How to get banned from NCL

[Two Wheels Only]

45 minutes ago, erdoran said:

This uses “adjoin” and “connecting” in the same description, but it clearly says CONNECTING in the name.  If this was booked along with a balcony perhaps there is a legitimate, documentable gripe.

 

I used "suite-to-balcony" in my post. If that is what she wanted, she wouldn't have "connecting suites" because only one stateroom would have been a suite.

 

Maybe she wanted H8+balcony and somehow booked a H7+balcony.

 

If the H8+balcony was what she wanted but booked a H7+balcony, the issue would have likely been about Haven access for those booked in the other stateroom which is another can of worms to open....

 

 

[jbethel11]

I feel horrible for Norwegian. She was on a cruise on their flagship, they offered her 3,000 in future credit, and now she wants to dispute the charge? It's like a stab in the back for Norwegian. 

[bonvoyagie]

I agree that there is a semantic difference between connecting, adjoining, and adjacent. Way back in 03 we booked an NCL cruise with our kids - we got one balcony and one inside - we had to book this with my wife and daughter in one room and me and our son in the other.  The cabins were about 8 apart and on the other side of the hall - but back then that was still allowed. Of course once onboard we got extra keys for each cabin and our kids were in the inside together and we were in the balcony. The room stewards quickly put two and two together and let us know which direction each kid went. I know that there are also many suites that easily accommodate a family of 4  as well as family insides and balconies. I have been in  a 2bedroom suite where there is also an adjoining mini suite. So the range of cabin types that meet the requirements are there. 

 

I think that if there had been an issue with the reservation NCL would have caught it and made sure that it was correct per their contract. If her kids were as independent as she  states, they would have been just fine in a adjacent or adjoining cabin. If they did not go on the cruise then they might have been able to dispute the charges.

 

I agree too that they were probably new to cruising - and esp NCL she did not do her homework on the deck plans and cabin options. It was also not stated how far ahead she booked - most seasoned cruisers know that inaugural cruises book up years in advance.

 

She had a very good thing  with the cruise next certs - too bad she blew it.

[sanger727]

23 hours ago, BNBR said:

 

That's not how it works.  Did NCL sell this customer a connecting room or not?  If their deck plan at the time showed the rooms connecting, then that is an issue.  Did she book through NCL and a rep told her the rooms were connecting?  Does she have documentation from when she booked that the room is connecting?  And why did she believe she had a connecting room if not?  Did the customer also file a second chargeback (AMEX limits you to 2, which allows you to further make your case)?  "Services only partially received" is absolutely a valid dispute reason.  And if she was sold a connecting room and reasonably believed she had a connecting room, then the partial chargeback is valid and she should have continued the resolution process.  She didn't follow it all the way through.

 

Thats not how it works. If this was the case then ever time a cruise line cancelled a port you could institute a charge back for ‘services only partially received’. Heck, under that logic if any onboard services are closed (ie water slides or a pool) it would work. None of those things are promised to you in the cruise contract.  She booked a cruise for two rooms in X category. She took a cruise in two rooms in X category. Services promised in the contract were received.

 

What speaks volume of her motivations is that she is fighting to continue cruising with NCL. I’ve been in a situation with a company where I believed they violated that contract I had with them. They refused to make it right. I finally complained to the better business bureau and after that the company made it right. There is no way I will EVER do business with them. Fool me once, shame on u; fool me twice, shame on me. Why would I continue to do business with a company that violates their contracts.

 

But she still wants to cruise with NCL, even though the compensation wasn’t to her liking. She can’t have been that upset about the situation and felt that wronged by NCL if she wants to continue doing business with them. This is simply a case of being a squeaky wheel to get the grease and then getting greedy. Serves her right to be banned. I agree that if she got on the ship and the room situation was truly unacceptable she could have left at that point.

[graphicguy]

Had a similar discussion with one of my cruise fanatic friends last weekend.  There are people on cruises (and with most resort areas) who aren’t very friendly towards staff or their other passengers.  Nothing is ever done right (according to them) and always seem to be complaining.

 

99.9% of the time things go well when I cruise, and I cruise quite a bit.  When it doesn’t, the cruise lines (all of them, not just NCL) will go out of their way to make it better.

 

Not sure what happened here, but it sounds like NCL went out of their way to make things better for the banned cruiser with a very generous offer for any misunderstandings.  Not good enough, apparently.  So, NCL did the only thing they could do at that point.  They cut bait with a cruiser who they were likely never going to be appease.

[phillyguy31]

I think the OP was actually referring to a Mini-Suite not an actual Haven suite. Could she have also thought that connecting meant they would open the balcony divider? If she was actually looking at a services rendered issue she could have used any dollar value, instead she used the OBC value. Since OBC has no cash value she deserves $0.00. I really can't blame NCL for banning her, she really went overboard in her request.

Sorry for the pun.....😀

[SeaShark]

The funniest thing about this story, to me anyway, is that it shows just how easily history repeats itself.

 

There were some posters here on CC who got themselves banned by complaining to the cruise line, getting compensation, and then posting about it here on CC. It became sort of a "how to" on getting compensation.

 

Did not go over good with the cruise line and they eventually got banned because of it.

 

Made the news and everything.

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24711659/ns/travel-cruise_travel/t/complaining-couple-banned-cruise-line/#.XVwEP-hKiHs

[Mikiejag]

Personally, I would have taken those vouchers and ran....LOL

 

Hell, getting almost anything free is a bonus for me.  🙂

[sfaaa]

What a total loser. Begging NCL to take her back after burning the bridge on her own.

[smplybcause]

On 8/18/2019 at 4:53 PM, Paul Bogle said:

 

I agree, it's just that we are provided with so few details by the agency she hired to advocate on her behalf.

 

That's likely not true. I'm a reader of Elliott and learned a lot from the site. They request copies of all communications and any supporting documents to take on your case. Though obviously they'd only have her side of any verbal conversation, the advocates rarely take on a case without any documentation - though this may have fallen under their few advisory articles vs solution. 

 

They are also 100% free to use and run solely on donations (and I believe are a registered 501c3).

Edited August 21, 2019 by smplybcause

[smplybcause]

On 8/19/2019 at 8:57 AM, BNBR said:

 

That's not how it works.  Did NCL sell this customer a connecting room or not?  If their deck plan at the time showed the rooms connecting, then that is an issue.  Did she book through NCL and a rep told her the rooms were connecting?  Does she have documentation from when she booked that the room is connecting?  And why did she believe she had a connecting room if not?  Did the customer also file a second chargeback (AMEX limits you to 2, which allows you to further make your case)?  "Services only partially received" is absolutely a valid dispute reason.  And if she was sold a connecting room and reasonably believed she had a connecting room, then the partial chargeback is valid and she should have continued the resolution process.  She didn't follow it all the way through.

 

Even if she won the second chargeback - that would not stop NCL from trying to collect the debt owed. All wining a chargeback does is stop the business from getting money from you from THAT credit card. Do a lot of businesses just call it a loss? Probably, but for large dollar things I wouldn't be surprised if they went after it. In fact, Elliott also had a story about how a customer won a chargeback against Princess regarding an excursion and Princess sent them a letter saying it was going to collections if they didn't pay it and they would likely put them on their do not sail list -- and that was only a few hundred dollars. 

[TonyB17]

I know people don't like to hear this, but sometimes the smartest thing a business can do is to "fire" a customer.  Some customers are far more trouble than their business is worth.  It's a two way street.  She didn't like the way that NCL runs their business and NCL decided they didn't want to do business with her.  Isn't that what's best for everyone involved? 

[ray98]

15 hours ago, TonyB17 said:

I know people don't like to hear this, but sometimes the smartest thing a business can do is to "fire" a customer.  Some customers are far more trouble than their business is worth.  It's a two way street.  She didn't like the way that NCL runs their business and NCL decided they didn't want to do business with her.  Isn't that what's best for everyone involved? 

 

Apparently she wasn't a disappointed as she pretended to be.....she was going after the 'free' lottery and lost.

[RedwingHockeyFan]

1 hour ago, ray98 said:

 

Apparently she wasn't a disappointed as she pretended to be.....she was going after the 'free' lottery and lost.

The funny thing is, she already won the free lottery with the $3000 in credits.  What she did afterward was just plain greed.