Carnival got me!

[bUU]

In any event it doesn't matter since I'm not an aggrieved party:D.

And that's really the crux of the issue and the reason why this was worth discussing: My concern is that people will, as you say you have, assume that they have rights and protections that unfortunately they don't have. That has two effects: First, it makes more difficult any efforts to extend consumer protections the way you clearly would like to see them extended. If people think that they are already protected, they are not going to provide a lot of pressure to actually provide them the protection that they think they already have. Second, it means a lot more people are going to be surprised by these things, and disappointed by these things. Cruise Critic is about helping people get the most out of their vacations and fostering unfounded expectations does the opposite of that. We're all better off when everyone fully understands what the cruise line is going to provide them, and fully understands how the cruise line is going to treat them.

[Domino D]

I would expect that any cases of situations like this would be handled by summary judgment or settlement would probably make it difficult to cite cases (plus I no longer have access to Lexus/Nexus). In any event it doesn't matter since I'm not an aggrieved party:D.

 

And that's really the crux of the issue and the reason why this was worth discussing: My concern is that people will, as you say you have, assume that they have rights and protections that unfortunately they don't have.

 

Sorry, long post (again)

I think both of you have some valid points. Sparks in principle I agree with you, that Carnival should explain fully the fees and cancellation terms, and it is valid to say not everyone uses the internet. Unfortunately, I think bUU is legally correct. The reason you two are having such a problem coming to an answer, is that Consumer Protection laws are in many ways vague, and heavily weighted towards purchasing goods, and often do not include any language to a service provider. This is not an uncommon problem with the laws. As you pointed out in your earlier post, the car case was about Fraud. The customer did not receive what they were told, and likely the documents transferring ownership of the car were deemed falsified.

 

I am by no means deeply knowledgeable or an expert on Vermont law. I will tell you that the section relevant to this conversation. Notification of cancellation policies, is in section 9 V.S.A. § 2454.

 

Here is a link

http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/09/063

 

I've read through it and the definitions, and can't tell you this would even apply to Carnival the way it is written. I don't see anything that would invalidate their policy, even if it does apply. The one thing you might successfully challenge is "Pack and Go", because there is no provision for a refund at all, meaning by the time you access the terms it is too late. Seems like you could argue that one as a violation, but it would be stretch.

 

While it would be nice if they would in good faith, explain things thoroughly, I don't think they are doing anything illegal. This happens too much for them to have any exposure. If they were clearly violating a law, their legal department would have put a stop to it by now. Also, I am not aware of any lawsuits on this matter. Given the number of firms that specialize in Cruise Ship law, I would think they would be out there. This is probably because:

 

Cancellation Fee - Not uncommon. There are even stores that charge a restocking fee. Airlines, Hotels, and other travel vendors charge cancellation fees. This is accepted because the reservation held up inventory, not allowing the company as much opportunity to sell a perishable product.

 

Credit verse refund - Most of the stores here in Georgia give store credit on a gift card, so it would be a big up hill climb to argue in court that this part of the policy is unfair.

 

Notification of Policies - Spirit and other discount airlines off non-refundable airfare. I can not say with certainty how they deal with this during telephone reservations. I am not bringing this up to say "It's okay". I mention it as a precedence. If enough other businesses have similar practices, you will have a hard time proving there is anything underhanded or illegal going on. Target has never explained the return policy to me at check out. I'm sure it is on the receipt or a sign somewhere. Other retailers will verbally inform me, this item is non-refundable. I mention this again only in terms of, what is acceptable and normal in communicating terms and conditions.

 

Both Federal and Florida law, FYI, have language about the right to charge fees associated with cancellation, and say nothing about the requirement to give a cash refund versus a credit.

 

I get not liking the way it is handled, but I truly doubt anything about it is illegal. Of course I could be wrong.

[bUU]

Sorry, long post (again)

I think both of you have some valid points. Sparks in principle I agree with you, that Carnival should explain fully the fees and cancellation terms, and it is valid to say not everyone uses the internet. Unfortunately, I think bUU is legally correct.

And let me be clear: I wish Sparks was correct. And that's why I think it is important to make clear that that's not the case, so that people who agree with Sparks about how it should be would perhaps push for things to change toward the way Sparks described.

[Domino D]

And let me be clear: I wish Sparks was correct. And that's why I think it is important to make clear that that's not the case, so that people who agree with Sparks about how it should be would perhaps push for things to change toward the way Sparks described.

 

Ooh just read what I wrote. Hope you understood, I meant unfortunately it's legal, not unfortunately I agree with you.

[sparks1093]

And let me be clear: I wish Sparks was correct. And that's why I think it is important to make clear that that's not the case, so that people who agree with Sparks about how it should be would perhaps push for things to change toward the way Sparks described.

 

Which is how change happens.:)

[bUU]

Ooh just read what I wrote. Hope you understood, I meant unfortunately it's legal, not unfortunately I agree with you.

Yup, I think we agree: We both feel that it is unfortunate that the consumer protection laws don't require more transparency (and from my standpoint, about every sale, not just this).

[DaisyandMoe010]

I know I will be flamed for suggesting this, but if you can't work something out with the Rep who booked your cruise, and you paid by credit card, you could complain to the credit card company.

 

 

NCL Sunward 1974

NCL Starward 1978

Costa Daphne 1982

Carnival Triumph 2001

Carnival Conquests 2005

Carnival Magic 2014

 

 

 

I work in the credit card industry in the billing dispute exceptions department. I would imagine the company will tell the OP that this is non disputable as the cancellation policy is clearly listed out in many forms. It is a shame for the OP to have to go through this, but I agree with others...one should have a TA or a PVP to assist them. I have a wonderful PVP and I use him to book all of my cruises and I never have an issue.

[Organized Chaos]

Let's stop beating the dead horse. If someone truly believes that they have not received adequate notice of the terms and conditions, because they decided to purchase by telephone and believe that there was nothing about included terms and conditions in the material that the cruise line provided that included the phone number the purchaser called, then let them try to get satisfaction from the courts for their grievance. I'll bet that the courts will find no evidence of wrongdoing by the myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., that employ the same means of communicating terms and conditions.

 

One thing that folks need to keep in mind: There is a big difference (in the law) between a customer calling a company to buy something, and a company calling a customer (unsolicited) to offer something. It seems to me that a lot of people are confusing the two, thinking that the rules that apply to the latter apply to the former as well. They don't.

The OP wasn't here seeking legal advice in order to take this to court. They were seeking opinions and discussions from other cruisers in relation to something that happened to them. If you're tired of this co-called "dead horse," you're free to remove the thread from your subscriptions. I'm not even sure how it's a dead horse when the legality of what they did to the OP was never even an issue.

 

We're not talking about lack of disclosure. We're talking about whether the type of disclosure that myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., use is legal. It is.

Yes, we are talking about lack of disclosure. The OP stated that, when speaking to the cust. service rep. on the phone, they never told them the fare was booked ES and non-refundable. Sure sounds like lack of disclosure to me. Whether or not they're legally allowed to handle a booking that way isn't what was originally being discussed here. I said it before, for those who say the OP should've asked if it was refundable, the CSR could've just as easily disclosed that fact. In my opinion, they should've disclosed something so crucial to a booking, even without being asked.

[bUU]

The OP wasn't here seeking legal advice in order to take this to court.

You evidently have no idea what has been discussed in this thread, making it seem like you're just trolling comments that you don't like.

 

The OP raised the question about what the cruise line's responsibility was:

There was no fine print to read because I was on the phone and not near a computer. Once I gave her the credit card number it was all over.

So you are telling me it's my responsibility to ask them all of the questions. I thought they were to let me know if a certain rate was non refundable or not.

To that, a reply was posted:

'Yes,

due diligence is your responsibility

.

Please try to catch up with the discussion in the thread before you post.

 

Yes, we are talking about lack of disclosure.

No, we're not. We're talking about what is sufficient disclosure. While many seem to be saying that they want every provision that they personally feel is important relayed verbally when the customer calls the cruise line, what we may want is not the reality. The reality is that wherever cruises are advertised it says that terms and conditions apply and that makes it the purchaser's obligation to do their due diligence, as Computer Nerd and others said earlier in the thread.

 

Even if we consumers don't like that reality.

 

With regard to the beating of a dead horse: The re-hashing of things that have already been discussed and addressed by all sides is the definition of beating a dead horse. If you have something new to add, then please do, but what purpose is there in re-hashing what has already been discussed and addressed by all sides?

[FruitStandaficionado]

Again, you're confusing different things together. Many of the rules you are trying to apply to this situation apply only to unsolicited offers. When you call a company in response to a solicitation, you can hold the company to the representations in the solicitation and they can hold you to the terms and conditions referred to in the solicitation. The company's responsibility is to ensure that the fact that there are terms and conditions (perhaps online) is indicated in all their offers. (So if you want, you can prove your opinion has merit by showing offers from the cruise line that do not indicate that there are included terms and conditions, if you like.) If consumers choose to ignore what the supplier indicates, then that's on the consumer. If consumers choose to get offers second-hand (missing the required disclosures because the "friend" who provided the phone number failed to include all the related material that the supplier provided originally), then that's on the consumer.

 

I'll say it again: Let's stop beating a dead horse with all this presenting of personal preference as if it were law: Please cite a case like this one.

 

 

 

It's pretty to think so. . . There is a lot of consumer protection. If it went to court, it is highly likely the consumer would win unless a recording was provided of the conversation of the customer stating their understanding of the specific policy in question as there is no signed written contract. Regardless, the point of the OP was to share their experience. Experience shared. Others warned. Everyone needs to get over themselves. Unless this were an actual court case and unless one of us posters were the officiating Judge in the case, none of our opinions matter.

 

Personally, as a business person, I have my customers best interest in mind and putting myself in the customers shoes, the customer has a valid complaint unless I can produce an audio recording that has them agreeing to understanding the policy.

 

 

NCL Sunward 1974

NCL Starward 1978

Costa Daphne 1982

Carnival Triumph 2001

Carnival Conquests 2005

Carnival Magic 2014

[bUU]

Personally, as a business person, I have my customers best interest in mind and putting myself in the customers shoes, the customer has a valid complaint unless I can produce an audio recording that has them agreeing to understanding the policy.

Unfortunately, that's not how the mass market works anymore. Cruise lines, hotels, airlines, rental car agencies, etc. They're all in it for the money. They only pay heed to consumers to the extent doing so is profitable. As you said, experience shared; others warned.

[BoDidly]

It's pretty to think so. . . There is a lot of consumer protection. If it went to court, it is highly likely the consumer would win unless a recording was provided of the conversation of the customer stating their understanding of the specific policy in question as there is no signed written contract. Regardless, the point of the OP was to share their experience. Experience shared. Others warned. Everyone needs to get over themselves. Unless this were an actual court case and unless one of us posters were the officiating Judge in the case, none of our opinions matter.

 

Personally, as a business person, I have my customers best interest in mind and putting myself in the customers shoes, the customer has a valid complaint unless I can produce an audio recording that has them agreeing to understanding the policy.

 

 

NCL Sunward 1974

NCL Starward 1978

Costa Daphne 1982

Carnival Triumph 2001

Carnival Conquests 2005

Carnival Magic 2014

Good CALL ! Case Dismissed !

[Computer Nerd]

The internet is not universal and having it disclosed there does not mean that it was disclosed in a telephone call (having it disclosed in the email confirmation, along with the right to cancel without penalty within a certain period would likely suffice, but then not everyone has email either).

 

Again, the telephone CSR cannot divulge only half of the terms and conditions (mentioning the $50 pp cancellation fee) without divulging the other half (that the remaining part of the deposit will be held for a future booking) and then be seen by a court as "technically" correct. (I do not know what was or was not said to the OP, I was responding to a specific poster with a specific scenario in mind). Caveat emptor died several decades ago and rightfully so.

 

The Internet is as universal as the telephone these days. It's even free at most local libraries. And without Internet access, how does one even expect to be able to board the ship to begin with since the only way to complete the paperwork process is via the website? Or better yet, to post here that they are shocked to find out about the $50 fee? ;)

[Computer Nerd]

Yes, we are talking about lack of disclosure. The OP stated that, when speaking to the cust. service rep. on the phone, they never told them the fare was booked ES and non-refundable. Sure sounds like lack of disclosure to me. Whether or not they're legally allowed to handle a booking that way isn't what was originally being discussed here. I said it before, for those who say the OP should've asked if it was refundable, the CSR could've just as easily disclosed that fact. In my opinion, they should've disclosed something so crucial to a booking, even without being asked.

 

Part of the problem here is that you are only hearing one side of the story. It's very possible that it was stated but maybe the OP didn't understand it, it was garbled, or the wife and kids were hollering in the background to get off the phone and come to dinner because it's getting cold. Without a recording of the call, you will never know for sure what conversation actually took place.

[LMaxwell]

I won't completely blame Carnival, I won't completely blame OP. Carnival advertises its lowest rates, which usually are Early Saver, and thus you lose part of deposit if you cancel. Carnival is not very forthcoming with this when you go to book on the phone (as in they don't mention it at all). On the website with recent changes it has gotten harder to find. I can't fault a newbie for getting caught out. A good "anyone", TA, PVP, phone rep, whoever, will tell you what you are booking before you do it. Not disclosing the rate type you book is, at best, lazy on the part of the agent, at worst deceptive. Many of us here have made bookings for years and years and so we know the ins and outs and it can still sometimes be tricky. I know when I go to make a dealing on something new I need to beware and ask many questions because the price on the ad is just the beginning

[bUU]

The Internet is as universal as the telephone these days. It's even free at most local libraries. And without Internet access, how does one even expect to be able to board the ship to begin with since the only way to complete the paperwork process is via the website? Or better yet, to post here that they are shocked to find out about the $50 fee? ;)

It is more than that: The telephone was never a universal communication mechanism. It is grievously flawed for any substantive purpose, being an ephemeral medium. Before the Internet became universal, brochures and magazine articles would have a postal address to which patrons could write to receive a copy of the terms and conditions prior to purchasing by telephone, or a notation that included terms and conditions could be requested by telephone. I'm sure that anyone reading an advertisement for a cruise line today could call the telephone number and request a written copy of the terms and conditions be mailed to them before they call back to book their cruise. The only reason why this is even an issue is the insistence of some consumers that they have the immediacy of the Internet without actually doing their part to avail themselves of that resource, either at home or the public library or whatever. That expectation didn't exist in the past; it's a newly developed sense of entitlement.

[LMaxwell]

Part of the problem here is that you are only hearing one side of the story. It's very possible that it was stated but maybe the OP didn't understand it, it was garbled, or the wife and kids were hollering in the background to get off the phone and come to dinner because it's getting cold. Without a recording of the call, you will never know for sure what conversation actually took place.

 

True, but I've made 3 bookings with Carnival recently (as in during 2017) over the phone and none of the agents disclosed to me it was an ES rate until I asked for the past guest rate.

[sparks1093]

It is more than that: The telephone was never a universal communication mechanism. It is grievously flawed for any substantive purpose, being an ephemeral medium. Before the Internet became universal, brochures and magazine articles would have a postal address to which patrons could write to receive a copy of the terms and conditions prior to purchasing by telephone, or a notation that included terms and conditions could be requested by telephone. I'm sure that anyone reading an advertisement for a cruise line today could call the telephone number and request a written copy of the terms and conditions be mailed to them before they call back to book their cruise. The only reason why this is even an issue is the insistence of some consumers that they have the immediacy of the Internet without actually doing their part to avail themselves of that resource, either at home or the public library or whatever. That expectation didn't exist in the past; it's a newly developed sense of entitlement.

 

And the current standard is that the terms and conditions must be conspicuous, unambiguous and understandable to the consumer. It doesn't matter what is being sold, or how. How many people in this thread alone have commented how hard it is to find the terms and conditions for Early Saver on the website? Does that meet the requirement for "conspicuous"? If a customer asks a clarifying question (such as in the hypothetical scenario I first responded to) does giving the customer only half of the information qualify as unambiguous and understandable? Prudence alone suggests that a company doing business the way that Carnival does is going to ensure that when the sale is made the customer is told about the terms and conditions.

[sparks1093]

The Internet is as universal as the telephone these days. It's even free at most local libraries. And without Internet access, how does one even expect to be able to board the ship to begin with since the only way to complete the paperwork process is via the website? Or better yet, to post here that they are shocked to find out about the $50 fee? ;)

 

I wasn't referring to the OP quite obviously but the online check in is not mandatory, it simply speeds up the check in at the pier.

[bUU]

And the current standard is that the terms and conditions must be conspicuous, unambiguous and understandable to the consumer.

And the lack of evidence for your opinion about what is and is not conspicuous enough makes clear it is just your opinion and not shared by the authorities who police consumer affairs. We've already gone over that. A notation that included terms and conditions could be requested on all advertising and promotion is evidently sufficient to satisfy the current standard. Let's not rehash your same old tired arguments.

[sparks1093]

And the lack of evidence for your opinion about what is and is not conspicuous enough makes clear it is just your opinion and not shared by the authorities who police consumer affairs. We've already gone over that. A notation that included terms and conditions could be requested on all advertising and promotion is evidently sufficient to satisfy the current standard. Let's not rehash your same old tired arguments.

 

Thanks for missing the last line of my post which was my entire point. As you pointed out earlier there is no evidence that any of this has been challenged and until it is the debate will continue, but to say that this has been critically reviewed by authorities who police consumer affairs is also a stretch.

[bUU]

I respect your right to continue bashing the cruise line for doing what airlines, hotels, rental car companies and cruise lines have done since before many of the folks reading these threads were born. Please have the last word.

[sparks1093]

I respect your right to continue bashing the cruise line for doing what airlines, hotels, rental car companies and cruise lines have done since before many of the folks reading these threads were born. Please have the last word.

 

I am sorry that you think I am bashing the cruise line, that is not my intent at all. I feel that all companies should respect both the letter and spirit of the law. I like Carnival, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to give them a pass if I feel that they are doing something wrong. (And speaking of hotels weren't some Florida hotels taken to task for not disclosing some daily fee to the customer at the point of sale, i.e. when the reservation was made?)

[luv2trvlnow]

I am sorry that you think I am bashing the cruise line, that is not my intent at all. I feel that all companies should respect both the letter and spirit of the law. I like Carnival, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to give them a pass if I feel that they are doing something wrong. (And speaking of hotels weren't some Florida hotels taken to task for not disclosing some daily fee to the customer at the point of sale, i.e. when the reservation was made?)

I agree with you. I feel Carnival isn't forthcoming on what rate they are booking you at.

I booked a future cruise onboard. I told the gentlemen there exactly what I wanted, Ship-date-cabin-rate. He told me I would receive my confirmation on the last night but didn't show me the paper he was filling out. But before I left I went over it all again with him and asked him if that was at the Pat Guest Rate. And low and behold he said "Oh, you didn't want Early Saver?" If I hadn't made him go over it with me again I would have been booked at the Early Saver fare not at Past Guest like I asked for. He never mentioned Early Saver once let alone any restrictions or penalties.

The customer should do more research but I don't think Carnival should be left off the hook. And yes people who were charged resort fees that weren't mentioned up front won a class action suit. Of course they didn't get much, they never do, the only ones that win in these cases are the lawyers.

[AdGuyMG]

True, but I've made 3 bookings with Carnival recently (as in during 2017) over the phone and none of the agents disclosed to me it was an ES rate until I asked for the past guest rate.

 

True that they don't come right out at the time of quoting the requested lowest price price with the full ES terms and conditions.

 

 

But had you actually completed the booking with the agent, you would have been advised of the non-refundability in a scripted recap of your reservation #, the cabin #, the ship and sail date and the itinerary.... at which point if you were not comfortable with the ES terms you could then ask for a different price program or cancel the reservation.