Opinions please on the legality of P&O's T&Cs

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, majortom10 said:

But surely P&O sold cruises under one set of T&Cs and then changed the T&Cs to the advantage of the cruiser and didnt hear many complaining then and thousands took advantage of cancelling cruises and transferring them at no cost and to lower priced cruises.

Very true, however we live in a totally different world now and consumers having had such a tough ride from holiday companies are now very much more aware of their rights and the requirements under the law.  No one asked P&O to allow all the flexible bookings, they made the choice in an effort to curry favour and keep people on side and to carry on booking. It is doubtful so many bookings would have been made or indeed the company survive without the flexibility.  In fact perhaps the cruise companies should be thanking people for having kept the faith!

 

The interesting point here is the cruises booked before 3 August which were made when p&o advertised move to any cruise, no mention of what value.  By selling cruises under those terms they have left themselves wide open to problems.  If they'd offered a little more flexibility on those bookings such as one free move to any cruise regardless of cost it may have been fairer.  In MX's case the offer was made to pay the same price for tur cheaper cruise and it was turned down.  If you look at that in the terms outlined above about unfair variations it looks like a failure on two fronts.  No notice period of the change is also wrong.

 

Companies desperate for survival though off the hoof to survive.  It wasn't done for love of their customers.

[terrierjohn]

51 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Very true, however we live in a totally different world now and consumers having had such a tough ride from holiday companies are now very much more aware of their rights and the requirements under the law.  No one asked P&O to allow all the flexible bookings, they made the choice in an effort to curry favour and keep people on side and to carry on booking. It is doubtful so many bookings would have been made or indeed the company survive without the flexibility.  In fact perhaps the cruise companies should be thanking people for having kept the faith!

 

The interesting point here is the cruises booked before 3 August which were made when p&o advertised move to any cruise, no mention of what value.  By selling cruises under those terms they have left themselves wide open to problems.  If they'd offered a little more flexibility on those bookings such as one free move to any cruise regardless of cost it may have been fairer.  In MX's case the offer was made to pay the same price for tur cheaper cruise and it was turned down.  If you look at that in the terms outlined above about unfair variations it looks like a failure on two fronts.  No notice period of the change is also wrong.

 

Companies desperate for survival though off the hoof to survive.  It wasn't done for love of their customers.

Since a companies first financial responsibility is to their shareholders, then I guess their attempts to "curry favour" actually worked.

However probably of more relevance to this discussion is that all bookings, before covid,  during covid, and, now that covid has been declared over  at least by P&O, after covid, were made under P&Os standard T&Cs, but with the time limited variation that has permitted bookings to be moved freely.

Surely if P&O could be allowed to bring in that variation at short notice, then equally they ought to be allowed to discontinue it in the same way.

Ergo, the booking T&Cs were the same whenever any booking was made.

[Megabear2]

6 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Since a companies first financial responsibility is to their shareholders, then I guess their attempts to "curry favour" actually worked.

However probably of more relevance to this discussion is that all bookings, before covid,  during covid, and, now that covid has been declared over  at least by P&O, after covid, were made under P&Os standard T&Cs, but with the time limited variation that has permitted bookings to be moved freely.

Surely if P&O could be allowed to bring in that variation at short notice, then equally they ought to be allowed to discontinue it in the same way.

Ergo, the booking T&Cs were the same whenever any booking was made.

The problem for the cruise lines as I see it - this isn't only a P&O situation - is that they need their customers to keep the faith and stay on side.  There is an enormous economic shock about to hit the UK public.  Using grey area regulations which can easily be shown to verge on unfair trading will not make the situation any easier to keep goodwill.  Cruises are an expensive outlay for a great number of people, often a toe in the water type holiday.  

 

This board is a tiny sample of their customer base, a great many of whom are retirees, and yet here we are on week one with two disgruntled and unhappy people openly upset and angry.  Multiply this by many tens of thousands of already booked passengers and that number affected swells into thousands too. 

 

There are eager journalists sniffing all around the travel industry for stories since the pandemic.  Regardless of how shareholders have to be "rewarded" any sensible company will need to be aware of this.  Carnival have no dividends to dish out because they came perilously close to ceasing to exist.  They aren't a BP or Centrica but any mention of bad treatment of customers will be leapt upon by news outlets and consumer champions.

 

The world has changed since January 2020 and rightly or wrongly Joe Public isn't going to allow itself to get kicked around by big companies who have hidden behind grey and dodgy terms and conditions for years.

 

Any resulting bad feeling could have been avoided. Yes the as many moves as you like had to stop at some point, but why not allow that one move to be to any cruise on sale rather than only to a higher cost one?  Lots on here have cruised for years and just accept things as they were and believe it's got to revert to how it was.  It didn't actually need to be that way, it could have been more flexible, a sort of halfway house so to speak.

 

The cruise lines could have allowed a little more flexibility for people booked before 3 August. They could have thought outside the box a little more when seeking to end flexibility.  They could have shown they're listening to what's happening in the outside world and realise that an awful lot of those already booked cruises may never be sailed because the people just might not have the money to pay for them. They could have thought that sledgehammer might be a bit too big for that nut ...

[MX-Drew]

8 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Since a companies first financial responsibility is to their shareholders, then I guess their attempts to "curry favour" actually worked.

However probably of more relevance to this discussion is that all bookings, before covid,  during covid, and, now that covid has been declared over  at least by P&O, after covid, were made under P&Os standard T&Cs, but with the time limited variation that has permitted bookings to be moved freely.

Surely if P&O could be allowed to bring in that variation at short notice, then equally they ought to be allowed to discontinue it in the same way.

Ergo, the booking T&Cs were the same whenever any booking was made.

It is not the changing of the T&Cs I’m questioning as I along with others agree they have the right to do that, it is applying of them retrospectively I have the problem with. As I see it you agree to T&Cs that in reality you have no what they might say in weeks time if the company decided to change them. 

[Gettingwarmer]

9 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

 

Ergo, the booking T&Cs were the same whenever any booking was made.

Agree. As far as I can see the T&Cs did not change in the brochure, they were just temporarily amended under the COVID instructions online. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Gettingwarmer

[Megabear2]

39 minutes ago, Gettingwarmer said:

Agree. As far as I can see the T&Cs did not change in the brochure, they were just temporarily amended under the COVID instructions online. 

So you are saying online amendment superceded the brochure?  What about those who didn't book online?  I booked a couple of cruises by telephone (now taken or cancelled). No one said the brochure was overridden or directed me to the website - which many could not use anyway.

 

Perhaps Moley's right then, misleading advertising so ASA for the disgruntled.  Personally rather than risking bad publicity the allow one change to any cruise regardless of cost might have been the better option to stop bad feeling. Is it really good business to refuse MX's offer to pay the same to move to the slightly cheaper cruise?  I'm not a shareholder, a lot of you are. What would you prefer, keep the 5% low deposit and try to resell the cruise in the most serious recession in years or take the several thousand pounds guaranteed by MX moving, plus of course the onboard spend?

 

I've no axe to grind either way on this one.  Only taking the cruises I have booked and I only moved one cruise (because it didn't sail).  I never used to book a long time in advance previously because it was locking in to something uninsurable with all the associated problems when events conspired to make cancellation necessary.  There's very few itineraries that need that lock in approach nowadays so if I want a cruise (which is under serious consideration after the Princess debacle) I will go last minute when I know the cruise line won't screw me with ridiculous prices.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Megabear2

[Gettingwarmer]

5 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Personally rather than risking bad publicity the allow one change to any cruise regardless of cost might have been the better option to stop bad feeling. Is it really good business to refuse MX's offer to pay the same to move to the slightly cheaper cruise? 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Gettingwarmer
I agree this would been better for a short period then reversed back to the original T&Cs

[Cathygh]

I think they could have given more notice, to give us a chance to make say one move per cruise booked. Just litle bit more consideration for customers and a little less consideration for the bottom line goes a long way.

 

[Megabear2]

24 minutes ago, Cathygh said:

I think they could have given more notice, to give us a chance to make say one move per cruise booked. Just litle bit more consideration for customers and a little less consideration for the bottom line goes a long way.

 

The trouble is there was no notice.  A rapidly removed post by one our posters on Friday 29th following some FB posts was all that was known of it.

 

According to Gov.uk and Barbara's post from Lexis every person with a booking should of had notification of the intended change, and apparently should have had a free cancellation option at that point.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Megabear2

[Cathygh]

Just now, Megabear2 said:

The trouble is there was no notice.  A rapidly removed post by Terrierjohn on Friday 29th following some FB posts was all that was known of it.

 

According to Gov.uk and Barbara's post from Lexis every person with a booking should of had notification of the intended change, and apparently should have had a free cancellation option at that point.

I totally agree. And that leaves P&O open to the abuse of the ' I can't travel I have covid' excuse.

[MX-Drew]

OK just so you all know why I will no longer be posting on this thread.

 

I will be taking my case further and have spoken to a solicitor who has advised I withdraw from public conversations such as FB and forums.

 

Depending on conditions of the outcome I will of course update this thread with the outcome.

 

Once again thank you for your input.

[Megabear2]

This will be interesting!  I've wondered for many years after the successful actions against tour companies over loss of deposit when holidays are resold whether anyone would tackle a cruise line, particularly over the must cost more clause.  

 

Others will without doubt take the cruise lines to battle either via lawyers or channels such as Watchdog or Simon Calder.

[bobstheboy]

49 minutes ago, MX-Drew said:

OK just so you all know why I will no longer be posting on this thread.

 

I will be taking my case further and have spoken to a solicitor who has advised I withdraw from public conversations such as FB and forums.

 

Depending on conditions of the outcome I will of course update this thread with the outcome.

 

Once again thank you for your input.

Thank you. Will be very interested to know the outcome.

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

So you are saying online amendment superceded the brochure?  What about those who didn't book online?  I booked a couple of cruises by telephone (now taken or cancelled). No one said the brochure was overridden or directed me to the website - which many could not use anyway.

 

Perhaps Moley's right then, misleading advertising so ASA for the disgruntled.  Personally rather than risking bad publicity the allow one change to any cruise regardless of cost might have been the better option to stop bad feeling. Is it really good business to refuse MX's offer to pay the same to move to the slightly cheaper cruise?  I'm not a shareholder, a lot of you are. What would you prefer, keep the 5% low deposit and try to resell the cruise in the most serious recession in years or take the several thousand pounds guaranteed by MX moving, plus of course the onboard spend?

 

I've no axe to grind either way on this one.  Only taking the cruises I have booked and I only moved one cruise (because it didn't sail).  I never used to book a long time in advance previously because it was locking in to something uninsurable with all the associated problems when events conspired to make cancellation necessary.  There's very few itineraries that need that lock in approach nowadays so if I want a cruise (which is under serious consideration after the Princess debacle) I will go last minute when I know the cruise line won't screw me with ridiculous prices.

I do agree with you that P&Os T&Cs are not very customer friendly, I particularly dislike that they demand payment 90 days before cruising, and that cancellation charges then begin to reduce any refunds.  However we all know this and yet we continue to book cruises with them. In my case because they offer me more choice for no fly cruises, and of equal importance their prices at launch, which we need because we book an accessible cabin, are generally much lower than equivalent cruises with other cruise lines.

I have not studied other cruise lines T&Cs,  but I doubt they are much less onerous than P&Os. If I remember correctly Celebrity and RCI balance payment is 60 days, so that is a bit better, but I doubt they are any more passenger friendly.

It will be interesting to hear how MX-Drew's case against them fairs, that is of course if they dont shackle him with a NDA.

[Windsurfboy]

it is very simple , when you pay your deposit both sides agree to T&Cs at that exact time. You are both bound by them. P&O cannot unilaterally rescind them, they are binding. If it wants to offer you temporarily better terms it can, in the same way you can pay your balance early. However the T&Cs at time of payment of deposit  remain the unchangeable base line. 

[david63]

17 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

However the T&Cs at time of payment of deposit  remain the unchangeable base line. 

But what about a clause that says "xxx is valid until 31st December 2021"?

 

Surely that is valid T&C until that date then that particular clause ceases to be valid - even after that date.

[Megabear2]

6 minutes ago, david63 said:

But what about a clause that says "xxx is valid until 31st December 2021"?

 

Surely that is valid T&C until that date then that particular clause ceases to be valid - even after that date.

As I said above, every single booking is an individual contract and therefore the terms should be as per the date of booking.  The blanket approach is exactly the one the government website warns against.  Just because no one challenged it previously doesn't mean it's not been dodgy all along.  We just accepted it, it only needed some people brave enough to challenge it for it to be tested.

 

If MX never reports back I think it will be pretty clear that P&O don't want this challenged as it would open the floodgates.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Megabear2

[Bill Y]

A sight aside, we like many booked cruises not necessary ocean cruises before covid became a problem (pre Feb 20) these cruises have been transferred/rescheduled some a couple of times, So what T&C's are applicable, the ones at the time of the initial booking or the ones at the time of the booking transfer?

 

I am sure that the cruise companies will insist that it was a cancellation of one booking and a free transfer to a new booking. Whereas some may argue that it was an invitation to move the booking while still being subject to the original T&C's. This is may be further complicated as the transaction may have just been a conversation with a TA then a further conversation between the TA and cruise company, no signature or box ticking. We are aware that a verbal contract is still a contract, but its difficult to prove assumptions and implication that were not specifically mentioned.

 

[Trevor Fountain]

53 minutes ago, Bill Y said:

A sight aside, we like many booked cruises not necessary ocean cruises before covid became a problem (pre Feb 20) these cruises have been transferred/rescheduled some a couple of times, So what T&C's are applicable, the ones at the time of the initial booking or the ones at the time of the booking transfer?

 

I am sure that the cruise companies will insist that it was a cancellation of one booking and a free transfer to a new booking. Whereas some may argue that it was an invitation to move the booking while still being subject to the original T&C's. This is may be further complicated as the transaction may have just been a conversation with a TA then a further conversation between the TA and cruise company, no signature or box ticking. We are aware that a verbal contract is still a contract, but its difficult to prove assumptions and implication that were not specifically mentioned.

 

Hence why I don't use T/A's anymore. Had horrendous time with one of the biggest trying to get money back from a cruise that was cancelled by Princess. Eventually claimed through Credit Card company.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Trevor Fountain

[Windsurfboy]

1 hour ago, david63 said:

But what about a clause that says "xxx is valid until 31st December 2021"?

 

Surely that is valid T&C until that date then that particular clause ceases to be valid - even after that date.

 

The end of that clause at the date given is part of t&cs you've accepted  , so that's fine . 

[MX-Drew]

Sorry to drag this old thread up but I said I would feedback the outcome.

 

Whilst I can't go into details, it has taken over two months but finally I can say I'm happy with the outcome.😉

 

The motto of this is, do your research and don't give up.

[Windsurfboy]

Wy can't you go into details

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

Wy can't you go into details

Most likely because anyone getting a result from a complaint is made to sign a non disclosure agreement.

[wowzz]

3 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Most likely because anyone getting a result from a complaint is made to sign a non disclosure agreement.

Which in itself shows that P&O know they are at fault,  but want to keep their culpability a secret.

Just shameful !

[Yorkypete]

4 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Most likely because anyone getting a result from a complaint is made to sign a non disclosure agreement.

Megabear, sorry I have not been on with any results re  our covid complaints as I was suspended, but the outcome is as follows: As we paid  for the extra covid cover on our policy we received 6 days compensation for being quarantined. We are now waiting the seemingly statuary 28 days whilst a customer support rep investigates our complaints re P&O itself re the FCC's etc. All for now as I dare not post any opinions at present.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Yorkypete