Oceana bad luck...

[Satureyes]

On 2/29/2020 at 4:37 PM, wowzz said:

The Photographic team onboard normally do a couple of workshops on each cruise, but probably not in as much depth as you propose.  I think that one of the drawbacks to your idea is that there would be insufficient take up. 

 

2 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

Unsurprising, of course, and as predicted.  Interesting that they're trying to use force majeure as a getout.  Not easy under English law, and even more difficult if it isn't specifically referred to in the contract - which, looking at the T&C, it isn't.

 

It does depend very much on the facts though - what are the differences between the cruise as booked, and the cruise as delivered?

Isn’t force majeure an act of god - just a fancy legal term for something out of anyone’s control?

 

well. The one we booked was a 7 day cruise with 3 ports- one of which being an overnight at Amsterdam. 
 

only one of those was met- Rotterdam was substituting Amsterdam but we didn’t of course get the transport into ‘dam that we would have had. 
then we didn’t get into Bruges and spent a day going around in circles before docking Saturday night in Southampton instead of Sunday morning. 
 

add in the fact we didn’t depart till about 10 pm on the Sunday - essentially losing one day of the cruise in total. Ok. They credited us 15 quid each at the start  but basically it was a mess and their excuse was the weather or indirectly the weather causing lack of pilots. 
 

question is how to push them further. 
 

ive pointed them to the link to the document about package holiday legal S and rights but their only argument so far has really been ‘weather’- which I believe the passenger charter thing by the govt don’t consider a valid reason for not offering an adequate solution. 

[Harry Peterson]

1 hour ago, Satureyes said:

 

Isn’t force majeure an act of god - just a fancy legal term for something out of anyone’s control?

 

well. The one we booked was a 7 day cruise with 3 ports- one of which being an overnight at Amsterdam. 
 

only one of those was met- Rotterdam was substituting Amsterdam but we didn’t of course get the transport into ‘dam that we would have had. 
then we didn’t get into Bruges and spent a day going around in circles before docking Saturday night in Southampton instead of Sunday morning. 
 

add in the fact we didn’t depart till about 10 pm on the Sunday - essentially losing one day of the cruise in total. Ok. They credited us 15 quid each at the start  but basically it was a mess and their excuse was the weather or indirectly the weather causing lack of pilots. 
 

question is how to push them further. 
 

ive pointed them to the link to the document about package holiday legal S and rights but their only argument so far has really been ‘weather’- which I believe the passenger charter thing by the govt don’t consider a valid reason for not offering an adequate solution. 

It is, but it's difficult for companies to use if it's not specifically referred to as a clause in the contract - the courts aren't keen on enforcing force majeure without that - particular when there's an imbalance in the relationship, as there is here.

 

Refer them again to Regulation 15 of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, clauses (8) to (12) and Regulation 16, clauses (1) to (3) - pointing out that the legislation does not provide for situations such as bad weather, or force majeure.  It simply provides for 'an appropriate price reduction' whatever the circumstances.  I don't think there's much doubt here that 'a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed' have not been provided.

 

 

(8) Where the organiser is unable to provide a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed in the package travel contract, the organiser must offer, at no extra cost to the traveller, suitable alternative arrangements of, where possible, equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the contract, for the continuation of the package, including where the traveller’s return to the place of departure is agreed.

 

(9) Where the organiser offers proposed alternative arrangements which result in a package of lower quality than that specified in the package travel contract, the organiser must grant the traveller an appropriate price reduction.

 

(10) The traveller may reject the proposed alternative arrangements offered under paragraph (8) only if—

(a)they are not comparable to the arrangements which were agreed in the package travel contract; or

(b)the price reduction granted is inadequate.

 

(11) Where—

(a)a lack of conformity substantially affects the performance of the package; and

(b)the organiser fails to remedy the lack of conformity within the reasonable period,

the traveller may terminate the package travel contract without paying a termination fee and, where appropriate, is entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16.

 

(12) If—

(a)the organiser is unable to make alternative arrangements, or

(b)the traveller rejects the proposed alternative arrangements in accordance with paragraph (10),

the traveller is, where appropriate, entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16 without terminating the package travel contract.

 

Price reduction and compensation for damages

16.—(1) The provisions of this regulation are implied as a term in every package travel contract.

 

(2) The organiser must offer the traveller an appropriate price reduction for any period during which there is a lack of conformity, unless the organiser proves that the lack of conformity is attributable to the traveller.

 

(3) The organiser must offer the traveller, without undue delay, appropriate compensation for any damage which the traveller sustains as a result of any lack of conformity.

 

 

[Satureyes]

18 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

It is, but it's difficult for companies to use if it's not specifically referred to as a clause in the contract - the courts aren't keen on enforcing force majeure without that - particular when there's an imbalance in the relationship, as there is here.

 

Refer them again to Regulation 15 of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, clauses (8) to (12) and Regulation 16, clauses (1) to (3) - pointing out that the legislation does not provide for situations such as bad weather, or force majeure.  It simply provides for 'an appropriate price reduction' whatever the circumstances.  I don't think there's much doubt here that 'a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed' have not been provided.

 

 

(8) Where the organiser is unable to provide a significant proportion of the travel services as agreed in the package travel contract, the organiser must offer, at no extra cost to the traveller, suitable alternative arrangements of, where possible, equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the contract, for the continuation of the package, including where the traveller’s return to the place of departure is agreed.

 

(9) Where the organiser offers proposed alternative arrangements which result in a package of lower quality than that specified in the package travel contract, the organiser must grant the traveller an appropriate price reduction.

 

(10) The traveller may reject the proposed alternative arrangements offered under paragraph (8) only if—

(a)they are not comparable to the arrangements which were agreed in the package travel contract; or

(b)the price reduction granted is inadequate.

 

(11) Where—

(a)a lack of conformity substantially affects the performance of the package; and

(b)the organiser fails to remedy the lack of conformity within the reasonable period,

the traveller may terminate the package travel contract without paying a termination fee and, where appropriate, is entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16.

 

(12) If—

(a)the organiser is unable to make alternative arrangements, or

(b)the traveller rejects the proposed alternative arrangements in accordance with paragraph (10),

the traveller is, where appropriate, entitled to a price reduction, or compensation for damages, or both, in accordance with regulation 16 without terminating the package travel contract.

 

Price reduction and compensation for damages

16.—(1) The provisions of this regulation are implied as a term in every package travel contract.

 

(2) The organiser must offer the traveller an appropriate price reduction for any period during which there is a lack of conformity, unless the organiser proves that the lack of conformity is attributable to the traveller.

 

(3) The organiser must offer the traveller, without undue delay, appropriate compensation for any damage which the traveller sustains as a result of any lack of conformity.

 

 

Well. They replied back after I sent them the link to the charter etc...

 

        Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the matters you have raised. Unfortunately, in this instance I am unable to accede to your request for compensation. Whilst I         understand your disappointment with this, I would kindly note that the changes made to the itinerary were compelled by weather conditions firmly out of our control. The safety of         our guests is always our primary focus and we elected not to call into Ijmuiden and Zeebrugge with this in mind. I have discussed this matter with senior management and would         kindly note that no further compensation will be provided by P&O in this instance. 

        I fully understand your frustration on this matter and can only apologise that I am not able to assist you further. We always aim to address the concerns of our guests, hopefully         bringing matters to a conclusion that our guests find acceptable. We do recognise however that this may not be possible in every instance and regret that it has not been                 possible in this case. If you wish to consult further with an independent third party, you may wish to contact the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA) of which we are a         member. Our membership of ABTA means that you have access to ABTA's dispute resolution process, which has been approved by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.         This is designed to resolve your complaint. 

[Harry Peterson]

54 minutes ago, Satureyes said:

Well. They replied back after I sent them the link to the charter etc...

 

        Thank you for your further correspondence regarding the matters you have raised. Unfortunately, in this instance I am unable to accede to your request for compensation. Whilst I         understand your disappointment with this, I would kindly note that the changes made to the itinerary were compelled by weather conditions firmly out of our control. The safety of         our guests is always our primary focus and we elected not to call into Ijmuiden and Zeebrugge with this in mind. I have discussed this matter with senior management and would         kindly note that no further compensation will be provided by P&O in this instance. 

        I fully understand your frustration on this matter and can only apologise that I am not able to assist you further. We always aim to address the concerns of our guests, hopefully         bringing matters to a conclusion that our guests find acceptable. We do recognise however that this may not be possible in every instance and regret that it has not been                 possible in this case. If you wish to consult further with an independent third party, you may wish to contact the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA) of which we are a         member. Our membership of ABTA means that you have access to ABTA's dispute resolution process, which has been approved by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.         This is designed to resolve your complaint. 

Again, an unsurprising response. You now need to decide how to pursue this, and how far. They don't give up easily, and they need to believe you're prepared to take them to court, even if you're not. I was, and I think they realised that from the emails.

 

At this point I'd be inclined to contact their UK Chief Executive: josh.weinstein@carnivalukgroup.com

 

Explain the situation, the facts and the legal position again and put it to him that you're quite prepared to go through the small claims procedure to pursue your rights, but his intervention would save them the bad publicity and resulting further claims from a decision that can only be adverse for them.