Does David's tell you if the renter cancels?

[Sandisw]

I asked this in the other thread but didn't get clarity. Isn't there a time limit/time frame that you have to dispute a charge by? Can you dispute a charge from 11 months ago? From my limited Google search it seems to me If it was an unauthorized charge I think most banks would be willing to help. But an authorized charge, which the David's charge was, I think the banks might use times against renters.

Has anyone here initiated a charge back yet? I have no skin in this fight but it is good info to know for future purchases (travel or not).

Yes, I know of a successful claim. But, as mentioned, there are different rules via the different cards and banks. So, one would have to contact and to find out if there is a limit,

I know when my DD debit card was being used for monthly subscriptions and it was an older account she wasn’t using and I wasn’t monitoring it either, they would only go back 4 months...7 months of actual charges...but that is because they services were delivered.

In this case, your service isn’t actually delivered until later, so it’s possible they deal with this differently.

 

[Van Houten]

Yes, I know of a successful claim. But, as mentioned, there are different rules via the different cards and banks. So, one would have to contact and to find out if there is a limit,

The two big ones (Visa and MC) have a 120-day rule, but with additional clauses regarding expected delivery timeframe. Amex has no formal time limit.
My bank accepted the case (Visa), even though my payment was made nearly a year ago, deposit at 12 months and reservation at 11 months.

 

[meryll83]

So WDW and DL now closed “until further notice”.
Bit vague, but I guess this now means I should be now eligible for some more contact around options to refund my mid-April Grand Californian rental... albeit they’ll probably work through reservations in date order.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

So WDW and DL now closed “until further notice”.
Bit vague, but I guess this now means I should be now eligible for some more contact around options to refund my mid-April Grand Californian rental... albeit they’ll probably work through reservations in date order.

Getting communication, especially not canned responses, for an early in the closure check in date has been like pulling teeth. Good luck!

 

[Maddiesmum03]

The points borrowed from Aug 2020 UY for David’s rental that didn’t happen have now gone back to that year. I let David’s know and got a thank you reply saying they would try to re rent the points to make the original renter whole.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that under the circumstances, offering to rebook for the original renters at a time that suits them would be sufficient recompense rather than getting the money back to them by finding new renters? I know it’s not a perfect fix, but surely most renters will want to still do Disney once this virus is put to rest? We are now at the point when within a couple of weeks, I could probably book the same BWV accommodation for the same dates next year. I do feel sorry for David’s company as they are in an impossible situation. There has been lots of chatter on here of whether the contracts were legal or not, but at the end of the day, renters entered into what they must have thought of as a no refund contract. Yes, this is an odd situation no one could have anticipated, but offering to defer the vacation is surely a good outcome?
I know DVC may stop putting borrowed points back, and there will also have been banked points that cannot be reused, but this is surely a good outcome for many renters? what do others think? If David’s have to rely on finding new renters for the points available they may never get out of this mess.

 

[Marionnette]

The points borrowed from Aug 2020 UY for David’s rental that didn’t happen have now gone back to that year. I let David’s know and got a thank you reply saying they would try to re rent the points to make the original renter whole.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that under the circumstances, offering to rebook for the original renters at a time that suits them would be sufficient recompense rather than getting the money back to them by finding new renters? I know it’s not a perfect fix, but surely most renters will want to still do Disney once this virus is put to rest? We are now at the point when within a couple of weeks, I could probably book the same BWV accommodation for the same dates next year. I do feel sorry for David’s company as they are in an impossible situation. There has been lots of chatter on here of whether the contracts were legal or not, but at the end of the day, renters entered into what they must have thought of as a no refund contract. Yes, this is an odd situation no one could have anticipated, but offering to defer the vacation is surely a good outcome?
I know DVC may stop putting borrowed points back, and there will also have been banked points that cannot be reused, but this is surely a good outcome for many renters? what do others think? If David’s have to rely on finding new renters for the points available they may never get out of this mess.

That's great that you were able to get your borrowed points back into their original UY.

David's is offering a credit toward a future booking to renters. In the long run, this is probably easier for their staff to handle rather than going back and forth between owner and renter to find available villas that suit both the owners' point restrictions and the renters' ability to travel. A lot of owners rented out banked points that can't be re-banked and availability is swiftly drying up for the fall and winter.

 

[Lewisc]

Yep, you’re right I don’t understand the concept of a void contract. I’ll just go ahead surrender my license to practice law today. Or better yet, I’ll stop banging my head against a wall and call it a day on this thread. By all means, continue spouting your misinformation and ridiculous interpretations of law. Have a great day with your superior understanding of contract law.

The party which drafted the contract says the contract isn't valid.
Posters make some sense. You have a broker in Canada. Property in Florida. A member and renter possibly in different states, maybe even different countries. Suing probably isn't a realistic option, by either owners or renters. Collecting a verdict is likely to be impossible. I'd think bankruptcy would occur long before anyone can collect.

Nah, that’s not necessary. Unlike you I haven’t made any statements regarding the validity of the contracts. Maybe you should follow your own advice and throw out a disclaimer.

The points borrowed from Aug 2020 UY for David’s rental that didn’t happen have now gone back to that year. I let David’s know and got a thank you reply saying they would try to re rent the points to make the original renter whole.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that under the circumstances, offering to rebook for the original renters at a time that suits them would be sufficient recompense rather than getting the money back to them by finding new renters? I know it’s not a perfect fix, but surely most renters will want to still do Disney once this virus is put to rest? We are now at the point when within a couple of weeks, I could probably book the same BWV accommodation for the same dates next year. I do feel sorry for David’s company as they are in an impossible situation. There has been lots of chatter on here of whether the contracts were legal or not, but at the end of the day, renters entered into what they must have thought of as a no refund contract. Yes, this is an odd situation no one could have anticipated, but offering to defer the vacation is surely a good outcome?
I know DVC may stop putting borrowed points back, and there will also have been banked points that cannot be reused, but this is surely a good outcome for many renters? what do others think? If David’s have to rely on finding new renters for the points available they may never get out of this mess.

I'd keep the points and pay back David's. Payment plan if you dont have the cash. Posters are concerned about the future of David's and possibly not getting the 30% hold back.

 

[hlhlaw07]

The party which drafted the contract says the contract isn't valid.

That’s the thing about contracts, one party doesn’t just get to decide it’s no longer valid and force all other parties to the contract to go along with their determination. Again, not saying it is a “valid contract” or isn’t a “valid contract”. What I am saying is just because David’s is saying it is no longer valid doesn’t mean he is right.

My only point in posting was to say that this situation is not black and white and those who are trying to figure out what to do should not rely on the interpretations provided in this thread (as they are provided by people who have made it clear they don’t understand the law). They also shouldn’t blindly follow David’s legal interpretation of the situation. He is a party to the contract and has a business he is trying to save.

Again, I’ll say it for those in the back: Each person should do what they feel is right under the circumstances. And if they want legal advice regarding the possible consequences of their actions, they should contact an actual attorney and not rely on David’s statements or those present in this thread.

 

[Amymouse13]

That's great that you were able to get your borrowed points back into their original UY.

David's is offering a credit toward a future booking to renters. In the long run, this is probably easier for their staff to handle rather than going back and forth between owner and renter to find available villas that suit both the owners' point restrictions and the renters' ability to travel. A lot of owners rented out banked points that can't be re-banked and availability is swiftly drying up for the fall and winter.

Right but how is David's paying for this... They paid owners and points may have expired...

 

[CraigInPA]

I know DVC may stop putting borrowed points back, and there will also have been banked points that cannot be reused, but this is surely a good outcome for many renters? what do others think? If David’s have to rely on finding new renters for the points available they may never get out of this mess.

David's has paid you 70% of the cost of the points, perhaps before his recent hike in prices. If he has a customer using "vacation credits" (or whatever he is calling his scheme to prevent refunds), he gets to re-book them at the higher per point rate, which gives him a greater margin. Plus, it defers him paying you the remaining 30% until the check in day of a reservation that might be a year away. This works well for him, and isn't terrible for the owner if, like you, they have borrowed points put back. If enough owners go along with this plan, he may come out of this.

But, there are a couple of potential issues I see. First, it's putting your points into a kind of limbo. You have them promised, but he may not be able to use all of them. What happens if he strands 10 points; will he tell you he isn't going to pay for them? There's also a chance that owners will stop renting points because some have not been paid the 30% for cancelled reservations made with banked points. Not having enough new reservations makes him have insufficient cash flow to implement his "vacation credits" scheme. And, finally, he may stiff you on the 30% owed a year from now when your new renter checks in.

Personally, with the risks involved, I would send him back the money he paid me and rent the points out directly myself.

 

[Maddiesmum03]

Right but how is David's paying for this... They paid owners and points may have expired...

That was my point really. I was initially upset at not getting the 30% on check in day (before resorts closed) and an email saying if they were able to re rent my points I would likely get the 30%. They have since put this right, and I have had personal correspondence and I honestly believe they are trying their hardest to put things right as best they can. But wouldn’t it take a bit of the pressure off them if for circumstances such as those between me (who can rebook those points at well into the future) and the renter, if they gave them the choice to book using the same points for say this time next year and that is the only offer to put things right they gave?. It still seems like a good outcome for what was a no refund contract. (Don’t flame me.....I know people are saying circumstances make the contract void, but the renters paid for what they believed to be a no refund contract)
This would then mean at least they would only need to juggle with the rentals using banked and expiring points, or finding new renters for points such as mine. I think finding a new renter would be difficult, not only because of the fallout from this current situation, but because I have had all 100% the money for those points, so there is not much to reassure the new renter that the reservation is secure, whereas the original renter would know that the new reservation was secured with goodwill and unlikely to fail.

 

[Sandisw]

That’s the thing about contracts, one party doesn’t just get to decide it’s no longer valid and force all other parties to the contract to go along with their determination. Again, not saying it is a “valid contract” or isn’t a “valid contract”. What I am saying is just because David’s is saying it is no longer valid doesn’t mean he is right.

My only point in posting was to say that this situation is not black and white and those who are trying to figure out what to do should not rely on the interpretations provided in this thread (as they are provided by people who have made it clear they don’t understand the law). They also shouldn’t blindly follow David’s legal interpretation of the situation. He is a party to the contract and has a business he is trying to save.

Again, I’ll say it for those in the back: Each person should do what they feel is right under the circumstances. And if they want legal advice regarding the possible consequences of their actions, they should contact an actual attorney and not rely on David’s statements or those present in this thread.

I think the only contract that David’s has said is not valid is the one between him and the renter and I’m pretty sure the renters are agreeing with him,...which is why I believe he is doing what he is doing,

I know it’s been reported that he is holding back the 30% since there was no check in. So, in this case, an owner who doesn’t agree would be forced to seek legal enforcement as a breach of contract, I assume.

 

[chicagodisneyguy]

That was my point really. I was initially upset at not getting the 30% on check in day (before resorts closed) and an email saying if they were able to re rent my points I would likely get the 30%. They have since put this right, and I have had personal correspondence and I honestly believe they are trying their hardest to put things right as best they can. But wouldn’t it take a bit of the pressure off them if for circumstances such as those between me (who can rebook those points at well into the future) and the renter, if they gave them the choice to book using the same points for say this time next year and that is the only offer to put things right they gave?. It still seems like a good outcome for what was a no refund contract. (Don’t flame me.....I know people are saying circumstances make the contract void, but the renters paid for what they believed to be a no refund contract)
This would then mean at least they would only need to juggle with the rentals using banked and expiring points, or finding new renters for points such as mine. I think finding a new renter would be difficult, not only because of the fallout from this current situation, but because I have had all 100% the money for those points, so there is not much to reassure the new renter that the reservation is secure, whereas the original renter would know that the new reservation was secured with goodwill and unlikely to fail.

I think in this specific case, as your points are going back to AUG 2020 UY, if David only gave the renter the option to reschedule the reservation I would consider that fair. With banking that would give them almost two years to use the points. My guess is with the sheer volume of people not able to travel, Davids is trying to give people who want a refunds a refund and those that want to travel in the future a credit/reschedule option. So if that logic is what he is using, I could see your AUG UY points being valuable to him. My guess is he wants as much of a supply of points as he can get. The only way he is going to get through this is by completing rentals.

I commend you, and many other owners, for trying to do the right thing and working with David's and the renters.

 

[Amymouse13]

In our situation we did split stay and one owner had cancelled our mid April 4 nights and is willing to rebook. Super. Supposedly the other owner had 2 during March closure too and they aren't sure if their points are expiring and I haven't heard anything on that part- it's still on my Disney. I'm debating disputing that charge as it's been weeks and it's very possible that over isn't cooperating. I'm fine with other rebooking.

 

[lawboy2001]

Hopefully we all understand it's just discussion and brainstorming at this point in the thread.



Intermediary agreement language: "balance at the time of check-in"
What's the interpretation here? Because it doesn't say balance upon check in, but rather at time of check in. Check-in time for DVC resorts is 4pm.

The website only references the day as well: "The balance of funds owing to you is paid on the day of guest check-in."

Exactly; the balance is due on the day of check-in and is not conditional on their being a check-in. It definitely does not mean, that in the event there is no check in [renter doesn't show because they missed flight; got sick; got arrested], that instead of sending the payment to the owner, the broker gets to keep the money and the owner is out the 30%. An absolutely absurd interpretation of the contract.

 

[Amymouse13]

Exactly; the balance is due on the day of check-in and is not conditional on their being a check-in. It definitely does not mean, that in the event there is no check in [renter doesn't show because they missed flight; got sick; got arrested], that instead of sending the payment to the owner, the broker gets to keep the money and the owner is out the 30%. An absolutely absurd interpretation of the contract.

I'm seriously worried a "credit" is akin to worthless gift card to toys r us...

 

[GoingSince1990]

Given the uncertainty regarding the ability to re-rent returned points, and regarding how much these points might be re-rented for given the shaky economic situation, two possible responses for a points owner who David’s is withholding the final 30% payment from would be:-

1. Tell David’s that you are willing to re-rent the points, to either the original renter or anyone else, but you require them to pay you the final 30% before you make the new reservation; or

2. Tell David’s that you will make your best efforts to re-rent the points yourself, at which point you will pay David’s whatever amount you are able to rent the points for, minus the original 30% payment that they have withheld from you.

 

[ziravan]

I think it’s only fair for owners to demand the remaining 30% for a rebook NOW since checkin date has passed.

Per their agreement the 30% is now due and if I were an owner in that situation, I would not be willing to rebook without being tendered the balance upon rebooking for 3 reasons:

1. Rebooking requires extra work beyond the scope of the original contract and since the owner is willing to “follow his heart” and make it right, the broker should be willing to make the owner whole for the effort. Meeting in the middle requires both parties to move closer.

2. If the broker won’t (and quite possibly can’t in the future) honor the contract, why should I do more? In effect, that owner is being pressured to do more while the other party (the broker) is demanding that they be allowed to do less (delaying final payment by months).

3. if all owners demanded this, the brokers would have to follow.

Its a bad situation and I think everyone should be willing to work a solution. I just don’t think the brokers stiffing the owners the 30% due NOW for months on ends and maybe never is a workable trade off for wanting the owner to tie up their points for another year or more.

If I were an owner, I wouldn’t do anything further with that contract until the 30% now due was paid to me. It would be a demand and requirement for any further effort on my part. I’d certainly be willing to work things through and ultimately, find a solution. It’d just be a non-starter for me that such a solution starts with the concept that the only fair solution is me being the only person holding the bag.

 

[ziravan]

I think it’s only fair for owners to demand the remaining 30% for a rebook NOW since checkin date has passed.

Per their agreement the 30% is now due and if I were an owner in that situation, I would not be willing to rebook without being tendered the balance upon rebooking for 3 reasons:

1. Rebooking requires extra work beyond the scope of the original contract and since the owner is willing to “follow his heart” and make it right, the broker should be willing to make the owner whole for the effort. Meeting in the middle requires both parties to move closer.

2. If the broker won’t (and quite possibly can’t in the future) honor the contract, why should I do more? In effect, that owner is being pressured to do more while the other party (the broker) is demanding that they be allowed to do less (delaying final payment by months).

3. if all owners demanded this, the brokers would have to follow.

Its a bad situation and I think everyone should be willing to work a solution. I just don’t think the brokers stiffing the owners the 30% due NOW for months on ends and maybe never is a workable trade off for wanting the owner to tie up their points for another year or more.

If I were an owner, I wouldn’t do anything further with that contract until the 30% now due was paid to me. It would be a demand and requirement for any further effort on my part. I’d certainly be willing to work things through and ultimately, find a solution. It’d just be a non-starter for me that such a solution starts with the concept that the only fair solution is me being the only person holding the bag.

A similar situation.

I’ve paid via payment plan 65% of MLB season tickets with 3 more payments due: 15% on April 1 and 10% on May and June 1st.

My MLB teams original position: We intend to play all games so we intend to collect the entire fee. In the unlikely event (sure) that we can’t play all the games, we’ll issue a credit for next year.

My response: you’ll almost certainly not play more than 65% of the games so you’ve almost certainly received adequate payment for this year already ( - again, we are committed to playing the whole season- ). It would not be fair of you to sap my liquidity now for what we both know will be a credit later. I’m not asking you for a favor here but I am telling you now: I will not allow you to take more money from me until we have a solution. When MLB has a fixed schedule, if I owe you more, I’ll pay it then. In the meantime, I have disabled the card you have on file.

~~~ they must have gotten a ton of similar responses because their NEW position is this:

MLB: we will suspend all payment plans until we can figure out how the season will unfold but we intend to resume plans as soon as we can determine how much of a season is being played and what’s due.

(if you’re interested, they NOW plan on playing a bunch of double-headers but those typically involve one ticket for both games. Every home double-header equals a one game credit to season ticket holders.)

My point here though is they changed their policy because of what I assume to be overwhelming feedback about what’s fair. If I were an owner, my feedback would be pay me my 30% and I’ll gladly seek a reasonable solution for all parties. Don’t pay me? Then don’t bother calling again.

This is the only way an owner is going to be made whole. I would not trust deferring that 30% payment for months from a company whose business model is now in question.

 

[Amymouse13]

I'm not seeing how David's can afford to issue these credits... It seems he's banking on the vast majority of points being useable at the end of this... And if they aren't??