Cancellation Policy

[lvtotrvl1]

The cancellation penalties are clearly spelled out on your confirmation. I'm not sure why you would think that they now do not apply to your situation? As a TA I see many, many cases of completely unexpected situations arise. This is what insurance is for. I have seen the cruiselines sometime make exceptions, but very rarely.Do I always agree with the policies...no, but they are there for a reason. It doesn't matter whether it is a mass market cruise line or a luxury cruise line.

[Goofyisme]

Hope the OP enjoys whatever cruise line he chooses, but be advised that under similar circumstances I suspect their response will be the same as Regent's.

[cruiseluv]

As stated before, the insurance that covers cancellations "for any reason" is very expensive. I think it runs around 10-15% of the cost of the cruise. In addition , they usually cover only 75% of the nonrefundable portion (ie. of the penalty imposed by the cruise). This poster has said that at this point his penalty, if he cancels, is 25% of the cruise. So, had he taken this insurance he would have been only in a marginally better position that he is now.

 

If I were him , sure I would try pleading my case with a letter to higher management and would keep my fingers crossed that they agreed. But looking at it from the outside, I still say that in the long run it would be a poor business decision as it could alienate other customers who maybe didn't receive this kind of "breaK" when they had to cancel their cruise within the penalty phase.

[Friscorays]

The Regent cancellation policy is quite clear and I see no reason why it would not apply to this situation.

 

The poster is of course quite free to take his future business elsewhere. However, I doubt he will find a cruise line in any category which lets you cancel a cruise within 60 days of sailing without some monetary penalty.

 

I never have understood the mindset of those who seem to feel that rules apply to everyone except themselves. I'm sure others have had to cancel or reschedule trips secondary to a death in the family or personal illness and still been assessed the cancellation fee. A court date pales in comparison. It seems to me that you have learned a life lesson. Time to move on.

[skitravel]

I'm not sure if this applies in this situation, but I just looked at an AIG Travel Guard policy and it covers cancellation if "the insured or a traveling companion is subpoenaed".

[nimbex1970]

....I have never heard of case(and I am a lawyer) where the plaintiff or defense can show non cancellable arrangements that they can't get a reasonable postponement but then I don't practice in Florida. Perhaps if you get a letter from your lawyer and the court Regent may make an exception...

 

Have your lawyers draft a change, I was called as a defendant in a suit from work, had a cruise planned (no insurance) and they rescheduled the (what ever the first date is that you meet with the lawyers and enter a plea), BUT, my cruise was planned before the supena and I had to prove it, they simply rescheduled. You are only talking two weeks, not months, this is a very realistic request, if necessary, have your lawyer play hardball, period.... a jury will act negatively upon your lack of presence and this will affect the outcome of the case.

 

Second, I was in jury duty last year, the defendant could not appear, having to work, when asked during jury selection if anyone would bear weight upon his absence, many people said yes... he should be here! Jury duty selection was cancelled that day because of all the "yes'es".

 

I won't take light of your issue and say "you should have, could have", my mom said this to me when our house burnt down (where we were staying for 3 months and didn't get renters insurance and lost EVERYTHING), it's a kick in the face, no kidding you know NOW.....

 

ugh, some people lack empathy, Honestly, the best way is to politely and as sweet as pecan pie, work your way up the chain of command and try to reach a bargin for a reschedule of dates. Keep trying, go through the channels through corporate, not corporate first and document each name and use it each time you call.

 

It's my understanding that you'll loose 50% of cost as of now, you've nothing to loose but some time trying to strike a reschedule deal, it seems well worth your time.

 

Hindsight is 20/20, we had cruise insurance when we canceled for our fire, not renters... how messed up is that? We all learn, but it doesn't have to be through our wallets, keep trying. Good luck, wish you well with both battles! Have your well paid lawyer WORK for you!

[skitravel]

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I knew the OP did not have insurance and was responding to his second post: "I did look into trip insurance but found that the coverages provided did not apply to "legal" matters"

 

This is a very unfortunate and upsetting situation and I hope there can be a favorable resolution.

[egret]

Interesting thread, maybe Flagship ought to add the lost portion of the cost to the remedy of the lawsuit. I always get the trip insurance because of the age of our parents and the problems I seem to frequently have with airlines. Never thought about legal actions.

I don't think comparing Regent to Ritz Carleton is appropriate because the service provided by Ritz doesn't match the service I get from Regent.(imho)

Not using an experienced Regent travel agent because you don't have one local is no excuse, (imho). I use one that is 800 miles away from where I live and get outstanding service every time.

Just had the urge to add my $.02.

[Flagship1]

To answer some of the questions raised by fellow members -- my attorney has already requested that the judge post-pone the trial date (first request) due to our cruise. His response - "No". My attorney has informed me that this is an old time judge who runs his court the way he wants to and that the NC Court of Appeals gives the local trial judges wide discretion in such areas. This judge considers construction lien cases to be simple and readily disposable.

 

Since we are parties to this lawsuit we are under no subpoena and have to appear.

 

One fact that may be lost in this thread that we are NOT asking for the return of our 25% penalty -- only that we are ALLOWED to transfer those funds to a future cruise. This was to be a wedding cruise (getting married Nov.23rd).

 

We are giving Regent almost 60 days notice and I find it hard to believe that our Penthouse A stateroom could not be resold in that time (we were waitlisted for it so obviously there is demand). I fail to see any harm in that to Regent nor are we asking to "open the floodgates." Each case should be considered on its own merits - here Regent is not even giving us the chance to plead our case (sorry again for the pun).

 

As with the airlines that charge a minimal "service fee" for a rebooking -- I have no problem but a 25% fee (which is what it would be in effect) is totally without merit -- especially in such a service industry (after all -- isn't that why people select a luxury high end cruise line -- for the service?)

 

As for the comment about using a TA 800 miles away -- that is fine and dandy if one knew such an agent. I would have liked to have known how a person finds such a TA the first time (for any cruise line).

 

One would think that going right to the source would pass the common sense test but maybe not.

 

Hey - life is a learning experience and I am smart enough to know that I still have a lot to learn and if I am unsuccessful with Regent, then I will chalk it up (unfortunately) as a hard lesson. Maybe I am a person who sees the glass half full rather than half empty as some others do......

[Dolebludger]

I agree that something more need to be done by Regent for Flagship.

 

On the legal side, it sounds as if Flagship is "ordered" by the judge to appear in court in conflict with the cruise, which would make his taking the cruise "illegal." If the judge has not signed such an order, I'm sure he would! Such an interventing illegality is grounds to rescend a contract, without penalty, in all jurisdictions I know.

 

On the business side, I am aware of car companies (especially luxury ones) taking care of problems AFTER the warranty period has expired, on a case-by-case basis. Mercedes owners whose engines blow at 50.050 miles after a 50,000 mile warranty tend to buy BMW the next time if Mercedes does not step up to the plate and fix the problem. I feel that ALL lux cruise lines (not only Regent) need to re-think their "hard and fast" unilateral cancellation policies. Without going into detail, these policies have created problems for me in the past. I don't know about these insurance policies that cover cancellation for "any reason", or by whom they are sold. But the policies that are promoted and sold by the lines themselves leave a lot of gaps, including the one Flagship fell into. It would not have mattered if he had bought travel insurance from Regent, as he wouldn't be covered here. Further, the policies reported by others above for these "any reason" travel policies carry excessive premiums. Purchasing them may not be a good choice. You have to purchase the policy a couple of days after booking. Most of us book well inadvance of the 120 day penalty period. And all travel insurance companies I know of have non-refundable premiums -- even if the cruise is cancelled before the 120 day period.

 

I can think of no "business reason" for ANY line to deny Flagship's request to cancel for the reasons he states, and have his fare applied to a future cruise. It's one of those rare "win-win" solutions. The line has plenty of time to fill the suite. And the line also get added revenue by getting a pre-sold booking on the second cruise. Between the first and second cruise, the line gets the interest off Flagship's money.

 

Some of you here also read the Silversea CC board. A rumor got started about a change in SS's smoking policy, and a thread on this resulted. A spokesman from SS posted and cleared the matter. I feel that a Regent spokesman should chime in here, and correct Regent's position, or at least explain why a luxury line should be so inflexible.

[cruiseluv]

One fact that may be lost in this thread that we are NOT asking for the return of our 25% penalty -- only that we are ALLOWED to transfer those funds to a future cruise. This was to be a wedding cruise (getting married Nov.23rd).

 

We are giving Regent almost 60 days notice and I find it hard to believe that our Penthouse A stateroom could not be resold in that time (we were waitlisted for it so obviously there is demand). I fail to see any harm in that to Regent nor are we asking to "open the floodgates." Each case should be considered on its own merits - here Regent is not even giving us the chance to plead our case (sorry again for the pun).

 

 

I don't think your point has been lost. You want a rollover of the monies you have paid the cruise line, in essence a credit for a future cruise. I understand your objective perfectly well. What I don't quite get is why you feel your case is special or has "merits". Didn't you know that you were party to a trial and were subject to be summoned when you booked/ paid for this cruise? If that contingency already existed you booked the cruise knowing that you were taking a risk.

 

You keep insisting that Regent should be able to do this or that with your cabin. I beg to differ. You don't know this and Regent won't know this until your cabin becomes available again. Your travel date is during slow season.

 

By all means, I encourage you to go up the chain of command and try to work a deal. If you succeed, congratulations! But I don't see anything special in your case that makes me say Regent should or must do something for you. Your case is no different that when my husband had a business emergency that precluded him for coming on a trip. Had he left for the vacation he would have been without a job by the time he came back! Should Regent also accommodate something like that? That's what is meant by "opening the floodgates". There are many situations out there that are valid reasons for people having to back out of a cruise, however, it doesn't make it "special" . Should all those "force majeure" kind of situations qualify for an exception?

[Friscorays]

One fact that may be lost in this thread that we are NOT asking for the return of our 25% penalty -- only that we are ALLOWED to transfer those funds to a future cruise. quote]

 

It wouldn't really be a penalty if they allowed that would it?:)

 

I looked at some other cruise lines to see their policies. Some examples:

 

Seabourn: 25% at 90 to 46 days.

Crystal: 10% at 75 to 45 days.

Silversea: 20% at 60 to 31 days.

Lindblad: 50% at 59-30 days.

 

The Regent policy is in line with these. They also specify that the penalty applies whether they cabin is resold or not.

 

If Regent did make an exception for you, I would consider yourself very lucky. Taking offense when Regent doesn't make an exception for you and then badmouthing them for uniformly applying their own rules is something else entirely.

[Flagship1]

Thank you to Dolebludger as he stated my position probably a lot more clearer and logical than I have with my various postings.

 

Not asking for a free ride here -- but just some logical common sense consideration under these unique circumstances.

[Gail C]

To the OP...

 

Should all else fail, is it possible to give this trip to your parents or a valued friend. Could it be "sold" by you to someone, either at a discount or full price. Might be better than Regent possibly double dipping and you ending up with nothing. Just a thought...

[cruiseluv]

Thank you to Dolebludger as he stated my position probably a lot more clearer and logical than I have with my various postings.

 

Not asking for a free ride here -- but just some logical common sense consideration under these unique circumstances.

 

I bet everybody that has had the misfortune of having to cancel feel their case qualifies as "unique" and deserving of compassion.

[smeyer418]

....

On the legal side, it sounds as if Flagship is "ordered" by the judge to appear in court in conflict with the cruise, which would make his taking the cruise "illegal." If the judge has not signed such an order, I'm sure he would! Such an interventing illegality is grounds to rescend a contract, without penalty, in all jurisdictions I know. ....

 

Nonsense. it doesn't make the contract or cruise illegal. It makes his failure to appear illegal, if he was subpoenaed.. It doesn't implicate the contract at all because the contract covered the eventuality of cancellation. Also he can always not appear-he isn't under subpoena he is the plaintiff and all that will happen is he might lose the case. Every Judge controls their own calendar and has discretion to allow postponements. Its when its an abuse of that discretion takes place that an appellate court will intervene. Clearly I view this as an abuse of discretion but I don't have all the facts only what we see here and as every lawyer will tell you appealing an abuse of discretion issue is always uncertain.

[Friscorays]

To the OP...

 

Should all else fail, is it possible to give this trip to your parents or a valued friend. Could it be "sold" by you to someone, either at a discount or full price. Might be better than Regent possibly double dipping and you ending up with nothing. Just a thought...

 

 

Regent Terms and Conditions:

 

"3. NON- TRANSFERABILITY/BINDING EFFECT:

This Ticket/Contract is valid only for the Passenger or Passengers named herein for the date and Vessel indicated. It may not be sold or transferred. "

 

I once prurchased a cruise for my father as a surprise gift. He didn't want to go so I lost a $100 changing the passenger name from Sr. to Jr (I went in his place). Lesson learned. I guess I should have started a thread at the time about how heartless Regent (then Radison) is....

[Goofyisme]

One fact that may be lost in this thread that we are NOT asking for the return of our 25% penalty -- only that we are ALLOWED to transfer those funds to a future cruise. quote]

 

It wouldn't really be a penalty if they allowed that would it?:)

 

I looked at some other cruise lines to see their policies. Some examples:

 

Seabourn: 25% at 90 to 46 days.

Crystal: 10% at 75 to 45 days.

Silversea: 20% at 60 to 31 days.

Lindblad: 50% at 59-30 days.

 

The Regent policy is in line with these. They also specify that the penalty applies whether they cabin is resold or not.

 

If Regent did make an exception for you, I would consider yourself very lucky. Taking offense when Regent doesn't make an exception for you and then badmouthing them for uniformly applying their own rules is something else entirely.

 

Very well put.

[Dolebludger]

The thing is, NONE of us know when we are going to receive a summons to be a witness in a civil or criminal case in court. And none of us know when our home is going to sustain damage in something like the ice storm that hit our area right before our '02 PG cruise. We were a National Disaster Area, and trees had fallen on my roof leaving holes therein. My homeowner's carrier told me that the buckets and pans I could place under these holes in the attic would not be sufficient to extend my coverage to secondary damage in the event of more precipitation or melt off. I found that such events were NOT covered by the travel Insurance I bought through RSSC. And I had literally one day to tie the loose ends of this matter together. Fortunately, I knew a general contractor who was willing to take my job, and I called my property insurance company, and this was satisfactory to them.

 

I haven't checked very recently, but Flagship's cruise has been waitlisted for some time. This indicates that Regent probably wouldn't have much problem filling his suite.

 

Let there be no mistake. I'm a big advocate of purchasing travel insurance -- even though it leaves some gaps as to unavoilable impossibilities in taking the cruise that could (and do) happen. The cardinal point to me here is that, even if Flagship had purchased the travel insurance Regent offers and promotes, his situation would not have been covered. So the arguement "you should have bought travel insurance" is moot, IMO.

 

Like many of Regent's "base", I'm in my early 60's. This means I have time to travel. But it also means that I am in the "sandwich generation" which has had responsibilities forced upon it by very aged parents and young adult children (and grandchildren) alike. With this situation, the list of eventualities (not covered by traditional travel insurance) that could legally, physically and/or morally prevent me from going on a booked cruise grows. In this light, the "hard line" position of almost all cruise lines toward making case-by-case exceptions in their cancelation policies has had an effect the lines surely wouldn't like, if they knew of it. I used to cruise three times per year. Now, I cruise once per year or less, and chose my dates very carefully, to avoid any potential problems of this type, which virtually requires a crystal ball!

 

In summary on Flagship's problem, nobody should be penalized for obeying the law. Regent people read this board. We need an explanation.

[Dolebludger]

smeyer418.

 

In my state of Oklahoma, it is grounds to rescend a contract (with full return of consideration) if one's enjoyment of the benefits of that contract are barred by law -- including a court order. It does not mean that the cruise contract has become an illegal contract. Merely a rescendable contract on the grounds that its purpose has been totally frustrated and eliminated, by force of law.

 

What the state of Florida says about these situations, I haven't a clue. What I do know is that travel providers in general get away with a lot in the way of ignoring civil law, because the amounts involved are too small to justify litigation.

 

But this is not a legal forum. It is a cruise forum. A luxury line should accomodate if the customer has any possibility of grounds for what he/she wants. A business matter, not a legal one. The fact that other lines have similar policies is no excuse. They too, should shape up -- expecially as to the lux lines.

[Iamboatman]

I am a bit perplexed by the whole situation. I see it as the OP claiming the judge is unfair and Regent is unfair and come to a question, "Why?"

 

A construction lien case is - as noted - usually a pretty standard sort of affair. Is it that the matter really doesn't need the client present (I have no idea what the legal and/or factual issues are)? It is curious that it arose just days after the final payment was made...or was the notice prior and the OP figured the judge would move the date? Etc., etc.

 

I have people asking for exceptions all the time. Some of them are pretty legitimate and some are questionable in the extreme. Assuming the OP's participation in creating the problem is nil, it still begs the point that it was an avoidable circumstance if insurance was purchased and now the OP wants the risk/cost shifted to Regent knowing that wasn't the deal when he made it.

 

Regent may do something, but not because it has to or it is good business as the risks of every person can't be shifted away from them.

[TRadle]

Maybe this could be settled out of court. :)

[Flagship1]

Just because other cruise policies are the same does not mean they are right or better. If so, then there would be no room to "build a better mousetrap".

 

I always found that when in business I tried to set mine aside from the "rest of the pack". Businesses that cater to their customers will survive - those that do not will not.

 

I find it interesting that some commentators guess as to the facts involved (was the date already set when final payment made with OP hoping that the judge would move it later on...). That is not the case. The date was set Friday - Oct 5th. I promptly contacted my representative at Regent and was promptly told "sorry - out of luck". So much for customer service.

 

Once again I ask the question -- where is the harm to Regent?

[smeyer418]

This is not something that a CSR can change. As I suggested sit down and write a snail mail letter to Regent and put in the facts and ask nicely for what you want( a transfer) sometimes the powers who can make a decision do. Arguing the LAW or insulting them will get you nothing IMO...

 

You know something along the lines. ...I love Regent and have been disappointed because of a trial date that can't be moved I have to cancel. I called and asked that it be transferred to another sailing but was told that I couldn't. I do understand the policy but the judge even though it was on for the first time and we have never asked for a postponement has refused to grant an adjournment. I would very much like to travel on regent and can if they will transfer the cancellation fee to the next or whatever cruise...

 

I think I got the facts straight but you know more than me. I wouldn't say anything about Regents harm or a lawsuit...

[cruiseluv]

 

Ok, this is the 3rd time. I don't think Regent has to prove that they have been "harmed" but these are two scenarios where they would be: they don't find a buyer for your cabin at this point (less than 60 days out) or have to discount it in order to attract a customer. In both those cases they would be harmed. I have no idea if there is a waitlist for your type of cabin or not, but neither do you. So you cannot say conclusively that "there is no harm". Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

 

That's why your best course of action is to follow the advice of smeyer below.

 

really, it doesn't matter what we think, only what Regent thinks.

 

Good luck with your wedding.