Teddy123

1 hour ago, Megabear2 said:

I had hoped since July there may have been some changes.  I  afraid nothing is changed in any way. We cannot force insurers so our only leverage is via FCA to name these companies to ask the FCA to censure them (as they did yesterday regarding Halifax and Avanti) for not showing clearly there is this exclusion.

 

Have you asked Staysure the question in the plain terms format we have used for Holiday Extras? I did not contact them in my "round robin" because I was aware you had.

 

I am thinking of collecting and collating all the replies and forwarding them to P&O, copied to the unfair contracts team at the FCA.  Any opinions?

 

Cheers!

There is a clear statement from HE that offloaded negative passengers are not covered.  If you are willing to take it on, I would suggest simply quoting this part of their reply to P&O, contrasting it with the statement on P&O's website, and asking them to justify thier position (on their recommendation and/or their "insurer pays" stance). You could also highlight HE's statement about offloading being "not a common insured event".

9 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I take the phrase "by subscribing an insurance policy that includes etc etc", as requesting the passenger to buy a policy that covers these etceteras. Which is what P&O have done, but as Megabear2 has discovered, such a policy is as rare as hens teeth.

 

Well, I think it's clear the insurance is taken out by the cruise line.  However, since the status of the document is unlear, such debate is fairly academic!  It may well be that the whole offloading issue goes away before there is clarity!

Just now, terrierjohn said:

Have you actually read all the terms and conditions on your travel insurance policy, it would take Spanish immigration official a week to clear all 5000 Iona passengers. That is assuming they have an army of immigration officials at every port, something I have not noticed.

But the question is not "have all 5,000 passengers got the right insurance?", it's "does the cruise line have the right insurance?". 

The key statement in the document is, I think: "All the derived costs [resulting from an 'event' on board] must be COVERED BY THE SHIPPING COMPANY by subscribing an insurance policy that includes agreements with health centers and other established establishments in which to accommodate the people who need it" - my emphasis.

I see this as the Spanish government wanting to be sure somebody pays, and putting the onus on the cruise line to do so, and to take out insurance. But perhaps no such insurance for cruise lines exists. I have no idea what can(not) be insured by lines. In any case. the line and its insurer will wish the passenger's insurer to pay if possible. But the document is clear it's the line's insurer that pays if necessary.

The status of the document is not so clear. It says "The measures established in this document will be certified within the framework of the Puertos del Estado Certification Schemes, applying the Quality of Service for Cruise Traffic Reference document".  This seems to me to make it more than just guidance, but who knows?!  Perhaps it's just a model of how the Spanish government would have liked things to be arranged and it has not materialised - or perhaps it is active and binding.

3 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I very much doubt the practicality of that.

You may be right that phyisically stopping a ship going into a port may be difficult, but preventing anybody leaving the ship if it can't provide the right paperwork is surely trivial - and that's the only incentive a cruise line will need.

4 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Can the Spanish govt dictate insurance terms to companies insuring UK passengers sailing on ships based in the UK, I wonder?

I imagine what it can do is say "you can't come into any Spanish port unless you have this insurance" - which is what the referenced document is about, I think.

1 minute ago, Interestedcruisefan said:

Won't the cruise lines just say if someone is negative they aren't asking them to offload 

 

And that's purely customer choice when it happens 

 

Although we all of course realise many families would never leave others overseas on their own 

My understanding was that the Spanish authorities required negative contacts to be offloaded and ship captains were agreeing to this and sending negative people ashore - so no choice.

1 hour ago, Teddy123 said:

This seems a great find, and crucial - if still valid.  To me, it says cruise lines must have insurance to cover all the costs of people offloaded and quarantined, whether positive or negative.  A "nothing to do with us" stance from any cruise line thus seems unjustified, and the question of passengers' insurance seems irrelevant.  Cruise lines should have the insurance and should consequently meet the offloading costs.

Of course, this does only apply to Spain - but that seems to be the main area of concern currently.

1 hour ago, Stu UK said:

This is an interesting document if still current - especially the healthcare guarantee section. 
 

https://www.mitma.gob.es/recursos_mfom/paginabasica/recursos/health_measures_for_the_restoration_of_cruise_ship_activities_in_spain_def_en_20210531.pdf

This seems a great find, and crucial - if still valid.  To me, it says cruise lines must have insurance to cover all the costs of people offloaded and quarantined, whether positive or negative.  A "nothing to do with us" stance from any cruise line thus seems unjustified, and the question of passengers' insurance seems irrelevant.  Cruise lines should have the insurance and should consequently meet the offloading costs.

1 hour ago, Dermotsgirl said:

I noticed that this thread got a mention of a social media site.

 

obe of the people that commented said that she had been offloaded in a Spanish port as testing positive. Her husband, still testing negative offloaded himself with her. Apparently, he wasn’t allowed to stay with her in the  quarantine hotel - he had to find his own hotel.

 

I hadn’t even thought of that scenario as a possible outcome. 

I guess my policy is typical for this scenario: the husband's accommodation and travel costs are covered if leaving the ship and staying with his wife is "the recommended medical advice".  So some chance of being covered in special cases.

11 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

This is exactly why we are back to square one. They are fully aware and at first said they would address it.  I have letters and emails stating they are discussing at highest level  They stated they were speaking to Holiday Extras.  The next I heard was to assure me no one had been out of pocket and a more customer focused protocol would be forthcoming.  Then, absolutely nothing.

 

Personally I think that when the big Iona covid outbreaks started to occur they became very nervous. They'd done very well up to Christmas with only small numbers offloaded or quarantined and we have good reason to believe these people were paid out under non disclosure agreements.  However with Omicron not being detected at departure so easily my personal belief is the percentage affected is considerably higher so making ex gratia payments may no longer be attractive.  

 

The Spring season will shortly be upon us with all the P&O fleet back in action. I'm guessing the new you're on your own with insurance statement is the last throw of the dice with their fingers crossed the pandemic will ease along with countries' entry requirements so they aren't caught out.

 

If you check all the big cruise lines they've all changed to this stance since 1 January.  So much has gone wrong in the past month there seems to be an underlying panic sweeping across the board.

 

Interestingly MSC have strengthened the terms for their passengers in the past week totally against the grain.

This is a very plausible assessment.  P&O had a solution (insure with HE) that was OK until Omicron and its ramifications came along.  Now that solution is not OK, P&O know this, but still recommend it.  Most of the problems are outside P&O's control, but this is one area where they are at fault.

4 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

They are aware of that. When I drew their attention to it in October they thought otherwise. I forwarded them an online chat and they actually put several individuals on as mystery shoppers and admitted it a few days later.  I was told it had passed up the line for high level meetings.

If they knew the problem in October, then putting words on their website in January that say in the case of offloading "The guest’s travel insurance provider will handle all matters in relation to their isolation stay and repatriation home, providing they took adequate COVID-19 coverage on their policy" is not helpful. 

Perhaps they should say "The guest’s travel insurance provider will handle all matters in relation to their isolation stay and repatriation home, providing they took adequate COVID-19 coverage on their policy, RATHER THAN USING THE INSURER WE RECOMMENDED"!

As has been pointed out in these discussions, while the cover offered by various insurers is of interest, that offered by Holiday Extras, as the insurer recommended by P&O/Cunard, is specially relevant.

It seems clear to me from reading the HE policy wording (sections 21 and 22) that the ONLY cover is for the case where the insured actually catches COVID, and any claim must include a copy of a positive test from a registered medical practitioner.

Whatever replies might be received from HE as a result of queries, these policy words will, I believe, stand, especially if there is a dispute.

Thus P&O appear to be offloading people who are not postive, saying insurers will take care of everything if this happens, yet recommending insurers who clearly do NOT provide the relevant cover.

5 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Following the email from Holiday Extras which I posted on the now locked Covid on Iona board, I have followed up as follows with Matthew, copied to his representative, Liz Gray.

 

Quote

 

Dear Matthew,

 

Thank you for your prompt response which was much appreciated.  I have now received a follow up email from Liz Gray on your behalf. Ms Gray, it appears, has been instructed to look at this as a complaint rather than as an overall enquiry to you as the CEO of Holiday Extras as to what the policies you are selling actually will cover.

 

I appreciate that Liz will complete a full investigation but note that this is scheduled to take some time, in the normal course within 8 weeks but hopefully expedited to 7-10 days.   This is an inordinate amount of time to answer what is a simple question:

 

In the event that a passenger on a cruise ship is asked to leave the vessel as a close contact of a positively tested passenger or crew member while they themselves have a negative test, will the insurance policy purchased from Holiday Extras cover their costs of quarantine including but not limited to accommodation, food and sustenance, sundries such as internet and telephone access, transportation to and from the quarantine premises, covid testing while in quarantine, nursing/doctors' costs for administering and documenting these required tests and repatriation to the United Kingdom.

 

I do, of course, welcome a full investigation into how this matter has to date been handled, but do feel that a straightforward answer to the above question is one you can answer yes or no to without need to investigate.

 

If the issue is too complex to enable this reply, I would be grateful for an explanation as to why by return.

 

Your company is the recommended supplier of insurance products for two of the leading cruise lines in the UK market, P&O and Cunard.  As such, it is surely not too much to ask if you are aware of the terms and conditions of the policies you sell in their name. 

 

It is a fact that sadly both of these companies have had Covid outbreaks on some ships since international cruising recommenced in October, with both negative and positive passengers disembarked in foreign ports.  As such you should, surely, be in a position to confirm the outcome (in general, not of course on an individual basis) for any negative tested close contacts and whether the costs incurred in quarantine by these passengers were met in full, in part or not all.

 

I would find it difficult to believe that you and your directors would not be aware of these events as they are, of course, extremely pertinent to your relationship with the cruise lines.

 

As I stated in my earlier email, my family's policies were bought as annual policies when TIF was the underwriter. I am aware this is now Great Lakes and have read online your current documentation in case the underwriter change impacted the policy.  I can find no such change.

 

I look forward to hearing from you and Liz with a direct answer to my question above.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Unquote 

Thanks for putting this together.  Some simple, direct questions - let's see if we get some answers in the same vein (anybody taking bets?).

13 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Surely they would cover food as well?  I'm guessing the 'Emergency Medical Team' would agree that people who are isolated need to eat and all cruises of which I'm aware are 'all inclusive' in that they include meals (except for specialist restaurants), so the 'depending on the type of cruise you booked' bit strikes me as a bit of a red herring!

If that is true, then it seems that the only thing this won't cover is tests...

I've looked at the most expensive All Clear policy (Platinum). It says there is cover

"for reasonable and necessary additional accommodation (room only) and travelling expenses (economy class), including those of one relative or friend if you have to be accompanied home on medical advice or if you are a child and require an escort home. You must have our permission to do this.

Please note cover is limited to a maximum of £2,000 in relation to [this] point if you have to extend your trip because you have contracted coronavirus disease (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-COV-2), or any mutation or variation of these; or if you are quarantined (on the orders of the treating medical practitioner) abroad as the result of the above conditions."

I would expect these words to be definitive in any debate about what's covered.  So accommodation only and a limit of £2,000 on this and travel in total.

3 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

To anyone insuring with Cover For You, we have news:

 

Thank you for your email.

 

[Text removed as referred to age cover]

 

Nevertheless, please note that in our policies, if there is no advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Developemnt Office (FCDO) against travelling to the countries our clients intend to visit at the time of their departure from the UK, they will be covered - subject to the policy terms and conditions and subject to medical certification and/or test results and/or the official notice from the ship captain/doctor - if any of the insured contracts Covid-19 or tests positive for Covid-19 whilst travelling, and needs to be offloaded to land from the cruise or if the insured are offloaded to land from the cruise as the captain of the ship has officially decided that close contacts to a Covid-19 carriers need to be taken off the ship and cannot isolate in the ship under cabin confinement, for reasonable additional transport and/or accommodation expenses incurred, if it is medically necessary for them to stay beyond their scheduled return date.  On this event our Emergency Medical Team needs to be contacted as soon as possible, they are available 24/7 at +44 (0) 1473 351 755.

 

If the reason for travel is not listed on https://www.coverforyou.com/coronavirus_cover.php as an essential reason for travel the following terms apply:

 

FCDO advises against 'all travel'

 

No Cover

 

FCDO advises against 'all but essential travel'

 

If your travel is not 'essential':  Cover excluding any claim arising either directly or indirectly from the reason the FCDO advice against travel is in place. For example if your destination states 'The FCDO advises against all but essential travel to … based on the current assessment of COVID-19 risks.' then your policy would provide full cover for any otherwise valid claim other than a claim caused either directly (for example you contracting COVID-19) or indirectly (for example your accommodation becoming unavailable due to COVID-19) by COVID-19.

Only the insured persons can make an informed decision based on their own individual circumstances and the risks, so long as you are not travelling soley for the purposes of a holiday and believe that your travel is essential then we will provide full cover (subject to the normal terms and conditions of your policy). We may ask you at the point of claim to provide documentary proof of your reason for travel.

 

For more information on the Covid-19 cover on your policy, please visit the following webpage: https://www.coverforyou.com/fcdo_travel.php

Unfortunately, with any claims we are unable to fully confirm if a claim will be accepted, as we have no jurisdiction in regards to claims, and all claims are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by our Claims Department, who will analyse all factors surrounding the claim event in order to validate a claim.

 

Our Claims Department only answers queries when an actual claim has been submitted, as per above, considering that hypotetical situations do not reflect the actual event, as the review is based on actual facts and factors that led to a claim.

 

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

 

Kindest regards,

 

We appear to have a success!!!

But this says that if a negative contact is offloaded then accommodation and travel will be covered "if it is medically necessary for them to stay beyond their scheduled return date." Some scope for debate about whether it's "medically necessary" for a negative contact to stay, surely - unless being offloaded in these circumstances is seen as consituting a "medical necessity" even for a fit person.  This seems ambiguous to me.

11 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

It's been a busy day! I confirm emails sent and read receipts received for all suggested insurers.  It is proving difficult to contact RBS but this is as I expected.  I will tomorrow track down the underwriter rather than the actual bank.  This is a shared underwriter as explained previously so any information we get will cover RBS, NatWest, Direct Line and Nationwide policies.

 

In light of the interesting LV clause I shall also contact them for an update on my previous correspondence, together with Aviva who were on my original list as well. 

 

How nice it has been for us all to be on the same page today, it's been a pleasure all round. Hopefully tomorrow may bring floods of information.  Meantime thanks everyone and good night.

If it helps, the relevant clauses in the LV policy are K9 and K10.

1 hour ago, Megabear2 said:

Thank you.  Back three months ago I had a long chat with LV who were very open and said absolutely not covered - one of the few.  They did mention their curtailment and special terms and this sounds like its one of those. It's certainly interesting and better than nothing.

I took out the policy recently, so perhaps the clauses are a new addition.  Or perhaps LV don't think they give the cover the words seem to imply!  I'm not currently inclined to risk putting it to the test!  I looked in detail at the precise wording of several policies but must admit being offloaded while negative wasn't a scenario I considered, and I focused on cover for land-based holidays on the assumption any cruise quarantine would be in my cabin!

13 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

May I ask which insurer, they may share an underwriter and we can investigate further with them to see if anyone else might benefit from this clause. Thanks.

Sure - it's LV=. The underwriters are stated as Liverpool Victoria so as I understand it, it's "all their own work".

My policy (from a major insurer, not a travel specialist) seems to provide a partial solution to being offloaded even if not infected.  It pays for additional accommodation and travel costs for return home "for you to stay longer at your destination because of a quarantine period that has been ordered by a government or public authority for you specifically whilst you are at your destination".  

On the plus side, no need to actually have tested positive, just to have been ordered into quarantine.  On the negative side, the policy explicitly excludes food and has a limit of £1,000 per person.  There could also be some debate over the meaning of the undefined term "destination", although the policy does cover cruises.  It's on a "reimbursement with receipts" basis.

So, better than nothing but certainly not a full solution.

OBC on board credit. What is FCD? I'm a Cunard newbie, hence the question.

Future Cruise Deposit - see posts #7 and #9.

Now off myself on a QV Canaries Cruise - on which I plan to buy some FCD.

This cruise is a 12 night cruise and we have USD 1200 between the two of us.

So you would have had $300pp anyway and by using the FCD you got an extra $300pp. The FCD happens to double the OBC in this case, but that's just a coincidence, not a general rule.

At lunch we meet up with Stanley and Judith from our table so we shared a table for 4 where I shared the knowledge regarding Future Cruise Deposits, it was some thing they hadn't come across. Essentially you pay £50 as a deposit on a cruise and If you book it within 12 months you get double onboard spend, which could mean $600 per person.

Since I don't eat meat, I only remember the vegetarian and fish items from our recent PG cruise on QE, but these seem remarkably similar! Also the A La Carte menu looks identical, with the exception of the "order in advance" items which seem slightly more extensive than in PG, but which I wouldn't eat. Interesting to see I'm not missing out much food-wise by choosing PG!

Just of this short trip cruise just to put the record straight we set sail at 20.00 for a mystery cruise down to the Channel Islands , Then the next day ( Saturday)was a Sea day and Zeebruger was intended for the Sunday but this was canaled as the Port Harbour Master told the Captain that the conditions where to bad to Dock and Undock , In my Opinion the Captain had no say in the Matter as the Port would Not let us Dock, Now the weather conditions where Known 5 Days before we Sailed so why did Cunard not go to Zeebruger on the Saturday when the weather was fine & there was space to dock instead of just sailing up and down the Channel, Cunard made the wrong by Decision not changing the day Result a lot of very irate passenger's.

I was on this cruise too and everybody onboard I spoke to understood the situation and was not irate at all. I had been tracking the weather, and dispute that the conditions on Sunday 10th were known sufficiently well 5 days before sailing (ie on Sunday 3rd) for a major change of itinerary to be justified, as suggested.