compensation

[moonstone01]

Many thanks to everyone who offered good advice, never too old to learn😁 as for the replies laced with sarcasm, many thanks but I was on the understanding that this was a good place to come to ask a question. Shall we consider the question has been answered and the matter closed...........phew😁😁😁😁

[DirtyDawg]

57 minutes ago, moonstone01 said:

Many thanks to everyone who offered good advice, never too old to learn😁 as for the replies laced with sarcasm, many thanks but I was on the understanding that this was a good place to come to ask a question. Shall we consider the question has been answered and the matter closed...........phew😁😁😁😁

 

I have always said that asking a question here on CC is like gold mining. You must to dig through a lot of waste rock in order to find to the nugget.  😁

Edited April 22, 2019 by DirtyDawg

[John Bull]

30 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

 

I have always said that asking a question here on CC is like gold mining. You must to dig through a lot of waste rock in order to find to the nugget.  😁

 

Yep, ignore sarky responses from those experienced cruisers who've forgotten that they made similar mistakes when they first cruised 

 

JB 

[spookwife]

23 hours ago, moonstone01 said:

Hi, can anybody give me some advice.  We were meant to visit Guernsey on our last cruise  and we were really looking forward to it.  Unfortunately, due to bad weather they had to cancel the visit and instead we had a day at sea. Should or would P&O compensate us for the fact we did not visit Guernsey?

Many Thanks

the only thing you are entitled to is a refund of port fees for the missed port.  that's it.  assuming UK  rules are the same as US rules.  ( I know your pricing structure is different)

[compozer]

I know it is frustrating but after many years of cruising, I don't have enough fingers to count the times we have missed ports.  As others have said, read your contract.   If cruise lines had to compensate passengers for every missed port, cruise fares would be sky high.  

[John Bull]

11 hours ago, jlp20 said:

As I posted, by stepping on the ship you agree to the passage contract for you cruise line. Here is that section from the Princess contract:

Carrier may, for any reason, without prior notice, cancel the cruise; deviate from the scheduled ports of call, route and timetable; call or omit to call at any port or place or cancel or modify any activity on or off the ship; comply with all governmental laws and orders given by governmental authorities; render assistance to preserve life and property; or change the date or time of sailing or arrival, change the port of embarkation or disembarkation, shorten the Cruise or substitute ships, aircraft or other transportation or lodging. 

Contractually, the ship can push back from the dock and stay there for a week and call it a cruise.

 

1 hour ago, spookwife said:

the only thing you are entitled to is a refund of port fees for the missed port.  that's it.  assuming UK  rules are the same as US rules.  ( I know your pricing structure is different)

 

Yes, UK law (and EU law) does give us safeguards, and probably more than US law.

 

The cruise must be substantially as advertised.

Jlp's example of "Contractually, the ship can push back from the dock and stay there for a week and call it a cruise." clearly wouldn't be as advertised.

And cruise lines can't hide behind the terms of their contracts - passengers can't be contracted out of their legal rights.

I don't know US law, but I'm 99.9% sure that jlp's post wouldn't hold water in the US either.

 

After many months of e-mails and threats of UK court action we received from another cruise line significantly more compo than given to all for a missed must-see port due to a mechanical issue (the ship sat all-day in the previous port waiting for a part to be flown out). 

I don't know whether we would have won a court action, because the cruise line blinked before we did.

 

But, as per responses on this thread, problems caused by the weather are beyond the cruise line's control. Just bad luck.

 

BTW,  Paul's comment that "you wouldn't want to go ashore anyway if weather conditions are so bad"  often doesn't apply to tendered ports like Guernsey - the weather can be perfect, but with big sea swells which make transferring to tenders dangerous.   And I recall our captain making a couple of attempts to enter the harbour in Antigua before he decided that the moderately high wind pushing his high-sided ship like a sailboat made it too risky. Again, just bad luck and a conscientious captain.

 

JB 

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, spookwife said:

the only thing you are entitled to is a refund of port fees for the missed port.  that's it.  assuming UK  rules are the same as US rules.  ( I know your pricing structure is different)

In the US cruise lines generally compensate on the basis of cause of itinerary change.  If bad weather forces missing a port, all you can reasonably expect is refund of port taxes/fees and any cruise line tour expenses paid.  If it is due to mechanical failure there is generally substantial compensation offered - mechanical failure is seen as the result of maintenance:  which is within the line’s control.

[TNcruising02]

I was on a Norwegian cruise that was supposed to be eastern, but it changed to western due to a hurricane.  It was very disappointing, but I had fun anyway.  I did not receive any compensation.

I was on a Carnival cruise to Bermuda.  It was changed to the Bahamas due to weather.  I received 25% off my next cruise.  It was disappointing since I have never been to Bermuda and was very excited about seeing it for the first time.  I was happy with the 25% off from Carnival.  They didn't have to do that.  I will be going to Bermuda later this year, so hopefully I will finally get to see it.

[brillohead]

5 hours ago, John Bull said:

BTW,  Paul's comment that "you wouldn't want to go ashore anyway if weather conditions are so bad"  often doesn't apply to tendered ports like Guernsey - the weather can be perfect, but with big sea swells which make transferring to tenders dangerous.   And I recall our captain making a couple of attempts to enter the harbour in Antigua before he decided that the moderately high wind pushing his high-sided ship like a sailboat made it too risky. Again, just bad luck and a conscientious captain.

While the weather on shore might be great, the swells making tendering dangerous should still mean that you don't want to go there because the tendering process could kill you.  

So the saying still stands... you wouldn't want to get in a tender if the conditions are so bad that the captain thinks it's too dangerous to tender.  

[John Bull]

1 hour ago, brillohead said:

While the weather on shore might be great, the swells making tendering dangerous should still mean that you don't want to go there because the  

So the saying still stands... you wouldn't want to get in a tender if the conditions are so bad that the captain thinks it's too dangerous to tender.  

 

 

Not something worth us falling out, Brillo - but it's clear to me that "do you really think you would want to spend a day there?" relates to the weather ashore, not the dangers of tendering. 

 

Am I right, Paul?

 

JB 

[jlp20]

8 hours ago, John Bull said:

The cruise must be substantially as advertised.

Jlp's example of "Contractually, the ship can push back from the dock and stay there for a week and call it a cruise." clearly wouldn't be as advertised.

And cruise lines can't hide behind the terms of their contracts - passengers can't be contracted out of their legal rights.

I don't know US law, but I'm 99.9% sure that jlp's post wouldn't hold water in the US either.

 

This paragraph of the contract has been in place  for 17 years that I know of. Bothered to read the contact before our first cruise. In the U.S. any type of contract trumps those advertisements with all that small print. Over the years there have been countless threats of law suits and class actions. Because of the contract all passengers agree to, they have no standing to take any action.  

 

Here is the Princess contract link, take a couple of minutes to read. Quite simply, if you don't agree, don't get on the ship

https://www.princess.com/legal/passage_contract/plc.html

[Toofarfromthesea]

13 hours ago, moonstone01 said:

Many thanks to everyone who offered good advice, never too old to learn😁 as for the replies laced with sarcasm, many thanks but I was on the understanding that this was a good place to come to ask a question. Shall we consider the question has been answered and the matter closed...........phew😁😁😁😁

 

Having gone through the that I just want to mention that there was discussion a while back of a particular trip insurance policy that paid a flat amount for any missed port.  I don't recall the details but maybe someone who does will chime in.

[Shmoo here]

48 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Having gone through the that I just want to mention that there was discussion a while back of a particular trip insurance policy that paid a flat amount for any missed port.  I don't recall the details but maybe someone who does will chime in.

 

[John Bull]

22 hours ago, jlp20 said:

As I posted, by stepping on the ship you agree to the passage contract for you cruise line. Here is that section from the Princess contract:

Carrier may, for any reason, without prior notice, cancel the cruise; deviate from the scheduled ports of call, route and timetable; call or omit to call at any port or place or cancel or modify any activity on or off the ship; comply with all governmental laws and orders given by governmental authorities; render assistance to preserve life and property; or change the date or time of sailing or arrival, change the port of embarkation or disembarkation, shorten the Cruise or substitute ships, aircraft or other transportation or lodging. 

Contractually, the ship can push back from the dock and stay there for a week and call it a cruise.

                               https://www.princess.com/legal/passage_contract/plc.html

 

Hi jlp,

 

I've clicked on the link, and nowhere is a clause which is remotely like the one in your post.

But methinks there's a difference between what you're reading and what I'm reading, because my ISP is in the UK

 

For instance  I feel sure that on the link on your screen doesn't read..........

 

2. The Contract shall be between Princess and the Passenger on the basis of these Conditions and the information contained in the brochure or website, and shall be governed by English law and the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The combination of Travel Services offered to you under the Contract is a package within the meaning of The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulation 2018. Therefore, you will benefit from all EU rights applying to packages. Princess will be fully responsible for the proper performance of the Package as a whole. Additionally, as required by law, Princess has protection in place to refund your payments and, where transport is included in the Package, to ensure your repatriation in the event that it becomes insolvent.

In Clause 38 of the contract "Alteration and Cancellation by Princess After Departure"

"Princess accepts responsibility for providing all the elements of the advertised Package " and "If Princess is unable to provide a significant proportion of the Package, it will make suitable alternative arrangements, at no extra cost to the Passenger, for the continuation of the Package".

 

In my post I wrote

I don't know US law, but I'm 99.9% sure that jlp's post wouldn't hold water in the US either.

But having followed, on the NCL board, the current saga of their informing passengers two days ago that they were trimming next week's Norwegian Getaway trans-Atlantic cruise from 12 days to 10, I'm glad that I didn't say I was 100% sure !!

 

The US does seem to be way behind the rest of the world in consumer rights.

How about my comment that a consumer can't be contracted out of his legal rights? Does that hold good in the US?

 

JB 

 

[Texas Tillie]

15 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

 

The US does seem to be way behind the rest of the world in consumer rights.

 

 

JB 

 

 

Western Europe, for sure, but Russia or India or China or any number of other countries, probably not. The consumer protection you enjoy does come at a price. Almost everything I've ever priced in the EU is always more expensive and sometimes substantially so than in the US. We have a phrase I imagine you've heard, "there ain't no free lunch".

[CruisingAlong4Now]

Deposits are handled differently in the US and UK. As Texas Tillie said, there ain't no free lunch."

[SRF]

On 4/22/2019 at 10:17 AM, John Bull said:

BTW,  Paul's comment that "you wouldn't want to go ashore anyway if weather conditions are so bad"  often doesn't apply to tendered ports like Guernsey - the weather can be perfect, but with big sea swells which make transferring to tenders dangerous.  

 

How does his comment not apply?

 

In your example, the weather is fine.  The sea state is high, and you don't want to ride in the tender.

 

So overall, same result, you don't want to go to that port.

[John Bull]

45 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

How does his comment not apply?

 

In your example, the weather is fine.  The sea state is high, and you don't want to ride in the tender.

 

So overall, same result, you don't want to go to that port.

 

No, to quote my example correctly "the weather can be perfect, but with big sea swells which make transferring to tenders dangerous"

 

If you think that Paul's comment "do you really think you would want to spend a day there?" means "do you really want to spend a day riding the tender in high seas" then I can't help you.

 

I have no doubt that you, like I, have had the disappointment of not spending a day in port in glorious weather because of high swells which preclude tendering, so please don't try to start an argument where there isn't one cos I'm just not interested.

 

JB 

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 4/23/2019 at 2:09 AM, Texas Tillie said:

 

Western Europe, for sure, but Russia or India or China or any number of other countries, probably not. The consumer protection you enjoy does come at a price. Almost everything I've ever priced in the EU is always more expensive and sometimes substantially so than in the US. We have a phrase I imagine you've heard, "there ain't no free lunch".

 

Things cut various ways.  As an example, I saw Phantom this evening at Her Majesty's Theater in London.  While the theater was gorgeous, it would get shut down in a NY minute, in the states, under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act, for its utter disregard of accessibility for disabled patrons.  As would many many of the tourist sites I've visited in Europe.  

[navybankerteacher]

On 4/22/2019 at 8:49 PM, John Bull said:

 

...

 

How about my comment that a consumer can't be contracted out of his legal rights? Does that hold good in the US?

 

JB 

 

I am not at all sure if I would prefer a social organization in which I am so PROTECTED that I am not able to enter into a contract of my choosing. One “legal right” which I value is the right to enter into contacts of my choosing - and not only those contracts which give me  the rights (and, presumably, assign to me the obligations) which government feels should apply.

 

There is a downside, as well as an upside, to government-mandated protections.

[NantahalaCruiser]

On 4/21/2019 at 3:18 PM, AL3XCruise said:

 

Except that when the weather's bad, the resort doesn't end up in Nassau ;).

Unless your resort is in Nassau 🤔

[SteveH2508]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I am not at all sure if I would prefer a social organization in which I am so PROTECTED that I am not able to enter into a contract of my choosing. One “legal right” which I value is the right to enter into contacts of my choosing - and not only those contracts which give me  the rights (and, presumably, assign to me the obligations) which government feels should apply.

 

There is a downside, as well as an upside, to government-mandated protections.

The point of regulations disallowing companies to contractually remove your statutory rights, is mainly to do with the inequality of the relative bargaining positions. When you contract with a large company (e.g. a cruise line), the terms of the contract are pre-set and not open to negotiation - it is take it or leave it.

 

In the past, some companies abused this unequal position to attempt to dilute the consumer's statutory legal rights.

[Host Hattie]

9 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Things cut various ways.  As an example, I saw Phantom this evening at Her Majesty's Theater in London.  While the theater was gorgeous, it would get shut down in a NY minute, in the states, under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act, for its utter disregard of accessibility for disabled patrons.  As would many many of the tourist sites I've visited in Europe.  

 

Maybe, maybe not

 

https://uk.thephantomoftheopera.com/disabled-access/

[navybankerteacher]

27 minutes ago, SteveH2508 said:

The point of regulations disallowing companies to contractually remove your statutory rights, is mainly to do with the inequality of the relative bargaining positions. When you contract with a large company (e.g. a cruise line), the terms of the contract are pre-set and not open to negotiation - it is take it or leave it.

 

In the past, some companies abused this unequal position to attempt to dilute the consumer's statutory legal rights.

Yes, it is good to have “statutory rights”;  but you should be able to enter into some contracts in which certain “rights” are contracted away.  For example, you might book a cruise at a certain price, which enables you to change/cancel that booking without giving up your deposit.  Or, the line might offer the same booking at a lower price if you are willing to give up your deposit if you do not go ahead with the original deposit.

 

Sure, it is nice to have “protections” but very few things, including “statutory protections”, come without cost.

[John Bull]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I am not at all sure if I would prefer a social organization in which I am so PROTECTED that I am not able to enter into a contract of my choosing. One “legal right” which I value is the right to enter into contacts of my choosing - and not only those contracts which give me  the rights (and, presumably, assign to me the obligations) which government feels should apply.

 

There is a downside, as well as an upside, to government-mandated protections.

Hi NBT,

 

Whilst you might choose to negotiate a mutually-acceptable contract with another person, you can't enter a contract of your choosing with a cruise line - you enter a contract of their choosing or you don't cruise. 

Ditto car rentals, hotel stays, air travel, and a thousand other contracts.

 

4,000 cruisers chose to cruise a 12-day trans-Atlantic to Southampton on NCL's Getaway this coming sunday.

NCL informed them on saturday  (a week's notice) that two of the four ports were cancelled and the cruise would finish in Southampton two days early because they'd chosen to add those two days to their scheduled dry-dock refurbishment (no mention from them of any urgent mechanical repairs).

Under NCL's contract those folk have no right to cancel or transfer (a great many wanted to) and are at the mercy of NCL for inadequate compensation for last-minute flight changes / hotel bookings, lost payments for private excursions, etc, or for the cost, grief and upset of having to re-vamp their arrangements at short notice.

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2656754-norwegian-getaway-shorten-the-tripcancel-2-stops/

and currently 13 pages of posts on the NCL forum.

Anyone who booked that cruise in the UK or EU has statutory rights to being treated much more fairly.

 

Reference your last post....

UK law on a person's statutory rights is much more complex than can be detailed on this thread.

Here's an example - if I buy a car from a trader it must by law be of merchantable quality, but if I want a car that isn't of merchantable quality (eg one which needs major repairs which I'm willing to undertake) I can choose to accept it provided that I sign away that right. Having to sign that means that I'm aware that it has a major problem.

So we are protected but not hidebound by consumer rights.

 

 

But one thing that I'm learning from all this .............

In the past you've used the legal rights of folk who book from the UK as a reason for the much higher fares that we are charged.

I took that to mean the safety-net of the Assoc of British Travel Agents' codes of practice and their members' legal obligation to maintain a fund to repatriate and compensate folk in the event of a member going belly-up, etc. That's a good safety-net, but not worthy of the large difference in cruise fares.

I'm now coming to realise that US law is woefully lacking in consumer protection, and that the legal protections in the UK and EU are worth that premium.

4.000 Getaway passengers probably now agree with me.   

 

JB