Advice needed! Room canceled accidentally

[robinb]

Unlikely, to provide a comparable or even semi comparable option would put his cost at about 3-4 times each of the original reservation costs or more.

I was going by the following post ...

On the contrary, with social media the way it is, David's is getting bad press with anyone who reads reviews, blogs, facebook pages, etc. Retreating to the legal wording of his contract is very bad press and a bad business decision. I know he's already lost a lot of customers (both Owners and Renters, I am both) since these two issues have come to light (and there could be more then those two since it's quite possible other renters are not on this board).

The solution to this problem, as I pointed out, is not something that would have cost him thousands of dollars. In fact, considering what he makes off a contract, he'd still have come close to breaking even on the two deals.

Let's take a look at the cydswipe's example :
Extra cost to upgrade from Studio to 1BR Oct 11-15: $96
Cost of 2 nights not covered by above at All-Star Music Oct 9-11: $280.24
Total Cost $376.24

Now, let's look at what David's is making: 112 points at SSR @ $2.75/point = $308.00

Therefore the total cost to David's would have been $68.24 to turn this from a bad press situation to a good press situation.

 

[disneyberry]

Insight might be a little strong, LOL. More semieducated guess.

Completely OT, but Dean used the term "LOL". Never thought I'd see that, heh.

 

[Dean]

I was going by the following post ...

I know but it's not accurate. David is out the money paid to the owner which he'll likely never see. To replace the same item if available would be roughly double using points and more through CRO. Of course my rough comparison included the up front monies. IMO the precedent is more important than the dollars as well.

 

[Dean]

I was going by the following post ...

I don't post much in humor simply because it can be taken the wrong way. If someone gets upset with me, I'd prefer it to be because they disagree with my principles.

 

[supersnoop]

I was going by the following post ...

Do you really think two nights at a value resort and two nights at SSR constitutes a reasonable substitution for six nights at the Beach Club during Food & Wine?

No, that substitution, which would cost David $100, would be less desirable than just refunding the money.

David charged $1,288 for that room. There are none available, even for cash. The hotel rooms are available, and a standard view is $2,987.

 

[robinb]

Do you really think two nights at a value resort and two nights at SSR constitutes a reasonable substitution for six nights at the Beach Club during Food & Wine?

No, that substitution, which would cost David $100, would be less desirable than just refunding the money.

David charged $1,288 for that room. There are none available, even for cash. The hotel rooms are available, and a standard view is $2,987.

No, of course it's not reasonable comparison but it's better than the renter has now.

 

[supersnoop]

No, of course it's not reasonable comparison but it's better than the renter has now.

So, you're advocating for David to charge them for a BCV room, but put them in a value and SSR, and that's better than giving their money back. If he did that, we'd be talking about how unfair it was and how he should just refund their money.

 

[Sammie]

Sorry this happened, it does stink. However many of us have said for some time that using a broker is more about convenience and less about guaranteeing nothing will happen to the reservation. Only the DVC member controls the reservation, not David, nor any other broker. Until the guest checks into the hotel the member could cancel. I think the best lesson here is there are risks, hence the lower cost than renting from Disney.

I see no fault in anything David has done. He can't control what he has no control over.

 

[Paula Sedley-Burke]

I have used David for next year. I must say I am not over impressed by this either. I am sorry for your aunt and you. You booked early you deserve to be in the same location. What if this happens when you check in! Not good enough to say ah well here is your money back when my international flight arrives at 10pm!

 

[crisi]

I doubt one could get such insurance or if they could, the price would be unreasonable. They've already limited their exposure but the wording that's come into play here.

IF you could get such insurance - it wouldn't be valid IF us (sorry, I didn't finish this and wasn't going to) - IF you could get such insurance, it wouldn't pay out if you didn't adhere to your contract - which says you'll reimburse them, not that you'll take on additional expenses. And IF you could get that insurance (which I agree is unlikely) getting insurance to do more than that (actually putting out MORE money) would be even more unlikely.

As to a write off, yep, David gets to write this off against his profits. But remember (this isn't at you Dean, I know you know all of this), a write off is like a mortgage deduction. Any time you want to give me $1 so I can give you $.33 back, I'll be happy to take your money.

I have used David for next year. I must say I am not over impressed by this either. I am sorry for your aunt and you. You booked early you deserve to be in the same location. What if this happens when you check in! Not good enough to say ah well here is your money back when my international flight arrives at 10pm!

It can and its something you need to be aware of as a renter. It isn't LIKELY, but it can happen. And, there is NOTHING David can do to prevent it. If this risk is too big, you are not a good candidate to rent points from anyone, including a broker.

 

[robinb]

So, you're advocating for David to charge them for a BCV room, but put them in a value and SSR, and that's better than giving their money back. If he did that, we'd be talking about how unfair it was and how he should just refund their money.

No, stop putting words in my mouth. He has to offer the refund as per his contract. It would have been nice if his company offered an alternative.

 

[lawboy2001]

As others have pointed out, David's is just an intermediary, and his contract does not promise anything beyond his intermediary / brokerage services.

David's I'm sure can decide what is in its business interests, and has decided, not unreasonably, that it isn't going to get into making things right when the member screws up and a reservation is lost. They'll refund the money but they won't work to get a new reservation - unfortunate situation for sure, but David's response is reasonable.

Services such as David's are really of more benefit to owners than renters it seems to me. As an owner I can quickly rent my points at a pretty good rate, with much less hassle and stress than tracking down a renter personally. Whereas as a renter, you really are in no better position than if you dealt with an owner directly. You still have the risk the owner will flake, and you are paying about the same rates.

Threats not to use David's again would only be credible or rational if there were some vendor out there who did more, and guaranteed you a reservation even if the owner flaked. No one does that of course.

 

[suebeelin]

I have used David for next year. I must say I am not over impressed by this either. I am sorry for your aunt and you. You booked early you deserve to be in the same location. What if this happens when you check in! Not good enough to say ah well here is your money back when my international flight arrives at 10pm!

I truly think if people do not want the risk, they should book cash with Disney directly. Don't worry about "saving" money -- or buy dvc and become an owner.

If David's sets a precedent for "booking" a new room for a renter when the owner defaults, what's to stop an unscrupulous owner from:

1. Renting out points
2. Contacting David and setting up a reservation for himself
3. Getting 50% upfront
4. Fulfilling his own point request
5. Canceling the reservation
6. Contacting David to notify of cancelled reservation
7. Demanding tha David give him a comparable room (and getting it due to aforementioned precedent)
8. Having a free vacation (free room due to precedent) bc the reservation was cancelled plus getting 50% of funds. The 50% of funds is nice spending money for the free vacation.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

As an owner, they can get a free vacation AND make money. Granted it may be a one tend or two time thing, but the small business owner is screwed... Royally.

PRECEDENT SHOULD NOT BE SET.

 

[crisi]

As others have pointed out, David's is just an intermediary, and his contract does not promise anything beyond his intermediary / brokerage services.

David's I'm sure can decide what is in its business interests, and has decided, not unreasonably, that it isn't going to get into making things right when the member screws up and a reservation is lost. They'll refund the money but they won't work to get a new reservation - unfortunate situation for sure, but David's response is reasonable.

Services such as David's are really of more benefit to owners than renters it seems to me. As an owner I can quickly rent my points at a pretty good rate, with much less hassle and stress than tracking down a renter personally. Whereas as a renter, you really are in no better position than if you dealt with an owner directly. You still have the risk the owner will flake, and you are paying about the same rates.

Threats not to use David's again would only be credible or rational if there were some vendor out there who did more, and guaranteed you a reservation even if the owner flaked. No one does that of course.

I disagree that you aren't in a better position - as a renter (and I've been both an owner and a renter with David) if I had shown up for my HHI reservation without a room, David would have refunded my money. That would have allowed me to get my Girl Scouts some room somewhere - maybe just some hotel rooms at a Day's Inn, but we could have done something rather than being stranded on HHI with insufficient cookie money for a room. (I would have had to have ponied up the cash until the refund came through, and I'd probably have put in a little more than we got back, but it would have been better than losing it all).

 

[suebeelin]

As others have pointed out, David's is just an intermediary, and his contract does not promise anything beyond his intermediary / brokerage services.

David's I'm sure can decide what is in its business interests, and has decided, not unreasonably, that it isn't going to get into making things right when the member screws up and a reservation is lost. They'll refund the money but they won't work to get a new reservation - unfortunate situation for sure, but David's response is reasonable.

Services such as David's are really of more benefit to owners than renters it seems to me. As an owner I can quickly rent my points at a pretty good rate, with much less hassle and stress than tracking down a renter personally. Whereas as a renter, you really are in no better position than if you dealt with an owner directly. You still have the risk the owner will flake, and you are paying about the same rates.

Threats not to use David's again would only be credible or rational if there were some vendor out there who did more, and guaranteed you a reservation even if the owner flaked. No one does that of course.

The benefit if going through a broker is getting your monies back should there be an issue with the reservation. Full refund.

As an owner, the risks are actually much greater.

Should a rentee trash the room, the owner is assessed charges to fix said damage.

Should a renter "skip" on the bill, the owner is liable for said bill.

Broker does nothing.

I'm actually stressing over my first rental. I'm not doing it again. The paltry $700 that I am putting towards my maint fees is just not worth the risks that are mentioned above.

 

[ErinC]

David's has done exactly as promised and what the contract specifies. If he came out of pocket to provide accommodations for these families then it would be plastered all over these boards and then the next time something happened the expectations for him would be to do something even greater than the last. I am terribly sad that this has happened to the OP and really do feel bad for them. But it's June and thankfully their trip isn't until October. I understand that they aren't going to be in the accommodations they hoped for, but I'm certain they will be able to find somewhere at disney. Yes it's disappointing, but I'd be grateful that I have my money back in my hand and I have 4 months to alter me plans. This is much better than standing at the check in counter in October with no reservation and no money and no recourse. I'd say that's some insurance when you choose to use a broker vs. going out on your own.
With all that said we can all speculate as to the reasons David gave to the renters, but none of us really can know for sure what's happened to the points or reservation including David himself. He's kind of in a bad situation as well and I'm sure is taking a loss on paying back the money as well. No one would think very highly of him if he just sent the OP an email speculating about what happened to the reservation. I just don't unserstand the bashing of Davids service in some of these posts?

 

[freediverdude]

Completely OT, but Dean used the term "LOL". Never thought I'd see that, heh.

OMG he did! This is precedent! LOL

 

[supersnoop]

No, stop putting words in my mouth. He has to offer the refund as per his contract. It would have been nice if his company offered an alternative.

They'll refund the money but they won't work to get a new reservation - unfortunate situation for sure, but David's response is reasonable.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
...
PRECEDENT SHOULD NOT BE SET.

This is hilarious. David will, and has in the past, book alternative arrangements when something has fallen through. He absolutely will do that. If it's available. There is no "reasonable alternative" here. There are no other DVC rooms available. So he's left with his final recourse, refunding the money.

 

[zavandor]

It's a matter of risk vs benefit. Like when you invest money.
If you put your money in a high risk-high revenue fund, then you should know that your capital is at risk and you could gain much more money than a saving account, but you could also loose big money.

The same for a WDW reservation: you could book through Disney and get a travel insurance. If anything happens you get all your money back. But this comes at a cost.
Do you want to save a lot of money? Rent from an owner, but the risk of loosing everything is there.
Do you want to save a little less and at least get the money back in case of a cancellation made by the owner (and still risk of loosing everything if you need to cancel due to your problems?), then go through a broker.

It's not reasonable to pick the option to save money without accepting to take the risk.

 

[Paula Sedley-Burke]

I truly think if people do not want the risk, they should book cash with Disney directly. Don't worry about "saving" money -- or buy dvc and become an owner.

If David's sets a precedent for "booking" a new room for a renter when the owner defaults, what's to stop an unscrupulous owner from:

1. Renting out points
2. Contacting David and setting up a reservation for himself
3. Getting 50% upfront
4. Fulfilling his own point request
5. Canceling the reservation
6. Contacting David to notify of cancelled reservation
7. Demanding tha David give him a comparable room (and getting it due to aforementioned precedent)
8. Having a free vacation (free room due to precedent) bc the reservation was cancelled plus getting 50% of funds. The 50% of funds is nice spending money for the free vacation.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

As an owner, they can get a free vacation AND make money. Granted it may be a one tend or two time thing, but the small business owner is screwed... Royally.

PRECEDENT SHOULD NOT BE SET.

Yes fair points. We do own DVC we just ran out of points! It is true that there is some risk as it's cheaper than rack rate! No such thing as a free lunch! Sometimes we do book a value like AoA direct because as you point out less risk. So I guess you have to accept the possibility of the owner letting David down.