1 minute ago, MoCruiseFan said:

They will be refunded with FCC since they did not request a cash refund or at least have no proof of doing so.  "at the carrier's option"...

Not if they do a credit card chargeback. They never asked for the FCC either. They did ask for a refund though, even if it was after NCL's self made-up, after the contract agreement, "deadline", which does not exist in original contract. The original contract is all that matters. A party to a contract cannot make new beneficial rules after both parties agree to original terms. As long as you have never used the FCC to book another cruise, do the chargeback to your issuer, pointing out the contract terms in Paragraph 6(b), and it will be successful, just like mine. Do it now, before NCL declares bankruptcy, because then you will know for sure that you are stuck with a worthless FCC and out of thousand$.

14 hours ago, SeaShark said:

but you completely miss the section of the GTC that covers what happens when the Government issues a no-sail order.

This is Guest Ticket Contract Paragraph 6(e) that SeaShark is referring to:

(e) Compliance with Government Orders: The Carrier shall have the absolute right, without liability for compensation to the Guest of any kind, to comply with governmental orders, recommendations or directions, including but not limited to those pertaining to health, security, immigration, customs or safety. In the case of quarantine, the Guest agrees to bear all risks, losses and expenses caused thereby and will be charged for maintenance, payable day-by-day, if maintained on board the vessel for such period of quarantine. The Guest assumes all risks and losses occasioned by delay or detention howsoever arising. Costs connected with embarkation or debarkation of Guests and/or baggage and costs of transfer between vessel and shore as a result of the circumstances enumerated in this paragraph must be borne by the Guest.

This paragraph provides protections for the Carrier from liability claims from their guests sailing on vessels forced to comply with government orders while sailing. As to what happens when a vessel does not sail at all on scheduled date, for any reason, was already covered two paragraphs earlier in Paragraph 6(b). Since it covered not sailing at all, for any reason, the issue is already covered. Nice try though.

Tennessee law for condemned death row inmates "entitles" them the option to choose method of execution between lethal injection or electrocution prior to sentence being carried out. Inmates cannot simply refuse to choose one of the options to escape their inevitable "requirement". Are we there yet on that one? 

Paragraph 6(b) exists in a contract, that NCL wrote, and rewrote, to their maximum benefit from all angles. Any other part of that same contract that can somehow be spun into an "argument" against a no-brainer refund situation, does not get rid of NCL's problem that that paragraph 6(b) still exists, by means of their own writing. In any event that NCL created a self-made contradiction in their own drawn up contract, a push goes to the other party that had no part in drawing up the terms of the agreement.

54 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Seems like you are confusing "entitled" with "required to x or y". Entitled doesn't mean you HAVE TO. 

 

Try again.

I don't know why you are injecting "required" into the language of the contract paragraph, thereon. But if I must have to explain it to you in terms of where "required" applies, Carrier is "required" to live up to the terms of contract Paragraph 6b, that they wrote, specifically, to have a clause to dodge refunding the entire passenger list in normal times if they could easily transfer passengers to another vessel. However, the clause only offers two options. Since the other one is no longer an option, Carrier's "entitlement" of options became the sole option, which became the "requirement" to give a freaking refund. Hope that chums the water for you SeaShark. Your move.

30 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Being the legal scholar, the section you quote plainly states: "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to". Note that it does NOT say "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be required to".

 

Please explain the difference between being entitled to do something vs being required to do something.

"Entitled" to choose between one thing, or another, says that the Carrier is entitled to choose between substituting the vessel with another, or refunding fare paid. Apparently, NCL chose NOT to substitute vessel on scheduled sailing date. That only leaves one option, my friend.

7 minutes ago, hallux said:

To be fair - the clause in the contract does not say it has to be on the same date, as you've interpreted it. 

Contract reads:

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon  or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."

1 minute ago, MoCruiseFan said:

No one blamed anyone.  It was merely pointed out that an email between her and her son is proof of nothing.  That is 100% factually accurate.

Filing a false dispute with a CC company is fraud.  In this case, the cruise line is refunding the amounts paid in form of a FCC which is what was agreed to by lack of action on the customers' part (unless of course she has actual proof of her requesting a refund, none of which has been described in any of her posts).

Whether they have proof of refund request, or not, does not matter!

In my case, I admit I didn't request a refund during a short arbitrary window that NCL picked months after our initial ticket contract agreement. I admit I missed the window because it didn't matter. Again, Pargagraph 6(b) reads:

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."
 

1. Ship did not sail on scheduled date for any reason.

2. Carrier (NCL) did not substitute vessel with some other means of transportation on contracted sailing date.

3. The only other option for the Carrier, in accordance with our only written, mutually agreed-to contract, is a refund of fare paid without further liability or damages.

Simple as that, folks. 

On 8/16/2020 at 9:40 PM, DCGuy64 said:

Actually I’m not. The MSC Grandiosa just departed Genoa today. I’m afraid you are the mistaken one. My point was that sailing would resume and it has. 

MSC Cruises says family denied reboarding after they broke COVID-19 'social bubble'

https://news.yahoo.com/msc-cruises-says-family-denied-173348350.html

Looks like the "cruise resumption" you are celebrating will short-lived. Cruising is just not feasible for now. If NCL survives at all, it won't cruise until later into 2021, at best.

On 8/2/2020 at 9:48 AM, wolfie11 said:

Not sure if this helps, but the FMC is considering changes to cruise ship deposits 

https://www.fmc.gov/commissioner-sola-proposes-changes-to-fmc-regulations-on-cruise-line-performance-refunds/

 

https://www.fmc.gov/resources-services/cruise-passenger-assistance/
 

Or you could try to sic the Cruise Law News guy on them or contact your local legislators if a chargeback doesn't work.

This was an excellent, helpful post from page 1 of this thread! The commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission basically calls out NCL, and other cruise lines, on their unfair, unethical cash hoarding schemes. He calls for change to the regulations, which are put forward by his agency, to mandate refunds for cancelled cruises and shorten the time to process refunds. It's a long read, but he really calls out the B***-S***, and calls for immediate regulation change. As it relates to chargebacks, I would recommend that anyone that is stuck with unwanted FCCs requesting a chargeback through their credit card issuer to reference the FMC findings that you can find in the above .gov links.

5 hours ago, oregonian123 said:

Also, not everyone had a choice of Cash back for other canceled cruises. I the spring, we received notice that the Sun would not go to Alaska for 2020 and they automatically gave us FCC.

7 minutes ago, tallnthensome said:

Wrong, I was booked on the Sun to Alaska for a 12 day and cash refunds were offered. You just didn’t read the term and conditions close enough like the other poster noted. 

Forget  NCL's after-the-fact, self-made refund policy. Take away NCL's control of the refund decision. Do a chargeback request, as I described in this thread, and enjoy watching your credit card issuer rip your money out of NCL's clutching hands and give it right back to you where it belongs. I did, and I gotta tell ya.. It feels AWESOME! Just make sure you come back and do a follow-up post when your funds show up on your credit card to shut up all the nay-sayers.

22 minutes ago, julig22 said:

But I'm sure you and your buddy Fido Chuckwagon will have some not-so-clever comebacks on how I am so misinformed.

Hey, Fido. Apparently, we are buddies, and Julig doesn't think much of your comebacks.

11 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Hmmm - I don't remember saying not to file a chargeback - just that if you do, you do so at your own risk.  And there are risks.  And there are terms of service, which NCL will stand by.  Interesting that you ask for results but when they don't agree with what you are expecting, you take offense.

 

And FYI, I have used the chargeback process in the past (not for NCL) and I won.  And then I lost when the merchant disputed, long after my credit was permanent.  And I filed an appeal.  And I had proof that the merchant had invalidated the contract.  And I still lost.

It was NCL's "terms of service" that led to my card issuer's FINAL decision that refund was due. I don't know what bank you had, or what ducks you had out of row in your filing, but in my case, and others like mine, decision is final when they complete their investigation. BTW, what exactly are the "risks" to filing a chargeback? 

2 minutes ago, julig22 said:

People who were not due a refund (they cancelled or didn't apply for the cash during the specified refund period) have also posted that they lost their case, getting notified long after they thought it was over.

 

Just stating the facts as I've seen them, not expressing an opinion - so no need to get your hackles up and make accusations regarding cheerleading, etc.  Just following your suggestion to post results.

I fall under the group of people that, according to you, are not due a refund because they didn't request it during a NCL specified time. I guess I was due a refund after all. My card issuer saw right through NCL's scheme, and issued the refund, that is permanent! Question is, "Why do yo care if people get a refund?". You seem to take some form of pleasure in showering despair on anyone's hope to get their money back. People stuck with unwanted FCCs, File your chargeback with your card issuer as I described. It works, and when you get an answer from them, it will be permanent. Don't listen to this hater/fool.

7 minutes ago, raytamt1 said:

I submitted this same letter, along with the original guest ticket contract (highlighting Paragraph 6b) and an explanation of events to my credit card issuer in a chargeback request. It was approved within 2 weeks and $6100 was PERMANENTLY returned to my Visa card.

One thing I left out. First, you will need to submit an online "After Your Cruise" feedback comment, where you need to tell NCL you want a refund instead of FCC. Use this link: https://www.ncl.com/about/contact-us#. You will need to copy your text before you hit submit because their email reply will not include your original text.  Submit NCL's boilerplate reply along with the other stuff when you file your chargeback. Card issuer need to see that you asked for a refund, and that NCL denied it.

4 minutes ago, julig22 said:

The default is FCC unless you specifically request a cash refund.  I had only a CN deposit, so those just went back into my account.  But that does remind me that I should have gotten a 25% credit on my deposit - I'll have to check on that.

 

Per the April 13 letter re: cancellation of the Sun cruises to Alaska in 2020:

 

All guests will receive a refund in the form of a future cruise credit worth 125% of the fare paid, which will be valid for a period of one year and can be applied to any future published sailing through December 31, 2022. All future cruise credits will be available April 20, 2020. Additionally, guests who rebook their vacation by April 27, 2020 for any sailing beginning October 1, 2020 will receive a 20% discount off the voyage fare. ' For guests who do not wish to avail themselves of the 125% future cruise credit, a 100% refund of the fare paid will be reimbursed to the original form of payment within 90 days of completing the request form at https://www.ncl.com/case-submission/sun-alaska-form. The form will be made available beginning April 20, 2020 and must be submitted by April 27, 2020.

I submitted this same letter, along with the original guest ticket contract (highlighting Paragraph 6b) and an explanation of events to my credit card issuer in a chargeback request. It was approved within 2 weeks and $6100 was PERMANENTLY returned to my Visa card. If you have FCCs and would prefer a refund, NCL's after-the-fact, self-made refund policy is bogus in the eyes of card issuers. Disregard what many on this board that say otherwise. Haters are gonna hate. If NCL goes bankrupt, it won't be from giving refunds to people that deserve them. Don't become a victim of losing thousand$ with nothing to show for it. So, file your chargeback request today with your card issuer, and be sure to post the results here.  

On 7/28/2020 at 11:14 AM, DCGuy64 said:

Respectfully, having read your posts on this subject for 3 pages, I think you need to grow up. You are just being rude at this point.

I'm adding you to my ignored users list, don't bother replying because I won't see it.

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

1 hour ago, zqvol said:

Advice please.... my trip was also cancelled. I had booked with a travel agent, told her I wanted cash refund. She said she filed the claim and it takes up to 90 days. In the meantime I emailed her 3x asking about the refund. After the 90 days reached out to her again. She said she contacted her BCL rep but now sits too late for cash so I have a FCC👹. I told her how I didn’t want that, I trusted her.... she said she did her job,NCL messed up but I can try to call and fight with NCL.... gee thanks! Why did I use an agent?

before I call I want to know if anyone had this issue or luck with fixing it? Feel hopeless 💔

1 hour ago, zqvol said:

Your claim is with the TA, not NCL.

Your claim is with your credit card issues. Ignore the NCL defenders trying to extinguish your hope of getting your money rightfully refunded. I had a somewhat similar situation of bad or knowingly wrong information being given to me over the phone. Being stuck with likely worthless FCC, that I didn't ask for, was not an option for me. I submitted a chargeback request through USAA, my credit card issuer. I included the original guest ticket contract, and highlighted paragraph 6b. 

Paragraph 6(b) of Guest Ticket Contract reads: "If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."  

USAA's investigation process was completed within two weeks. APPROVED! Leaving my credit card balance with a nice negative credit. Do the chargeback. The final decision is totally up to the issuer. It doesn't take much investigating to see through NCL's deceptive scheme to try to keep refunds from their customers that rightfully deserve them.

2 minutes ago, krittykat said:

I think that may be the case if I cancel but not if they extend the suspension. I already know a couple who was in my position and their rebooked cruise was suspended. They got 125% fcc on that on also for the inconvenience 

Best of luck. I hope they would do that since it seems reasonable to do so, but I would be very skeptical of NCL missing any trick that would benefit themselves. I think in booking now though, the prices are being kept high. Once cruises actually resume, I believe there will be plenty of last minute bargains where you can get alot more bang for your buck, I mean, credits. 

24 minutes ago, krittykat said:

We took the 125% FCC on our canceled cruise from April 2020 and rebooked for Dec 12.  It may be now we will have to reschedule again for the following Dec. Should get 125% of our current booking so we can get a possible 2nd upgrade (went from spa balcony to Haven aft penthouse with last change). Since money is already tied up....it is fine....

I hate to bear bad news, but the extra 25% bonus will not re-apply for cancelled cruises that were booked using FCCs. A cash refund will also not be an option since NCL will be refunding your FCC. If you would like your cash back, you could try a chargeback request with your credit card issuer, but the fact that you used the FCC to book a cruise shows that you willingly accepted the credits as a refund for your original cancelled cruise, and that may factor in the issuer's decision on whether or not to approve the chargeback.

21 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

I did read the OP...not only was it off-point, but your interpretation of the contract was incorrect. But hey, what do I know...I only had three (3) cruises cancelled by the government due to COVID. The accounting of my funds is 100% complete and was done 100% to my satisfaction...but hey, your expertise seems to be working so well for you.

 

FWIW, if you're going to try to insult someone (since your content hasn't achieved your goal), then you should be careful to ensure the proper use of the comma. Makes all the difference in the meaning.

Nope sorry, my interpretation was spot on. As I already posted, I got my chargeback approved specifically because of USAA Federal Savings Bank's interpretation of the contract language that I pointed out. I already forced my refund. I just want others that weren't refunded to do the same.  I only quoted your post to direct my post towards you. I didn't actually directly address anything in your post because it is complete jibberish. Sorry for calling you a dummy. You are obviously a genius. 

3 minutes ago, ColeThornton said:

Okay, Folks....enough pulling on each others pigtails, this isn't doing anyone any good.

 

 

You are right. I think the defenders are baiting and escalating the discussion conflicts purposely until the board manager pulls the plug from all the nastiness. The only other OP I posted a couple of weeks ago about lying NCL consultants was deleted shortly after the goons came out swinging on that thread.

3 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Too busy counting posts to pay attention maybe?

Whose counting? The # of posts are displayed under your username. Surely, you already knew that. Another example of intellectual dishonesty.

1 minute ago, SeaShark said:

If that was truly the purpose of the OP, then why didn't you a) mention that you had a chargeback (successful or not) or b) encourage others to do the same at any point in your OP???

I take back my early comment that the NCL defending posters are definitely not stupid. Apparently, there is at least one exception. Read the OP dummy!

43 minutes ago, Jobeth66 said:

However, the poster in question has 22000 posts over /15/ years - so an average of 4 a day.  That's hardly a 'full time job'.

I can't buy that anyone would post everyday for 15 years. That's about 5500 days in a row without a day off. Probably all kinds of breaks in terms of weeks, months or even years. I don't have the time they do do research other posters' histories, so I'm not going to bother studying their mile-long rap sheet of posts. I just know that, again, plain old common sense says:

20,000+ posts = full time job. Period. Especially, when all the ones that I have seen, loyally and predictably fight tooth and nail any posts that calls out NCL for their dishonest, unethical tactics. I made this original posting fully expecting nothing less. My purpose of the OP was to share my successful chargeback effort, encourage others who remained ticked and unrefunded to do the same, and eat lots of popcorn while all the goons and hatchet men predictably come out swinging. 

BTW Jobeth66, your feedback seems unbiased, and I appreciate that.

3 hours ago, SeaShark said:

Not to mention those on here who are paid to attack and destroy the cruise line, right? Shhhhhh...we won't tell 🙄

 

Sheeesh...first the "post count police" and now the "you must work for the cruise line tactic". Seems like someone broke into the  Cruise Critic ad hominem toolkit.

Nice try, but lets just use math here. 20,000+ posts, many of them quite lengthy and seemingly well thought out, equals a full time job. Period. I guess it's possible that these posters are unpaid and just doing this for free. Perhaps they have a trust fund and don't need the money. They just commit everyday to what they do to help fight the injustice against a poor cruise line being picked on and attacked for unethically keeping the money of customers through sham arguments that don't hold water. 

As far as paid posters that are attacking and trying to destroy the cruise line??? I don't even need to try to describe how asinine that sounds. "I'm not a puppet. You're a puppet!", echoes in my mind with that comeback argument. The posts against NCL are from people, like myself, that are genuinely ticked off, and trying to get others to coalesce  to hopefully get a desired result, and somehow, do it with just a few posts.