Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[DGsAtBLT]

He said if he returns the money it goes in David's pocket.

And even in a re-rent, there will end up being 2 reservations(original renters new res, and original owners new res), so he should get 2 commissions, all else being equal.



Prices change. Disney has raised prices since a lot of people booked their vacations too. Rebooking means you pay what the price is for the new vacation. If you have a credit, it's going to be for what you paid out originally. The price increase was before all of this started, so it is what it is. There's nothing nefarious to it.

No you’re misunderstanding me.

When the points are re rented to another party in order to make whole the original renters, there will be an extra $1 per point collected from the new renters above the original amount from the old renters, assuming for the sake of the example that the points all get re rented.

ETA: I wonder if that means they owner will get the difference. Did the price increase mean they get more per point now?

ETA2: I also didn’t say it was nefarious, but a further complication. Given the nature of David’s being brokers not owners of the product.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m starting to wonder if I should pursue this now, still haven’t had any contact that relates directly to our rental reservation, and maybe won’t for a while as we’re mid April.
I’ve had generic replies referring to WDW, but our reservation is for the Grand Californian at Disneyland...

We’re in the U.K. and haven’t got a lot of flexibility on ability to rebook, so not happy with the prospect of a credit.

But what would my credit card company expect me to be able to evidence? I’m not sure the lack of personalised comms or mid April date will help me here, combined with their no refunds policy... does anyone have any advice?

Different CC have different polices, but my understanding is that many will investigate the claim, regardless of the non refundable mention, because you paid for something that can’t be delivered

So, I know of instances where people are in that process...David’s has to then defend why you would not be entitled to the refund. The lack of language that addresses this situation will play a role.

So, as long as VGC is closed, and the date passes, you can request the refund, and if not granted, file the dispute, and go from there

 

[Sandisw]

I have a rental scheduled for check-in on April 2nd. DVC has not yet cancelled the reservation, even though they said they would be cancelling all reservations on a week-by-week basis. I assumed this reservation would have been cancelled by now and don't want to cancel it myself because of my contract as an owner with David's. I was also under the assumption that renters would be getting a travel credit in the case where owners would be unable/unwilling to refund the money. I don't see any evidence or proof that this is or is not happening. I have always had a great working relationship with David's and will continue to do business with them until I see proof that they are not doing right by their clients (both owners and renters). This is a herculean undertaking and I think we need to be sympathetic to the difficulty. Is it frustrating not being able to contact anyone, absolutely! But, be happy that we are all healthy enough to be sitting here at our computers browsing through these forums. Put it in perspective. It'll all shake out in the end. Right now, we're all drinking from the firehose. Its not easy, but we need some patience.

An email was shared here from an owner that said they could refund the money and it would go in an account for the renters future credit, or the owner could agree to re rent points.

Based on that email , it seems that the renter is not being given the choice of travel credit or refund, even if the owner says they will send it back.

 

[fsjking]

No you’re misunderstanding me.

When the points are re rented to another party in order to make whole the original renters, there will be an extra $1 per point collected from the new renters above the original amount from the old renters, assuming for the sake of the example that the points all get re rented.

ETA: I wonder if that means they owner will get the difference. Did the price increase mean they get more per point now?

ETA2: I also didn’t say it was nefarious, but a further complication. Given the nature of David’s being brokers not owners of the product.

David's raised his prices, not the owners, so yes he keeps the $1. If this never happened and, after their March reservation, a renter booked another rental, they'd have had to pay that additional $1 which Davids would have retained. Unless he has also raised the fees paid to owners as well. In that case it should be passed on to them. But that would be in the contract.

 

[Galun]

lol I must have missed the part of the stimulus that covers installment loans and lines of credit. A lot of businesses own their building, so no rent/mortgage. If you are shut down, you probably aren't paying payroll either as you would have laid most of your employees off. Companies like that use loans to buy equipment, or lines of credit to buy supplies or get 30 day net bills from suppliers. Those payments are still having to be made and there is no income coming in. If you are a business thats still open and rent a storefront, this is great. If you are shut down completely and own your location this does almost nothing for you.

Your payroll would still be covered by the payroll protection loan. You can lay off your employees now. As long as you hire them back immediately after loan origination date and before 6/30/2020 and maintain payroll for 2 months, the payroll loan will be forgiven.

If have taken out loans or incur expenses not covered by the stimulus bill, you apply for the SBA disaster loan to help with cash flow.

If you are shut down completely and own your location, you may not generate revenue / profit, but you are not incurring fixed expense either.

It certainly won't work out for everybody. But I think the government's response and stimulus plan was well thought out, and I am confident that it will ultimately work.

 

[grubens]

If it is helpful, I share my experience with DVC Rental Store. Many months ago I "sold" it two sets of points for reservations that now fall during the closure. I received 75% of dollars due to me when reservation was made and was to receive remaining 25% when reservation occurred. Both reservations where explained to me as "non-cancellable." When the renters cancelled, DVC Rental Store assured me I would receive the full amount due to me because those were the terms of the contract. It did not sit well with me and we are in a position to do so, so I gave back the 75%. It is my understanding based on an email exchange that the renters would receive back the full amount they paid, not just the portion I returned.

If you meant this thread to focus solely on David's, my apologies for inserting this and feel free to ignore.

 

[Maddiesmum03]

Wouldn’t re renting also complicate things in that prices have since gone up, so if for example an owner had initially used 300 points there’s now an extra $300 David’s collects assuming they’re all used for a new reservation, multiplied by how ever many new reservations there are. Where does that go? Maybe a buffer for situations where they can’t rent out the entire amount of original points.

I think you are correct. I was asked to re rent the points, but a few more than the original rental (I couldn’t, because I have no spare points!) and was told that any extra points in excess to the original rental would be paid at $15.50 per point, so I’m guessing the new renter would be paying the increased price for the full point value.

 

[Sandisw]

I’d caution against having too much confidence on a successful chargeback by the renter. The contract said it was non refundable and the renter was advised to purchase travel insurance. Granted nobody expected a pandemic, but cancel for any reason travel insurance does exist. David’s response to the chargeback will be that the renter should have purchased this type of insurance. Now he would certainly want to avoid the chargeback because it’s determined on a case by case basis, and he might lose. So he is offering the travel credit to avoid as many of those as possible.

Disney is refunding points for resorts that are closed, basically restoring them to whatever status they were before. There are really three categories of points status on the date of cancellation: 1). those that are in current UY that are still bankable, 2). those are are in current UY that are not bankable, and 3). those that were banked from previous UY. Not counting borrowed points because they will be restored to the future UY. Doubt there is a lot of those being rented anyways since rental prices had been going up.

If my points are in category 1 - points that are still bankable say by end of April (which seems to be when the feds are aiming to lift social distancing), I will provide a refund of the 70% paid to David’s and offer to re-rent my points, with the hope that the cash will allow David’s to survive this. Because If they don’t, I won’t get my remaining 30%. He is unlikely to get new reservations (and new cash) for the foreseeable future, so these points will likely be re-rented to someone with a travel credit. If the points are still bankable when I get them back due to a cancellation, then no harm no foul really, I don’t mind refunding the cash to give David’s a lifeline.

If my points are in category 2 and 3, the points are worth significantly less value to me, but I do already have the 70% which limits my maximum loss to 30% - the same amount I would have lost if David’s cease to exist. I am not providing a refund of any cash since that might be throwing good money after bad. However I will certainly offer to re-rent and it’s up to David’s to pull off the logistics of using those points given the more limited usage window. If David’s go under, that 70% I got would be enough to cover my MF, and then I have control in how to try to help the underlying renter.

If David’s go under, the bankruptcy trustee may go after the 70% he paid me for a reservation that had been cancelled. However I doubt a Canadian judgement is enforceable in the US.

David’s lose if the owner keeps the 70% payment AND the cancelled points. They will obviously never work with you again, but they may no longer exist in a couple months. They can probably come after you, although I don’t think they have the resource to do so. I’d hope owners won’t do this since we all benefit from a vibrant rental market. David’s also lose if the renter successfully pull off a chargeback. I think they are doing the right thing to try to minimize potential damage. If they do lose a chargeback, they don’t have to pay new cash to the credit card company, as the chargeback will be against future new credit card charges. If they got the points back from the owner to re-rent, then they are not spending new cash to fulfill reservations either. In theory they can survive the chargebacks.

This is a cash flow / liquidity issue. They can survive this if they can successfully utilize points in categories 2 and 3 to fulfill travel credit demands, while having the cash flow to weather through the storm before going under (they will get no new cash in for the foreseeable future due to significant drop off in travel demand - see the troubles with airlines / cruises / hotels right now). Large companies have credit lines for this reason. I hope he has access to liquidity to weather through this as he does have a good business model. I think this is why he is basically begging for the 70% back to get cash now.

Given current technology, it’s only a matter of time before a vaccine is developed, and people have short memories. The market will be depressed this year and possibly next, but Disney and DVC will be fine. David’s may not exist, but a new company will fill the void, with new contract terms that spell out force majeure.

The only thing I will add is that the contract discussed non refundable in relation to the actions of the renter, It does not discuss what happens when the room is not available through no fault of their own,

It is this missing language that may tip the scale with the CC in favor of the renter, especially since there are emails from him in which he has acknowledged his contract with the renter is void.

From my understanding, CC chargebacks take the funds immediately from the business during the process, so if he is getting hit with a lot of them, he has to have the funds available to continue without those funds, until he wither wins or loses,

That is what I see as an issue with how well his business can weather the storm. If I was a renter, I would be filing for a chargeback immediately and hope for the best, because not delivering a room was not covered in the terms of the contract.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

David's raised his prices, not the owners, so yes he keeps the $1. If this never happened and, after their March reservation, a renter booked another rental, they'd have had to pay that additional $1 which Davids would have retained. Unless he has also raised the fees paid to owners as well. In that case it should be passed on to them. But that would be in the contract.

I'm asking if the extra $1 being charged was because he was increasing the payout to owners, I genuinely don't know. If that is the case, if I was an owner re renting I would think I would be entitled to that extra money.

 

[Sandisw]

If I were a renter with a reservation that has a check-in date that has already passed, I would initiate a chargeback request right now, using the travel voucher email as evidence that the trip was not delivered and the money was not refunded. It might not work, but credit card companies tend to err on the side of their direct customers, because that's who pays the bills.



There is a minimum in which the CC issuer is required to offer the opportunity to make a request. In practice some will go longer, especially for customers they want to keep.

This made me think about airlines. Most will try to offer a travel credit, but I just learned...never knew...that they are required, even for non refundable tickets...to refund a passenger their money, per DOT guidelines, if the airline does the canceling.

So, in this case, could apply to renters in refusing a credit.

 

[TheWheel]

And don't forget Davids has send an email wherehe believes the ccontract with the renter is no longer valid. If the contract isn't valid, renter shoould get a refund. I'd include that email with any chargeback request.

Can someone please post that

 

[Sandisw]

The why he's doing it this way has been discussed. It's to keep liquid enough to try to survive this.

Where are you getting that he gets 2 commissions?

He gets the commission from the original renter, and now the new renter, Offering the refund to the renter directly means he has to send his share back too

 

[Galun]

Different CC have different polices, but my understanding is that many will investigate the claim, regardless of the non refundable mention, because you paid for something that can’t be delivered

So, I know of instances where people are in that process...David’s has to then defend why you would not be entitled to the refund. The lack of language that addresses this situation will play a role.

So, as long as VGC is closed, and the date passes, you can request the refund, and if not granted, file the dispute, and go from there

Well, if you are a renter, your counter party is not the hotel (Disney). Your counter party is the owner member, and David's as an intermediary.

For David's, I don't think they are on the hook for anything based on this language. "David’s Vacation Club Rentals is not liable for any operations changes by the Disney Vacation Club with respect to where you have booked your travel. This would include but is not limited to operations of resort restaurants, pools, play grounds and other amenities controlled by the Resort." However, if they don't help the renter, their reputation is ruined and they won't exist for much longer.

For the owner, I don't think they are on the hook either based on this language. "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". The renter got the points. The accommodation was not available not due to action or omission but he owner. The renter can use the points to make another accommodation reservation, but no refund. Well, and the fact that no refund has been mentioned numerous times in the contract. That's the way I read it.

The renters rented points that representation accommodations only. I think there is a strong argument that in the current situation the renter will gets the points - and the underlying restrictions behind those points - to make another reservation. They were advised to purchase travel insurance. There is a type of travel insurance that will cover this situation - cancel at any time.

So, I think David's has a strong case to defend a chargeback. Now, will the average credit card charge back investigator understand all this. I doubt it, and I think a lot of them will just rule for the credit card holder since that's ultimately their customer. I am just saying don't be so confident about it. If you initiate a charge back and fail, you burn the bridge and David's will have no incentive to help you secure another reservation.

 

[Galun]

He gets the commission from the original renter, and now the new renter, Offering the refund to the renter directly means he has to send his share back too

The original renter already paid the commission and they don't pay a new one for a new reservation.

A new renter with a new reservation will have never paid the commission.

I don't see the double commission. Nobody would have paid twice.

He would have made an extra dollar per point if he manage to use old points to re-rent at a higher rate. I think he'd be a fool to keep his rate at $19-20, or to keep his spread at $4.50. He needs new reservations to get new cash in, like yesterday.

 

[Sandisw]

Well, if you are a renter, your counter party is not the hotel (Disney). Your counter party is the owner member, and David's as an intermediary.

For David's, I don't think they are on the hook for anything based on this language. "David’s Vacation Club Rentals is not liable for any operations changes by the Disney Vacation Club with respect to where you have booked your travel. This would include but is not limited to operations of resort restaurants, pools, play grounds and other amenities controlled by the Resort." However, if they don't help the renter, their reputation is ruined and they won't exist for much longer.

For the owner, I don't think they are on the hook either based on this language. "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". The renter got the points. The accommodation was not available not due to action or omission but he owner. The renter can use the points to make another accommodation reservation, but no refund. Well, and the fact that no refund has been mentioned numerous times in the contract. That's the way I read it.

The renters rented points that representation accommodations only. I think there is a strong argument that in the current situation the renter will gets the points - and the underlying restrictions behind those points - to make another reservation. They were advised to purchase travel insurance. There is a type of travel insurance that will cover this situation - cancel at any time.

So, I think David's has a strong case to defend a chargeback. Now, will the average credit card charge back investigator understand all this. I doubt it, and I think a lot of them will just rule for the credit card holder since that's ultimately their customer. I am just saying don't be so confident about it. If you initiate a charge back and fail, you burn the bridge and David's will have no incentive to help you secure another reservation.

Actually, there are several reports that CFAR insurance is not covering this situation.

But, if David’s has put something out to owners that the contract with the renter is void, I can’t believe he didn’t do thst without first seeking legal advice, That is a big statement,

That alone leads me to believe he got advice that the lack of terms and conditions dealing with not delivering the reservation is questionable. It does mention operations but all those refer to amenities and I think a renter can argue that doest apply to closure,

Only way we will ever truly know if these contracts can be legally enforced as written would be through a court proceeding. Even the win of CC doesn’t mean that, but I agree, most renters will probsbly win, especially if they have a copy no something he sent to owners indicating the contract is void

 

[Sandisw]

The original renter already paid the commission and they don't pay a new one for a new reservation.

A new renter with a new reservation will have never paid the commission.

I don't see the double commission. Nobody would have paid twice.

He would have made an extra dollar per point if he manage to use old points to re-rent at a higher rate. I think he'd be a fool to keep his rate at $19-20, or to keep his spread at $4.50. He needs new reservations to get new cash in, like yesterday.

He loses the commission of the first renter when he refunds. I didn’t mean double commission on the same transaction, but that he suffers no loss by doing the travel credit vs, the refund, even when the owner of the points sends the money back,

Renters whose owners refund the money should be the ones deciding whether they take a credit or money, since the contract with that owner is being voided.

 

[Galun]

This made me think about airlines. Most will try to offer a travel credit, but I just learned...never knew...that they are required, even for non refundable tickets...to refund a passenger their money, per DOT guidelines, if the airline does the canceling.

So, in this case, could apply to renters in refusing a credit.

Unlike the airlines, there is no government authority that regulates a three way contract between two un-related parties (sometimes international), with a Canadian intermediary. Someone earlier said he who had the gold usually wins. The owner already has the 70% and David's has the 30%. The risk to his business comes from chargebacks and reputation.

I think this is a lot like stub hub. They are an intermediary between ticket holders and buyers, and they are running into exactly the same issue that David's has. Their current policy is 120% credit to buyer for future (that means no cash back to the buyer), and adjust the timing of payment to buyers until the event has actually happened.

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

David's raised his prices, not the owners, so yes he keeps the $1. If this never happened and, after their March reservation, a renter booked another rental, they'd have had to pay that additional $1 which Davids would have retained. Unless he has also raised the fees paid to owners as well. In that case it should be passed on to them. But that would be in the contract.

I'm asking if the extra $1 being charged was because he was increasing the payout to owners, I genuinely don't know. If that is the case, if I was an owner re renting I would think I would be entitled to that extra money.

The $1 price increase is a wash to David's as it is passed onto the owner (that is if David's doesn't breach the contract). Sometime in February (or could have been late January) and prior to this mess, David's increased it's owner payout for premium points from $14.50 to $15.50 per point and the fee to renters from $19 to $20 per point.

 

[Galun]

He loses the commission of the first renter when he refunds. I didn’t mean double commission on the same transaction, but that he suffers no loss by doing the travel credit vs, the refund, even when the owner of the points sends the money back,

Renters whose owners refund the money should be the ones deciding whether they take a credit or money, since the contract with that owner is being voided.

If he refunds he is out cash that he cannot afford to pay out. If he issues travel credit, he buys time.

I agree that conceptually if the owner refunds the money, that money should go to the specific renter. But the intermediary needs the cash, and he is part of the three way contract, and these are his terms. He is trying to survive and I understand what he is doing.

If I am an owner with an existing reservation. I want to see him survive so I can get the remaining 30%. So like I said, I would give back the 70% if my points can still be banked in the resort is not open by the time of travel.

The owner does have the renter's information and can give a refund on their own. Personally I wouldn't do it for two reasons. 1). If I initiate this, I might be the one that breached the contract. If I don't do anything, I won't. 2). You never know what the renter thinks. You might think you are doing them a favor by refunding 70%, but they might think you are the one that skimmed off the 30%. Then the renter is mad at you. And if you reach out, they now have your direct contact info. If I were the owner, I would let the dust settle before deciding to do anything, including trying to give remedy to the renter as much as possible. Again, most renters don't understand our restrictions as owners. If the renter expected total loss from David's and you reach out after that, they are more likely to see you as doing good instead of bad.

 

[Galun]

The $1 price increase is a wash to David's as it is passed onto the owner (that is if David's doesn't breach the contract). Sometime in February (or could have been late January) and prior to this mess, David's increased it's owner payout for premium points from $14.50 to $15.50 per point and the fee to renters from $19 to $20 per point.

I think he raised his price per point by $1 this year. So if he used points paid to owners last year to re-rent at a higher rate, he does make an extra dollar per point.