Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[starry_solo]

I rented points for 7 nights mid-may at AKL. I am willing to move my reservation to a different date, but my fear now is that by the time David's actually contacts me, there won't be any more availability left for the summer, and my wife is in school so if we can't find summer availability I'm not sure what we are going to do.

Since you have the owner's name, see if you can find them yourself? Send an email to David's (which won't be responded to), requesting the owner's contact information, too.

EDIT: for clarify

 

[starry_solo]

I am owner and have a mid May renter and I offered to David's to rebook for later but was told they are working on March and April and will get to May sometime in future. I wish you were my mid May rental and we could work on this together but mine was for PVB

Since you have the renter's contact information, maybe contact them yourself?

 

[badeacon]

This is a specific case of a frustrated contract. The owner cannot provide a room 'through no fault of their own.' The contract cannot be performed and, normally, the parties are put back to their original possessions -- i.e. money paid is returned.

That is what should happen, legally. David's should be paying back the 30% he is holding, to the renter, and the owner should be paying back the 70% they received, to David's or directly to the renter.

I am not a lawyer and realize that common sense does not apply to the law a lot of times ,but the owner's points that he receives back are not as valuable as they were when rented. To me the points I receive with each use year essentially have a 2 year life span or could be 3 year if borrow into previous year, and some degree of depreciation should apply to the points. In my case I ,as owner , rented points in June 2019 for an April 2020 stay. The value of my points I receive back now is not the same as they were in June 2019.
There should be some shared pain between all parties. If the renter receives all their money back and owner as well as David's give all back, then I do not feel that is fair.
I also do not feel David's remedy for this situation is fair as the owner and renter share all the pain.

 

[LAX]

I think it is more accurate than saying your renting a reservation. The price of the "reservation" is based off of the total number of points, right. All prices are based off of point charts for the dates of the reservation, that's why there are point calculators on all the brokers websites.

Most websites talk about "renting points" the whole DVC system is based off of this. So that is why I wonder why people keep saying they are renting a reservation..... they are renting points, represented by a reservation.

People (in general) claim it's a reservation they are paying for because it gives them much more leverage with respect to reimbursement should something turn bad, which is what's happening. I think if a contract specifically spells out that it's the points that renters are paying for, then brokers and owners won't be entangled in this mess, IMHO. If that is the case, then the renters will get back what they paid for, which are the points, once DVC releases them after cancellation. Then, it would be up to the renters to decide what to do with those points whether they expire in 1 month or 1 year.

I suspect brokers who end up surviving this will need to be much more specific in their contracts as to what renters are paying for to minimize their and owners' exposure to future risks if they haven't already done so (obviously David's isn't).

LAX

 

[Matty B13]

That is what should happen, legally. David's should be paying back the 30% he is holding, to the renter, and the owner should be paying back the 70% they received, to David's or directly to the renter.

shouldn’t maintenance fees and owner administrative fees be taken out of this refund? Since the owner spent time booking the reservation and maintained the fees so the booking could be done?

 

[fsjking]

People (in general) claim it's a reservation they are paying for because it gives them much more leverage with respect to reimbursement should something turn bad, which is what's happening. I think if a contract specifically spells out that it's the points that renters are paying for, then brokers and owners won't be entangled in this mess, IMHO. If that is the case, then the renters will get back what they paid for, which are the points, once DVC releases them after cancellation. Then, it would be up to the renters to decide what to do with those points whether they expire in 1 month or 1 year.

I suspected brokers who end up surviving this will need to be much more specific in their contracts as to what renters are paying for to minimize their and owners' exposure to future risks if they haven't already done so (obviously David's isn't).

LAX

Since a renter can't actually call Disney up and use those points, no. The owner retains use of the points at all times. They cannot transfer them to the renter no matter how you write the contract with David's.

shouldn’t maintenance fees and owner administrative fees be taken out of this refund? Since the owner spent time booking the reservation and maintained the fees so the booking could be done?

Are you going to pay the renter interest for holding their money for 11 months(or however long)? Were you going to not pay your maintenance fees if the points were not rented? The contract does not stipulate that either party is responsible for the other party's costs.

 

[LAX]

I am not a lawyer and realize that common sense does not apply to the law a lot of times ,but the owner's points that he receives back are not as valuable as they were when rented. To me the points I receive with each use year essentially have a 2 year life span or could be 3 year if borrow into previous year, and some degree of depreciation should apply to the points. In my case I ,as owner , rented points in June 2019 for an April 2020 stay. The value of my points I receive back now is not the same as they were in June 2019.
There should be some shared pain between all parties. If the renter receives all their money back and owner as well as David's give all back, then I do not feel that is fair.
I also do not feel David's remedy for this situation is fair as the owner and renter share all the pain.

I absolutely agree with depreciated points, but it's difficult to decide what's fair for each of the three parties involved, especially if every one of them feel it's not "their fault" that this happened. It's difficult if everyone want themselves made whole and careless about who ends up paying for the loss as long as it's not them (in general as I have read some owners & renters have been willing to work something out).

LAX

 

[LAX]

Since a renter can't actually call Disney up and use those points, no. The owner retains use of the points at all times. They cannot transfer them to the renter no matter how you write the contract with David's.......

I would leave that to those who have a law degree and actually practice it for a living to figure that out (perhaps you might be one in real life).

LAX

 

[Amymouse13]

I'd like to assume if an owner has read this they know that many renters have contacted David's to just get a canned response saying we'll get back to you don't email again it will delay is getting back to you. So don't assume the renter hasn't contacted David's. Renters only have a first and last name and often that's not nearly enough to find the person's contact info. Like Jane Brown (not my owner but like good luck)

I can bet David's would not give a renter an owner's name as that's why owner's use David's to not have to get in middle. Honestly I'm not sure I'd even advise an owner to contact a renter as there is no moderater if they can't agree...

I'd be very wary of refunding cash to David's that isn't guaranteed to go to renter as honestly why? You likely aren't helping your renter.

I had hoped to simply rebook the points which seemed like a good idea if the dates worked, but no dice on empty promise voucher. If points can be rebooked seemed like owner was only out a little time calling to make new reservation but in theory not money... But you know it's not my circus.

Both of my April reservations are now cancelled and zippo from David so now... I'll do the next right thing...

 

[Sandisw]

People (in general) claim it's a reservation they are paying for because it gives them much more leverage with respect to reimbursement should something turn bad, which is what's happening. I think if a contract specifically spells out that it's the points that renters are paying for, then brokers and owners won't be entangled in this mess, IMHO. If that is the case, then the renters will get back what they paid for, which are the points, once DVC releases them after cancellation. Then, it would be up to the renters to decide what to do with those points whether they expire in 1 month or 1 year.

I suspect brokers who end up surviving this will need to be much more specific in their contracts as to what renters are paying for to minimize their and owners' exposure to future risks if they haven't already done so (obviously David's isn't).

LAX

If that is the case, then contracts why do contracts metnion no changes? Points have no specific dates to them,

If the renter is really renting points, and not a reservation, then they should be allowed to use them whenever they want before expiration.

 

[Sandisw]

I'd like to assume if an owner has read this they know that many renters have contacted David's to just get a canned response saying we'll get back to you don't email again it will delay is getting back to you. So don't assume the renter hasn't contacted David's. Renters only have a first and last name and often that's not nearly enough to find the person's contact info. Like Jane Brown (not my owner but like good luck)

I can bet David's would not give a renter an owner's name as that's why owner's use David's to not have to get in middle. Honestly I'm not sure I'd even advise an owner to contact a renter as there is no moderater if they can't agree...

I'd be very wary of refunding cash to David's that isn't guaranteed to go to renter as honestly why? You likely aren't helping your renter.

I had hoped to simply rebook the points which seemed like a good idea if the dates worked, but no dice on empty promise voucher. If points can be rebooked seemed like owner was only out a little time calling to make new reservation but in theory not money... But you know it's not my circus.

Both of my April reservations are now cancelled and zippo from David so now... I'll do the next right thing...

I think the bigger problem is that David’s does not want owners and renters to connect and work it out without him because then he loses the opportunity to collect the money.

But, I am with you, if my renter was an April or May renter, I would not care and contact them directly, reschedule them, and then tell David’s it’s been resolved

I wish you luck.

 

[LAX]

If that is the case, then contracts why do contracts metnion no changes? Points have no specific dates to them,

If the renter is really renting points, and not a reservation, then they should be allowed to use them whenever they want before expiration.

Maybe moving forward, things will need to be different in order for the rental market to stay in business. Perhaps charge a fee for modifications as it requires extra effort? As an owner, I certainly don't want to worry about some catastrophic event happening down the road and end up coughing up my payment through no fault of my own plus losing all the rented points. The whole idea of renting out points that I can't use is so that I don't have to worry them at all afterwards. If I am still faced with similar risks, then I might as well just gift them to friends and family.

LAX

 

[Amymouse13]

I think the bigger problem is that David’s does not want owners and renters to connect and work it out without him because then he loses the opportunity to collect the money.

But, I am with you, if my renter was an April or May renter, I would not care and contact them directly, reschedule them, and then tell David’s it’s been resolved

I wish you luck.

And I mean I know they are cancelled bc they disappeared from my Disney app not because David's contacted me lol.

Possibly voucher idea was proposed to reduce owner renter contact-. If the owners assumed renters were taken care of... Maybe some renters thought the voucher sounded great.

 

[Galun]

People (in general) claim it's a reservation they are paying for because it gives them much more leverage with respect to reimbursement should something turn bad, which is what's happening. I think if a contract specifically spells out that it's the points that renters are paying for, then brokers and owners won't be entangled in this mess, IMHO. If that is the case, then the renters will get back what they paid for, which are the points, once DVC releases them after cancellation. Then, it would be up to the renters to decide what to do with those points whether they expire in 1 month or 1 year.

I suspect brokers who end up surviving this will need to be much more specific in their contracts as to what renters are paying for to minimize their and owners' exposure to future risks if they haven't already done so (obviously David's isn't).

LAX

The language is already there.

"This is an agreement to rent points that represent accommodations only ... Should accommodations not be available on date of arrival due to an action or omission by the Owner, including but not limited to negligence on the part of the Owner and after communication with the Intermediary, suitable comparable accommodations for the same dates cannot be secured by the Owner, the Renter will be due a refund limited to the amount paid".

Contract states numerous times that it's non refundable, with one clause stating an exception due to an action or omission by the owner, which isn't the case here. The contract isn't for a confirmed reservation, it's to rent points that represent accommodation. But again, it's a contract with three different parties, one of which is a Canadian, and the other two parties can be from different states in the US, or from another country. The chance of winning, and collecting if you win, is close to zero.

Now that I think about it, I change my mind on the chance of success in chargeback. Originally I thought it was much lower. But then it's really up to the renter to convince the issuing bank. The investigator at the issuing bank will look at the situation - renter paid for a reservation, DVC canceled it due to closure, but the "broker" won't give a refund. The average investigator at the issuing bank isn't going to understand all this DVC stuff and differentiate broker vs. Disney, and likely approve the chargeback. Then it's up to David's to present the case to his merchant bank, explain that the renter paid for points instead of an actual reservation, and convince the issuing bank to charge the customer. Again, common sense would dictate that the renter wins. Good luck with that.

Yeah... the outlook looks pretty grim for the intermediary I think. Just look at stub hub. If they have confidence in winning in a chargeback, they wouldn't offer 120% credit for future purchase, which avoids the chargeback. They won't be willing to lose 20% if they have confidence in winning the chargeback argument. This was from a company that was acquired for $4.5 billion in late 2019. You'd think they have the resources to hire lawyers and explore every possible angle. This is the solution they come up with - basically paying a 20% premium to any willing takers to avoid the chargeback.

 

[Sandisw]

The language is already there.

"This is an agreement to rent points that represent accommodations only ... Should accommodations not be available on date of arrival due to an action or omission by the Owner, including but not limited to negligence on the part of the Owner and after communication with the Intermediary, suitable comparable accommodations for the same dates cannot be secured by the Owner, the Renter will be due a refund limited to the amount paid".

Contract states numerous times that it's non refundable, with one clause stating an exception due to an action or omission by the owner, which isn't the case here. The contract isn't for a confirmed reservation, it's to rent points that represent accommodation. But again, it's a contract with three different parties, one of which is a Canadian, and the other two parties can be from different states in the US, or from another country. The chance of winning, and collecting if you win, is close to zero.

Now that I think about it, I change my mind on the chance of success in chargeback. Originally I thought it was much lower. But then it's really up to the renter to convince the issuing bank. The investigator at the issuing bank will look at the situation - renter paid for a reservation, DVC canceled it due to closure, but the "broker" won't give a refund. The average investigator at the issuing bank isn't going to understand all this DVC stuff and differentiate broker vs. Disney, and likely approve the chargeback. Then it's up to David's to present the case to his merchant bank, explain that the renter paid for points instead of an actual reservation, and convince the issuing bank to charge the customer. Again, common sense would dictate that the renter wins. Good luck with that.

Yeah... the outlook looks pretty grim for the intermediary I think. Just look at stub hub. If they have confidence in winning in a chargeback, they wouldn't offer 120% credit for future purchase, which avoids the chargeback. They won't be willing to lose 20% if they have confidence in winning the chargeback argument. This was from a company that was acquired for $4.5 billion in late 2019. You'd think they have the resources to hire lawyers and explore every possible angle. This is the solution they come up with - basically paying a 20% premium to any willing takers to avoid the chargeback.

Its why it makes no sense to me to see how one can argue the person rented points but not a reservation.

An owner can’t deliver just points to a renter, unless that renter is another DVC owner.

Maybe it’s me.

 

[Sandisw]

Maybe moving forward, things will need to be different in order for the rental market to stay in business. Perhaps charge a fee for modifications as it requires extra effort? As an owner, I certainly don't want to worry about some catastrophic event happening down the road and end up coughing up my payment through no fault of my own plus losing all the rented points. The whole idea of renting out points that I can't use is so that I don't have to worry them at all afterwards. If I am still faced with similar risks, then I might as well just gift them to friends and family.

LAX

Like I said, maybe it is me, but no matter how you word it, a renter is renting a reservation.

I am not sure how many renters would pay for points, if the owner didn’t actually book a room.

 

[ziravan]

I don't know what Dave's contracts look like, but aren't some of the rental contracts out there a contract to rent points, which can then be used to make reservations? If that were the case would that make any difference at all to what is happening or what either party was responsible for?

My contract specifically says that once purchased, THE POINTS belong to the renter. It lists the expiration of the points and says that, within reason, I will work to rebook a trip if necessary. Within reason to me means I won’t do so 5 or 6 times. It also list cancellation policy and says points are subject to that policy and it states that any rebooking is subject to availability and due to the nature of timeshares, could be a significant issue.

Specifically, I sell points not rent reservations. All sales are final transactions.

My contract also has a force majeure clause that says we split the loss if a trip can’t be performed because of circumstances beyond our control. In the case of the one renter that got stranded with an April reservation, it wasn’t a true force majeure because she owns the points and there was plenty of time to rebook, which we did for Fall.

In any case, BECAUSE it wasn’t a true force majeure and because the points were an April UY for an April trip - I could have easily made reuse of them - I offered a full refund. She elected to rebook. It worked out well because she was able to trade Easter upcharge AKV stay for Fall Poly stay for the same number of night.

 

[Sandisw]

My contract specifically says that once purchased, THE POINTS belong to the renter. It lists the expiration of the points and says that, within reason, I will work to rebook a trip if necessary. Within reason to me means I won’t do so 5 or 6 times. It also list cancellation policy and says points are subject to that policy and it states that any rebooking is subject to availability and due to the nature of timeshares, could be a significant issue.

Specifically, I sell points not rent reservations. All sales are final transactions.

My contract also has a force majeure clause that says we split the loss if a trip can’t be performed because of circumstances beyond our control. In the case of the one renter that got stranded with an April reservation, it wasn’t a true force majeure because she owns the points and there was plenty of time to rebook, which we did for Fall.

In any case, BECAUSE it wasn’t a true force majeure and because the points were an April UY for an April trip - I could have easily made reuse of them - I offered a full refund. She elected to rebook.

Your contract makes sense to me.

 

[Amymouse13]

My contract specifically says that once purchased, THE POINTS belong to the renter. It lists the expiration of the points and says that, within reason, I will work to rebook a trip if necessary. Within reason to me means I won’t do so 5 or 6 times. It also list cancellation policy and says points are subject to that policy and it states that any rebooking is subject to availability and due to the nature of timeshares, could be a significant issue.

Specifically, I sell points not rent reservations. All sales are final transactions.

My contract also has a force majeure clause that says we split the loss if a trip can’t be performed because of circumstances beyond our control. In the case of the one renter that got stranded with an April reservation, it wasn’t a true force majeure because she owns the points and there was plenty of time to rebook, which we did for Fall.

In any case, BECAUSE it wasn’t a true force majeure and because the points were an April UY for an April trip - I could have easily made reuse of them - I offered a full refund. She elected to rebook. It worked out well because she was able to trade Easter upcharge AKV stay for Fall Poly stay for the same number of night.

Your own company contract?

 

[LAX]

The language is already there.

"This is an agreement to rent points that represent accommodations only ... Should accommodations not be available on date of arrival due to an action or omission by the Owner, including but not limited to negligence on the part of the Owner and after communication with the Intermediary, suitable comparable accommodations for the same dates cannot be secured by the Owner, the Renter will be due a refund limited to the amount paid".

Contract states numerous times that it's non refundable, with one clause stating an exception due to an action or omission by the owner, which isn't the case here. The contract isn't for a confirmed reservation, it's to rent points that represent accommodation. But again, it's a contract with three different parties, one of which is a Canadian, and the other two parties can be from different states in the US, or from another country. The chance of winning, and collecting if you win, is close to zero.

Now that I think about it, I change my mind on the chance of success in chargeback. Originally I thought it was much lower. But then it's really up to the renter to convince the issuing bank. The investigator at the issuing bank will look at the situation - renter paid for a reservation, DVC canceled it due to closure, but the "broker" won't give a refund. The average investigator at the issuing bank isn't going to understand all this DVC stuff and differentiate broker vs. Disney, and likely approve the chargeback. Then it's up to David's to present the case to his merchant bank, explain that the renter paid for points instead of an actual reservation, and convince the issuing bank to charge the customer. Again, common sense would dictate that the renter wins. Good luck with that.

Yeah... the outlook looks pretty grim for the intermediary I think. Just look at stub hub. If they have confidence in winning in a chargeback, they wouldn't offer 120% credit for future purchase, which avoids the chargeback. They won't be willing to lose 20% if they have confidence in winning the chargeback argument. This was from a company that was acquired for $4.5 billion in late 2019. You'd think they have the resources to hire lawyers and explore every possible angle. This is the solution they come up with - basically paying a 20% premium to any willing takers to avoid the chargeback.

I am not talking about what has already happened. I am just saying moving forward, contracts will need to be spelled out CLEARLY so that at least the owners should be shielded from any future risks. If that puts an end to the rental market, then so be it. If I am no better off financially by renting than gifting to friends and family, then what's the point?

LAX