Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[WDWEPCOT]

Putting the resv up fir renting us something David’s is doing - the renter doesn’t want to go but doesn’t want to cancel and be out the money - the Owner is out the points - you rented them and David should pay you for them - changing names you make a few $ for doing that service -IF someone would bite on it - not likely - the million $ question becomes will David pay when no one shows up ? Then Owner is not fulfilled and points are wasted and here we are still

 

[Sandisw]

As far as the reservation is concerned, no one's cancelled anything, they just said they don't want to go and are asking to re-rent the points. For all the owner knows if the renter isn't able to re-rent the points they might end up going.

I am confused. If the renter doesn’t want to go and wants the owner to rent to someone else, how is that not a cancelation?

Still requires the owner to basically Enter into a new agreement with a new renter.

When resorts were closed, things were different, but now it Reallt does fall into the category of a renter cancellation if they are asking the owner to change names,

People can say it’s not a big deal, but one of the reasons owners paid David’s $4.50 a point was so they didn’t have to do anything once original reservation was done.

 

[Dixie1337]

I am confused. If the renter doesn’t want to go and wants the owner to rent to someone else, how is that not a cancelation?

Still requires the owner to basically Enter into a new agreement with a new renter.

When resorts were closed, things were different, but now it Reallt does fall into the category of a renter cancellation if they are asking the owner to change names,

People can say it’s not a big deal, but one of the reasons owners paid David’s $4.50 a point was so they didn’t have to do anything once original reservation was done.

They told me that if the owner agrees with trying to re-rent and if someone bites and reservation is transferred to someone else, at that point it can't be undone. At that point my reservation would be effectively cancelled. Until then it's still my reservation. I paid for it. I didn't tell david's and the owner to keep my money and take back the reservation and congratulations on the windfall to the owner.

I'm honestly confused how this is difficult to understand. Owners absolutely will be paid the 30% because no one will be getting any refunds or vouchers unless the points are able to be re-rented. Renters will not be getting their money back, and for that reason those points belong to the renter and if they don't want to use them, it's their prerogative to waste them. The owner got paid for those points.

The reservation is non refundable and the resorts are open. Things were more complicated when the resorts were closed. Renters like me might not love the situation now, but we should understand it (and I do). What I absolutely will not accept is paying for those points and having the owner use them for themselves anyway. We have a contract, the reservation is mine up until the moment it's transferred and if it's not transferred, it stays mine unless you want to pay me back.

Owners have a right to refuse to work with the renters and even try to re-rent the points, but that's pretty mean IMO.

 

[Best Aunt]

I'm honestly confused how this is difficult to understand. Owners absolutely will be paid the 30% because no one will be getting any refunds or vouchers unless the points are able to be re-rented.

Now I’m confused. How do you know that owners will absolutely be paid the 30%? The company in question has taken steps in the recent past which attempted to treat the owners in a less than honorable fashion. I’m not sure why you are absolutely convinced that the company will act in an honorable way toward the owners in the future.

 

[Dixie1337]

Now I’m confused. How do you know that owners will absolutely be paid the 30%? The company in question has taken steps in the recent past which attempted to treat the owners in a less than honorable fashion. I’m not sure why you are absolutely convinced that the company will act in an honorable way toward the owners in the future.

That happened when the resorts were closed. It was a complicated situation. This situation is very straightforward. If you rented points and don't want to go/can't go, but the resort is open, that's on you. They were also giving vouchers out during that time without it being necessary to try to rerent the reservation, since there was no reservation. It was an entirely different scenario.

 

[fancymouse]

I am confused. If the renter doesn’t want to go and wants the owner to rent to someone else, how is that not a cancelation?

Still requires the owner to basically Enter into a new agreement with a new renter.

When resorts were closed, things were different, but now it Reallt does fall into the category of a renter cancellation if they are asking the owner to change names,

People can say it’s not a big deal, but one of the reasons owners paid David’s $4.50 a point was so they didn’t have to do anything once original reservation was done.

I saw the correspondence David’s sent in that other thread talking about this specific situation (resorts open) and there is no new contract. They said specifically that it would be the same contract just with the names changed. Unless the original reservation was made under the new contracts, if the resorts were to close again they said it would be handled the same way the others were. Owners wouldn’t get the 30% but David’s could also not force them to pay anything back. I’m sure if it was the original renter still they would get a voucher. Maybe a renter who bought the discounted reservation would get one too? Seems like a stretch but I haven’t seen anyone talking about this from the renter’s side. Anyway I think people are confusing the two re-rental situations (closed vs. open) as they are being handled differently.

 

[Sandisw]

I saw the correspondence David’s sent in that other thread talking about this specific situation (resorts open) and there is no new contract. They said specifically that it would be the same contract just with the names changed. Unless the original reservation was made under the new contracts, if the resorts were to close again they said it would be handled the same way the others were. Owners wouldn’t get the 30% but David’s could also not force them to pay anything back. I’m sure if it was the original renter still they would get a voucher. Maybe a renter who bought the discounted reservation would get one too? Seems like a stretch but I haven’t seen anyone talking about this from the renter’s side. Anyway I think people are confusing the two re-rental situations (closed vs. open) as they are being handled differently.

My response was for the renters listing confirmed reservations by asking the owners to change names since resorts closed wouodnt apply.

It is possible things are getting confused, but most posts lately have been about renters wanting not to go and from owners being asked to agree to let the renter out of the contract by at least agreeing to change the renters.

Just pointing out that in these cases, it is indeed a renter canceling out.

 

[Dixie1337]

My response was for the renters listing confirmed reservations by asking the owners to change names since resorts closed wouodnt apply.

It is possible things are getting confused, but most posts lately have been about renters wanting not to go and from owners being asked to agree to let the renter out of the contract by at least agreeing to change the renters.

Just pointing out that in these cases, it is indeed a renter canceling out.

Not cancelling out. Attempting to cancel out. Nothing is cancelled and the old contract is still valid until a new renter is secured.

 

[Sandisw]

Not cancelling out. Attempting to cancel out. Nothing is cancelled and the old contract is still valid until a new renter is secured.

Technically, yes, it is not canceled until day of check in, but the point remains the same.

Original renters don’t want to go and there is at least one report so far that when an owner pushed the broker, they were told they would owe money back if resort is closed.

I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry that an owner isn’t signing up for different terms, even when agreeing to a name change...

 

[Dixie1337]

Technically, yes, it is not canceled until day of check in, but the point remains the same.

Original renters don’t want to go and there is at least one report so far that when an owner pushed the broker, they were told they would owe money back if resort is closed.

I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry that an owner isn’t signing up for different terms, even when agreeing to a name change...

It's an important distinction to make when some people are thinking about changing the name on the reservation to use themselves 24-72 hours before check in if david's can't find a re-renter. At that point nothing was cancelled and you've broken the contract you have with the renter.

 

[JGard911]

My response was for the renters listing confirmed reservations by asking the owners to change names since resorts closed wouodnt apply.

It is possible things are getting confused, but most posts lately have been about renters wanting not to go and from owners being asked to agree to let the renter out of the contract by at least agreeing to change the renters.

Just pointing out that in these cases, it is indeed a renter canceling out.

What would you do when the renter is requesting to cancel out because Disney is telling them they can not come on Disney property. That is currently the case for Tri-State area people (CT, NY,NJ). Holding people to resort reservations when the parks were not open was bad enough. Who goes on vacation to sit in a hotel room? But now holding people to resort reservations they cant actually use is just obnoxious.

 

[Sandisw]

What would you do when the renter is requesting to cancel out because Disney is telling them they can not come on Disney property. That is currently the case for Tri-State area people (CT, NY,NJ). Holding people to resort reservations when the parks were not open was bad enough. Who goes on vacation to sit in a hotel room? But now holding people to resort reservations they cant actually use is just obnoxious.

Hopefully, they have travel insurance that might cover it. If not, unfortunately, the renter is really out of luck.

These are a private reservation that is from an owner, even when a broker Is used.

It certainly isn an owners fault if there is an order. They sold something they can deliver. I know it sounds harsh, but this type of situation is one of the drawbacks of renting vs. cash with Disney You are stuck if you can’t go, no matter what the reason.

Personally, this is the reason why I think the rental market will take a hit

 

[JGard911]

Travel insurance doesn't cover a pandemic.

But no one is "stuck". Selling something with no value is against the law. (Doctrine of impossibility, contracts lacking force majeure or excuse of performance provisions)
Small claims court or filing a complaint with a credit card company probably will. I have seen many credit card companies deciding in favor of the renter.

This is going to destroy your industry with the negative feedback it is going to create and live with for a very long time.

 

[fancymouse]

My response was for the renters listing confirmed reservations by asking the owners to change names since resorts closed wouodnt apply.

It is possible things are getting confused, but most posts lately have been about renters wanting not to go and from owners being asked to agree to let the renter out of the contract by at least agreeing to change the renters.

Just pointing out that in these cases, it is indeed a renter canceling out.

In the end it technically is, but I think the issue is that they aren't necessarily "cancelling" yet and it's more likely they are calling to find out their options. Most probably don't know the owners are getting this information. I have a feeling that for some renters if they knew that the owners could officially cancel their reservation and somehow still get the points for future use they'd be pretty upset. Owners expecting that (and full payment or even 70% for that matter) is as questionable as renters expecting a full refund without understanding the nuances of renting/DVC point system. It's just another tough situation where people on both sides have valid arguments, but in order for logic to prevail it would take the renter being completely understanding and getting no refund (or compensation) while also knowing their owner got all of their money (minus David's fee) and is going to possibly get a vacation on the same points meant for them. Some might be okay with that (given there are no other options), but other would probably balk at the idea.

I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry that an owner isn’t signing up for different terms, even when agreeing to a name change...

I only know that in the other thread that the OP posted the correspondence between themself and David's. They posted all of the responses which included scenarios about closing again etc. David's said that they would get the 30% regardless of re-rental or not should the resort be open and if the resort closed again they would lose the 30% regardless of re-rental or not. I doubt they are telling different people different things about this particular situation. If I had to bet it probably has more to do with posters not clarifying what they mean by "re-rent" and what the circumstances are. They are definitely handling closure reservations differently than reservations now that the resorts are open again, but maybe I missed a post in this incredibly long thread...lol

 

[Sandisw]

Travel insurance doesn't cover a pandemic.

But no one is "stuck". Selling something with no value is against the law. (Doctrine of impossibility, contracts lacking force majeure or excuse of performance provisions)
Small claims court or filing a complaint with a credit card company probably will. I have seen many credit card companies deciding in favor of the renter.

This is going to destroy your industry with the negative feedback it is going to create and live with for a very long time.

But, those that have won did so when the resort was closed. What a renter has purchased...a reservation...which is legally allowed via an owners contract...is available.

Unless the contract specifically says a renter can back out, even with the resort is open, they would be indeed stuck.

I do agree with you, as I said, that this will make renting much less popular because of the no refunds aspect of them.

 

[Sandisw]

In the end it technically is, but I think the issue is that they aren't necessarily "cancelling" yet and it's more likely they are calling to find out their options. Most probably don't know the owners are getting this information. I have a feeling that for some renters if they knew that the owners could officially cancel their reservation and somehow still get the points for future use they'd be pretty upset. Owners expecting that (and full payment or even 70% for that matter) is as questionable as renters expecting a full refund without understanding the nuances of renting/DVC point system. It's just another tough situation where people on both sides have valid arguments, but in order for logic to prevail it would take the renter being completely understanding and getting no refund (or compensation) while also knowing their owner got all of their money (minus David's fee) and is going to possibly get a vacation on the same points meant for them. Some might be okay with that (given there are no other options), but other would probably balk at the idea.


I only know that in the other thread that the OP posted the correspondence between themself and David's. They posted all of the responses which included scenarios about closing again etc. David's said that they would get the 30% regardless of re-rental or not should the resort be open and if the resort closed again they would lose the 30% regardless of re-rental or not. I doubt they are telling different people different things about this particular situation. If I had to bet it probably has more to do with posters not clarifying what they mean by "re-rent" and what the circumstances are. They are definitely handling closure reservations differently than reservations now that the resorts are open again, but maybe I missed a post in this incredibly long thread...lol

To be fair, only the owner can actually cancel a reservation. All a renter can do is not show up.

An owner with the broker can’t even do that, so really, in all these instances, the reservation will never be canceled...it will just be forfeited when the renter does not go.

After all that has happened, not sure this broker can be trusted..but, all owners dealing with him will have to make a decision if they want to.

 

[JGard911]

I have a feeling that for some renters if they knew that the owners could officially cancel their reservation and somehow still get the points for future use they'd be pretty upset.

Thats an understatement of all time. Do you really think owners should get paid for something they dont actually give up? Wow Don't have to go to law school to know that's illegal. Can I call you to testify during class action lawsuits?

 

[Dentam]

It certainly isn an owners fault if there is an order.

It's not their fault, no but it also isn't okay for an owner to keep money that was paid for a product that the renter can't use for reasons beyond their control. People need to look beyond what is on paper here and search their conscience to do what is right.

 

[Sandisw]

It's not their fault, no but it also isn't okay for an owner to keep money that was paid for a product that the renter can't use for reasons beyond their control. People need to look beyond what is on paper here and search their conscience to do what is right.

This is what bothers me in this. All of a sudden it’s on the owner?

Renting has risks and this is one of them. Don’t forget that many owners rent excess points for a reason.

Agree to disagree that an owner who holds a renter to their contract is in the wrong.

 

[Dentam]

This is what bothers me in this. All of a sudden it’s on the owner?

Renting has risks and this is one of them. Don’t forget that many owners rent excess points for a reason.

Agree to disagree that an owner who holds a renter to their contract is in the wrong.

Yep, agree to disagree for sure.