What constitutes a significant change to itinerary

[david63]

2 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

It seems ABTA  set the criteria  so maybe its them we should be asking.

The problem there is that ABTA's criteria is so vague, especially in respect of cruising, that it is almost meaningless.

[Windsurfboy]

Àlthough the one case mentioned earlier, Iceland and fjords , loosing Iceland,  would clearly have, been a significant change under ABTA wording.

 

I think many tour companies hope rightly that people font read codes of practice. 

[Snow Hill]

2 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

Àlthough the one case mentioned earlier, Iceland and fjords , loosing Iceland,  would clearly have, been a significant change under ABTA wording.

 

I think many tour companies hope rightly that people font read codes of practice. 

Let’s remember who ABTA are, the Trade Association of British Travel Agents, and have been for 70 years, the definition of significant will favour the agents and travel companies not consumers

[Windsurfboy]

11 minutes ago, Snow Hill said:

Let’s remember who ABTA are, the Trade Association of British Travel Agents, and have been for 70 years, the definition of significant will favour the agents and travel companies not consumers

 

I agree , but it will hold you in good stead if you use section 75 or go to small claims , rather than use ABTA . 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Windsurfboy

[9265359]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:06 AM, Winifred 22 said:

Carnival UK  do have a legal department so I am sure they are fully aware of all these policies and their application. 

 

Being aware of what the law is and actually complying with the law are two entirely different things. 

 

There are plenty of examples of exceptionally large companies with whole teams of exceptionally expensive lawyers, and yet have not complied with the law and it has taken the regulators or courts to force them to do so.

 

That is not to say that Carnival are doing that, but if as alluded to they have an internal policy document regarding significant changes that they have not made public, then that raises the question of why they don't want their customers to see it.

[terrierjohn]

12 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

 

Being aware of what the law is and actually complying with the law are two entirely different things. 

 

There are plenty of examples of exceptionally large companies with whole teams of exceptionally expensive lawyers, and yet have not complied with the law and it has taken the regulators or courts to force them to do so.

 

That is not to say that Carnival are doing that, but if as alluded to they have an internal policy document regarding significant changes that they have not made public, then that raises the question of why they don't want their customers to see it.

I would imagine every medium to large company in the country has lots of internal documents that they don't want their customers or rivals to see.

[9265359]

59 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I would imagine every medium to large company in the country has lots of internal documents that they don't want their customers or rivals to see.

 

As demonstrated by a Subject Access Request a certain individual recently submitted to a large company...

 

But in this case there shouldn't be anything controversial with a policy on what is or is not a significant change.

 

P&O staff need to know what the policy is to apply it, and is it fair that customers who pay are denied that knowledge and to be able to see that the policy has been applied correctly?

[Windsurfboy]

Using ABTA arbitration is a waste they are a trade body.  However the code is useful firstly to make your point.  Once the discusion with P&O is exhausted . It can be used with bank , try asking for charge back first they are more ready to accept this route rather than section 75 as they dont have to pay. Or finally  small claims court.

[Cruisemeister2002]

At least you get two other ports. We went on a 35 nighter in March/April. Before we had even boarded Key West was thrown out. On sailing we had a couple of days before LaCoruna we were then due to call in at Bermuda overnight following six days sailing. It turned into 10 days sailing as the Captain, several days before arrival decided the weather wouldn't allow us in. I wish I had a crystal ball as good as his. No replacement was forthcoming. I do question, bearing in mind that Cunard used to cross to New York in 4 days and even P&O ships did it in 5 days why does it take 6 days to get from Port Canaveral to Ponta Del Garda and a further 3 days from there to Southampton. Meaning that discounting other sea days between ports just crossing both ways across the Atlantic took 19 days.

[cruising.mark.uk]

5 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

Or finally  small claims court.

Just to clarify, in case people are searching for this.  There's no such thing anymore as small claims court.  What you are talking about are now called court claims and are primarily done via Money Claims Online.  Details on both are on gov.uk  I only know because I am in the midst of the process at the moment.  The other thing to note is that it costs to go this route, although you can include the costs in the money you are trying to recover from the company against which you are making the claim. Its £115 for claims between £1500  and £3000 and then £205 for claims up to £5k.

[Mollag]

Quick update messaged them on Twitter and FB on Wednesday morning got a reply this afternoon basically asked them who are they waiting for to clarify the amount of changes before it becomes significant this is the reply so have politely asked them to read the question and told them I’m quite aware of the T&Cs and didn’t ask for any compensation just the answer to a simple question 

[9265359]

7 hours ago, Windsurfboy said:

try asking for charge back first they are more ready to accept this route rather than section 75 as they dont have to pay

 

One thing to keep in mind is that a 'charge back' is reversible if the retailer disputes the matter after the bank has refunded you.

 

With a s75 claim, once you have been paid then that's it no matter what the retailer says at a later date (if the retailer / service provider is still in business then whether the bank suffers the s75 loss or they pass it back to the retailer / service provider will obviously depend on the agreement the two have).

 

And so personally if it was an argument about £150 then I might try a 'charge back' first for speed, and then followed by a s75 if that did not work.

 

But if it was a claim for £1,500 or £15,000 then I would just use s75 to prevent any possibility of reversal.

[Windsurfboy]

1 minute ago, 9265359 said:

 

One thing to keep in mind is that a 'charge back' is reversible if the retailer disputes the matter after the bank has refunded you.

 

With a s75 claim, once you have been paid then that's it no matter what the retailer says at a later date (if the retailer / service provider is still in business then whether the bank suffers the s75 loss or they pass it back to the retailer / service provider will obviously depend on the agreement the two have).

 

And so personally if it was an argument about £150 then I might try a 'charge back' first for speed, and then followed by a s75 if that did not work.

 

But if it was a claim for £1,500 or £15,000 then I would just use s75 to prevent any possibility of reversal.

 

Good point

[molecrochip]

On 8/18/2023 at 8:53 AM, 9265359 said:

 if as alluded to they have an internal policy document regarding significant changes that they have not made public, then that raises the question of why they don't want their customers to see it.

It was suggested that Carnival didn’t know what a significant change was. I said that this was wrong. I never said or alluded to them having an internal policy document.
 

In fact I said that as it would be a cruise by cruise consideration publishing criteria would be impractical. I said that you apply the facts of the change once confirmed to the specific cruise to then understand if it’s significant.

 

I said there were guidelines that are applied, ABTA, Package Travel Regulations etc.

[9265359]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:27 PM, molecrochip said:

It was suggested that Carnival didn’t know what a significant change was. I said that this was wrong. I never said or alluded to them having an internal policy document.
 

In fact I said that as it would be a cruise by cruise consideration publishing criteria would be impractical. I said that you apply the facts of the change once confirmed to the specific cruise to then understand if it’s significant.

 

I said there were guidelines that are applied, ABTA, Package Travel Regulations etc.

 

If there is a "cruise by cruise consideration" then that consideration must be based on some previously set criteria - unless you are asserting that for every change in schedule that P&O management convene a meeting to discuss and agree what the criteria are for that cruise and why those criteria may or may not accord with decisions made on previous schedule changes.

 

Even though ABTA, Package Travel Regulations etc. have guidelines, those guidelines have to be interpreted and applied consistently by an organisation, and the only way to ensure consistency is to have an internal policy on interpretation and application - unless again you are asserting that for every change in schedule that P&O management convene a meeting to discuss and agree what the criteria are for that cruise and why those criteria may or may not accord with decisions made on previous schedule changes.

 

And for transparency the customer ought to know how P&O is going to interpret and apply those guidelines, so therefore should be provided by P&O with their policy on the subject.

[david63]

1 hour ago, 9265359 said:

those guidelines have to be interpreted and applied consistently by an organisation

Or preferably by an industry. All cruise lines should use the same criteria.

[tring]

2 hours ago, 9265359 said:

 

If there is a "cruise by cruise consideration" then that consideration must be based on some previously set criteria - unless you are asserting that for every change in schedule that P&O management convene a meeting to discuss and agree what the criteria are for that cruise and why those criteria may or may not accord with decisions made on previous schedule changes.

 

Even though ABTA, Package Travel Regulations etc. have guidelines, those guidelines have to be interpreted and applied consistently by an organisation, and the only way to ensure consistency is to have an internal policy on interpretation and application - unless again you are asserting that for every change in schedule that P&O management convene a meeting to discuss and agree what the criteria are for that cruise and why those criteria may or may not accord with decisions made on previous schedule changes.

 

And for transparency the customer ought to know how P&O is going to interpret and apply those guidelines, so therefore should be provided by P&O with their policy on the subject.

 

If you get as far as contesting a change in court, then the deciding factor is what is decided by the judge on the day, though that is very dependent upon what the law actually says and how it is usually interpreted.  There are a lot of different matters that can affect whether something is, or is not, a change which would require them to make a full refund if someone wanted to cancel, and they will likely be somewhat dependent upon each other.

 

You can easily read the package travel regs and have also been given a link to the the ABTA trade guidelines as well.  Someone who is senior enough to make a decision as to what P&O are going to allow, or not, regards a specific change, will be completely capeable to make that decision with those two documents as they will certainly have some sort of legal background as well as professional experience in such matters.  I am sure border line cases will not get a full refund offered initially, but that is for each customer to contest individually, if it means so much to them.  It is what it is.

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by tring

[Mollag]

Latest response from them

[Megabear2]

14 hours ago, Mollag said:

Latest response from them

"Many", how many constitutes that I wonder.

[Mollag]

4 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

"Many", how many constitutes that I wonder.

That’s what I’ve just asked them, what percentage of changes would be significant or if we were to lose the Panama partial transit would that be significant watch this space

[Mollag]

And the answer is…………