P&O withholding $'s post cruise

[cruising kirby]

A couple of friends have recently disembarked a P&O cruise, they paid their bill in full on the day before getting off, via an EFTPOS transaction. Since being home, they have had a series of withdrawals from their accounts, by P&O, in addition to the EFTPOS transfer they authorized. It appears that while they were on the cruise, P&O sent a number of "withholding" requests to their banks, to quarantine funds, and as most seem to have been done over a weekend, it has taken a couple of days to show in their accounts.

 

I know when you check into a hotel, it is common for hotel staff to swipe your card and withhold a small amount for "extras", and that is returned to your account at the end of the stay, if not required.

 

Anyway, the result is that they have paid for their additional on board costs while on board, but have now incurred almost the same amount coming out of their accounts as extra "withholdings". Requests to P&O for over 10 days has failed to see the funds returned to their accounts, the answer is it could take at least another week.

 

Has anyone else had this happened on a P&O cruise? I have not heard of this treatment before.

[Cinderkaos]

I have heard of it before, however the fault is usually the Bank for not releasing the funds quickly.

[The_Big_M]

It's not the "fault" of the bank. They put a hold on those funds as the merchant has registered the charge against your account. The bank doesn't know what the purpose is. They have to hold for a fixed time to ensure that you don't exceed your limit. If they didn't, then you could receive multiple charges against your account exceeding your limit before the charges had been finalised and submitted.

 

However, when the merchant doesn't finalise the charges they automatically expire. It's when charges are put through but not finalised that the issue arises.

 

It's simpler for the cruise line to submit an additional payment separately, which causes the issue, as it's more convenient/simpler for them. If they actually finalised the charges as they submitted them, then your account would not be affected. However, you would incur multiple transactions as they were processed (instead of one total amount), which some would also find odd.

[MicCanberra]

I find the Credit card is best suited for ship board accounts, or cash. The debit card is best used for purchases and cash advances when ashore.

[GUT2407]

This is often a problem.

 

It happens with Credit Cards too in that the holds can reduce the available balance.

 

Most banks release the holds after a set number of days, unless the merchant instructs them to earlier.

[GUT2407]

One exception is if the eventual transaction is or he amount of the hold (exactly) th hold should be automatically released, but of course that is rarely the case.

[GUT2407]

Sounds like you are versed in the bank line of BS to this problem versus the merchant line to this problem.

 

To the OP, yes it is a known issue when using debit cards. For this reason when I board I use a credt card to "set up" my on board account and then if I wish I settle all or part using a debit card. I learnt to do this after experiencing the same problem. Better yet my debit card bank charged me additional fees for going into "OD" when I wasnt in OD.

 

Yep that's the best way.

 

I have worked at both ends of the spectrum.

 

Hospitality and Banking.

[The_Big_M]

One exception is if the eventual transaction is or he amount of the hold (exactly) th hold should be automatically released, but of course that is rarely the case.

 

That wouldn't be the case. If the merchant has put through 2 transactions for the same amount, even if one were matched against the other one, you'd still then have a new hold placed for the same amount. (And it would actually make things worse as the start date and hence end date would be later.)

 

But the issue is that the merchant doesn't finalise one transaction, so even though the amounts are the same, they still would not be finalising the first transaction and hence that would be the first to expire.

 

It doesn't matter in your example that the holds are the same - for example, someone may happen to spend the same amount legitimately on two different days, so the bank can't 'assume' that the two transactions are for the same thing.

[GUT2407]

That wouldn't be the case. If the merchant has put through 2 transactions for the same amount, even if one were matched against the other one, you'd still then have a new hold placed for the same amount. (And it would actually make things worse as the start date and hence end date would be later.)

 

But the issue is that the merchant doesn't finalise one transaction, so even though the amounts are the same, they still would not be finalising the first transaction and hence that would be the first to expire.

 

It doesn't matter in your example that the holds are the same - for example, someone may happen to spend the same amount legitimately on two different days, so the bank can't 'assume' that the two transactions are for the same thing.

 

 

No.

 

It is when the hold and transaction from the same supplier are the same amount that the hold should drop off.

 

Nothing to do with two holds and nothing to do with transactions fom different merchants.

[The_Big_M]

No.

 

It is when the hold and transaction from the same supplier are the same amount that the hold should drop off.

 

Nothing to do with two holds and nothing to do with transactions fom different merchants.

 

No, the above isn't right. Nothing to do with a separate "hold" that is different from a "transaction" and that coincidentally match.

 

There is one transaction. To be charged to your account i.e. appear on your statement and funds withdrawn, it has to be finalised.

 

Merchants submit one transaction then don't finalise it. The bank has to hold funds because of this - waiting for it to be finalised.

 

They then do a second transaction, at the end of your stay. Hence there are two holds. They only finalise the second which is the one that gets charged to your account.

[glen2006]

I traveled in January and the same happened to me, but I knew it would as P&O explained it in their terms and conditions when I booked, and the check-in agent also when I checked in. However most of my holds were returned within 5-10 days of me returning.

[Adidas4fun]

That wouldn't be the case. If the merchant has put through 2 transactions for the same amount, even if one were matched against the other one, you'd still then have a new hold placed for the same amount. (And it would actually make things worse as the start date and hence end date would be later.)

 

But the issue is that the merchant doesn't finalise one transaction, so even though the amounts are the same, they still would not be finalising the first transaction and hence that would be the first to expire.

 

It doesn't matter in your example that the holds are the same - for example, someone may happen to spend the same amount legitimately on two different days, so the bank can't 'assume' that the two transactions are for the same thing.

 

What the cruise companies usually do is daily holds for each 24 hours of charges, and then a final total transaction at the end. So all the daily holds have to expire. When its a couple of weeks cruising that can amount to a fair whack.