Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Maddiesmum03]

I know this is WAY but all the talk of what we own vs. lease, etc. got me thinking again about precisely which unit I own. When I first purchased, I dug up the drawings showing where my unit was... it's room 7666 at Kidani Village. Here's the view from "my" unit:

View attachment 493119

Then, I estimated how much of the room I "own" based on the square footage and my % interest in it.

Turns out, here's what I actually own:

View attachment 493120

Do you think we own enough to claim Florida Resident discounts?

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Do you think we own enough to claim Florida Resident discounts?

I'll qualify after I add-on those 8000 points and move in to AKV.

 

[cmrdgrs]

I know there is disagreement on this, but as I stated earlier, I agree that DVCM has the ability on the behalf of owners to shut the resort, so in turn you could interpret that to say that I as an owner shut the resort, which in turn effected the renter from not being able to check-in. It's actually the only point in this mess that I agree with David on.

Owners that didn't have a rentals, aren't just accepting that their points are lost, they expect Disney to "do" something for them. I think it is completely unreasonable for an owner to say to a renter that what they booked was non-refundable, money lost because the owner lost the points. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a court would side with an owner if they did this and the renter lost their money.

For me, as we have all been highlighting here, this 100% re-enforces that at the time the rental is made an owner's points may not be distressed, but any reservation has the ability for an owner's points to become a distressed.

Current UY points that are used to book a reservation in the first 8 months of an owners UY should be worth more than banked points, and IMO a broker should pay more for these points. Because let's face it in the event of a force majeure event, the best way the broker can actually fill the renters need to re-book a reservation and not return the renters money, is if the points they used from the original owner are bankable.

Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.

The extension that Disney gave to April and June UYs was "nice" but it was limited. Not as good as the original owner being able to bank their points, by their banking deadline, and extend the points for an entire year.

To do what I have described above brokers would need to completely rewrite their software, and rethink the way they do business.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.

I'm not a renter, but I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. I would want my money back, not a voucher, even if the broker was an Expedia or another major travel agency. I rented a specific reservation. Not the promise of a future reservation.

Having said that, I would probably resign myself to accept the voucher rather than going down any legal path if the probability of me getting what I want was high. The problem here is that the probability is low for many reasons that have been brought up (David's financial solvency, availability, etc...)

 

[McCrae]

I stand corrected. But that is not really the point I was making. The point was, that the chargeback is a service being offered (whether by choice or mandated by law) by the credit card companies. It is not a court order and is not a decision made by a judge. It is not a precedent that could be used in court which is what the poster I was replying to was suggesting.

I does though indicate that an independent company views the contract conditions were not met.

 

[cmrdgrs]

I'm not a renter, but I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. I would want my money back, not a voucher, even if the broker was an Expedia or another major travel agency. I rented a specific reservation. Not the promise of a future reservation.

Having said that, I would probably resign myself to accept the voucher rather than going down any legal path if the probability of me getting what I want was high. The problem here is that the probability is low for many reasons that have been brought up (David's financial solvency, availability, etc...)

I agree. If I were a renter I would want my money back too. But, I'm looking at this from the eyes of broker, and the broker doesn't own the points, and he doesn't have all the money in hand to give back to the renter. He gave 70% of what was collected to the owner. I suppose the broker could get a bond of some type, carry insurance, or in the case of David who has been renting for a l-o-n-g time and has made a lot of money over the years, he maybe able to self-insure and give back the money. All things to consider from the brokers side.

As a private owner, you have control, you can give back the money if you desire. Maybe rentals with private individuals will become more popular. For me, I rent at a minimum the same price (or even $1.00 or more) than a broker. Usually, people want to pay me less, but maybe if they know I'll refund their money and check my references, they might balk less -- dunno.

 

[Kevin_W]

Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.

I'm not a renter, but I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. I would want my money back, not a voucher, even if the broker was an Expedia or another major travel agency. I rented a specific reservation. Not the promise of a future reservation.

I'm a renter, and like CanadaDisney05 said, I'd wan't my money back. We bought an AP at the end of last summer before the rates went up so we could go last summer and then again early this summer to make the price work. If I don't go this summer, my AP will expire likely before I could use the voucher (even with Disney extensions). Or, if I decided to go anyway I would have to re-book during a more expensive season.

All that said, I understand the situation is not ideal for anyone: renter, owner, or broker. A guaranteed voucher would be better than losing my money entirely and might be a middle ground that would work for everyone.

 

[McCrae]

I know there is disagreement on this, but as I stated earlier, I agree that DVCM has the ability on the behalf of owners to shut the resort, so in turn you could interpret that to say that I as an owner shut the resort, which in turn effected the renter from not being able to check-in. It's actually the only point in this mess that I agree with David on.

Owners that didn't have a rentals, aren't just accepting that their points are lost, they expect Disney to "do" something for them. I think it is completely unreasonable for an owner to say to a renter that what they booked was non-refundable, money lost because the owner lost the points. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a court would side with an owner if they did this and the renter lost their money.

For me, as we have all been highlighting here, this 100% re-enforces that at the time the rental is made an owner's points may not be distressed, but any reservation has the ability for an owner's points to become a distressed.

Current UY points that are used to book a reservation in the first 8 months of an owners UY should be worth more than banked points, and IMO a broker should pay more for these points. Because let's face it in the event of a force majeure event, the best way the broker can actually fill the renters need to re-book a reservation and not return the renters money, is if the points they used from the original owner are bankable.

Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.

The extension that Disney gave to April and June UYs was "nice" but it was limited. Not as good as the original owner being able to bank their points, by their banking deadline, and extend the points for an entire year.

To do what I have described above brokers would need to completely rewrite their software, and rethink the way they do business.

The problem is not the status of points that doesn’t matter. It’s all down to a poorly written contract regarding no refunds.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I know this is WAY but all the talk of what we own vs. lease, etc. got me thinking again about precisely which unit I own. When I first purchased, I dug up the drawings showing where my unit was... it's room 7666 at Kidani Village. Here's the view from "my" unit:

View attachment 493119

Then, I estimated how much of the room I "own" based on the square footage and my % interest in it.

Turns out, here's what I actually own:

View attachment 493120

Recall you are only leasing the water

 

[Grnl706]

I know there is disagreement on this, but as I stated earlier, I agree that DVCM has the ability on the behalf of owners to shut the resort, so in turn you could interpret that to say that I as an owner shut the resort, which in turn effected the renter from not being able to check-in. It's actually the only point in this mess that I agree with David on.

Owners that didn't have a rentals, aren't just accepting that their points are lost, they expect Disney to "do" something for them. I think it is completely unreasonable for an owner to say to a renter that what they booked was non-refundable, money lost because the owner lost the points. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a court would side with an owner if they did this and the renter lost their money.

For me, as we have all been highlighting here, this 100% re-enforces that at the time the rental is made an owner's points may not be distressed, but any reservation has the ability for an owner's points to become a distressed.

Current UY points that are used to book a reservation in the first 8 months of an owners UY should be worth more than banked points, and IMO a broker should pay more for these points. Because let's face it in the event of a force majeure event, the best way the broker can actually fill the renters need to re-book a reservation and not return the renters money, is if the points they used from the original owner are bankable.

Correct me if I'm wrong renters, but if you could be assured your vacation could be rebooked, you would be willing to accept a voucher? The issue is that renters and owners have lost complete confidence with David and his ability to fulfill his vouchers.

The extension that Disney gave to April and June UYs was "nice" but it was limited. Not as good as the original owner being able to bank their points, by their banking deadline, and extend the points for an entire year.

To do what I have described above brokers would need to completely rewrite their software, and rethink the way they do business.

Renter here. I'd want my money back as well. I understood I was booking a non-refundable room if I was the one having to cancel but not if the resort was closed. This was just too stressful and I would/am rebooking directly with Disney for the flexibility. I never plan on renting points again.

 

[cmrdgrs]

The problem is not the status of points that doesn’t matter. It’s all down to a poorly written contract regarding no refunds.

Agreed. The contract is written poorly. I was really looking to the future. restructure the payment for points and better spell out what happens should the resorts close -- for the future.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Recall you are only leasing the water

And renting the adult beverages that go down the drain with that water.

 

[Amymouse13]

Update on chargeback saw note in my Citibank online they had reversed my chargeback... I called as I could not read it yet as it's not uploaded, but here is what I was told:. If the merchant argues (I guess sometimes they agree) it's reversed until you provide your side. Good times... I'll start drafting my response to submit after it's uploaded with instructions. Seems he just paperbombed them with pages from agreement online when we made reservation which isn't really pertinent.. stay tuned...

 

[disneypharm]

Update on chargeback saw note in my Citibank online they had reversed my chargeback... I called as I could not read it yet as it's not uploaded, but here is what I was told:. If the merchant argues (I guess sometimes they agree) it's reversed until you provide your side. Good times... I'll start drafting my response to submit after it's uploaded with instructions. Seems he just paperbombed them with pages from agreement online when we made reservation which isn't really pertinent.. stay tuned...

Did you initially just call Citibank or sent them a request with papers? I have 2 reservations that were made several months apart with 2 different CCs. For one of my reservations, I submitted a long letter with information about the first contract and sections of the new contract that described the main differences between them. This bank wanted me to fax (who uses faxes anymore!!) or send info in mail. I just received a letter from them letting me know they are investigating. They haven't posted any refunds yet. The second bank is Chase and I called and started a dispute. They added a refund to my account right away but I feel that they will reverse it as soon as they hear back from the broker. So, each bank is different.
Time for you to bombard them with papers too

 

[cmrdgrs]

Update on chargeback saw note in my Citibank online they had reversed my chargeback... I called as I could not read it yet as it's not uploaded, but here is what I was told:. If the merchant argues (I guess sometimes they agree) it's reversed until you provide your side. Good times... I'll start drafting my response to submit after it's uploaded with instructions. Seems he just paperbombed them with pages from agreement online when we made reservation which isn't really pertinent.. stay tuned...

Sorry to hear this, but it doesn't mean your chargeback won't be successful. Good luck!

 

[Amymouse13]

Did you initially just call Citibank or sent them a request with papers? I have 2 reservations that were made several months apart with 2 different CCs. For one of my reservations, I submitted a long letter with information about the first contract and sections of the new contract that described the main differences between them. This bank wanted me to fax (who uses faxes anymore!!) or send info in mail. I just received a letter from them letting me know they are investigating. They haven't posted any refunds yet. The second bank is Chase and I called and started a dispute. They added a refund to my account right away but I feel that they will reverse it as soon as they hear back from the broker. So, each bank is different.
Time for you to bombard them with papers too

Citibank uses an online dispute you can really only check box saying service not received. They then contacted David's and here we are...

Bank of America we had to call, then they mailed us a form, then contacted David's, then mailed us a copy of everything David sent. This is a harder one as I can't call them as I'm not on my husband's business credit card as user so they won't talk to me.... We tried to call last night but they close at 7pm...

 

[disneypharm]

Citibank uses an online dispute you can really only check box saying service not received. They then contacted David's and here we are...

Bank of America we had to call, then they mailed us a form, then contacted David's, then mailed us a copy of everything David sent. This is a harder one as I can't call them as I'm not on my husband's business credit card as user so they won't talk to me.... We tried to call last night but they close at 7pm...

Very frustrating!! One of the CCs is my husband's CC as well. When we initially called, he told them that he authorizes me to discuss the matter with them, so I was able to do the dispute.

 

[DGsAtBLT]

I’m a renter who wants money not a voucher even in a perfect world where it could be guaranteed. I have no interest in dealing with the downsides of renting and what has now proven itself to be a lot more hassle for an ever shrinking benefit. On top of that, I have no interest in dealing with a pointless at best intermediary again.

We accepted the risks and downsides renting. We dealt with the much more inconvenient booking process, we accepted the lack of housekeeping, we accepted our inability to change or cancel, we accepted our inability to contact Disney about our reservation, etc. We purchased insurance, which should have worked beautifully... until David’s decided to become wishy washy with their no refunds.

I’m done with the drama. I want my money back, especially the 50% or so that I don’t think most renters except those on this website even realize never went to an owner.

 

[Bowen Family]

I have some new info to share. Apologies, I don't think I'm allowed to post links to the full regs, but they're easy enough to find if you want to read them in full.

Section 46 of Ontario's Travel Industry Act (O. Reg 26/05) used to say this:

----------------------------

Duty of registrant who resells travel services
46. If a registrant acquires rights to travel services for resale to other registrants or to customers and the supplier fails to provide the travel services paid for by a customer, the registrant who acquired the rights for resale shall reimburse the customer or provide comparable alternate travel services acceptable to the customer. O. Reg. 26/05, s. 46.

-----------------------------

My note: On March 30, 2020, the Province of Ontario (via O. Reg 101/20) amended the act as follows:

------------------------------

Section 46 of the Regulation is revoked and the following substituted:

Duty of registrant who resells travel services
46. (1) If a registrant acquires rights to travel services for resale to other registrants or to customers, and the supplier fails to provide the travel services paid for by a customer, the registrant who acquired the rights for resale shall,
(a) reimburse the customer;
(b) provide comparable alternate travel services that are acceptable to the customer; or
(c) provide the customer with a voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document that is acceptable to the customer, for future redemption towards travel services.

(2) Despite subsection (1), if the supplier’s failure to provide the travel services is related to coronavirus (COVID-19), the registrant may elect to provide the customer with a voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document, for future redemption towards travel services.

(3) The voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document referred to in subsection (2) shall,

(a) be of at least equal value to the travel services not provided; and

(b) be redeemable for a period of at least one year after the day it was issued, but not be limited to acquiring travel services that take place during that period.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) apply with respect to a supplier’s failure to provide travel services that occurs on or after the day this subsection comes into force.

(5) Subsections (2), (3), (4) and this subsection are revoked on April 1, 2021.

--------------------------------

6. The Regulation is amended by adding the following section:
Application re voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document

56.1 In sections 57 to 71,

(a) the person who redeems a voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document for travel services is considered to be the person who pays for the travel services; and

(b) the value of the travel services for which the voucher, certificate, coupon or similar document was redeemed is considered to be the amount paid.

 

[cmrdgrs]

@Bowen Family -- This is an interesting post. But, wouldn't you think that if your Agreement with David was signed before April 18th that the original act would stand?

ETA: I guess this answers my question posed much earlier in this thread about the type of business that David operates under -- he is formally a travel agent?