U.K. terms and conditions

[Riocca]

Interesting article on the BBC today regarding the loss of deposits when cancelling a holiday:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47949915

 

The paragraph that caught my eye was:

 

”Any amount it charges should reflect its costs. If the company includes a blanket "non-refundable deposit" demand or cancellation fee in its terms and conditions then this could be an unfair contract, not legally binding, and unenforceable - even if the customer has signed it.”

 

Of course someone would no doubt have to challenge it in the courts but it does show Cruise lines may have to rethink their t&c’s.

 

 

[uktog]

And not before time! 

I notice many more restricted airfares now allow booking changes or cancellations for a fee - £35 per traveller seems to be the going rate. It’s the way to go.  I’m also seeing airfares much more realistically priced for much longer periods.  I suspect cruise lines will need to adapt not least because the capacity in the market has rapidly grown.  

[Glenndale]

The article also states

'A company cannot automatically keep a large deposit if the customer cancels owing to unforeseen circumstances.'

Would the unforeseen circumstances include seeing a huge price drop as in the recent Azamara fire sale?

 

[Riocca]

12 minutes ago, Glenndale said:

The article also states

'A company cannot automatically keep a large deposit if the customer cancels owing to unforeseen circumstances.'

Would the unforeseen circumstances include seeing a huge price drop as in the recent Azamara fire sale?

 

This is always going to be the problem, the law is to protect customers in circumstances such as a bereavement, illness or redundancy not sure a court would look at a price drop or change of mind with too much sympathy.

Most cruise lines are owned by foreign corporations who will take the usual “prove it and make me” stance, also we have a culture of travel insurance in the U.K., in fact it’s a booking requirement in some companies t&c’s. This insurance covers most of the above circumstances and the insurance companies seem happy to pay out rather than challenge the travel companies as it’s easier just to recoup the money in higher premiums.

Although I started this thread to raise awareness I don’t think we will see anything change until either the travel insurance companies take a stand or one of the large class action lawyers take an interest.

[excitedofharpenden]

That is my feeling too, having read the article. It seems to be on the unavoidable cancellation tack like a death in the family or illness. I've had a situation with a bereavement and Azamara were very good at letting me reschedule without penalty. A shout out to British Airways too who refunded my usually non-refundable business class ticket and allowed me to rebook and pay less because of the offer that was on at the time. 

 

Phil 

[Richteab]

I posted a couple of weeks ago on this subject. Losing a full deposit is penal and I had to take a hit of £500 in order to save £1500 in the recent sale. A no-brainer, but it smarts.

 

I haven't looked, but is the contract signed under US law or UK law?

[Riocca]

48 minutes ago, Richteab said:

I posted a couple of weeks ago on this subject. Losing a full deposit is penal and I had to take a hit of £500 in order to save £1500 in the recent sale. A no-brainer, but it smarts.

 

I haven't looked, but is the contract signed under US law or UK law?

It’s U.K. law for bookings made over here, as it has to comply with U.K. consumer legislation. 

One point that occurs to me is that if you cancel then the company is within its rights to charge a cancellation fee commensurate with any losses or costs of reselling that accommodation. If you cancel and rebook the same cabin at £1500 less then it’s very easy for them to prove they have incurred a loss.

Only thing we’ve ever asked for is a level playing field, if one set of customers get preferential terms regarding cancellation or price reductions it’s grossly unfair. 

[Richteab]

25 minutes ago, Riocca said:

It’s U.K. law for bookings made over here, as it has to comply with U.K. consumer legislation. 

One point that occurs to me is that if you cancel then the company is within its rights to charge a cancellation fee commensurate with any losses or costs of reselling that accommodation. If you cancel and rebook the same cabin at £1500 less then it’s very easy for them to prove they have incurred a loss.

Only thing we’ve ever asked for is a level playing field, if one set of customers get preferential terms regarding cancellation or price reductions it’s grossly unfair. 

 

True if you are just talking straight cancellation, but my understanding is that US customers get some form of 'price match promise' in case the price drops, which overseas customers do not get. Its different yet again for Australian / NZ customers.

 

 

[Riocca]

28 minutes ago, Richteab said:

 

True if you are just talking straight cancellation, but my understanding is that US customers get some form of 'price match promise' in case the price drops, which overseas customers do not get. Its different yet again for Australian / NZ customers.

 

 

And they can cancel with a much smaller cancellation fee, that’s why it would be nice to have a level playing field. 

[procter]

I think this should be taken up by "Which"  the UK consumer organisation as what is known as a "super complaint " where they take on the industry as a whole to enforce common conditions rather like happened to the banks with overdraft charges etc.

[BBMacLaird]

From our UK MD Richard Twynam:

“Thanks for your input. Non refundable deposits in UK travel industry for airlines and cruiselines and many travel agents and tour operators are the norm, and are also consistent with our sister brands.

In addition it is worth noting Azamara’s deposit amount is 50% less than Viking’s amount.

Finally the further cancellation conditions are all consistent with our sister brands and comply with all ABTA and ATOL regulations.

We also review our terms and conditions each time before each new brochure.”

 

[Riocca]

51 minutes ago, BBMacLaird said:

From our UK MD Richard Twynam:

“Thanks for your input. Non refundable deposits in UK travel industry for airlines and cruiselines and many travel agents and tour operators are the norm, and are also consistent with our sister brands.

In addition it is worth noting Azamara’s deposit amount is 50% less than Viking’s amount.

Finally the further cancellation conditions are all consistent with our sister brands and comply with all ABTA and ATOL regulations.

We also review our terms and conditions each time before each new brochure.”

 

Bonnie, although I posted on the Azamara board this is purely because we travel most with Azamara and are most interested in this board. In fact I could have posted on any of the boards so it was not specifically aimed at Azamara but the U.K. travel industry as a whole.

Richard’s reply is correct but the reason for the campaign but the Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) is that just because it’s an industry norm don’t mean it complies and companies should be reviewing their t&c’s.

However Richard is incorrect regarding the Viking deposit it is in fact 25% of the cruise fare, so is variable, we in fact had to pay a deposit of over £2000 against the £500 we would have paid to Azamara. Again Viking have the same conditions regarding loss of deposit if you cancel. So as U.K. consumers we have to be 100% sure we want to book a cruise whereas customers in some other markets can book and cancel a whim, this is unfair. Fact is that it would be better for customers and cruise lines alike if our t&c’s were universally applied.