Travel protection plan added without my knowledge

[HBE4]

9 hours ago, brillohead said:

No argument from me on that one!

It almost seems like the marketing department is in charge of the IT department.... they have all these splashy pages on their website showing the "fun" of being on a cruise, but nothing substantive when you're looking for hard facts about the whole thing.  

I've been active on the "general public version of the internet" from the early days of dial-up internet, and consider myself to be a pretty website-savvy individual.  The Royal Caribbean website is horribly non-intuitive when it comes to website navigation.  

When you consider how easy it is to disseminate information in this day and age, it's downright pathetic how crappy a job the RCI website does of the job!

 

I wonder what percentage of cruises are booked via Royal directly (website, NextCruise, etc) vs. Travel Agents and other third parties.

 

With the ships sailing at capacity, it seems Royal has little incentive to spend $$$ fixing these issues and will let the TA's do the heavy lifting when marketing/booking the cruises.

 

At best, the glitch is a very low priority item to be corrected.

 

[Biker19]

29 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

At best, the glitch is a very low priority item to be corrected.

^ This.

[molly361]

Just happened to me as well.  Just noticed Dan's name was spelled wrong on one of our bookings.  Called C and A to correct it got new invoice, poof vacation protection insurance is on it.    Called back and had it removed

[Clarea]

2 minutes ago, molly361 said:

Just happened to me as well.  Just noticed Dan's name was spelled wrong on one of our bookings.  Called C and A to correct it got new invoice, poof vacation protection insurance is on it.    Called back and had it removed

 

A new "mistake".  Got to give Royal credit for figuring out new ways to purposely make mistakes.

[molly361]

8 minutes ago, Host Clarea said:

 

A new "mistake".  Got to give Royal credit for figuring out new ways to purposely make mistakes.

Trying to recoup the money from the $18 beverage glitch

[Clarea]

3 minutes ago, molly361 said:

Trying to recoup the money from the $18 beverage glitch

 

Still think that was some sort of stunt.

[MisterBill99]

5 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

As long as they correct the error when confronted I don't think there is much the AG can do, mistakes do happen and they typically aren't actionable.

 

Based on a very small sample here, this appears to be more than just an isolated mistake. There appears to be a clear pattern of the coverage being added when the customer did not ask for it. And if there are so many people here who it happened to, imagine how many others also were also victimized (please do not criticize me for use of that word) and did not notice or ask for a refund.

 

Is it any different than a retailer "accidentally" adding an extended warranty when you buy an item even if you didn't ask for it? Would that be OK if they refund it when you notice and complain? And do you think an AG would take an "it's no big deal" approach?

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by MisterBill99

[sparks1093]

19 minutes ago, MisterBill99 said:

 

Based on a very small sample here, this appears to be more than just an isolated mistake. There appears to be a clear pattern of the coverage being added when the customer did not ask for it. And if there are so many people here who it happened to, imagine how many others also were also victimized (please do not criticize me for use of that word) and did not notice or ask for a refund.

 

Is it any different than a retailer "accidentally" adding an extended warranty when you buy an item even if you didn't ask for it? Would that be OK if they refund it when you notice and complain? And do you think an AG would take an "it's no big deal" approach?

 

Is there a legal limit to the number of mistakes that a company can make? I've never read of one. Isolated or not a mistake is still just a mistake and poor customer service isn't a violation of any law that I am aware of. 

[TwizzlersAddict]

9 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

Is there a legal limit to the number of mistakes that a company can make? I've never read of one. Isolated or not a mistake is still just a mistake and poor customer service isn't a violation of any law that I am aware of. 

That's the issue, is this actually a mistake. How many have called in the last few days to make an adjustment or change and not had insurance added to their account. If its random its can be written off as a mistake, but if they are doing it to everyone, then just apologizing when the person calls back, its not really a mistake. 

[sparks1093]

37 minutes ago, TwizzlersAddict said:

That's the issue, is this actually a mistake. How many have called in the last few days to make an adjustment or change and not had insurance added to their account. If its random its can be written off as a mistake, but if they are doing it to everyone, then just apologizing when the person calls back, its not really a mistake. 

Yes, if one could prove that there was intent then one could make a case but what would it take in time and money to make such a case and what could one reasonably hope for in return? 

[MisterBill99]

38 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

Yes, if one could prove that there was intent then one could make a case but what would it take in time and money to make such a case and what could one reasonably hope for in return? 

 

If there were enough people who it happened to, a lawyer might consider looking intoit as a possible class action.

 

[TwizzlersAddict]

40 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

Yes, if one could prove that there was intent then one could make a case but what would it take in time and money to make such a case and what could one reasonably hope for in return? 

what in return???.....that they stop doing it. 

They could easily just have the reps offer it as a upsell and when declined remove it. The fact that they aren't just seems odd to me. 

[sparks1093]

6 minutes ago, MisterBill99 said:

 

If there were enough people who it happened to, a lawyer might consider looking intoit as a possible class action.

 

 

3 minutes ago, TwizzlersAddict said:

what in return???.....that they stop doing it. 

They could easily just have the reps offer it as a upsell and when declined remove it. The fact that they aren't just seems odd to me. 

That's the thing- without a clear damage amount it would be hard to entice any lawyer in pursuing any sort of action. You are looking at a large expenditure of time and money to even investigate to the point to determine if there is a case and then you have to prosecute it. Without a big potential payout a lawyer won't touch it. 

[ryano]

4 hours ago, molly361 said:

Trying to recoup the money from the $18 beverage glitch

 

You beat me to it!  

[StolidCruiser]

18 hours ago, brillohead said:

 

 

People need to realize that disputing a fraudulent charge is supposed to be a LAST resort, not a first one.  

Do everything you can through normal channels first, before going nuclear.  

 

People also need to learn the difference between an erroneous charge and a fraudulent charge.  There's an important difference.

 

Disputing an erroneous charge with a credit card company should be a last resort.  Disputing a fraudulent charge with a credit card company should be a first resort.

[Biker19]

5 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

 Without a big potential payout a lawyer won't touch it. 

There was talk of that during #Watergate - when many were being erroneously charged for water bottles during the filled minibar era.

[legaljen1969]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 1:38 PM, Aduntu said:

 

I did call back after being told that by AA and a supervisor was able to remove it. They confirmed I didn't have to mail the letter. I got a receipt and it shows the plan being declined. Now the amount paid is greater than the total charge, so I will be watching my credit card for the refund.

Glad you got it sorted.   It's so frustrating. I was going to suggest you send the letter priority mail or by some method where you could track it.

 

[legaljen1969]

8 minutes ago, StolidCruiser said:

 

People also need to learn the difference between an erroneous charge and a fraudulent charge.  There's an important difference.

 

Disputing an erroneous charge with a credit card company should be a last resort.  Disputing a fraudulent charge with a credit card company should be a first resort.

Another thing that should be "last resort" is litigating stuff like this.  Instead, the school of thought tends to be "something went wrong, let me get an attorney."  Mind you, it doesn't bother me THAT MUCH since I work for an attorney and it is income producing for me, but I really loathe people who take up valuable court time and resources just to whine.  And I also loathe attorneys who will file suit on every little thing. 
It's so expensive and time consuming. 

[legaljen1969]

2 hours ago, MisterBill99 said:

Is it any different than a retailer "accidentally" adding an extended warranty when you buy an item even if you didn't ask for it? Would that be OK if they refund it when you notice and complain? And do you think an AG would take an "it's no big deal" approach?

 

If they refunded it after I noticed and complained, then yes it would be okay. I dare you to find a court anywhere that wouldn't say they didn't restore the "victim" to the appropriate state.
Yes, it's definitely a repetitive "mistake" they are making, and I doubt it is a mistake but it could be.  There could be a glitch that it is automatically adding it back in. 
However, if they are refunding it when people notice the error and contact the company to get it corrected- then there is no reason anyone with any sense at all would litigate the matter.

Edited July 17, 2019 by legaljen1969
misworded

[TwizzlersAddict]

45 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

 

That's the thing- without a clear damage amount it would be hard to entice any lawyer in pursuing any sort of action. You are looking at a large expenditure of time and money to even investigate to the point to determine if there is a case and then you have to prosecute it. Without a big potential payout a lawyer won't touch it. 

not sure why you quoted me when talking about a lawyer. Social media is more powerful and gets results faster. 

If posted on Royal's FB and twitter page one could quickly find out how widespread this is and it wouldn't cost a dime. Their social media manager could also chime in on the topic. 

[TC1957]

19 hours ago, brillohead said:

Oh for crying out loud.  Shall I go find the tin foil to make you a hat?  

In an ideal world, Royal's IT department would fix the error and this would stop happening automatically.  However, we all know that's unlikely to happen overnight.  

Is this a stupid annoying thing to have happen?  Absolutely.  But calling this a "crime" with a "victim" is just a bit much.  

 

Sorry...but I have to strongly disagree.  In ANY world, a companies IT department would correct this.  I can think of logical reason to automatically add a travel protection plan.  A change fee...yes, even if there would be significant customer push-back.

 

We have a company that KNOWS their system is adding unauthorized charges and apparently nobody cares enough to stop inconveniencing their customers?  A senior manager worth his weight in cow dung would DEMAND it be fixed before the IT department left for the day.  You may not want to admit it, but there is obviously a pattern of it happening.  Consistently and knowingly adding unauthorized charges is fraud.

 

 

 

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, TwizzlersAddict said:

not sure why you quoted me when talking about a lawyer. Social media is more powerful and gets results faster. 

If posted on Royal's FB and twitter page one could quickly find out how widespread this is and it wouldn't cost a dime. Their social media manager could also chime in on the topic. 

Because you quoted me when I was talking about it. Yes, social media is probably a more effective way of dealing with the issue, provided of course that they don't delete the posts (since it's their page I believe they can do that).

[cello56]

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

However, if they are refunding it when people notice the error and contact the company to get it corrected- then there is no reason anyone with any sense at all would litigate the matter.

 

That is the real issue though isn't it? How many people simply do not read the new invoice and see the charge. Most people assume that RCI is an honest company and would not slip in extra bogus fees. 

[MisterBill99]

1 hour ago, legaljen1969 said:

If they refunded it after I noticed and complained, then yes it would be okay. I dare you to find a court anywhere that wouldn't say they didn't restore the "victim" to the appropriate state.
Yes, it's definitely a repetitive "mistake" they are making, and I doubt it is a mistake but it could be.  There could be a glitch that it is automatically adding it back in. 
However, if they are refunding it when people notice the error and contact the company to get it corrected- then there is no reason anyone with any sense at all would litigate the matter.

 

Going back to my retail store comparison. I find it hard to believe that a consumer affairs department would not come down HARD on a retailer found to be adding an extended warranty to purchases when the customer did not ask for it, even if it was cheerfully refunded when the customer pointed it out and asked for a refund.

[HBE4]

2 minutes ago, MisterBill99 said:

 

Going back to my retail store comparison. I find it hard to believe that a consumer affairs department would not come down HARD on a retailer found to be adding an extended warranty to purchases when the customer did not ask for it, even if it was cheerfully refunded when the customer pointed it out and asked for a refund.

 

I believe Royal has instituted a "work-around" where the reps know about the system glitch and should automatically remove the charge while changing the reservation, even before the customer notices it and asks for it to be removed.

 

However, sometimes it "just slips by" the rep.