On Aboard Silversea Spirit Civitavecchia may 6

We just disembarked from the Spirit this morning, I will try and post some pics when I have a good internet connection. We ended up having no air conditioning for the entire cruise and several light fixtures we not installed correctly.

My big problem is that the room STILL is not fixed. I spoke with the front desk 4 times and nothing has been done.

I almost forgot we had diner in La Dam and one of the windows had a light that was flickering the WHOLE night, apparently nobody cared!

 

Not really sure if I will end using the voucher, I think a lot will depend on the response I receive from Silversea

It sounds like someone really, REALLY dropped the ball:mad:....so sorry you had these issues.......in the case

of 4 times......I would have asked for the Hotel Director if something had not been done after the 2nd time.

(but that is just me). I am really sorry this happened to you.:(

The attitude of some of the staff was very poor. Dimitri was excellent and tried his best to sort things out. Last night was sitting chatting to him and the fleet manager came over to say hi to him. Dimitri introduced me to him and said this gentleman has been having some problems. He didnt even speak or acknowledge me just turned away.

His wife and son seemed nice enough though.

No wonder they had no spare cabins to move people with problems to with the huge amount of corporate people and their families on there. Wonder if things worked in their cabins?

Because they can.

 

It is weird how different nationalities would tolerate different infringements. If I had no power for a couple of nights I’d explain firmly that I was expecting a full refund of the pro-rata payment ie 2/7ths of the cruise cost plus something for the “upset” and a promise that the power would be reinstated immediately or a refund for each power-less day would continue to be reimbursed - or I was leaving in the next port and going home when I’d claim the full cost of the cruise, fares home and compensation for being subjected to a perfectly avoidable fiasco. This is clearly not a luxury cruise experience. That would be my starting point for negotiations and if I was told that no one had authority to agree this with me I’d go home and litigate if it proved unavoidable.

 

The problem is that Americans have very limited legal recourse but Europeans and Australians have significant rights.

 

What I find bewildering is that it seems that senior SS staff were on board but seemed absent from engagement with customers and taking leadership but were instead ensuring they had a better cruise and causing further avoidable irritation and effectively making a bad situation worst.

Being an American I can say this. Americans are the most intimidated to complain about obvious shortcomings (in general) yet the first ones to hand out extra tips. Do we have a stronger need to be liked?

Being an American I can say this. Americans are the most intimidated to complain about obvious shortcomings (in general) yet the first ones to hand out extra tips. Do we have a stronger need to be liked?

Really? I am not trying to be sarcastic......maybe it is how a person is raised but I am not in the "intimidated to complain" group.......I pay good money for a product...albeit it a cruise or dinner at home at a restaurant.......being intimidated to speak my mind is not a problem (for me anyway). If something needs fixing, I will definitely say something.

Being an American I can say this. Americans are the most intimidated to complain about obvious shortcomings (in general) yet the first ones to hand out extra tips. Do we have a stronger need to be liked?

I think we see things through opposite ends of the telescope. For example when it comes to justice it seems to me that Americans seem more content if the process has been followed even if there is injustice, but Brits are not so interested in the process but will not tolerate injustice.

In my view along those lines, Americans seem tolerant to a society which is biaised almost entirely towards the rights of the corporation but not so much the rights of the individual if the individuals’ rights are at odds with those of big business. It seems that in the US if there is a contract then the customer is bound by the disadvantages inherrent in all the small print in consumer contracts even if they are manifestly unfair, the reasoning being that no one is forced into it and so you must accept it. In the UK our consumer laws basically say that you can ignore all small print and exclusion and unfair consumer contracts and the consumer rights of citizens are virtually supreme. I do not understand how this difference has been so easily tolerated by Americans.

So it seems to me that Americans accept that they have no contractual basis for virtually any consumer complaint whereas Europeans do complain because they have those rights. We have the strength of robust consumer law and inexpensive and very easy access to lower courts to enforce those rights. We therefore shout if our consumer rights are breached, but it seems Americans do not have anything remotely like those rights but seem not motivated to secure them.

Thanks Geoff (?)

Our lower court which hears the majority of these cases can be invoked online for a comparatively small fee. If the defendant doesn't respond to a claim within a couple of weeks to the court then the claimant can ask that the case is automatically found in favour of the claimant and that decision is automatic and procedural and the defendants are instructed to pay up and this is called "awarding by default". If they do not pay up bailiffs can be sent in to collect.

If however the claim proceeds to court it is heard in ostensibly an informal court ie most often in an almost semi-informal office type setting where the claimant can represent themselves. Even if the claimant loses, the court is reticent to award any legal representation costs the defendant incurs defending themselves. So if the claimant loses they essentially have only lost the court filing and hearing fees ie a couple of hundred pounds as their maximum downside and there is little chance of having to pay the Corporations costs except "witness costs".

To make things even spicier no result in this lowest court ever becomes a precedent which in a way encourages a more common sense rather than purely legalistic approach by the judge who is normally an experienced county court judge who was previously at The Bar (barrister) or solicitor. This also has another advantage in a way to the claimant as it introduces uncertainty for the defendant who very often doesn't want to crystallise the vulnerability of their contract to challenge and therefore they settle to stop it going to court, that being cheaper in the long run than having all your customers hearing and suing you. They also have the disadvantage of invariably having to incur high legal costs in defending themselves. The route isn't without it's unforeseen (by laypeople) challenges as it is still a legal process and can also be stressful.

As you rightly say the major difference is that in America, American's basically sign away all their rights and that contract is legally enforceable whereas in the UK, The EU and Oz, the identical contract is unenforceable where it is unfair or even unclear and the presumption is almost always in the consumers favour. The basis of this philosophy is the imbalance of power between the corporation and the consumer ie that it is presumed that the consumer often has limited choice, limited understanding of the small print and doesn't or cannot read the small print, and has to agree to a contract that is both unclear and unfair and on that basis it can effectively be largely ignored. We of course also have EU treaties which give us extraordinary rights if flights are cancelled or delayed or overbooked.

We had international clients that had operations in all geographics and the contrasts in the way that customer issues was dealt with was extremely starkly contrasted. We use to joke that whereas the message when you called Customer Service in the UK was "Please stay online, your call is important to us" in the US it should instead be ......... ;)

In America we have a small claims court system where you can represent yourself. The problem is you would have to sue SS in Miami. Every country has it's good and bad. I understand I'm the UK your deposit is non-refundable while here it is up to final payment.

Every country has it's good and bad. I understand I'm the UK your deposit is non-refundable while here it is up to final payment.

Is this really the case?

To be precise, in the US the deposit is refundable less a $200/booking (not passenger) fee that can be applied to a future sailing. Nonetheless, $200 is a lot better than 25% of the fare. :)

Is this really the case?

 

 

 

To be precise, in the US the deposit is refundable less a $200/booking (not passenger) fee that can be applied to a future sailing. Nonetheless, $200 is a lot better than 25% of the fare. :)

Yes 25% would be a lot to loose..... if it were the case which I’m pleased to say it isn’t!

I sounds like your cancellation details is the same for the U.K. (only 200 £ not $) so yes a slight advantage to a US resident over UK should you choose to cancel and not rebook. Not quite the same as 25%.... and I’d certainly trade that minor detail to have our consumer laws in place that do look after the consumer and not protect the corporations.

And having to travel to Miami (as was suggested) to sue SS is very much protecting the corporation!

In America we have a small claims court system where you can represent yourself. The problem is you would have to sue SS in Miami. Every country has it's good and bad. I understand I'm the UK your deposit is non-refundable while here it is up to final payment.

As I explained earlier, unfair consumer terms are non-enforceable. That effectively means that the customer should have exactly the same rights to cancel as SS. As SS can contractually cancel without penalty right up departure date then that is technically also the same rights the passengers enjoy.

Most people in the UK are not aware of these rights and accept compliantly what they are told by SS or their TA. There is a fair amount of case law building up for travel generally and the maximum that is chargeable as a cancellation fee is the actual administration costs of processing the cancellation which is considered minimal. The only exception to over-riding UK laws with respect to travel are those for air travel which are covered by various conventions, tresties and laws.

In America we have a small claims court system where you can represent yourself. The problem is you would have to sue SS in Miami. Every country has it's good and bad. I understand I'm the UK your deposit is non-refundable while here it is up to final payment.

I meant to add, that in the UK if an individual sues a company then the hearing is ALWAYS in the closest court to the individual and the corporation has to do the traveling.

Really? I am not trying to be sarcastic......maybe it is how a person is raised but I am not in the "intimidated to complain" group.......I pay good money for a product...albeit it a cruise or dinner at home at a restaurant.......being intimidated to speak my mind is not a problem (for me anyway). If something needs fixing, I will definitely say something.

Good for you!

UK Jeff,

I was jus making an observation. I have no intention of getting into the differences between legal systems.

Yes 25% would be a lot to loose..... if it were the case which I’m pleased to say it isn’t!

 

I sounds like your cancellation details is the same for the U.K. (only 200 £ not $) so yes a slight advantage to a US resident over UK should you choose to cancel and not rebook. Not quite the same as 25%.... and I’d certainly trade that minor detail to have our consumer laws in place that do look after the consumer and not protect the corporations.

 

And having to travel to Miami (as was suggested) to sue SS is very much protecting the corporation!

Part of the problem with the US legal system is that people can sue at will and have no skin in the game. If you didn't consolidate litigation in one venue, it could be extremely costly for SS to have to defend in multiple venues. I believe in the UK if you sue someone and lose, you pay their costs. this is a great deterrent and makes one think twice before filing a frivolous claim.

.If you didn't consolidate litigation in one venue, it could be extremely costly for SS to have to defend in multiple venues. I believe in the UK if you sue someone and lose, you pay their costs. this is a great deterrent and makes one think twice before filing a frivolous claim.

I really don’t understand your point.

As I have already explained in detail, costs awarded against an individual using the lower court in the UK is zero or minimal if they lose.There is therfore every reason why individuals should fight for their rights and every reason why defendants should settle outside of litigation if appropriate. Claimants and defendants are expected to make every effort to avoid using the court process before making a legal claim. The judge does have sanctions for frivolous or vexatious litigants.

These cases are brought by individuals and are not class actions and cannot therefore be consolidated for the convenience of the defendant.

Is this really the case?

 

 

 

To be precise, in the US the deposit is refundable less a $200/booking (not passenger) fee that can be applied to a future sailing. Nonetheless, $200 is a lot better than 25% of the fare. :)

My previous reply was based on memory. I placed another booking today. The non refundable part (that can be used on another booking if cancelled) is £130 - not £200 as suggested.

So even the deposit I’d suggested was in US bookers favour turns out not to be! Minor detail of course and posted purely to correct that error.

My previous reply was based on memory. I placed another booking today. The non refundable part (that can be used on another booking if cancelled) is £130 - not £200 as suggested.

 

So even the deposit I’d suggested was in US bookers favour turns out not to be! Minor detail of course and posted purely to correct that error.

It's $US 200

It's $US 200

I think we established what the US cancellation fee was a couple of days ago.