Significant changes to cruise (regardless of reason, including Coronavirus) - claim a full refund despite Ts&Cs

[Harry Peterson]

Anyone facing changes to their cruise which are not 'insignificant' and not being offered a full refund by their cruise company might like to be aware of the The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, because they give a right to a full refund within 14 days.

 

There's a lot of detail in the legislation, but the central point above is very clear, and if you're facing (or have been faced with) significant changes to a cruise (which is a package in the terms of the legislation if booked in the UK) you can obtain a full refund.  

 

This also applies where cruises have been changed as a result of the Coronavirus.

 

I'm not sure whether P&O are offering these refunds - perhaps they are - but the legislation might be helpful to anyone facing a significant change that they're not happy with.  It may also make people feel a little happier about forthcoming cruises, knowing that they can cancel later if they choose to.

 

Not good news for cruise companies - but very good news for passengers.  ☺️

[Narrow boat girl]

It will all depend on how the word significant is defined.Also you say it's good news for customers.... I'm not so sure this could lead to a price increase in both cruises and insurance if lots of people make claims and get full refunds a bit like when people make claims for car accidents they haven't had.

[Harry Peterson]

1 minute ago, Narrow boat girl said:

It will all depend on how the word significant is defined.Also you say it's good news for customers.... I'm not so sure this could lead to a price increase in both cruises and insurance if lots of people make claims and get full refunds a bit like when people make claims for car accidents they haven't had.

There is no definition of the word significant. It will depend on all the facts.  And yes,  it may have impacted on prices since 2018, but I can’t see any opportunities for fraudulent claims, fortunately.

 

Seems perfectly fair and reasonable though for a customer to get a refund if a company doesn’t deliver what it originally agreed to provide.

[AndyMichelle]

There is probably an 'act of God' clause or something Harry... 

In fairness to P&O, with the Ventura changes last weekend, they offered full refunds before travelling... Not sure how they would be if it was mid trip?

Andy 

[brillo]

Until this is tested in the courts there is no certainty as to the outcome of any claim.

 

[Harry Peterson]

13 minutes ago, AndyMichelle said:

There is probably an 'act of God' clause or something Harry... 

In fairness to P&O, with the Ventura changes last weekend, they offered full refunds before travelling... Not sure how they would be if it was mid trip?

Andy 

Nothing like that, Andy, unusually.  Just a right to a full refund regardless.  And that’s probably why those refunds were offered.  Applies mid-trip too, unless the changes are ‘insignificant’  -  that word undefined in the legislation but depending on the extent of the changes.

[the english lady]

Was listening to you and yours a couple of days ago and they mentioned that you should be able to claim for a full refund  back if there are going to be significant changes to your cruise. 

Now what they mean by that is anyones guess. Anyone on current cruises that are missing out all of the far east port, they are already on a cruise, so its just change of ports. For those going shortly where you were supposed to be flying to one place, and you are not now...I guess it depends how much to wish to "discuss " this with them. It is what Harry said.

[Harry Peterson]

10 minutes ago, brillo said:

Until this is tested in the courts there is no certainty as to the outcome of any claim.

 

Most cases are being settled without reference to the courts because the facts clearly point one way or the other.  Cruise companies aren’t always paying up though until challenged.

[Eglesbrech]

“22 Where, following commencement of the package, significant proportions of the package cannot be performed, alternatives offered should be at no extra cost and should, where possible, be of equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the original contract. If the organiser is constrained to propose alternative arrangements of a lower quality, the organiser must grant an appropriate price reduction. Travellers may choose to reject alternative arrangements only if they are not comparable with those originally agreed, or the price reduction offered is inadequate. If a traveller chooses to reject for either of these reasons, or the organiser is unable to make alternative arrangements, the traveller will be entitled to a price reduction, and compensation if appropriate.”

 

Reading this clause, it may cover the change of port situation after the cruise starts however I am sure the cruise companies will defend robustly their right to simply change things as and when they feel like it. 
 

I would think that 1 port missed in a 14 day cruise would be difficult to argue as “significant” however a short cruise where 100% of the advertised ports are changed or replaced with a cruise to nowhere would perhaps be covered: or indeed a longer cruise where several ports were missed.

 

P&O seemed to have been generous with the recent Ventura cruise as Andy pointed out above.

 

I hope that it stops cruise companies simply adding in extra sea days. Now if they at least offer any other port it could be argued as being an appropriate comparable alternative arrangement. 
 

Only time will tell how this all plays out but it is useful protection for consumers but the “significant” clause gives some protection to holiday companies for balance against passengers complaining about every single little thing.
 

[yorkshirephil]

This will be an interesting one, significant change?. In the regulations there is an example specific to cruising:

 

"You have booked a Mediterranean cruise which is due to make seven different stops. Three weeks before you are due to travel your travel company advises that the cruise will not visit four of the advertised stops, instead it will visit alternative destinations. This could be considered a significant change"

 

I bet the ABTA phones are buzzing already. 

 

[Harry Peterson]

6 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

“22 Where, following commencement of the package, significant proportions of the package cannot be performed, alternatives offered should be at no extra cost and should, where possible, be of equivalent or higher quality than those specified in the original contract. If the organiser is constrained to propose alternative arrangements of a lower quality, the organiser must grant an appropriate price reduction. Travellers may choose to reject alternative arrangements only if they are not comparable with those originally agreed, or the price reduction offered is inadequate. If a traveller chooses to reject for either of these reasons, or the organiser is unable to make alternative arrangements, the traveller will be entitled to a price reduction, and compensation if appropriate.”

 

Reading this clause, it may cover the change of port situation after the cruise starts however I am sure the cruise companies will defend robustly their right to simply change things as and when they feel like it. 
 

I would think that 1 port missed in a 14 day cruise would be difficult to argue as “significant” however a short cruise where 100% of the advertised ports are changed or replaced with a cruise to nowhere would perhaps be covered: or indeed a longer cruise where several ports were missed.

 

P&O seemed to have been generous with the recent Ventura cruise as Andy pointed out above.

 

I hope that it stops cruise companies simply adding in extra sea days. Now if they at least offer any other port it could be argued as being an appropriate comparable alternative arrangement. 
 

Only time will tell how this all plays out but it is useful protection for consumers but the “significant” clause gives some protection to holiday companies for balance against passengers complaining about every single little thing.
 

That quote is from the Guidance Notes for businesses of course, rather than 

the legislation itself, and it’s the legislation that has the legal force.

 

Nevertheless, the notes are useful background and might also be useful in any negotiations with P&O.

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749498/package-travel-regulations-2018.pdf

 

As for the Ventura cruise, I doubt they had any alternative but to offer refunds, having changed 100% of the ports visited, albeit only one.

[Harry Peterson]

15 minutes ago, yorkshirephil said:

This will be an interesting one, significant change?. In the regulations there is an example specific to cruising:

 

"You have booked a Mediterranean cruise which is due to make seven different stops. Three weeks before you are due to travel your travel company advises that the cruise will not visit four of the advertised stops, instead it will visit alternative destinations. This could be considered a significant change"

 

I bet the ABTA phones are buzzing already. 

 

 Bear in mind, though, that what you quote there is not in the legislation. It’s just an interpretation of the legislation by the travel industry.

[AndyMichelle]

15 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

As for the Ventura cruise, I doubt they had any alternative but to offer refunds, having changed 100% of the ports visited, albeit only one.

Of course you are right Harry, but previously, many of these shorter cruises have failed to dock without compensation. 

At least this time they gave passengers the option and went with a half empty ship. 

Andy 

[Eglesbrech]

31 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

That quote is from the Guidance Notes for businesses of course, rather than 

the legislation itself, and it’s the legislation that has the legal force.

 

Nevertheless, the notes are useful background and might also be useful in any negotiations with P&O.

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749498/package-travel-regulations-2018.pdf

 

As for the Ventura cruise, I doubt they had any alternative but to offer refunds, having changed 100% of the ports visited, albeit only one.

The guidance notes are for lay people like me Harry, I leave legal interpretation to the lawyers.

[Harry Peterson]

16 minutes ago, AndyMichelle said:

Of course you are right Harry, but previously, many of these shorter cruises have failed to dock without compensation. 

At least this time they gave passengers the option and went with a half empty ship. 

Andy 

Exactly as you say, Andy.  And the legislation covers only cruises booked on or after 1 July 2018, so they may well have been within their rights, because of the Ts and Cs.  Those can no longer get them out of a situation like this, though.

 

Interesting situation, isn't it?  I hope this thread will help people who might be finding some cruise companies a little reluctant to assist, and it may also help those wondering what to do about Coronavirus - it perhaps offers them better options.

[Eglesbrech]

9 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Exactly as you say, Andy.  And the legislation covers only cruises booked on or after 1 July 2018, so they may well have been within their rights, because of the Ts and Cs.  Those can no longer get them out of a situation like this, though.

 

Interesting situation, isn't it?  I hope this thread will help people who might be finding some cruise companies a little reluctant to assist, and it may also help those wondering what to do about Coronavirus - it perhaps offers them better options.

Yes I think it’s good for people to know there is something they can fall back on if they are stonewalled by any travel company which in the past was the default position - they all immediately went to their T&Cs which are often one sided.

[eddie11]

Interesting

 

Do we have a *consumer champion* (Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert; BBC consumer programmes Which, etc) take on this?  And is it only now enacted, despite being titled 2018?

[Harry Peterson]

17 minutes ago, eddie11 said:

Interesting

 

Do we have a *consumer champion* (Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert; BBC consumer programmes Which, etc) take on this?  And is it only now enacted, despite being titled 2018?

It's been in place throughout for any package holidays booked since 1 July 2018.  I suspect though that some companies haven't been operating it correctly or telling their customers. 

 

A bit of Googling will bring up commentary from Which? etc.  Be wary of accepting the views of the travel industry though. It might be a little one sided.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Harry Peterson
Final paragraph added

[eddie11]

Thanks

 

Here’s a link to a Which article, which was the only consumer-oriented one I could find.  As you say, lots of legal advice for the travel industry - not a lot for travellers

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/package-travel-regulations

[majortom10]

Best of luck anyone trying to get any changes to their cruise classified as "significant" by P&O. Our past experience is we booked a 16nt cruise on Oriana and just after final payment, surprise,surprise, P&O informed us that Oriana was due for refit at end of our cruise and it was to be brought forward so our 16 nt cruise became 15nt. They cancelled one port of call completely and every port of call for the rest of the cruise where changed to different days, same ports but all different days. They said they would reimburse 1nt of the cruise by adding it to my onboard account. When I said I wanted the 1 nt reimbursement in cash as I had paid for holiday in full as per contract in cash they refused. They also said that reducing cruise by 1 nt and changing every port of call day was not classified as "significant" so couldnt cancel my cruise with full reimbursement. After many arguments and telephone calls and threat of legal action and contacting ABTA for advice they finally backed down and paid my 1 nt reimbursement in cash and gave me the opportunity to  cancel with full reimbursement. Foolishly I accepted the 1nt in cash but still went on the cruise, the ship was only 50-60% full and we found out that many had cancelled and shortly before the cruise was due the ship was only about 25% full so they offered it to PO staff and all their relatives and TA staff a very heavily reduced price to try and fill the ship. We met many during the cruise who freely admitted that they worked or had relatives with P&O or worked for TAs and had paid very little for the cruise.

[stephen@stoneyard.co.uk]

Thank you for bringing theses regulations to our attention so well and prominently. It has been mentioned on some forums before. The usual response from some forum members is the contract says they can change anything. I think these responses are generally from Americans who do not realise that cruises are regulated in the United Kingdom and European Union. 
 

A lot depends on the definition of significant.  How would you enforce that?  I personally would think the failure to visit over half the ports on my cruise is significant to me.  Losing one port (of several) or a rearrangement of ports would not be significant to me personally. I do not tend to make definite plans for ports some people do though and may have a different view.  
 

In reality I think it is unlikely to need to be enforced. Faced with the regulation I think most UK based cruise companies will comply. It is more a bargaining tool for a settlement of compensation or cancellation. 
 

Some people have said in the past that we should not submit these types of claims as it is not the cruise lines fault. Totally true but is fault relevant. The cruise companies operate in a regulated industry and they are happy to make profits when everything goes well. They have to accept the risks and costs of being in the industry when things are not going well. Profit and risks are part of capitalism. I do not feel sorry for Carnival UK shareholders. Do not get me started on the banks of FlyBe.
 

Another option I thought as an option would be to talk to my credit card company and ask them to be held jointly liable for the failure of the cruise company to deliver what they advertised. I am no legal expert so do not know if this is possible. 
 

The travel industry only has itself to blame for regulation. The start of this was the way the industry behaved in the 1970s.  Do you remember unfinished hotel and brochure pictures of totally different hotels. 
 

Best wishes, Stephen. 

 

[mercury7289]

Seems that "Me Lord" is in session again!

 

Harken at thy peril !

[Harry Peterson]

2 hours ago, stephen@stoneyard.co.uk said:

Thank you for bringing theses regulations to our attention so well and prominently. It has been mentioned on some forums before. The usual response from some forum members is the contract says they can change anything. I think these responses are generally from Americans who do not realise that cruises are regulated in the United Kingdom and European Union. 
 

A lot depends on the definition of significant.  How would you enforce that?  I personally would think the failure to visit over half the ports on my cruise is significant to me.  Losing one port (of several) or a rearrangement of ports would not be significant to me personally. I do not tend to make definite plans for ports some people do though and may have a different view.  
 

In reality I think it is unlikely to need to be enforced. Faced with the regulation I think most UK based cruise companies will comply. It is more a bargaining tool for a settlement of compensation or cancellation. 
 

Some people have said in the past that we should not submit these types of claims as it is not the cruise lines fault. Totally true but is fault relevant. The cruise companies operate in a regulated industry and they are happy to make profits when everything goes well. They have to accept the risks and costs of being in the industry when things are not going well. Profit and risks are part of capitalism. I do not feel sorry for Carnival UK shareholders. Do not get me started on the banks of FlyBe.
 

Another option I thought as an option would be to talk to my credit card company and ask them to be held jointly liable for the failure of the cruise company to deliver what they advertised. I am no legal expert so do not know if this is possible. 
 

The travel industry only has itself to blame for regulation. The start of this was the way the industry behaved in the 1970s.  Do you remember unfinished hotel and brochure pictures of totally different hotels. 
 

Best wishes, Stephen. 

 

A couple of interesting questions there, Stephen.

 

On the ‘significant’ point, the legislation carefully avoids any definition, leaving the interpretation ultimately to be decided by the courts.  In the examples you give though, I’d suggest that one port out of several wouldn’t trigger the legislation, and neither would a rearranged itinerary.  Half, however would, and perhaps even a quarter or a third, depending on the circumstances. That’s just a personal view though. This hasn’t been fully tested yet, and my guess is that cruise operators would prefer to keep it that way.

 

On the S75 Consumer Credit Act point (re credit cards) this is the wording of the Act:

 

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor

 

There would have to be a misrepresentation or breach of contract, which the port changes might amount to.  The operator would refer to the exclusions in the terms and condition, these are rendered invalid by the 2018 Regulations, so a claim against the card company might work - though you’re still back to the meaning of significant. 

 

Again, just a personal viewpoint.

 

Interesting and developing field, isn’t it?  This article from the excellent Simon Calder might also be of interest:
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-news-latest-princess-cruises-iglu-package-travel-regulations-a9331066.html

 

[jcollin]

Hello,

 

Does this cover you if the cruise line won't allow you to board?  I know MSC is doing thermal scans on everyone and if you have a temp everyone in your party is denied boarding. Would a full refund come from that?

 

Thanks 

[stephen@stoneyard.co.uk]

28 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

A couple of interesting questions there, Stephen.

 

On the ‘significant’ point, the legislation carefully avoids any definition, leaving the interpretation ultimately to be decided by the courts.  In the examples you give though, I’d suggest that one port out of several wouldn’t trigger the legislation, and neither would a rearranged itinerary.  Half, however would, and perhaps even a quarter or a third, depending on the circumstances. That’s just a personal view though. This hasn’t been fully tested yet, and my guess is that cruise operators would prefer to keep it that way.

 

On the S75 Consumer Credit Act point (re credit cards) this is the wording of the Act:

 

75. — (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor

 

There would have to be a misrepresentation or breach of contract, which the port changes might amount to.  The operator would refer to the exclusions in the terms and condition, these are rendered invalid by the 2018 Regulations, so a claim against the card company might work - though you’re still back to the meaning of significant. 

 

Again, just a personal viewpoint.

 

Interesting and developing field, isn’t it?  This article from the excellent Simon Calder might also be of interest:
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/coronavirus-news-latest-princess-cruises-iglu-package-travel-regulations-a9331066.html

 

Thank you for that interesting article. Hopefully it something I will not need to worry about. Interesting how the response form Iglu changed. 
 

I like to know a little bit then I don’t have to take the cruise companies word as final. Obviously at that point I get professional advice. 
 

Best wishes, Stephen.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by stephen@stoneyard.co.uk