Credits offered unacceptable

[Bo1953]

6 hours ago, Mark_T said:

 

Do keep in mind that this isn't true for a UK booking.

 

There is still some complexity regarding the way that the OP booked his cruise, but 'nothing' was never an option.

 

... and while I personally would have been happy with the offer Celebrity made, I do understand that FCC is only of value if you intend to cruise again with the line, so it is somewhat self-serving as a component in offers like this...

m - yes you are correct, it will always be 'self-serving' in favour of the business, yet it could have turned out that nothing be offered, yet not sure how the consumer protection laws work in the UK.

 

I know about travel providers/sellers insurance requirements, to a degree, yet

not sure how this type of situation is covered.

 

Is there a 'blanket' situation where coverage has to be in the form of 'refund to original form of purchase'?? Especially for a partial cancellation and not a total BK as like Thomas Cook situation?

 

Thank you and bon voyage

[Mark_T]

1 hour ago, Bo1953 said:

Is there a 'blanket' situation where coverage has to be in the form of 'refund to original form of purchase'?? Especially for a partial cancellation and not a total BK as like Thomas Cook situation?

Yes, indeed, for those booking in the UK, any significant change from the advertised features of the package will trigger the right to a full refund.

 

If the change is due to something beyond the control of the company (as would be the case here) then there is no right to compensation beyond the full refund.

 

The company is free to offer alternative arrangements, exactly as Celebrity did in this case, but they have to offer them as an alternative to a full refund, not instead of, and to use your words, the refund offered has to be to the original form of payment, not by way of some form of future credit.

 

This is a relatively new law which replaced and clarified earleir protections, for new reservations made after 1st July 2018.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Mark_T

[Bo1953]

1 hour ago, Mark_T said:

Yes, indeed, for those booking in the UK, any significant change from the advertised features of the package will trigger the right to a full refund.

 

If the change is due to something beyond the control of the company (as would be the case here) then there is no right to compensation beyond the full refund.

 

The company is free to offer alternative arrangements, exactly as Celebrity did in this case, but they have to offer them as an alternative to a full refund, not instead of, and to use your words, the refund offered has to be to the original form of payment, not by way of some form of future credit.

 

This is a relatively new law which replaced and clarified earleir protections, for new reservations made after 1st July 2018.

m - Okay, is that for any type of change to an itinerary or only for 'full' cancellations?

 

I would tend to believe it would be for travel cancellations (in full) and not modifications.

 

Thank you again and bon voyage

Edited November 12, 2019 by Bo1953

[Mark_T]

42 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

m - Okay, is that for any type of change to an itinerary or only for 'full' cancellations?

 

I would tend to believe it would be for travel cancellations (in full) and not modifications.

 

Any significant changes trigger the need to offer a full refund.

 

So there can be debate about what exactly is considered 'significant', but examples given include changing a number of the ports being visited, altering travel dates, duration etc.

 

Essentially, what is advertised needs to be delivered and if the operator knows in advance that it cannot deliver, the customer gets the right to cancel for a full refund. There is no minimum time period for the advance knowledge on the part of the operator.

 

Extenuating circumstances, like weather, avoid the need for additional compensation to the customer, but they don't remove the need to offer a full refund as one of the alternatives.

 

This puts pressure on the operators to make alternative arrangements that the customer will find appealing and hence not wish to cancel.

 

In this case for example the OP already stated that he wouldn't have wanted to cancel as he was already in Japan, so I doubt this thread would even have exosted if there hadn't been some confusion of the partial refund amount.

[npcl]

4 hours ago, Mark_T said:

 

Any significant changes trigger the need to offer a full refund.

 

So there can be debate about what exactly is considered 'significant', but examples given include changing a number of the ports being visited, altering travel dates, duration etc.

 

Essentially, what is advertised needs to be delivered and if the operator knows in advance that it cannot deliver, the customer gets the right to cancel for a full refund. There is no minimum time period for the advance knowledge on the part of the operator.

 

Extenuating circumstances, like weather, avoid the need for additional compensation to the customer, but they don't remove the need to offer a full refund as one of the alternatives.

 

This puts pressure on the operators to make alternative arrangements that the customer will find appealing and hence not wish to cancel.

 

In this case for example the OP already stated that he wouldn't have wanted to cancel as he was already in Japan, so I doubt this thread would even have exosted if there hadn't been some confusion of the partial refund amount.

One comment is that there is a minimum time frame in that  the need to offer a full refund option applies only something known changes prior to the start of the trip.  If changes occur due to weather or some other event beyond the control of the operator once the trip has started then no such offer needs to occur. If a significant change occurs due to something within the control of the operator (maintenance for example) then some compensation may warranted, but not necessarily full refund unless the scope of change arises to such level.

 

I am pretty sure that Celebrity defines a significant change in their UK travel contract (at least they did the last time I looked at it) In this case the change in ports by itself would not have triggered a significant change, but the lost of two days would have.

 

If I remember correctly lose of two ports without replacement would be considered to be a significant change.  Loss of two ports, with replacement of 1 with an alternative port would not be. Loss of 1 port or replacement of 1 port by another would not be significant.

 

If someone has easy access they might want to locate the current text in the current version.

Edited November 12, 2019 by npcl

[Beanb41]

Whenever I get my invoice from Celebrity either direct or through a TA there are heaps of conditions attached to it. I assume that each T & C would be applicable to the part of the world the booking is made because conditions change depending upon where and how a booking is made. I would be very surprised that any refunds or offers due to a cancellation or other cause would not be in accordance with local regulations.

[RickT]

Still eagerly awaiting the OP to come back with the update from their TA.  Based on the reply from ShawninFL either the OP is getting a different offer or isn’t getting the full story from their TA.

[critterchick]

 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:39 AM, Mark_T said:

 

Any significant changes trigger the need to offer a full refund.

 

So there can be debate about what exactly is considered 'significant', but examples given include changing a number of the ports being visited, altering travel dates, duration etc.

 

Essentially, what is advertised needs to be delivered and if the operator knows in advance that it cannot deliver, the customer gets the right to cancel for a full refund. There is no minimum time period for the advance knowledge on the part of the operator.

 

Extenuating circumstances, like weather, avoid the need for additional compensation to the customer, but they don't remove the need to offer a full refund as one of the alternatives.

 

This puts pressure on the operators to make alternative arrangements that the customer will find appealing and hence not wish to cancel.

 

In this case for example the OP already stated that he wouldn't have wanted to cancel as he was already in Japan, so I doubt this thread would even have exosted if there hadn't been some confusion of the partial refund amount.

 

A good example is the recent change to Royal Caribbean’s Navigator of the Seas transatlantic cruise. The prior cruise was delayed arriving in Southampton by 2-3 days (maybe even 4), so RCI changed the TA from 4 Caribbean ports to none. They initially offered a future cruise credit for the amount of the cruise, but were quickly advised that they needed to offer a full refund, and they did.

 

I have already forgotten whether OP was offered a refund or a 100% future cruise credit. I would argue that 2 lost days and a shuffle in ports not is material enough to offer a full refund, personally,  just a pro rata refund for the lost days  (but I’m in the US). Anything else would be gravy.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

27 minutes ago, critterchick said:

 

 

A good example is the recent change to Royal Caribbean’s Navigator of the Seas transatlantic cruise. The prior cruise was delayed arriving in Southampton by 2-3 days (maybe even 4), so RCI changed the TA from 4 Caribbean ports to none. They initially offered a future cruise credit for the amount of the cruise, but were quickly advised that they needed to offer a full refund, and they did.

 

I have already forgotten whether OP was offered a refund or a 100% future cruise credit. I would argue that 2 lost days and a shuffle in ports not is material enough to offer a full refund, personally,  just a pro rata refund for the lost days  (but I’m in the US). Anything else would be gravy.

As restrictive as those regulations are, I’m surprised that cruise lines are willing to take on U.K. passengers! Seems like since weather and mechanical (and sometimes political) things can result in changes, it seems like it could ultimately cost them more than they make. Unless, of course, more people are just happy to be traveling and won’t force them to pay out for things beyond their control.

[Mark_T]

2 minutes ago, WrittenOnYourHeart said:

As restrictive as those regulations are, I’m surprised that cruise lines are willing to take on U.K. passengers! Seems like since weather and mechanical (and sometimes political) things can result in changes, it seems like it could ultimately cost them more than they make. Unless, of course, more people are just happy to be traveling and won’t force them to pay out for things beyond their control.

 

It only has to be one of the options they have to offer, it helps level up the decidedly unbalanced nature of the contracts of adhesion they all use.

 

So the encouragement is there to make the offers other than a refund appealing enough that most people will take that and cruise rather then ask for the refund.

 

... and to be fair, most of them already do make decent, appealing, offers as it is relatively low/no cost for them to offer FCC or OBC or other perks to incentivise the guest in ways that are worth much more to the guest than they cost the cruise line.

 

In this specific case I'd have happily taken the offer Celebrity made rather than ask for a refund.

 

These rules are not UK specific either, they apply across most of Europe and there are similar regulations emerging in other places like Australia so avoiding such markets really isn't an option.

 

 

[Beanb41]

I have been following this thread and other cruising forums and can only find one passenger ( the OP ) who is unhappy with the Celebrity offer. With over 2600 passengers on board and only one grumpy pax I dont think that Celebrity senior staff are going to lose any sleep over the offer. There are risks associated with cruising hence whilst reading the small print in the T&Cs is most important as is having very good comprehensive travel insurance. I think it's time this thread was closed