Viking stole our money

[Monkey486]

We’ve booked cruises with several other cruise lines and have always been treated with care, like they wanted to retain us as customers—but not Viking. During the time of travel restrictions over Covid, I got Covid days before I was supposed to leave, so I wasn’t going to able to get into the country, let alone the boat. (I was supposed to embark on June 11, 2022 on the Viking Sky from Rome to Athens.) I thought that since I bought travel insurance, I’ll just make a claim, get a refund and try again some other day after Covid blows over. Big mistake. As it all shook out, Viking pocketed $9,663.83 of our money (That’s a lot of money!) We obviously complained but they just told us in their reply basically ‘too bad, how sad, we’re keeping the money.’ As far as I’m concerned, they stole that money, but they’re a big company and who am I to fight them? Caveat Emptor. If you book a trip, don’t get hurt, or sick, or die, because even with insurance you might just get screwed by this immoral company.
 

[Peregrina651]

If you think they stole your money, then talk to a lawyer and take them to court.

 

 

 

[CurlerRob]

16 minutes ago, Monkey486 said:

We’ve booked cruises with several other cruise lines and have always been treated with care, like they wanted to retain us as customers—but not Viking. During the time of travel restrictions over Covid, I got Covid days before I was supposed to leave, so I wasn’t going to able to get into the country, let alone the boat. (I was supposed to embark on June 11, 2022 on the Viking Sky from Rome to Athens.) I thought that since I bought travel insurance, I’ll just make a claim, get a refund and try again some other day after Covid blows over. Big mistake. As it all shook out, Viking pocketed $9,663.83 of our money (That’s a lot of money!) We obviously complained but they just told us in their reply basically ‘too bad, how sad, we’re keeping the money.’ As far as I’m concerned, they stole that money, but they’re a big company and who am I to fight them? Caveat Emptor. If you book a trip, don’t get hurt, or sick, or die, because even with insurance you might just get screwed by this immoral company.
 

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic, but, if you want any useful responses, you'll need to provide some clarity as to what happened. For example - was your booking covered by the Risk Free Guarantee and if so, why was it not available to you? Whose travel insurance did you buy - did it not have Covid coverage? If not, why did you choose it?

 

There is good advice available on these boards, but it's not possible to provide any with what you've written thus far. Take a deep breath and try to provide detail and specifics of how your situation unfolded. 🍺🥌

[Selion]

What does Viking have to do with your travel insurance company not paying?

 

Edit - June 2022 you said?  Your booking would be covered by Viking's COVID-era "Risk Free Guarantee."  You could've gotten a voucher or transferred the booking to another cruise at a later date.  Stop complaining about the companies when you didn't read the T&Cs in their entirety. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Selion

[SJD117]

16 minutes ago, Peregrina651 said:

If you think they stole your money, then talk to a lawyer and take them to court.

 

 

 

Lawyer here, but I’m not taking this case.

[Monkey486]

5 minutes ago, SJD117 said:

Lawyer here, but I’m not taking this case.

Yep. It’s a lost cause

[Monkey486]

53 minutes ago, CurlerRob said:

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic, but, if you want any useful responses, you'll need to provide some clarity as to what happened. For example - was your booking covered by the Risk Free Guarantee and if so, why was it not available to you? Whose travel insurance did you buy - did it not have Covid coverage? If not, why did you choose it?

 

There is good advice available on these boards, but it's not possible to provide any with what you've written thus far. Take a deep breath and try to provide detail and specifics of how your situation unfolded. 🍺🥌

To be more clear: We made phone call after phone call to Viking. The insurance through Viking is next to worthless. I suppose I could pony up more money for a lawyer to attempt to recover the lost voucher which belonged to my traveling companion. (I paid for that.) I have every right to complain because Viking customer service was anything but helpful. To quote Viking’s written response, ‘the voucher was considered used and lost.’ The insurance claim didn’t pay for that. In all I made a $9600 mistake because I didn’t follow the right procedures nor didI seek legal counsel right away because yes, the Covid guarantee should have been considered. I’ll own that. In all this, nonetheless, Viking should have more responsive and helpful in this dispute because we kept records concerning how much we paid them and how much was refunded. We never got on the boat yet the voucher was considered used. They should have been interested in keeping us as customers, but they weren’t. It isn’t right. 

[Heidi13]

9 minutes ago, Monkey486 said:

To be more clear: We made phone call after phone call to Viking. The insurance through Viking is next to worthless. I suppose I could pony up more money for a lawyer to attempt to recover the lost voucher which belonged to my traveling companion. (I paid for that.) I have every right to complain because Viking customer service was anything but helpful. To quote Viking’s written response, ‘the voucher was considered used and lost.’ The insurance claim didn’t pay for that. In all I made a $9600 mistake because I didn’t follow the right procedures nor didI seek legal counsel right away because yes, the Covid guarantee should have been considered. I’ll own that. In all this, nonetheless, Viking should have more responsive and helpful in this dispute because we kept records concerning how much we paid them and how much was refunded. We never got on the boat yet the voucher was considered used. They should have been interested in keeping us as customers, but they weren’t. It isn’t right. 

 

If you partially paid for a cruise with an existing voucher, then purchased the Tripmate insurance, as sold by Viking, the reason the voucher value wasn't refunded is because you did NOT pay any premium on that portion of the cost.

 

Had you got other insurance quotes you would have noted the tripmate premium was low, which raises a red flag. When we booked a cruise using a voucher, we didn't look at the low insurance premium thinking, great value, we won one. Prior to paying the deposit, I asked the question, why is the premium so low. It was explained the insurance doesn't cover the vouchers.

 

When you received the voucher, surely you had the option to accept cash at that time. Many of us that researched the vouchers thoroughly, didn't like the risk involved, so opted for cash. By accepting the voucher, the T&C clearly stated they had no cash value and once used would not be replaced.

 

Rather than Viking stealing you money, I'll suggest you made some poor or ill-informed investment decisions, by accepting a voucher. A competent Travel Agent should have been capable of assisting you to prevent your current situation. If you used a Travel Agent, your issues should be with that agent, not the cruise line. If you didn't use a Travel agent, then you are required to complete the research and fully understand the risks.

[Monkey486]

13 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

If you partially paid for a cruise with an existing voucher, then purchased the Tripmate insurance, as sold by Viking, the reason the voucher value wasn't refunded is because you did NOT pay any premium on that portion of the cost.

 

Had you got other insurance quotes you would have noted the tripmate premium was low, which raises a red flag. When we booked a cruise using a voucher, we didn't look at the low insurance premium thinking, great value, we won one. Prior to paying the deposit, I asked the question, why is the premium so low. It was explained the insurance doesn't cover the vouchers.

 

When you received the voucher, surely you had the option to accept cash at that time. Many of us that researched the vouchers thoroughly, didn't like the risk involved, so opted for cash. By accepting the voucher, the T&C clearly stated they had no cash value and once used would not be replaced.

 

Rather than Viking stealing you money, I'll suggest you made some poor or ill-informed investment decisions, by accepting a voucher. A competent Travel Agent should have been capable of assisting you to prevent your current situation. If you used a Travel Agent, your issues should be with that agent, not the cruise line. If you didn't use a Travel agent, then you are required to complete the research and fully understand the risks.

Very expensive lesson. Nevertheless I’ll never book Viking again

[WanderingBrit]

If you fail to learn the true lesson offered here, you will simply be doomed to repeat it.

 

The T&C of the voucher you used told you that it had no cash value, and once used would not be replaced. That is not unique to Viking

 

The insurance you purchased only covered your cash outlay, not the voucher that you used, and so therefore your claim was rejected. That may not be unique to Tripmate.

 

Whichever service provider you use in the future, for whatever services, they will have Terms and Conditions as part of their contract with you. No one will have as much at stake in understanding the risks associated with those T&C as you do, and so no one should be expected to care as much as you should.

 

I think you know the truth of this, but don't like to accept your own role in the outcome. It's easier emotionally to portray this as an evil corporation stealing your money, rather than accepting that you either did not read or failed to understand the terms and conditions of the contract you entered into.

[bison2013]

 

 

What is useful is how CC and other boards are sources of good information. Most of the information results from 'bad' as well as 'good' personal experiences. So let's be more gracious when someone is sharing their experience or else no one will bother... to the detriment of the value of these boards.

 

I have sympathy for the OP as travel insurance/vouchers/deemed spent language etc is very confusing. I do not believe Viking is unique in this however. Although this future voucher thing seems like a Viking specific gong show.

 

Examples like this validate our personal commitment to decoupling offers- we do not bundle air with accommodation; we pay up for max flexibility to make changes on our terms where possible and never accept 'future use' vouchers as none of us can predict the future.

 

[CDNPolar]

1 hour ago, bison2013 said:

 

 

What is useful is how CC and other boards are sources of good information. Most of the information results from 'bad' as well as 'good' personal experiences. So let's be more gracious when someone is sharing their experience or else no one will bother... to the detriment of the value of these boards.

 

I have sympathy for the OP as travel insurance/vouchers/deemed spent language etc is very confusing. I do not believe Viking is unique in this however. Although this future voucher thing seems like a Viking specific gong show.

 

Examples like this validate our personal commitment to decoupling offers- we do not bundle air with accommodation; we pay up for max flexibility to make changes on our terms where possible and never accept 'future use' vouchers as none of us can predict the future.

 

 

I think that we all have sympathy for the OP.  Most of us have learned the hard lessons in a similar way.  Time, age, and experience teaches us the lessons of checking the fine print.

 

I think that what most are trying to point out is the original post was pointing the finger at Viking as being the bad guy, when all that happened was laid out in the terms and conditions of sale.  There was no surprise if you read the fine print - so it is called.

 

Viking cannot give in to one no matter how compelling the story is or they would have mounds of law suits going after them even though their terms say different.

 

Many on CC are still confused with vouchers and if travel insurance covers them or not.  We recently (Canada) approached our trip interruption insurance provider because we are using $3k worth of vouchers, and their immediate response was NO, we do not cover vouchers, but when we pressed, they came back saying that it depends on how we got the vouchers.  The insurance companies don't even know and they could not tell us if we received our vouchers in a way or for a reason that they could be covered.  In the end we insured the trip minus the voucher amount understanding and accepting that we would lose the voucher portion if we cancelled.  (We know that these vouchers once applied to a Viking sailing cannot be moved to another sailing.)

 

If I have sounded  less than gracious, please accept my apology, but I read the other posters as showing that Viking is not necessarily the bad guy here and that sometimes we have to accept our personal responsibility when we enter into a contract.  Read everything, ask questions, don't accept the first answer, call back and ask someone different the same question.

 

Was there a better way out of this?  Maybe.  Oh, and having a "beef" with what the travel insurance did or did not cover has nothing to do with Viking.  

 

And for the record, I am NOT standing up in defence of Viking.  I have my own issues with Viking and things we have been told and incorrect information and how they manage things...   the reality is that my issues are covered in Viking policy.  I just disagree with them, but I have to accept them or move to a different cruise line.

Edited June 30, 2023 by CDNPolar

[duquephart]

Viking flat out lied to me, saying one thing and then saying they never said it. And, they issued a substancial amount of usable credit (without admitting anything) by way of making up for the "misunderstanding." Viking may not be a "bad guy" but they damn sure aren't always a good one.

[Breckski]

2 minutes ago, duquephart said:

Viking flat out lied to me, saying one thing and then saying they never said it. And, they issued a substancial amount of usable credit (without admitting anything) by way of making up for the "misunderstanding." Viking may not be a "bad guy" but they damn sure aren't always a good one.

And how does this provide any substantiation of the OP's claim that Viking stole his/her money when it clearly appears the OP didn't understand the insurance contract.  All I see here are folks supporting Viking in this particular instance.  

[Monkey486]

1 hour ago, WanderingBrit said:

If you fail to learn the true lesson offered here, you will simply be doomed to repeat it.

 

The T&C of the voucher you used told you that it had no cash value, and once used would not be replaced. That is not unique to Viking

 

The insurance you purchased only covered your cash outlay, not the voucher that you used, and so therefore your claim was rejected. That may not be unique to Tripmate.

 

Whichever service provider you use in the future, for whatever services, they will have Terms and Conditions as part of their contract with you. No one will have as much at stake in understanding the risks associated with those T&C as you do, and so no one should be expected to care as much as you should.

 

I think you know the truth of this, but don't like to accept your own role in the outcome. It's easier emotionally to portray this as an evil corporation stealing your money, rather than accepting that you either did not read or failed to understand the terms and conditions of the contract you entered into.

So I come here to get beat up for being an idiot for not reading the fine print… When asked if I wanted trip insurance I said yes and paid them what they asked for. My bad for assuming it was for only one ticket. Trip insurance is for more than just the price of the ticket, it’s if something happens on the trip so double my bad for not reading the fine print thus unknowingly leaving myself open to lots of liability. Triple my bad for not hiring a travel agent to protect me from Viking giving me a worthless voucher which I exchanged for better than $9600 when they battled about refunding cash concerning changes in a previous trip made many months prior to that trip. That’s the little loophole that provided a way to pocket ‘their’ money should something go wrong. Quadruple my bad for assuming the company would be straight up with me so I have to protect myself with travel agents and lawyers to explain to me that I was in fact only partially insured when I said ‘yes, I want the insurance for the trip.’ Big companies get to structure laws so they can legally keep ‘their’ money even if no services are actually rendered knowing that as a general rule people usually stick to verbals on the part of all parties assuming they are on the up and up—haven’t we all checked the box ‘I agree to terms and conditions’ without reading page after page of fine print? So yeah caveat emptor—I’m an idiot and because of that that $9600 which at one time was mine became ‘their’ money even when all I got in exchange for the transaction was a lot of pain. Viking was righteous in the eyes of the law. Hurray and congratulations—you got me. 

[Cienfuegos]

The original poster raises a good point. The contracts presented are complicated, and defy simple understanding. They are written by professionals to protect the interests of the insurance company, not the traveler.

 

I would like to see a simple summary, in plain English, on each contract. Highlighting the most common situations and what is covered or not covered. That would highlight the limits of the coverage.

 

Maybe I've become jaded by all the ambulance chasing and roof climbing lawyers' advertising here in Florida, eager to stick it to the wicked insurance companies, but some of these contracts are damn difficult to understand. Even for somebody like me who has been reading them for almost 50 years.

[WanderingBrit]

6 minutes ago, Cienfuegos said:

The original poster raises a good point. The contracts presented are complicated, and defy simple understanding. They are written by professionals to protect the interests of the insurance company, not the traveler.

 

I would like to see a simple summary, in plain English, on each contract. Highlighting the most common situations and what is covered or not covered. That would highlight the limits of the coverage.

 

Maybe I've become jaded by all the ambulance chasing and roof climbing lawyers' advertising here in Florida, eager to stick it to the wicked insurance companies, but some of these contracts are damn difficult to understand. Even for somebody like me who has been reading them for almost 50 years.

That would require legislative action, and lobbyists are keen to prevent that from happening.

 

The contracts I have related to our property in the UK are required to be written according to Plain English rules, and are markedly different than equivalent contracts in the US. But that happened as a result of laws being passed requiring it.

[Monkey486]

34 minutes ago, CDNPolar said:

 

I think that we all have sympathy for the OP.  Most of us have learned the hard lessons in a similar way.  Time, age, and experience teaches us the lessons of checking the fine print.

 

I think that what most are trying to point out is the original post was pointing the finger at Viking as being the bad guy, when all that happened was laid out in the terms and conditions of sale.  There was no surprise if you read the fine print - so it is called.

 

Viking cannot give in to one no matter how compelling the story is or they would have mounds of law suits going after them even though their terms say different.

 

Many on CC are still confused with vouchers and if travel insurance covers them or not.  We recently (Canada) approached our trip interruption insurance provider because we are using $3k worth of vouchers, and their immediate response was NO, we do not cover vouchers, but when we pressed, they came back saying that it depends on how we got the vouchers.  The insurance companies don't even know and they could not tell us if we received our vouchers in a way or for a reason that they could be covered.  In the end we insured the trip minus the voucher amount understanding and accepting that we would lose the voucher portion if we cancelled.  (We know that these vouchers once applied to a Viking sailing cannot be moved to another sailing.)

 

If I have sounded  less than gracious, please accept my apology, but I read the other posters as showing that Viking is not necessarily the bad guy here and that sometimes we have to accept our personal responsibility when we enter into a contract.  Read everything, ask questions, don't accept the first answer, call back and ask someone different the same question.

 

Was there a better way out of this?  Maybe.  Oh, and having a "beef" with what the travel insurance did or did not cover has nothing to do with Viking.  

 

And for the record, I am NOT standing up in defence of Viking.  I have my own issues with Viking and things we have been told and incorrect information and how they manage things...   the reality is that my issues are covered in Viking policy.  I just disagree with them, but I have to accept them or move to a different cruise line.

First of all, thank you for this kind response and explanation. This is very painful for me. I finally start to open up and start to talk about it I get attacked for not reading all the terms and conditions. (How many times have clicked the ‘I Agree’ button without having read page after page of fine print?) I’ve had to cancel Airbnb reservations for example, it was all dealt with easily—so I know that can be done with a major company. So yeah, I should have not have taken the first answer, should’ve asked more questions, should’ve been more assertive, should’ve been much more on guard to being taken advantage of my lack of diligence in reading the fine print. Where they got me is my taking a worthless voucher in exchange for changes made to a previous trip (due to family circumstances) made many months (before the penalty kicks in) prior—The first ‘answer’ from Viking was that this was my only option. My bad for not hanging up and seeking legal counsel right then and there. From human to human, this posturing I got from Viking is not being forthright and up front. I see it as setting people up to be taken advantage of if they don’t adequately protect themselves. I see this as predatory and immoral. Concerning the insurance, I said yes when asked if I wanted insurance—the voucher being uninsured went unsaid. This sets the company up to legally pocket the money if something should go wrong. So yeah I feel stupid and taken advantage of. Very expensive lesson. They won’t be getting another nickel out of me.

[OneSixtyToOne]

Just now, Monkey486 said:

This sets the company up to legally pocket the money if something should go wrong.

 

So nothing was "stolen" from you. Welcome to the world of Big Business and corporate law firms.

[duquephart]

3 minutes ago, Monkey486 said:

First of all, thank you for this kind response and explanation. This is very painful for me. I finally start to open up and start to talk about it I get attacked for not reading all the terms and conditions. (How many times have clicked the ‘I Agree’ button without having read page after page of fine print?) I’ve had to cancel Airbnb reservations for example, it was all dealt with easily—so I know that can be done with a major company. So yeah, I should have not have taken the first answer, should’ve asked more questions, should’ve been more assertive, should’ve been much more on guard to being taken advantage of my lack of diligence in reading the fine print. Where they got me is my taking a worthless voucher in exchange for changes made to a previous trip (due to family circumstances) made many months (before the penalty kicks in) prior—The first ‘answer’ from Viking was that this was my only option. My bad for not hanging up and seeking legal counsel right then and there. From human to human, this posturing I got from Viking is not being forthright and up front. I see it as setting people up to be taken advantage of if they don’t adequately protect themselves. I see this as predatory and immoral. Concerning the insurance, I said yes when asked if I wanted insurance—the voucher being uninsured went unsaid. This sets the company up to legally pocket the money if something should go wrong. So yeah I feel stupid and taken advantage of. Very expensive lesson. They won’t be getting another nickel out of me.

 

It does seem to me that despite the fine print some sort of "goodwill" accomodation should be available in cases where the company is not out anything. That would be better business.

[OneSixtyToOne]

2 minutes ago, duquephart said:

 

It does seem to me that despite the fine print some sort of "goodwill" accomodation should be available in cases where the company is not out anything. That would be better business.

 

A CEO once told me "It's worth it to lose some people's business"

[Squawkman]

FWIW, the magic date is November 1, 2021. Any vouchers applied to bookings from that date on cannot be transferred to another booking. Prior to that date, it was easy to cancel and rebook using the same voucher. We were supposed to go to Iceland last August, but cancelled 36 hours before embarkation when my wife broke a toe. We had no penalty, and we’re able to apply that voucher to a cruise we’re doing next January. If for some reason we can’t do that cruise, we will be SOL as the booking was made after 10/31/21.

[Monkey486]

22 minutes ago, Cienfuegos said:

The original poster raises a good point. The contracts presented are complicated, and defy simple understanding. They are written by professionals to protect the interests of the insurance company, not the traveler.

 

I would like to see a simple summary, in plain English, on each contract. Highlighting the most common situations and what is covered or not covered. That would highlight the limits of the coverage.

 

Maybe I've become jaded by all the ambulance chasing and roof climbing lawyers' advertising here in Florida, eager to stick it to the wicked insurance companies, but some of these contracts are damn difficult to understand. Even for somebody like me who has been reading them for almost 50 years.

Thank you! I just finished another lengthy response concerning the obfuscation of ‘the agreement’ in lengthy, confusing fine print. It benefits the big companies, positioning them, as in my case with Viking to legally pocket money without services rendered should they not not adequately protect themselves. Viking knows this, it benefits them as they are protected by the law (and apparently public opinion especially as the right off the bat reaction was to call me a dumbass for not reading the terms and conditions.) A simple summary would be appreciated. Transactions should simple and forthright. As another post made the point, there is no incentive for Viking to correct what they did to me, or admit that it was, let’s say, less than upfront, or they’d have a ton of people to reimburse (or face a lot of lawsuits.)

[Monkey486]

12 minutes ago, OneSixtyToOne said:

 

So nothing was "stolen" from you. Welcome to the world of Big Business and corporate law firms.

Legally, yes the money is ‘theirs.’ Morally, it’s theft.

[duquephart]

4 minutes ago, OneSixtyToOne said:

 

A CEO once told me "It's worth it to lose some people's business"

 

That may well be true to some degree. I've always felt that "the customer is always right" ranks right up there with "no one is above the law" on the BS scale. As a general rule however, that attitude does not float well.