Silver Spirit Nightmare. Do they care?

[Observer]

It is British humour, he knows their problem was unique but SS is saying otherwise :)

 

Really? I am not unfamiliar with "British humor."

He says that someone from his travel agency asserted that "The issues you encountered were also encountered by other people to more or less the same extent" and that he found this assertion "very interesting". This apparently challenged his sense that the problems in his suite were unique.

[Daveywavey70]

Obviously my sarcasm is went over your head Observer.

For the purpose of clarity we are being told that all passengers suffered more or less the same and that’s why all passengers are being treated the same. We were without lights in our bathroom, closet and passageway for 3 1/2 days. Alongside no tv, no phone, no safe and no air con. This was in addition to the shipwide problems. Obviously if all passengers suffered more or less the same level of inconvenience they will be able to prove to me how many passengers did suffer this level of inconvenience.

 

 

I Am not interested in an increased future cruise credit as we will never use it. I Want SS to deal with our individual case individually. Offering nothing but a future cruise credit after being told it will never be used will not be looked upon by a judge as them offering fair compensation for their shortcomings.

[hypercafe]

SS has made a class action offer of a future cruise credit for the problems the Spirit had on its first trip after the shipyard. If I was trying to get a personal settlement of a large cash deal I would keep my dealings to myself. I am sure SS reads this as does not want all passengers to ask for the same.

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

[UKCruiseJeff]

SS has made a class action offer of a future cruise credit for the problems the Spirit had on its first trip after the shipyard. If I was trying to get a personal settlement of a large cash deal I would keep my dealings to myself. I am sure SS reads this as does not want all passengers to ask for the same.

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

 

In the US, SS decides these things because there is no effective consumer protection.

 

In the UK consumer law and the courts govern these issues and each person’s claim is individually reviewed and decided.

[Daveywavey70]

SS has made a class action offer of a future cruise credit for the problems the Spirit had on its first trip after the shipyard. If I was trying to get a personal settlement of a large cash deal I would keep my dealings to myself. I am sure SS reads this as does not want all passengers to ask for the same.

 

Sent from my SM-T320 using Forums mobile app

 

Well that’s lucky for me then as I’m not looking for a large cash deal, i’d Be quite happy if they would just deal with the matter reasonably.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Well that’s lucky for me then as I’m not looking for a large cash deal, i’d Be quite happy if they would just deal with the matter reasonably.

 

As things stand currently, a UK court would conclude that SS have made NO OFFER to you at all.

[Daveywavey70]

As things stand currently, a UK court would conclude that SS have made NO OFFER to you at all.

 

My point exactly 25% of zero is zero as Indeed 75% of zero is zero. They are fully aware I do not wish to cruise with them after this fiasco so the voucher is worthless.

[UKCruiseJeff]

My point exactly 25% of zero is zero as Indeed 75% of zero is zero. They are fully aware I do not wish to cruise with them after this fiasco so the voucher is worthless.

 

There would have been slightly more value if they had offered you 25% of your original cruise cost against future purchases of Walkers crisps.

[Tothesunset]

There would have been slightly more value if they had offered you 25% of your original cruise cost against future purchases of Walkers crisps.

That would leave a bad taste in the mouth.

[UKCruiseJeff]

That would leave a bad taste in the mouth.

 

I do miss those little blue bags of salt in Smiths. :)

[turtlemichael]

Yes, they called me on Monday with their initial response and confirmed that it certainly sounds like I didn’t receive the holiday as it was described. That is all I need to prove to them in order to obtain a full refund here in the UK.

I Was initially quite uneasy about following this process as it effects initially our TA and they will then have the job of claiming it back from Silversea. I have spoken to my bank about this at length. I Also offered to hold off forwarding my evidence to my bank until Monday 18th to give them a further opportunity to rectify the situation.

 

It transpires that our TA was fully aware of the stretch before we booked and failed to inform us. I Have requested help from our TA more than a dozen times and they have consistently refused as we are already speaking to Silversea. They have been informed that we have reached deadlock with Silversea and still refuse to do anything. Since I informed them I intend to proceed with the chargeback if no agreement can be reached I have received several emails from their less than helpful Head of Operations who has stated she has “substantive evidence to prove that you took your cruise”.

 

I Never claimed that I didn’t take the cruise, I claimed that the cruise was not “ultra luxury” as was described.

 

Another point that she makes that I find very interesting is “ The issues you encountered were also encountered by other people to more or less the same extent and that is why Silversea have decided on what level of compensation is justified.“

I’m particularly looking forward to hearing how many of the other passengers had no lights for 3 1/2 days in addition to all of our other problems, It must be a great number of us that suffered to more or less the same extent. As far as I was aware the particular problems in our cabin were unique.

 

Despite being told that we will never use the future cruise credit and 25% of zero is zero, she still is of the opinion that the offer is fair.

 

She didn’t seem very happy when I suggested that she is not familiar with her companies duties and responsibilities under both the package travel regulations and also section 75 of the consumer credit act.

 

I calculated the cost of the food that we did enjoy (mostly) and a comparative drinks package on another line. If we are offerered a full refund by MasterCard then I do intend to forward that amount back to them. Then again if We are made to suffer much more inconvenience and distress then maybe I should think twice before doing that.

 

Well, that is very good news. You say that is MasterCard's initial response so I guess they give Silversea an opportunity to respond before they pull the funds? Given the suffering and inconvenience I certainly wouldn't be refunding any of it.

[Daveywavey70]

It’s the TA that gets the opportunity to respond. I provide my evidence to the bank. They then give them notice and an opportunity to provide their evidence. It then goes for a decision. I had to explain this to the TA.

 

If I am able to prove that the product was not provided as described, which should be fairly straight forward, then that’s it’s pretty much it. My TA then has to pursue Silversea for their losses. What a shame they didn’t just deal with this reasonably in the first place.

 

If I was mercenary I could instead go to the small claims court and also claim damages. A route still open to me should the chargeback fail.

 

We are so lucky here in the UK to have such good legislation.

[turtlemichael]

It’s the TA that gets the opportunity to respond. I provide my evidence to the bank. They then give them notice and an opportunity to provide their evidence. It then goes for a decision. I had to explain this to the TA.

 

If I am able to prove that the product was not provided as described, which should be fairly straight forward, then that’s it’s pretty much it. My TA then has to pursue Silversea for their losses. What a shame they didn’t just deal with this reasonably in the first place.

 

If I was mercenary I could instead go to the small claims court and also claim damages. A route still open to me should the chargeback fail.

 

We are so lucky here in the UK to have such good legislation.

 

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall to some of the conversations that will take place between the TA and SS. You might be near getting satisfaction so fingers crossed. In Australia we have a good regulatory framework too.

[Daveywavey70]

We live in hope. I Just wish they would have dealt with this responsibly in the first place. I’m a businessman myself and I wouldn’t sleep at night treating people like this. You’d expect to return from a luxury holiday refreshed, relaxed and rejuvenated, not dishevelled, distraught an distressed.

[UKCruiseJeff]

It transpires that our TA was fully aware of the stretch before we booked and failed to inform us. I Have requested help from our TA more than a dozen times and they have consistently refused as we are already speaking to Silversea. They have been informed that we have reached deadlock with Silversea and still refuse to do anything. Since I informed them I intend to proceed with the chargeback if no agreement can be reached I have received several emails from their less than helpful Head of Operations who has stated she has “substantive evidence to prove that you took your cruise”.

 

She didn’t seem very happy when I suggested that she is not familiar with her companies duties and responsibilities under both the package travel regulations and also section 75 of the consumer credit act.

 

I calculated the cost of the food that we did enjoy (mostly) and a comparative drinks package on another line. If we are offerered a full refund by MasterCard then I do intend to forward that amount back to them. Then again if We are made to suffer much more inconvenience and distress then maybe I should think twice before doing that.

 

Hi Dave, I've been thinking about your posts and the wider picture and I'm just checking. Which path is the path the credit card is talking of using? Chargeback is different from Section 75.

 

The first is a voluntary service offered by CC's normally for resolving faulty products and services normally shortly after the CC transaction and section 75 is the more powerful legal right and consumer obligation which I understood specifically didn't cover TAs as they are considered "an additional step" so when I've been thinking of your situation (and indeed now my own), I'm a little unclear. I ask because it's important to understand whether that route will be genuinely available to you/us or whether it might turn out to be a cul-de-sac (and from which your CC provider may eventually back-off from what they have previously said to you) and whether the fast-track small-claims route will in fact turn out to the correct and only one. Did they specifically use the phrase "chargeback" or is that a phrase you used?

 

http://uk.creditcards.com/guides/guide-to-section-75.php

 

Section 75 only covers arrangements directly between the credit provider and the supplier. Where a third party is involved with the transaction, Section 75 is not applicable, e.g. Paypal, Amazon Marketplace - where items are supplied by re-sellers and not directly by Amazon - or Travel Agents. Users of Travel Agents registered with ATOL and ABTA are, however, afforded some enhanced consumer protections under schemes operated by those organisations.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act

 

Payments through an agent or third party

 

It's not unusual for a business taking payment to be acting as an agent for the actual supplier. In this circumstance, Section 75 may not apply and you may not be able to claim against the credit card provider.

 

A good example of this is when you buy concert tickets. If you buy direct from the venue, then Section 75 may apply if the cost is over £100. If you buy through a ticket agency, then it may not.

 

This is because the card provider may argue that as payment wasn't made directly to the supplier of the goods or service, Section 75 doesn't apply.

 

So where possible, make any credit card payment direct to the company actually supplying the goods or services.

This is also interesting from a further viewpoint which I have never heard voiced or discussed before in any article or indeed have I personally thought of before.

 

In the UK consumers will be afforded considerably more protection (ie because of Section 75 of the Consumer Act) if they purchase directly from a cruise line than they would have if they booked via a TA because the Credit Card then becomes without any doubt whatsoever jointly and separately responsible with or without the cruise line for providing the services as described. Perhaps this is one further reason why the cruise lines prefer that the public (in the UK) to go via agents and why they seem and appear to feel some immunity for the repercussions and consequences of their failures. Perhaps the calculation is that with Section 75 protection removed the consumer has to resort to ABTA arbitration or the fast-track small claims route which perhaps they calculate and presume fewer are likely to take.

 

Just a thought. :)

Edited June 17, 2018 by UKCruiseJeff

[UKCruiseJeff]

In following up my own post, I think a new dimension emerges that I certainly had not thought of before.

 

When a UK consumer books a cruise on board and gets the on board discount, then even if an exact cruise isn't specified, and then subsequently a cruise is chosen and then the booking is transferred and adopted by a travel agent, it seems to me that as a part of the transaction was direct with the cruise line then the whole transaction gets the full Section 75 protection. As you know, under Section 75 you need a part of the payment for the CC to be responsible for the whole transaction.

 

If customers use that route the get the benefit of the on board discount, the advice and any further consideration or discount from the TA and they get full Section 75 protection.

[hypercafe]

Well that’s lucky for me then as I’m not looking for a large cash deal, i’d Be quite happy if they would just deal with the matter reasonably.

 

 

Interesting, well I am curious what reasonably means to you. I am sure your not going through all of this just to get them to say their sorry. I also get the impression your travel agent knew all about the work being done right before your trip. Since they are also a travel provider are they subject to these protections the UK has? I am very surprised they recommended a maiden voyage so to speak as I believe its common to encounter problems. I am sorry you had a very bad vacation whether it was the first in ten years or one of many. I also hope you get real cash even though you don't want it.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Interesting, well I am curious what reasonably means to you. I am sure your not going through all of this just to get them to say their sorry. I also get the impression your travel agent knew all about the work being done right before your trip. Since they are also a travel provider are they subject to these protections the UK has? I am very surprised they recommended a maiden voyage so to speak as I believe its common to encounter problems. I am sorry you had a very bad vacation whether it was the first in ten years or one of many. I also hope you get real cash even though you don't want it.

 

Every company that trades in the UK irrespective of where they are based are subject to UK legislation.

[Daveywavey70]

The bank made the decision to take the chargeback route. I Reported the initial facts to them and when they contacted me back with some questions that was the route they decided to take. Maybe their thinking is the backup of section 75 which also holds the agent liable. Especially if they have breached ABTA regs by not informing us.

 

I suppose it’s similar to buying a tv that isn’t as described. It may be the shop that you bought it from but the manufacturer that forgot to put the screen in. If the shop knew the tv didn’t have a screen and sold it to you anyway and then did nothing to sort it out.....

 

The only point that they weren’t sure on was because silly me transferred the cash from my current account onto the card before the transaction went through. They checked and double checked and then decided that part of the transaction did constitute credit so it was ok. That was the only thing they questioned. They seem very confident that this is the easiest and quickest route to take.

 

As the Barister I was talking to about this said, there are many precedents waiting to be set regarding section 75. Let’s hope It doesn’t come to that.

[Daveywavey70]

Thinking about it a bit further, chargeback would relieve them of their joint responsibility. Maybe their plan is to try that first before invoking section 75 which then includes them being partly liable too.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Hi Dave,

 

I don't wish to repeat all I said in the longer post, but my motive is simply to avoid you running down a cul-de-sac that doesn't appear to be one at the moment. Both chargeback and "charging back" under section 75 relies on the person being charged back being the provider and being responsible for the provision of the disputed service or product. The agent isn't providing the service even if it were aware of some material facts that they didn't disclose. At the moment you do not have any precedents I am aware of . My concern is that I have seen banks and credit card companies reverse earlier decisions they make when it moves up the line.

 

I believe your barrister is wrong about the likelihood of any precedents being available to help you. The doctrine of precedent relies on the hierarchical structure of the court system.Decisions made by the higher courts are binding on the lower courts,cases taken to the higher courts for appeal are said to set precedent because the decisions made have to be followed by the lower courts when dealing with similar cases. Decisions made by the courts of appeal are often referred to as authorities. Even then - for reasons that are too long to flesh out here what often looks like a precedent today doesn't turn out to be one for many different reasons. In simple terms no two cases are ever absolutely identical and this is where precedents end up getting disputed.

 

Anyway .... I offer the thoughts and I obviously hope that it doesn't end up as a cul-de-sac. :)

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thinking about it a bit further, chargeback would relieve them of their joint responsibility. Maybe their plan is to try that first before invoking section 75 which then includes them being partly liable too.

 

The problem is that in my experience they do not normally chargeback (a) this far away from the original transaction date and instead rely on Section 75 and (b) to a first party for a service they did not provide and for a breach by the third party. If you get my drift. Your agent in replying to Mastercard will simply say they didn't do the ship refit and when they (SS) advised you it wouldn't be a problem then they (SS) were in a better position to know than the agent who will claim they advised you in "good faith" based on the same advice they received from SS as was provided by SS to you. Just saying how I think they will play it out. The agent will I believe insist that your correct recourse is ABTA or the courts. Charging back is only the first step (not a final step) until Mastercard hear the agents full version of events.

 

However they may be prepared to do something exceptional.

Edited June 17, 2018 by UKCruiseJeff

[Daveywavey70]

Thanks Jeff,

They did double check regarding the dates and told me that because it was a service, the date of the service provided or not can be used as opposed to the date of purchase.

[UKCruiseJeff]

That's great.

 

In the very worst case scenario you can at least keep at the back of your mind what are my current reservations have been so that in your dealings with them now you can always say that you plan to be compensated whatever way you eventually have to use. I always try to foresee challenges and have contingencies for them. These things are always like playing chess when you need to always think a few moves and alternatives ahead. :)

[Daveywavey70]

Many thanks,

I’ll be sending my evidence into the bank tomorrow and whichever route this ends up taking it needs putting together anyway. If it does turn out to be a Cul de sac then the groundwork is already done for what becomes the next logical step.