SIMPLE and a reasonable request would be made difficult or denied by DVC and Disney.

For like the 15th time - Disney has NO incentive to do that - it would end up costing them money in park purchases, dining, etc. They want to make it easy for people to buy things.

 

[LisaS]

Why am I not surprised that something SO SIMPLE and a reasonable request would be made difficult or denied by DVC and Disney.

Crisi made a really good point about this, that Disney probably doesn't want to end up in the middle of any disputes between owners and renters. What if the owner requested "No charging privileges" but MS forgot to record the request on the reservation or the front desk overlooked it? What happens if the renter throws a fit at check-in and insists he/she be given charging privileges? Since Disney stands to lose financially if the guest is denied charging privileges, they have no incentive to offer this option to owners and good reasons to avoid it.

 

[maminnie]

For like the 15th time - Disney has NO incentive to do that - it would end up costing them money in park purchases, dining, etc. They want to make it easy for people to buy things.

Why in the world would it cost Disney money.....the renter would just use their credit card instead of their KTTW card. The KTTW card is just like a credit card....swipe and sign. No card is easier then the other.

If at check-in there was a problem, the renter would have to get in touch with those from whom he/she rented from. Not Disney's problem. Prior to the stay, the DVC member could easily check their written reservation and even call the resort to make sure it is on the reservation.

You would think that Disney and DVC would want to assist rather then make it difficult to prevent fraudulent activity by people.

 

[maminnie]

With the current post going on where a member is now responsible for $1400 in charges, it sounds like future renters including those through professional companies/services may want to include a security deposit for potential damages and unpaid charges.

The unpaid charge issue could easily be taken care of if the owner was simply permitted to put a "no charge clause" on the reservation.

 

[Chuck S]

Why in the world would it cost Disney money.....the renter would just use their credit card instead of their KTTW card. The KTTW card is just like a credit card....swipe and sign. No card is easier then the other.

If at check-in there was a problem, the renter would have to get in touch with those from whom he/she rented from. Not Disney's problem. Prior to the stay, the DVC member could easily check their written reservation and even call the resort to make sure it is on the reservation.

You would think that Disney and DVC would want to assist rather then make it difficult to prevent fraudulent activity by people.

It isn't so much "ease of use" vs a credit card, but the mind set of the guest. It seems more "magical" to spend on a room key, and people simpy tend to spend more on a room key than if they have to whip out a "real" credit card.

When we checked in for our current reservation, the entire resort computer system was down for system upgrades. They gave us a single blank room key, white, with our last name hand written on it. We just didn't feel "checked-in" at Disney until we had our "real" room keys with charging. And again, the right to room charge is simply part of the onsite Disney experience, the experience that makes people want to stay onsite and rent a DVC reservation, over say, Bonnet Creek or any other timeshare. Why did we, as owners, buy DVC vs. Marriott...wasn't for the onsite experience? It sure doesn't save us $$ versus offsite.

 

[Deb & Bill]

Plus it is so easy to hand over that KTTW to pay for those plush toys, the t-shirts, a dozen boxes of popcorn and two dozen sodas. Before you know it, you have spent a whole bunch of money using the KTTW.

For some reason, people don't want to use their own credit card. Maybe because they are afraid of someone stealing their card number and using it to pay for liposuction or something.