Clarification on David's rental situation

[Sandisw]

Outside if the personal attacks, I agree....

Just for some clarity, does the owner/davids contract specifically state which points are being used (including use year and banked, current or borrowed status)? I know they ask for that information upfront, but is that included in the contract?

It does not. But nothing in the contract also says we have to rebook a reservation either, We are obligated to change misspelled names, add DME or dining plan.

We are also entitled to full payment if a renter decides not to go, Which obviously Davids has decided not to hold the renter to that standard for those that didn’t go before resorts closed based on reports some owners have not gotten it,

With nothing specific, it does come down to how do we handle the closure....who gets to decide the remedy? I certainly don’t agree it gets to be Davids to unilaterally decide what happens when the contracts don’t specifically address this issue,

So, if an owner says they are willing to modify the reservation for original renter, or is willing to refund the original renters, which is outside the terms of the agreement with the broker, it is a just as valid as a solution as the voucher,

 

[CanadaDisney05]

From his new and improved contract...
https://dvcrequest.com/information/sample-agreement6. The Intermediary has received from Renter a NON REFUNDABLE payment of _______________ US Dollars in return for a confirmed reservation, using Owner's Disney Vacation Club points, at Disney’s _______________ in a _______________ unit to arrive on _______________ and depart on _______________ with a confirmation number of _______________.
I'm sure someone has an actual contract to share...

Obviously thats the new contract, but that seems to indicate that the owner rented out a reservation, not points.

 

[Sandisw]

Obviously thats the new contract, but that seems to indicate that the owner rented out a reservation, not points.

That is what the old contracts say as well, I offered my points to be used for a reservation. I was paid for that reservation and am not required to book a different one.

Here is what I think is most important, It says if as a DVC owner I cant fulfill the reservation I owe restitution to Davids and the guest with the reservation. If I am being told that the closure by Disney triggers this clause, then it is clear my restitution is to the guest with that reservation.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

It does not. But nothing in the contract also says we have to rebook a reservation either, We are obligated to change misspelled names, add DME or dining plan.

We are also entitled to full payment if a renter decides not to go, Which obviously Davids has decided not to hold the renter to that standard for those that didn’t go before resorts closed based on reports some owners have not gotten it,

With nothing specific, it does come down to how do we handle the closure....who gets to decide the remedy? I certainly don’t agree it gets to be Davids to unilaterally decide what happens when the contracts don’t specifically address this issue,

So, if an owner says they are willing to modify the reservation for original renter, or is willing to refund the original renters, which is outside the terms of the agreement with the broker, it is a just as valid as a solution as the voucher,

Davids doesn't get to unilaterally decide the interpretation of the contract. The courts do. Whether owners/renters want to go down that road is a personal decision.

I know I've said this before, but it is not reasonable to expect them to have the resources to mediate all of the individual contract negotiations. They have to choose one interpretation and go with it.

You do have a valid point though. If Davids is interpreting the contract to suggest that Owners are the one responsible for the cancelation, renters should be entitled to a cash refund (assuming you are correct and that is how the contract reads).

 

[Sandisw]

Davids doesn't get to unilaterally decide the interpretation of the contract. The courts do. Whether owners/renters want to go down that road is a personal decision.

I know I've said this before, but it is not reasonable to expect them to have the resources to mediate all of the individual contract negotiations. They have to choose one interpretation and go with it.

You do have a valid point though. If Davids is interpreting the contract to suggest that Owners are the one responsible for the cancelation, renters should be entitled to a cash refund (assuming you are correct and that is how the contract reads).

Here is what the rental agreement says with my renter. So, Yup...they are entitled to a refund.. Like I have said,,,Davids doesn’t get to tell owners the closure triggers them to refund or re rent but tell renters the closure doesn’t entitle them to refund. He can’t have his cake and eat it too...

 

[CanadaDisney05]

That is what the old contracts say as well, I offered my points to be used for a reservation. I was paid for that reservation and am not required to book a different one.

Here is what I think is most important, It says if as a DVC owner I cant fulfill the reservation I owe restitution to Davids and the guest with the reservation. If I am being told that the closure by Disney triggers this clause, then it is clear my restitution is to the guest with that reservation.
View attachment 495030

And to the intermediary. It also doesn't say it has to be a cash refund. According to earlier posts, the Ontario travel agent board or whatever has stated that a voucher is considered restitution.

 

[Marionnette]

From his new and improved contract...
https://dvcrequest.com/information/sample-agreement6. The Intermediary has received from Renter a NON REFUNDABLE payment of _______________ US Dollars in return for a confirmed reservation, using Owner's Disney Vacation Club points, at Disney’s _______________ in a _______________ unit to arrive on _______________ and depart on _______________ with a confirmation number of _______________.
I'm sure someone has an actual contract to share...

The old rental agreement has the same language but refers to “member” instead of “owner”. Later in the same agreement, there is this clause:

“13. This is an agreement to rent points that represent accommodations only.”​

In addition, the Intermediary Agreement between David’s and the owner specifically outlines the status of the points that are being offered for rental. This information is not shared with the renter.

 

[Sandisw]

And to the intermediary. It also doesn't say it has to be a cash refund. According to earlier posts, the Ontario travel agent board or whatever has stated that a voucher is considered restitution.

It doesn’t, you are right,,,But the renter agreement DOES say they get a refund of the amount....not a voucher.

See above what i posted from the renters agreement

 

[CanadaDisney05]

It doesn’t, you are right,,,But the renter agreement DOES say they get a refund of the amount....not a voucher.

View attachment 495032

You are probably correct. The renter probably should be entitled to a refund, and if challenged, David would probably lose.

The owner is also required to return the 70%. They don't get to make the judgment call about whether they like how Davids is handling things. Whether David returns the cash to the renter or not, that has no bearing on the owner.

 

[Sandisw]

You are probably correct. The renter probably should be entitled to a refund, and if challenged, David would probably lose.

The owner is also required to return the 70%. They don't get to make the judgment call about whether they like how Davids is handling things. Whether David returns the cash to the renter or not, that has no bearing on the owner.

Well, that is up to, as you said, for the courts to decide so I guess it’s up to Davids to go after the owner for it.

If I was a renter, that clause from the co tract is what I would use with my CC chargeback.

 

[MIDisFan]

While that is true, the same can be said for any coupon/voucher system. Davids is hardly the first company to use a system like this. They aren't even the only ones currently in the travel industry using these. While not the best outcome for the consumer, it hardly demonstrates shady business tactics.




With the volume of different people and opinions here, its hard to keep track what everyone's stance is.

I am not arguing that you should use Davids going forward. Everyone has to make their own decision based on the facts and risks presented. For me personally, as a renter, I was never willing to use them because I wasn't willing to accept the risk of a non refundable reservation booked nearly a year in advance. Id rather book a value resort directly with Disney. As an owner, I would probably try and rent the points myself first. If that wasn't working out, I may be willing to risk it.

My side of this debate is that I don't feel there is enough evidence so far to demonstrate that the company is acting shady, or nefarious. If it proves true that he is only allowing renters to use their vouchers towards rack rates, while still paying Disney discounted prices, or rerenting owners points but only giving them 70%, I will change my mind. I'm currently in a wait and see mode.

I never meant to insinuate that the vouchers themselves where shady business practices. For that, I could point to-- 1. David's not paying the remaining 30% to an owner whose reservation was cancelled by the renter prior to resort closures. What's the defense on that?. 2. Removing any comment which painted his business in a negative light on his facebook page. While he's not the only one to ever do it, it's shady imo. 3. Banned as a sponsor on another forum. Sounds an alarm for me. For me, it's enough to form an opinion on whether or not I would do business with them in the future.

 

[MIDisFan]

You are probably correct. The renter probably should be entitled to a refund, and if challenged, David would probably lose.

The owner is also required to return the 70%. They don't get to make the judgment call about whether they like how Davids is handling things. Whether David returns the cash to the renter or not, that has no bearing on the owner.

You really should quit stating this as a fact when it's simply your interpretation under the old contract.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Well, that is up to, as you said, for the courts to decide so I guess it’s up to Davids to go after the owner for it.

If I was a renter, that clause from the co tract is what I would use with my CC chargeback.

I agree and disagree. I wouldn't say it us up to Davids to go after owners. I would say it us up to owners to refund Davids. If they choose not to, it is up to Davids to decide whether to go through the courts or not. If he chooses not to, that doesn't mean that the owner is correct.

On the other side, it is up to Davids to reimburse the owners. If the owners don't proceed with action it doesn't make David correct.

I've said this several times before, but there is a difference between what should be done, and what is realistic. In a perfect world, all owners refund money and all renters get their money back. Unfortunately, its not a perfect world. David is making the calculated assumption (rightly or wrongly, but with far more information than we have), that not all owners will refund.

If he is correct in that assumption, what you are suggesting can only be done if 1) David covers the shortfall which may or may not be economically possible 2) renters refunds are determined by who their owner is. If you got the owner who doesn't return the cash, your left with nothing.

Its easy from far to say that David should cover the shortfall, but yacht aside, this is not some major conglomerate. He may not have the wherewithall to cover that type of shortfall on this type of scale.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I never meant to insinuate that the vouchers themselves where shady business practices. For that, I could point to-- 1. David's not paying the remaining 30% to an owner whose reservation was cancelled by the renter prior to resort closures. What's the defense on that?.

Has it been confirmed that they refused to pay it, or that they simply haven't paid as of yet. I understand that by the letter of the contract they should have paid that right away, but given the circumstance, I can believe they have a major backlog. If they don't get paid once this is all over with, I'll concede on that issue.

2. Removing any comment which painted his business in a negative light on his facebook page. While he's not the only one to ever do it, it's shady imo.

I agree. I hate that business practice. Unfortunately its pretty common. I've had my post on this thread be removed because I discussed a competitor of the boards sponsor.....

3. Banned as a sponsor on another forum. Sounds an alarm for me.

That just tells me there was an issue between the company and the board owner. With zero facts, I can't form an informed opinion.

For me, it's enough to form an opinion on whether or not I would do business with them in the future.

That is fair

Edit: to clarify, my earlier post regarding a competitor of the board sponsor that was deleted was deleted because that company is not allowed to be discussed on this website. The reason why a competitor of one of the board's main sponsor is not allowed to be discussed is not disclosed......the context of my point remains. Businesses deciding to control the message is not unique to Davids and can be seen here...

 

[Sandisw]

I agree and disagree. I wouldn't say it us up to Davids to go after owners. I would say it us up to owners to refund Davids. If they choose not to, it is up to Davids to decide whether to go through the courts or not. If he chooses not to, that doesn't mean that the owner is correct.

On the other side, it is up to Davids to reimburse the owners. If the owners don't proceed with action it doesn't make David correct.

I've said this several times before, but there is a difference between what should be done, and what is realistic. In a perfect world, all owners refund money and all renters get their money back. Unfortunately, its not a perfect world. David is making the calculated assumption (rightly or wrongly, but with far more information than we have), that not all owners will refund.

If he is correct in that assumption, what you are suggesting can only be done if 1) David covers the shortfall which may or may not be economically possible 2) renters refunds are determined by who their owner is. If you got the owner who doesn't return the cash, your left with nothing.

Its easy from far to say that David should cover the shortfall, but yacht aside, this is not some major conglomerate. He may not have the wherewithall to cover that type of shortfall on this type of scale.

It is not a fact that owners are required to refund the 70%. I at first thought so, but then some with some legal knowledge mentioned that the act of DVCM to close the resorts may or may not make me as an owner liable for that action,

Just because Davids says it does, doesn’t make it so. So, we are left with the big question and ambiguity in the contracts which is whether the closure is seen as an act or omission by the owner,

As an owner, I can say I earned my 70% but not my 30% because owner can’t check in, Or, I can work from my heart, and put my contract aside, and agree to reschdule my renters

What I do not have to do is refund the 70% because the broker has decided that closure of resort is my fault.

Most of the owners here who are having a problem with this were willing, myself included, at the beginning to work with the renter so they didn’t end up losing it all.

But, Davids actions has changed that, I mean, he didn’t even pay the 30% to an owner whose renter didn’t go by their own choice You don’t think that sheds light on his motives?

 

[Sandisw]

Has it been confirmed that they refused to pay it, or that they simply haven't paid as of yet. I understand that by the letter of the contract they should have paid that right away, but given the circumstance, I can believe they have a major backlog. If they don't get paid once this is all over with, I'll concede on that issue.

I agree. I hate that business practice. Unfortunately its pretty common. I've had my post on this thread be removed because I discussed a competitor of the boards sponsor.....


That just tells me there was an issue between the company and the board owner. With zero facts, I can't form an informed opinion.



That is fair

Yes, there is an owner who did not receive the 30% for reservation in March..No reply from Davids as to why when the renter chose not to go,

Absolutely no excuse he didn’t pay on time

And to clarify, the post that was deleted included the name of a business in the boards filter, It has nothing to do with the boards sponsor. Please do not post information that is NOT accurate.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

You really should quit stating this as a fact when it's simply your interpretation under the old contract.

I've stated several times within the threads that this could be seen as an interpretation.....

 

[MIDisFan]

I've stated several times within the threads that this could be seen as an interpretation.....

It's an opinion with very little support in these threads. I can think of one other poster who shared it, but you continue to represent it as supported by a "group" of posters and you often present it as a factual statement in your responses. A simple IMO would go a long way to clear that up. Just a suggestion.

 

[meremac]

Has it been confirmed that they refused to pay it, or that they simply haven't paid as of yet. I understand that by the letter of the contract they should have paid that right away, but given the circumstance, I can believe they have a major backlog.

A company doesn't get to have a backlog when it comes to paying people on time. A delay in responding to e-mails right now? Sure, I guess (although even that leaves a bad taste in my mouth given how quickly they were still responding to people who wanted to book new trips). But breaking a contract because they're just super busy right now is not ok.

 

[MIDisFan]

Here is what the rental agreement says with my renter. So, Yup...they are entitled to a refund.. Like I have said,,,Davids doesn’t get to tell owners the closure triggers them to refund or re rent but tell renters the closure doesn’t entitle them to refund. He can’t have his cake and eat it too...

View attachment 495031

This is an excellent argument for those seeking charge backs through their CC companies. How would Broker voucher arguments hold up if they all worded their contracts as such. I would encourage all renters to look for this wording and submit it with their claims.