ANOTHER BIG CLASS ACTION - Bus tour not 5* river cruise

[Marty156]

So Big_M, you were what, on a train? A car? cycling past the flooded rivers?

 

Seems like you were not actually and physically on one of the affected ships, were you?

 

And if not, you have no first hand experience of what happened or why the claim is in Court!

[dougo in oz]

DougOz

I'm not sure what I can divulge re evidence at this stage. As it is still a matter in Court.

However, let me assure you that significant evidence was shown that Scenic KNEW all about the issues prior to pax leaving Australia and they refused to advise pax, refused to acknowledge that the rivers were closed for navigation and -refused to give Australian passengers the option to cancel!

 

Documentary evidence in Court demonstrated that Scenic knew about the river conditions prior to embarkation and there is evidence that they gave UK pax cancelation options, but stressed NOT to tell the Aussies.

 

Europe offices and their staff wanted the company to cancel, but SCENIC head office in Newcastle NSW refused to do so. Even knowing that it would be impossible to even perform 50% of a cruise.

 

Wonder why most other rivercruise companies not only gave a full refund, but also additional credit towards a future cruise. But Scenic did not. Only offered a measly $500 per person for something that cost around $10,000 per person. And only if you asked for it!

 

Letter sent to passengers from the managing director in Australia said that we would, and I quote,

"...receive a refund that we would be happy with..."

 

Really???

A 0.05% refund would make anyone happy???

 

Documentation of the Statement of Claim and the defence to it are public documents available on the Supreme Court website and I would encourage Big-M to read same to get the facts right.

 

http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/sco2_class_action/european_river_cruise.aspx

 

Thanks for clarifying Marty.

 

I'm sure if I had been scheduled to go on that cruise and seen that the docks in Budapest were flooded, I would have been very concerned about continuing on.

 

Unfortunately, not many travel insurance companies (that I can use here in Australia without jumping through hoops and paying a small fortune) offer a "cancel for any reason policy".

 

I'm guessing unless any of the passengers had that clause in their policy, they had two choices ... abandon the Evergreen / Scenic Tour 15 day "cruise" and get not a cent back from they insurance company, or continue with the so called cruise.

 

Are the passengers in the class action asking for a full refund ?

[GUT2407]

Thanks for clarifying Marty.

 

I'm sure if I had been scheduled to go on that cruise and seen that the docks in Budapest were flooded, I would have been very concerned about continuing on.

 

Unfortunately, not many travel insurance companies (that I can use here in Australia without jumping through hoops and paying a small fortune) offer a "cancel for any reason policy".

 

I'm guessing unless any of the passengers had that clause in their policy, they had two choices ... abandon the Evergreen / Scenic Tour 15 day "cruise" and get not a cent back from they insurance company, or continue with the so called cruise.

 

Are the passengers in the class action asking for a full refund ?

 

Interesting that it is claimed that scenic KNEW what the situation was, but the amended pleadings are clear that the claim is based on that they ought reasonably have known.

[GUT2407]

2.10g of the Contract may provide some problems for the Plaintiffs

 

 

 

 

(g) We may substitute (at the nearest reasonable standard) another vessel or motorcoach for all or part of the Itinerary and also provide alternative accommodation, where necessary.

[Aussieflyer]

2.10g of the Contract may provide some problems for the Plaintiffs

 

I wonder if the reference to 'motor coach' is now in the new T&Cs as it seems that it may not have been part of them in 2013. From what I have read SC has amended its T&Cs since then in order to 'cover all bases' so to speak.

[GUT2407]

I wonder if the reference to 'motor coach' is now in the new T&Cs as it seems that it may not have been part of them in 2013. From what I have read SC has amended its T&Cs since then in order to 'cover all bases' so to speak.

 

I doubt it, because it is part of the pleadings in the defence, so unless someone has stuffed up badly and drafted the defence from the wrong contract it was in there at the time.

[Aussieflyer]

Thanks GUT. I wondered if it was part of the new T&Cs but seems not.

[mr walker]

Were you really there Big-M?.....

If not, then you have absolutely zero knowledge or authority -let alone any vestige of a smidgeon of credibility- in this matter.

 

A 0.05% refund would make anyone happy???

 

 

Not sure why you are worried about what anyone on cc, including Big-M, thinks. It is now up to the judge, right?

 

Also, I suggest that $500 in $10,000 is 5%, not 0.05%, as inadequate as the offer may have been in any case to your mind.

[The_Big_M]

So Big_M, you were what, on a train? A car? cycling past the flooded rivers?

 

Seems like you were not actually and physically on one of the affected ships, were you?

 

And if not, you have no first hand experience of what happened or why the claim is in Court!

 

Where did I ever say I was on one of the involved ships? I have made no such claim.

 

However, why the aggro from you when you don't seem to have posed that same question to any of the other participants in this thread? It seems because you don't like my viewpoint you are trying to discredit my opinion - when all I have done is discuss my opinion in the same way others have.

[Marty156]

DougOz and BigM

No, there is no amount set for the claim.

It is up to the judge initially to find if Scenic is culpable in the first place.

 

If so, then there will also be the matter of the judge deciding whether a bus is a suitable replacement for a ship! (As Scenic attempted to confirm to the judge). -See comments from Cyrix4000 who was at the Court hearing!)

 

Then there are the various legal Australian Consumer Law issues, such as if a clause is deemed to be (and ruled to be) invalid, in which case it is totally removed from the contract.

 

This is interesting on its own, if the clause that states that you are bound by the T&C just by paying a deposit -ONLY, and if this clause number 1.2 should be ruled invalid, then there would be no applicable T&C at all!

 

It is then a matter for the legal beagles to identify claim amounts- based on the impact of each individual cruise ship.

 

Following this, no doubt there will be other claims and counter claims for loss of enjoyment and inconvenience, for not giving the consumer the option to cancel as this was a major breach of the ACL etc, and so on.

 

Oh, and Big_M

I noted you were on an elevated train track, and obviously not going via for example Passau and other places (that had a 500 year flood event!)

 

So, please refrain from your obviously unqualified opinions.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Marty156
spelling fix

[Marty156]

Not sure why you are worried about what anyone on cc, including Big-M, thinks. It is now up to the judge, right?

 

Also, I suggest that $500 in $10,000 is 5%, not 0.05%, as inadequate as the offer may have been in any case to your mind.

 

Oops! My bad. You are correct of course....

[dougo in oz]

I wonder if the reference to 'motor coach' is now in the new T&Cs as it seems that it may not have been part of them in 2013. From what I have read SC has amended its T&Cs since then in order to 'cover all bases' so to speak.

 

 

I think you are correct in surmising that ST has amended its T&C since 2013 and indeed the commencement of the Class Action.

 

Recently there was an announcement of sorts that they would offer some kind of insurance so that any tour cancelled AFTER commencement would be refunded (I think).

 

The problem is as Marty and many others found out, they refused to cancel the tour even in what European citizens were calling the floods to be a disaster.

 

My other issue with this "insurance" is that there are many babes in the woods out there who put all their trust in companies along with thousands of dollars that they will do the right thing by them.

 

I doubt we would be seeing a class action if the compensation offered reflected the discomfort that passengers endured for half of their "cruise". I know of some who had difficulty sitting for long periods of time on the bus and needed medical assistance - at their own expense.

[Aussieflyer]

I agree dough in oz, in that the company has changed its T&Cs though not sure whether passengers actually would be any better off. The point of the passengers is that other lines cancelled and provided full refunds whereas ST for some reason decided to press ahead and so delivered a product which was not what was booked.

The weasel words of cruise lines T&Cs that they can make any change they so choose with no recourse from the passenger just stinks IMO and I think the judge will be looking at what would have been a reasonable action on the part of the cruise line.

Remind me never to use Scenic or Evergreen!

[The_Big_M]

Oh, and Big_M

I noted you were on an elevated train track, and obviously not going via for example Passau and other places (that had a 500 year flood event!)

 

So, please refrain from your obviously unqualified opinions.

 

a) there are many people posting here, most likely most with "unqualified opinions." Get over yourself with trying to dictate who can and who can't post.

 

b) as for your specific assertion, apparently your 'qualification' didn't give you very much local knowledge of the situation. Train tracks, stations, bridges and all sorts of other infrastructure were also affected by the flooding. Clearly you believe that your knowledge is unique and special, but it is obviously only part of the story.

 

Secondly, another of your accusations is incorrect. I have already said I was on a train by the river, so that could well have been Passau which does have a train line beside the river, or "other places". However, your attempted oneupmanship does nothing for your cause, or boost your argument. I have no idea why you think aggressively posting will benefit you in any way. It doesn't come down to what I think. It also doesn't come down to what you think. It comes down to what the judge thinks. Anything anyone posts here is just opinion, and you would do well respecting that.

[Russell21]

a) there are many people posting here, most likely most with "unqualified opinions." Get over yourself with trying to dictate who can and who can't post.

 

b) as for your specific assertion, apparently your 'qualification' didn't give you very much local knowledge of the situation. Train tracks, stations, bridges and all sorts of other infrastructure were also affected by the flooding. Clearly you believe that your knowledge is unique and special, but it is obviously only part of the story.

 

Secondly, another of your accusations is incorrect. I have already said I was on a train by the river, so that could well have been Passau which does have a train line beside the river, or "other places". However, your attempted oneupmanship does nothing for your cause, or boost your argument. I have no idea why you think aggressively posting will benefit you in any way. It doesn't come down to what I think. It also doesn't come down to what you think. It comes down to what the judge thinks. Anything anyone posts here is just opinion, and you would do well respecting that.

I'm glad you got up him, I had to restrain myself from doing so and I'm not even involved.