Maya1234

On 6/30/2020 at 7:41 PM, BirdTravels said:

The case was closed because the OP hid the fact that they had received reimbursement in the form of a FCC (the OP admits it above). The OP fraudulently claimed that they did not receive any refund of any kind. When the OP filed for a cash refund, they agreed to the terms of that refund which was about 90 days when they clicked "submit". Then they went to the cc company and, once again hid the fact that they agreed to a 90 day refund, and said "the cash refund terms was too slow." Lots of things which were conveniently left out of the charge back claim to the cc company. Hope Chase never finds out.    

 

Outerdog, how many NCL refunds have you requested? We requested two, so we know exactly what the process is and how that process is communicated, in writing, from the cruiseline. 

Nope. The cruise line has every opportunity to say "but we issued a credit and we consider that a full refund." Under the terms that the provider has with cc companies they are given a chance to respond to a charge back (if the cc didn't give them this chance....highly unlikely...the cruise has a  beef with the cc company, not the consumer.

 My cc company does not accept that a 'credit' is a refund when services were not rendered. There is no fraud here. A credit is very much not the refund that the consumer had a legal right to.

1 minute ago, Maya1234 said:

 I too would like to know about the claim that Visa won’t reverse charges if the merchant can’t provide the service. The Rules I have in the handbook issued by Visa are to the contrary. The only grounds on which a merchant can contest are: 

 

1) Merchant delivered the merchandise or made it available for pickup by the agreed-upon date or agreed upon location .

2) • Specified delivery date has not yet passed  and merchant has not indicated it won’t provide service.  
3)  Cardholder cancelled and Merchant written terms do not permit refund for cardholder cancellation 

4)  Transaction represents a partial payment with balance due .


5)  Merchant processed refund  with Visa already.
NOTE: Merchant MUST Provide documentation of the credit or reversal with Visa ; include the amount and the date it was processed with Visa 
 

 

 

On 6/9/2020 at 9:46 PM, phire said:

when was it? I just searched online and didn't find this news. Anyways, I won mine VISA credit card on June1st. 

 I too would like to know about the claim that Visa won’t reverse charges if the merchant can’t provide the service. The Rules I have in the handbook issued by Visa are to the contrary. The only grounds on which a merchant can contest are: 

1) Merchant delivered the merchandise or made it available for pickup by the agreed-upon date or agreed upon location .

2) • Specified delivery date has not yet passed .

3)  Cardholder cancelled and Merchant written terms do not permit refund for cardholder cancellation 

4)  Transaction represents a partial payment with balance due .


5)  Merchant processed refund  with Visa already.
NOTE: Merchant MUST Provide documentation of the credit or reversal with Visa ; include the amount and the date it was processed with Visa 
 

We too have had great experience with AMEX refunds. Their position was if vendor said it couldn’t provide service refund must be given. No dilly dallying. They took same position with restaurant where we had booked event. Restaurant said they’d refund in 90 days. Amex was like nope. Now bud or we permanently reverse charge and ding you.  They reversed charges day I called. 

“This smacks of discrimination. Would not be surprised if civil rights lawsuits followed. Seems it would have been better for them to make everyone boarding (all ages) sign a waiver agreeing to accept any risk that may be incurred on health as a result of cruising.”

No civil rights law protects from age discrimination except in housing and employment. 

On 2/9/2020 at 8:30 PM, riffatsea said:

I just think that people are getting wild in their fears that are not based on the reality of the situation. Just because there is an outbreak in Japan on a Princess ship there , does not mean there is an outbreak in LA on a ship going to Hawaii.

 

Wow. Of course you are right on the “ just because”. But That ended up being quite the statement as of today. 

2 hours ago, dog said:

Do you have a link for source?

You were asking for source that Princess provided a phone to David Abel that works in  Japan. You can find that on the latest video done by Abels son and his wife on David Abels YouTube channel which you can find by googling David’s name and “ celebrant training”.  

David Abel’s son reported this morning that Princess got his parents a phone with a SIM card and service in Japan. That’s pretty impressive. Princess definitely seems to be doing its best from a PR front given the situation. 

8 hours ago, Sunny AZ Girl said:

The hostel is a newer update since I posted.  That is where they are going now.  He is convinced it is a set up to quiet him.  No way to know what is really going on.  Not being able to communicate with the outside world seems cruel.  At least they will be together as long as they are symptom free.  Being separated was his biggest fear. 

According to a more recent post that was a misunderstanding on his part after speaking to a Japanese official whose English was understandably not perfect. Sally and David now believe they are negative according to the FB post but will be going to a hostel for now. 

I think the Diamond Princess just made people aware of a risk of something they never envisioned. Being cooped up in a small room for a long time. I have friends whose husband was in China and they decided to self quarantine when he returned as news was breaking that you could transmit before symptoms. But they were in their nice big house for their kids to run around in. They can all go outside in their big backyard ( no close neighbors) They can easily do laundry. They can have alone time in one of the many rooms of their home. They Had access to any food they wanted ( friends have been picking up and leaving outside their front door). Those on the Princess have it  much rougher. The unique situation of a long  quarantine inside a windowless room (even though Princess is doing as much as they can to help  passengers) is spooking people 

The Guardian, also reputable, also just posted that Thailand is a no-go. It’s really crazy. I feel bad for all the people on board who are in limbo w/r/t return flights. 

I don’t know if somebody already posted on this fast moving thread but 

interesting report from The NY TIMES: “Doctors in Washington State gave remdesivir to the First patient  with NCoV in the United States last week after his condition worsened and pneumonia developed when he’d been in the hospital for a week. His symptoms improved the next day.”

Remdesivir is an intravenous anti-viral. China is now doing a study to see if this anecdotal evidence can be backed up. 

The other good-ish news is this from the NY TIMES: “Doctors in Washington State gave remdesivir to the First patient  in the United States last week after his condition worsened and pneumonia developed when he’d been in the hospital for a week. His symptoms improved the next day.”

Remdesivir is an intravenous anti-viral. China is now doing a study to see if this anecdotal evidence can be backed up. 

1) I don’t think we really know right now if the Princess ship really has as large a percentage of cases vs elsewhere as we think. The ship is the only place that I know of where people who have no symptoms whatsoever are being tested. Some, maybe a large percentage, who test positive may never have symptoms. There are several people who have been taken off the ship totally asymptotic.  There may be hundreds of people around the world who hav been exposed to the virus during prior travel who would have tested positive but never were tested. It appears that children only develop the most minor of symptoms. We just don’t know yet what the Princess numbers mean. 
 

2) While Princess’ contract of carriage gives then unfettered rights with US citizens to refuse refunds or changes even when the cruise completely changes my guess is that they aren’t going to be as strict as their contract allows. ( Princess’ contract is even stronger that the NCL one I looked at). The last thing they want is more bad publicity and a realization by people that European laws are more protective and hey maybe someone should introduce legislation in the US on this.  This doesn’t mean they are just going to let people cancel but I think they are going to tread carefully. 

Steve, are you a broker or a coverage attorney? 

“Please think about what you post and avoid over-hyping the situation. Do you have ANY idea what it must have been like on a real plague ship in medieval times?  “

This remind me of the episode of The Office where Jim had to explain hyperbole to Michael. 

36 minutes ago, MoniMommy said:

Seems like canceling a cruise would be less expensive for the cruise line than risking a 14 day quarantine?

Agree. If another ship faces this especially from a passenger who was unlikely to be screened out (say a US citizen who hadn’t traveled out of country) there is going to be a greater likelihood of cancellation than facing this mess. 

“Don't lawyers have free consultations?  If its inevitable you're going to lawyer up, save your time and energy and let the experts get the answers for you.  It would be very surprising that NCL wouldn't protect themselves from the embarkment port. “

lol. I am an attorney and we, as well as many law firms around the world, are discussing and researching the effects of Coronavirus on a variety of businesses. Cruise, airline and other travel  which involve “contracts of adhesion”  ( meaning one sided in favor of the drafting party with no negotiation...take it or leave it ) is a big topic of interest. One of my partners presented on the issue this morning. He pointed out the lack of clarity with regards to change of embarkation vs other port of call changes. 

“This doesn't appear accurate; this can't possibly be the first time this has happened (and won't be the last either)”

The law is a great deal more complicated than you seem to understand. For example did you know that “any other reason whatsoever “ has been interpreted by a myriad of courts NOT to mean “any reason”? The reason must be “ like such as” the listed reasons. (I’m not saying the closing of the port does not qualify) ...just that language in a contract is nowhere near as cut and dry as you might imagine. Is a “ port of call” a embarkation port? Probably not given that adhesion contracts like this are interpreted against NCL. Whether “ substituting a scheduled sailing” equates to completely changing the departure point is a more  open question. Could they change a sailing from NYC to a departure from Greece? Seems pretty clear not so where is the line drawn? Not clear.  Our research shows that cruise lines haven’t wanted to have a ruling on the books on  this and have settled out of court when pushed by legal counsel. 

We literally just had a meeting today to discuss whether contracts of carriage like NCL’s permit them to change the embarkation port. It’s very clear they can change things in almost every other way but it is not clear from a legal standpoint that they change port of departure. Very interesting discussion 

"Epic bathroom setup didn't faze me at all."

Not me. You could not pay me the cost of a Haven room to go on a cruise with this lack of privacy in a bathroom. Sorry all those who are more free and open. Been married 25 years. Still want and need total privacy in the bathroom and the set up in the Epic rooms would make me anxious and seriously seriously unhappy. 

But I know not everybody has my issues. But I think its important for people to do their research so that they know what they are getting into. With hotels I always avoid "open concept" bathrooms or with sink in the room instead of the bathroom. Nothing ruins a vacation more for me than the only sink being in the room. You are sure to wake the entire room if you want to use it while others are asleep.

2 hours ago, NLH Arizona said:

I seriously doubt they would hire a maritime lawyer for the Grandfather; it would be a regular criminal attorney.

The criminal attorney I know suspects that they did hire a criminal attorney who recommended that they also hire a maritime attorney to make the argument from a civil perspective that the cruise line was at fault. Not because they really expect that suit to be successful but to bolster the position in the criminal investigation. 

As an attorney I was surprised that they had an attorney making statements so quickly. Normally there woukd be a bit of investigation first.  But then one of my partners pointed out that Puerto Rico authorities had been quoted as saying the grandfather was under investigation. My partner used to be a criminal defense attorney and said that under the circumstances here he might advise someone like the grandfather to hire a civil attorney too to try to make a strong argument that he was not at fault and thus even if the family had no interest in a civil lawsuit against Royal Caribbean this was a smart move from a criminal defense standpoint. 

As an attorney I was surprised that they had an attorney making these kind of statements so quickly. But then one of my partners pointed out that Puerto Rico authorities had been quoted as saying the grandfather was under investigation. My partner used to be a criminal defense attorney and said that under the circumstances here he might advise someone like the grandfather to hire a civil attorney too to try to make a strong argument that he was not at fault and thus even if the family had no interest in a civil lawsuit against Royal Caribbean this was a smart move from a criminal defense standpoint. 

This story really is everywhere. Because the father is a South Bend Police Department officer, Presidental candidate  “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg just tweeted his condolences for his city’s employee.