URGENT question

[Peregrina651]

1 hour ago, Baron Barracuda said:

Very much believe if sister had not notified VO she could have flown and enjoyed cruise with no issues.   All staff aboard ship care about is that cabin is paid for and her name is on the manifest.  Re-pricing cabins for no-shows is not their concern.  

 

 

 

I wouldn't want to fly half way round the world on simply the hope that I won't be denied boarding on a cruise line that already has a proven track record of not behaving like the rest of the crowd. Your conjecture may work for other cruise lines but it may prove to be a bad bet on this cruise line, which has already shown itself to be a contrarian. You are entitled to your opinion but until we have enough evidence that it will actually work, I will continue to point out the possible downsides of following this path.

[photopro2]

19 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

No, the issue has been that Viking wants to charge an additional $4000 in order for the sister to travel on her own, a single supplement they are calling it. IMHO, that is outrageous.

 

You are absolutely correct as usual Peregrina. I don't have access to the US T&C's however I expect that they are referring to something similar to the following from the UK site:

 

"C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements."

 

Fortunately we have overriding UK law which requires that any additional payments required cannot be disproportionate (i.e $4000 on top of the full twin occupancy price!). This is because even if the contract is properly drawn up and executed it is still subject to "The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" which gives  an indicative example of a term that would be unfair as "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation"  I suspect that this is why that UK version only states that a customer "may" have to pay a supplement.

I know that all of the above is of no help at all to the poster's sister, unless there is similar legislation in the US. However her story does show how important it is for us all to read and understand the T&C's in our own countries in full (boring as that might be) before committing to such major expenditure.

As the cabin was already paid for, Viking were never in danger of suffering any significant direct and immediate loss financially. However, while they may be technically within their rights under the contract, it seems clear that Viking have scored a serious own goal. Sticking firmly to the letter of the contract gives a very negative perception of the company from a PR point of view, which could result in lost sales and revenue further down the line.

Apparently Viking are already rethinking their original "snap" response as a recent post says "My sister and her husband have been talking with another Viking supervisor who has been very helpful and much more customer service oriented than the person who called them the night before the cruise."

Both from reading these boards and from my own experience my feeling is that, for the most part, senior management at Viking want to do "the right thing" by their customers. Hopefully we will eventually hear that this latest issue had its roots in a poor decision from a junior agent and that all is straightened out to the customers satisfaction in the end.

[Pushka]

4 minutes ago, photopro2 said:

 

You are absolutely correct as usual Peregrina. I don't have access to the US T&C's however I expect that they are referring to something similar to the following from the UK site:

 

"C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements."

 

 

Surely when you have paid in full for 2 people then provision C2.6 has already been met. Those conditions don’t appear in the Australian T&C’s. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by Pushka

[photopro2]

1 hour ago, Pushka said:

 

Surely when you have paid in full for 2 people then provision C2.6 has already been met. Those conditions don’t appear in the Australian T&C’s. 

I am not saying that it is fair or equitable, quite the opposite, but I see nothing in that wording that is conditional and so would exclude an under-occupancy fee being chargeable after the booking has been paid in full. It may be harsh (or even not what was intended) but it seems that the agent in the US read it in that "catch all" way too.

In order for it not to be applicable once the cabin had been paid for I feel it would need to be rephrased something like...... "C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels before the booking has been paid for in full and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements."

I guess the only way to find out would be to ask Viking if it applies (in those countries where it appears) once the cabin has been paid for. I suspect that the answer might be rather like the comment from Humpty Dumpty in Alice in wonderland “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” 

 

 

[david46]

Send a email to Chis@elliott.org they could try to help you.

[Peregrina651]

1 hour ago, photopro2 said:

 

You are absolutely correct as usual Peregrina. I don't have access to the US T&C's however I expect that they are referring to something similar to the following from the UK site:

 

"C2.6 If any person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place, you may have to pay additional supplements for your accommodation. For example, you may have to pay single or under- occupancy supplements."

 

 

 

I quoted the appropriate section of the US T&C earlier in this thread, which says that certain changes to the booking are considered cancellations and changes to the names of those booked is on that list. In other words, if one person cancels out of the booking, then the entire booking is cancelled.  I don't believe that there are any protections under US law that would prohibit the charging of an additional fee or govern the amount of the fee, and there was no verbiage about it in the T&C.

[azdrydock]

43 minutes ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

I quoted the appropriate section of the US T&C earlier in this thread, which says that certain changes to the booking are considered cancellations and changes to the names of those booked is on that list. In other words, if one person cancels out of the booking, then the entire booking is cancelled.  I don't believe that there are any protections under US law that would prohibit the charging of an additional fee or govern the amount of the fee, and there was no verbiage about it in the T&C.

The other things one must ask... If another single person had attempted to book that cabin at that time what would they have been charged? If it was less than what was offered to the OP's sister they  may have a case.

The other thing is Viking had the right to cancel the booking and  keep the funds then offer the full price plus the surcharge. If insurance was involved this probably would have been everyone's best option. 

 

[Dauntless]

If this went down as has been described, it is a no win for Viking.  They collected money for 2 people to make the trip and one had to cancel, but they already had there money as they were well past the time of a refund and even with the single supplement, which is one paying for double occupancy the monetary portion of what they would receive has been covered.  Regardless of what the T&C says, this is bad customer service.  They would not have been out any money, w/o the extra fee they were trying to get and the lady could have made the trip she had planned on making and all could be happy,  This is not the type of publicity any business needs.  I know we have been given  a $4,000 price but since we don't know what the cruise was or what it sold for and we are not sure if they were charging half of what she paid the first time or double but the point is, in the practice of customer service, which is a business I am in, this is a great lack of judgement on their end.  May I also say that I am a big fan of Viking but then, I have always been treated fairly by the company.  If Viking feels they are right in their decision they should know that this follows the the tale of the operation was a success but the patient died.

[Pushka]

10 hours ago, azdrydock said:

The other things one must ask... If another single person had attempted to book that cabin at that time what would they have been charged? If it was less than what was offered to the OP's sister they  may have a case.

The other thing is Viking had the right to cancel the booking and  keep the funds then offer the full price plus the surcharge. If insurance was involved this probably would have been everyone's best option. 

 

 

In your cancel/rebook scenario above, I cant see $4000 being enough to cover the rebooking of a single paying single premium on a Viking cruise though. Most fares seem to run from around $6000 plus per person. It seems a random figure. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Pushka

[photopro2]

17 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

I quoted the appropriate section of the US T&C earlier in this thread, which says that certain changes to the booking are considered cancellations and changes to the names of those booked is on that list. In other words, if one person cancels out of the booking, then the entire booking is cancelled.  I don't believe that there are any protections under US law that would prohibit the charging of an additional fee or govern the amount of the fee, and there was no verbiage about it in the T&C.

 

Please forgive me for being a little argumentative Peregrina 😘 

The section you quoted in post 24 does not say anything about "name changes" it refers to the "substitution of another person for original booked passenger(s)" being deemed cancellation.  As Little Monty pointed out this is not the case here as no substitution was required. 

I had assumed that there would be another section that was appropriate and covered exactly this situation (as the one I quoted from the UK version does) where a "person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place". If there is no similar provision in the US T&C's relating to this scenario then I can see no grounds in the contract by which Viking can ask for further payment if only one person travels. 

We should keep in mind though that we don't know the exact text of the email from the brother-in law to Viking. It is just possible he may (even inadvertently) have suggested that they were looking to cancel and so his email rather than the T&C's could have triggered the cancellation process.

[Peregrina651]

1 hour ago, photopro2 said:

 

Please forgive me for being a little argumentative Peregrina 😘 

The section you quoted in post 24 does not say anything about "name changes" it refers to the "substitution of another person for original booked passenger(s)" being deemed cancellation.  As Little Monty pointed out this is not the case here as no substitution was required. 

I had assumed that there would be another section that was appropriate and covered exactly this situation (as the one I quoted from the UK version does) where a "person on the booking cancels and you cannot fill that person’s place". If there is no similar provision in the US T&C's relating to this scenario then I can see no grounds in the contract by which Viking can ask for further payment if only one person travels. 

We should keep in mind though that we don't know the exact text of the email from the brother-in law to Viking. It is just possible he may (even inadvertently) have suggested that they were looking to cancel and so his email rather than the T&C's could have triggered the cancellation process.

 

The way I see it, Viking is interpreting their clause to mean that even the removal of one name from the reservation is a substitution, it is replacing one name with none. It is the only scenario I could figure for why cancelling one name would equal cancelling the whole booking.

[Pushka]

8 hours ago, Peregrina651 said:

 

The way I see it, Viking is interpreting their clause to mean that even the removal of one name from the reservation is a substitution, it is replacing one name with none. It is the only scenario I could figure for why cancelling one name would equal cancelling the whole booking.

 

The substitution of another person into the booking was the only way the Aus Viking rep could make some sense of this issue, if extra airfare was involved as names aren’t changeable. But as a booking for two dropping down to one, they had no answer for it. 

[Marykatesmom]

Just wondering if there was a resolution to this incident?

[PGI GUY]

I am also interested in how this was resolved.

[CILCIANRQTS]

Thank God that people are now shifting to the actual resolution of this issue, rather than speculating on what must have/ could have/ should have happened in this situation! 

 

[kpgclark]

My sister worked with Viking to find a solution she found fair.

[twodjs]

What a terrible situation for all involved. I'm glad it has been resolved. I have written to Viking directly to explain their handling of a situation like this. This could happen to any of us, and it is best to have clear options, instead of guessing or sneaking around. I'm happy to share any answer I receive.

[Marykatesmom]

1 hour ago, twodjs said:

What a terrible situation for all involved. I'm glad it has been resolved. I have written to Viking directly to explain their handling of a situation like this. This could happen to any of us, and it is best to have clear options, instead of guessing or sneaking around. I'm happy to share any answer I receive.

Thank you.

I believe if you have, rightly, given any company a well deserved black eye then you have the responsibility to come forward if the situation has been resolved to their credit.

[Pushka]

1 hour ago, Marykatesmom said:

Thank you.

I believe if you have, rightly, given any company a well deserved black eye then you have the responsibility to come forward if the situation has been resolved to their credit.

 

Yes, I have to agree with that. Would be good to have an official policy on this exact situation from Viking too. 

[twodjs]

I received a response from Viking:

 

"Without any details as to who this party is that cancelled we can advise that she was likely charged the single supplement due to one person cancelling from the stateroom. Travel Protection likely would cover this cost but that is only determined based on the reasoning behind the cancellation and proof thereof."

 

Sorry, but I'm still confused. Does a single passenger pay $4000 more than two passengers? Should she have kept her mouth shut? Very upsetting to me but I've decided to not pursue it more before we board Sky in 16 days. But I will inquire once we are on the ship.

 

[Pushka]

13 hours ago, twodjs said:

I received a response from Viking:

 

"Without any details as to who this party is that cancelled we can advise that she was likely charged the single supplement due to one person cancelling from the stateroom. Travel Protection likely would cover this cost but that is only determined based on the reasoning behind the cancellation and proof thereof."

 

Sorry, but I'm still confused. Does a single passenger pay $4000 more than two passengers? Should she have kept her mouth shut? Very upsetting to me but I've decided to not pursue it more before we board Sky in 16 days. But I will inquire once we are on the ship.

 

 

Well that’s a clear as mud. 

[aungrl]

On 12/19/2018 at 2:07 PM, kpgclark said:

My sister worked with Viking to find a solution she found fair.

Can you share specifically what the resolution was, or are you/is she prohibited from providing that level of detail as part of the resolution?

[txcrna1357]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 6:36 PM, kpgclark said:

My sister and her husband are going on a Viking cruise that they paid for a year ago in full including airfare tomorrow.  Unfortunately her husband got a retinal detachment two weeks ago and is not allowed to fly.  Viking said they wouldn't give any money back or allow a substitution in the room of another person. They came to terms with this and my sister was going to go alone tomorrow.  Then a HALF HOUR AGO 7:00 PM Eastern a Viking person called and said they had to pay another $4,000 as a single supplement immediately because he isn't going.  SO in addition to paying for two people IN FULL one year ago they want another $4,000 right now.  Have you ever heard of something like this happening? 

 

[lonagarr]

On 12/26/2018 at 8:14 PM, aungrl said:

Can you share specifically what the resolution was, or are you/is she prohibited from providing that level of detail as part of the resolution?

Although we all would like to know the resolution for this situation so we'll know what to do and not do in future bookings, the sister is entitled to her privacy. I would think that Viking addresses these issues on a case-by-case basis, and revealing the resolution would encourage others to say, "Well, you did thus and so for other people, why can't you do it for me?" Regardless of my curiosity, I respect her privacy as much as I would want someone else to respect mine.

Edited August 13, 2019 by lonagarr

[zitsky]

On 8/12/2019 at 8:19 PM, lonagarr said:

Although we all would like to know the resolution for this situation so we'll know what to do and not do in future bookings, the sister is entitled to her privacy. I would think that Viking addresses these issues on a case-by-case basis, and revealing the resolution would encourage others to say, "Well, you did thus and so for other people, why can't you do it for me?" Regardless of my curiosity, I respect her privacy as much as I would want someone else to respect mine.

 

I get your point, @lonagarr but many of us wonder.... why come on here for advice but then refuse to share the resolution?

 

I like my TA but I think she gave me bad advice about this.  She said to wait until the last minute then tell them my partner is sick and can't go.  I'd much rather tell Viking up front even if I have to pay extra (which is ridiculous).  I do have trip insurance if we both cancel, no problem.  My partner is away right now because his father is in the hospital.  I'm looking at attending a pre-planned activity without him because there are no refunds.  Same with a cruise.  I could see going on a cruise without him if he really needed to be with his father.  Again, we have trip insurance so this is just a hypothetical.