Just dispute the charge already!

[Waquoit]

3 hours ago, julig22 said:

Now it is up to NCL to dispute, accept, or deny the chargebacks.  So far, nobody (including Waquoit) has posted that they actually had their dispute resolved in their favor.  They have received letters that say their case is either denied or is currently under review.

 

For the umpteenth time, so what if my case is still under review? I have my money. I have all the leverage now, not NCL. NCL can go ahead cry to Amex and Amex could conceivably and rebill me if they want. But I'm not giving the money back. I told my girlfriend about my adventures here on cruise critic battling all the lies and misinformation. She said it sounded to her like the folks I'm arguing with work for NCL.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Waquoit

[mianmike]

3 hours ago, julig22 said:

Incorrect.  A provisional or temporary credit to your cc is how a chargeback works.  It is not a refund.  It is a suspension of the purchase, so not included in your credit balance.

 

Now it is up to NCL to dispute, accept, or deny the chargebacks.  So far, nobody (including Waquoit) has posted that they actually had their dispute resolved in their favor.  They have received letters that say their case is either denied or is currently under review.

 

Nobody is trying to prevent people from getting their money back.  Do what you think is best.  Just know that there could be pitfalls if you choose to not deal with NCL.  Every situation is different, every credit card policy is different. 

 

BirdTravels is not incorrect.  Also, several weeks back there was a post from someone who claimed to be a judge who, if I remember correctly, stated that the NCL refund policy would hold up in court.  Not my fight, I have no dog in this one because I chose FCC for cruise #1, will wait 90 days for a refund on cruise #2, and only had CN deposits on cruise #3 and those have been returned.

 

I would be shocked if I didn't prevail in a chargeback arbitration case with Chase Visa.  Unless maybe I got the "hanging judge" mentioned above. LOL  If I did lose I would appeal all the way up to the Credit Card Chargeback Supreme Court. lol

 

I've been a Chase Visa customer for 26 years.  I book my cruises with my Chase Sapphire Reserve which now has a $550 annual fee plus I put over $50k spend on the card every year.  I'm not a whale of a customer but I don't think they'd want to lose me as a customer. 

 

I would submit with my dispute:

 

Reason for dispute: Cruise canceled and no refund received. 

 

My original booking receipts.

 

The March 30th NCL letter stating our cruise was canceled and it will take at least 90 days past April 13 to receive a refund.

 

NCL's booking conditions with this section highlighted: 

 

7 CANCELLATION IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES 7.1 Cancellation prior to the date of travel Should travel be largely hindered, endangered or affected due to a force majeure event (e.g. through war, domestic turbulence, natural disasters, epidemic outbreaks, government authority measures, e.g. accommodation or transport embargos, ship loss or other similar incidents) which were not predictable at the time of conclusion of the contract, then both the guest and Norwegian may cancel the contract. Norwegian will refund the travel costs immediately. However, Norwegian reserves the right to charge a reasonable reimbursement for travel services already provided or still to be provided.

 

I would love to hear how I'm not entitled to a timely refund. 

  

[julig22]

7 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

 

His insistence that those of us who are doing the charge back are committing a fraud is 100% incorrect.

 

His insistence that we are accusing NCL of fraud is 100% incorrect.

 

 

Something has been lost in the translation here.  As far as I've read, nobody has said that people doing a chargeback are accusing NCL of fraud - except a couple of posts that somehow twisted the comments and jumped to strange conclusions.

Requesting a chargeback because you don't like the refund policy, whether or not you have applied for a refund, is an absolute definition of friendly fraud.  How NCL and/or your credit card view it in your particular situation remains to be seen.

Do your homework, make your own conclusions, and do what you think is best.

[PATRLR]

6 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Something has been lost in the translation here.  As far as I've read, nobody has said that people doing a chargeback are accusing NCL of fraud

 

Look at BirdTravels posts 63 and 65 in this thread.  He says we are accusing NCL of fraud and he accuses us of fraud.

 

6 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Requesting a chargeback because you don't like the refund policy, whether or not you have applied for a refund, is an absolute definition of friendly fraud. 

"friendly fraud" is a term that appears to be made up by the credit card companies to describe what are essentially mistakes.  Far from the common definition of fraud.  

In my case I told the credit card company the whole story including NCL's refund "after 90 days" and the fact that I didn't agree to wait that long.  No fraud, just honest reporting of facts.  And BirdTravels never used the term "friendly" when he was wrongly accusing us of committing fraud.

[julig22]

14 minutes ago, mianmike said:

I would love to hear how I'm not entitled to a timely refund.  

Show me where anyone has disputed that you are not entitled to a timely refund.  The WHOLE issue, as I see it anyway, is what constitutes timely refund.

 

When I book a cruise or make any large purchase, I generally take a 50-55 day float on my money.  So contrary to what people keep posting about taking their money as soon as they book, that isn't  entirely true.  My CC doesn't get my money until the due date - when NCL actually gets it is between them and the banks.

 

So, under the special circumstances we have now, I do not think that waiting for a refund is unreasonable.  My personal opinion.  It's not up to me to determine what is timely.

[luv2kroooz]

6 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

As long as you realize that the the by filling out the form and clicking "submit", you are agreeing to the terms of the refund. And by licking "submit" on the dispute button, you are committing fraud because you are telling Chase that the merchant (NCL) did not deliver on the agreement you made with them. 

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify these mistatements. We need to have accurate posts here on cruisecritic and this one is wrong on multiple fronts.

 

No one is commiting fraud by opening up a dispute in good faith - no one. What you are telling Chase is that the merchant did not deliver the service and so you are claiming a refund but haven't received it. There are no terms and conditions to agree to when a merchant cancels and owes you a refund. You are owed the refund on your terms.

 

All you do is upload NCLs cancellation notice to Chase, they issue you a credit and you are done. NCL is defenseless, here. They might say, yeah, they are due a refund but we haven't gotten around to it. So, at that point, the chargeback stands, Chase closes the dispute, and tells NCL not to issue the refund. This is what happens, it really is!!! Really, no joking. What they won't say is this consumer is committing fraud. Really, they won't.

 

Now, let's talk fraud, real fraud  It's about marketing cruises to Alaska from ports that are closed. It's about being out of compliance with do not sail orders yet actively taking deposits for said cruises. It's about delaying cancellations for cruises and then delaying the ability to claim refunds after cancellations are announced, and then delaying the issuance of said refunds for an additional 90 days. That's fraud, false advertisement, disingenuous, and unethical.....take your pick.

[julig22]

7 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

 

Look at BirdTravels posts 63 and 65 in this thread.  He says we are accusing NCL of fraud and he accuses us of fraud.

 

"friendly fraud" is a term that appears to be made up by the credit card companies to describe what are essentially mistakes.  Far from the common definition of fraud.  

In my case I told the credit card company the whole story including NCL's refund "after 90 days" and the fact that I didn't agree to wait that long.  No fraud, just honest reporting of facts.  And BirdTravels never used the term "friendly" when he was wrongly accusing us of committing fraud.

Not how I read the responses - but if that's what you interpret, more power to you.

Yes, friendly fraud is a term coined by the credit card companies - and your problem with that would be???  Perhaps if you would refrain from shortening the phrase "friendly fraud" to fraud, it would make it more understandable.  I for one have never implied that "friendly fraud" was the anywhere the same as the common definition of fraud.

[Outerdog]

Just tell NCL, hey, I'm doing the chargeback, for your convenience, of course.

[mianmike]

2 minutes ago, julig22 said:

Show me where anyone has disputed that you are not entitled to a timely refund.  The WHOLE issue, as I see it anyway, is what constitutes timely refund.

 

When I book a cruise or make any large purchase, I generally take a 50-55 day float on my money.  So contrary to what people keep posting about taking their money as soon as they book, that isn't  entirely true.  My CC doesn't get my money until the due date - when NCL actually gets it is between them and the banks.

 

So, under the special circumstances we have now, I do not think that waiting for a refund is unreasonable.  My personal opinion.  It's not up to me to determine what is timely.

 

So you're saying when a merchant's terms and conditions say will be refunded "immediately" you say it's up to the merchant to dictate what constitutes "immediately."  I really doubt Visa would agree with that argument.  Why can't I do the same with my final payment?  I'll follow NCL's definition of immediately and take over 90 days to submit.  

 

For the merchant to win an arbitration chargeback case the merchant must provide "compelling evidence" why the charge is not valid. I just don't see any compelling evidence. 

[julig22]

1 minute ago, mianmike said:

For the merchant to win an arbitration chargeback case the merchant must provide "compelling evidence" why the charge is not valid. I just don't see any compelling evidence. 

Thanks for the legal advice.  However, you are forgetting the part that the merchant can also provide compelling evidence that they are processing refunds.

 

Oh,  and by the way, I once lost a CC dispute with Sears because they conveniently excluded the part of the contract that included the information pertaining to their breach of contract.  I submitted the information and Discover still sided with the merchant.

[smplybcause]

44 minutes ago, Waquoit said:

 

For the umpteenth time, so what if my case is still under review? I have my money. I have all the leverage now, not NCL. NCL can go ahead cry to Amex and Amex could conceivably and rebill me if they want. But I'm not giving the money back. I told my girlfriend about my adventures here on cruise critic battling all the lies and misinformation. She said it sounded to her like the folks I'm arguing with work for NCL.

 

A credit card dispute gives you no more leverage than you did before. Amex is the sole arbitrator of this and if they find in NCLs favor it will be charged back on your account without needing your permission. 

 

I'm not making any prediction on the outcome of the chargeback, just stating that you're not in control of it and you have no say in whether you "give the money back" at this point. That's not how chargebacks work. 

[mianmike]

Just now, julig22 said:

Thanks for the legal advice.  However, you are forgetting the part that the merchant can also provide compelling evidence that they are processing refunds.

 

 

You're welcome for the legal lesson. 😉  

 

NCL to Visa:  Yes, we interpret the term "immediately" to mean over 90 days.  We've got Agnes working as hard as she can on the refunds, but her adding machine is on the fritz so she's a little behind, but rest assured we're working on refunds.  No, we're not going contract an accounting agency to help us meet our contractual commitments.  We dictate the terms.  Your client will just have to wait until Agnes gets to him. 

[pokerpro5]

For some reason, julig22 has been obsessed for weeks regarding people charging back.  He/she absolutely hates the idea of it, and believes that you're cheating the system somehow.

 

I gave up trying to argue with him/her as I was not getting through.

 

Anyone sensible can see that 90 days is not a reasonable refund time frame.  Additionally, all other large travel industry entities are processing refunds in 2-7 days, so it's absurd to say that 90 days is a reasonable amount of time to force customers to wait.

 

Also, I already established the unreasonable wait time thing with a chargeback I made in 2014.  An airline wanted me to wait 12 weeks (84 days) for a refund, due to "staffing issues".  I charged it back and told the full and complete truth to the credit card company.  They ruled in my favor and upheld the chargeback.  I got the temporary chargeback, and it never came back off my statement, so clearly I won.

 

When I last argued this matter with julig22, he/she stated that those charging back are "cutting in line" in front of others waiting for a refund.  That's false.  Anyone has the option to get out of line at any time and also do a chargeback.  Thus, your doing a chargeback does not harm other cruisers waiting for refunds in any way, nor is it giving you any kind of unfair advantage.

[pokerpro5]

On 4/16/2020 at 7:37 AM, SeaShark said:

 

OK...then let's take the discussion to its reasonable conclusion. Since we are basically just drawing a line in the sand (in this case 21 days)...Why is 20 days acceptable and 22 days is not? Why do you "understand the argument for 30 days", yet 31 days is "insane"? What exactly happens at that cutoff to change the perception?

 

Also...the OP reported that AMEX gave them a 6/24/2020 date. That is 70 days after the filing of the complaint. 70 days. Not 21, not 30...70 days. Being that 70 is waaaaay beyond 30, would you also take the stance that AMEX's timeline is "insane"?

 

FWIW, as some people here just won't get it, I am just trying to demonstrate the problem with arbitrary timelines. This includes NCL, btw. Why 90 days? Why not 89? What happens between day 89 when you can't refund and day 90 when you can?

 

Anytime you create a fixed cutoff, you have to be able to justify its placement. 

 

There's a fixed cutoff for every date-related rule in life.

 

Why are children considered adults at age 18?  Are they more mature on their 18th birthday than they are at 17 years and 364 days?  Obviously not, but when setting a date for something, you need to pick something that makes sense, and make that it.

 

You asked me a question, I gave an answer.  With every day above 21 quoted to me for a refund, I would become less and less tolerant, and more likely to charge back.  I thankfully don't have a cruise booked, so I don't have to make that decision.

 

The justification for 21 days is simple:  3 weeks for a refund is already excessive, and anything past that is unreasonable and should be charged back.

 

Sounds like you understand all of this and are just choosing to argue for argument's sake.

[PATRLR]

This:

6 hours ago, PATRLR said:

Look at BirdTravels posts 63 and 65 in this thread.  He says we are accusing NCL of fraud and he accuses us of fraud.

Lead to this:

6 hours ago, julig22 said:

Not how I read the responses - but if that's what you interpret, more power to you.

Yes, friendly fraud is a term coined by the credit card companies - and your problem with that would be???  Perhaps if you would refrain from shortening the phrase "friendly fraud" to fraud, it would make it more understandable.  

 

It's scary how common the concept of revising history on the fly has become: 

• @julig22 says @BirdTravels isn't accusing people of fraud. 
• @Julig22 also says I shouldn't shorten "friendly fraud" to "fraud". 

 

Well here are the facts:

 

First use of "fraud" in this thread is post #5:

On 4/16/2020 at 9:53 AM, SeaShark said:

specifically, how many days would you accept without the need for a fraud chargeback?

 

Bird then comes along and doubles down on the term and creates a phrase of his own:

On 4/16/2020 at 11:46 AM, BirdTravels said:

Bottom line is considered a frivolous chargeback. A chargeback accuses the merchant (NCL) of a fraudulent charge. You are, in fact, committing fraud because NCL has, in writing at time of refund request, promised to repay you in a specified timeframe. 

 

So @julig22 don't tell me not to shorten "friendly fraud".  "Friendly fraud" wasn't the term being used.  

 

Let's continue with our review of the history....  

 

I didn't really care for Bird accusing me of committing fraud and told him so:

On 4/16/2020 at 3:57 PM, PATRLR said:

You have a hell of a lot of nerve accusing people who are doing perfectly legal things of fraud just because you don't like what they did.

 

So Bird adds in that what we are doing is also not legal.  And for good measure continues with the fraud nonsense (I still don't see "friendly fraud" that I am accused of shortening😞

On 4/16/2020 at 11:21 PM, BirdTravels said:

It is actually not legal. And NCL could black list you. And if your bank determines that you are a risk because they have falsely accused the merchant of a fraudulent charge, your bank can cancel your credit card for cause. 

 

On 4/16/2020 at 11:27 PM, BirdTravels said:

You can file a fraudulent chargeback (you accepted the refund on the terms specified by the merchant by clicking "submit" on the refund request), but you are then subject to retribution from NCL and your bank.  Full Stop. 

 

12 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

And by licking "submit" on the dispute button, you are committing fraud because you are telling Chase that the merchant (NCL) did not deliver on the agreement you made with them. 

 

I don't understand how anyone could read those replies from Bird and not interpret them to be accusing people like me of committing fraud and to not be stating that by doing a charge back I am accusing NCL of fraud.  How could Bird's language be any more clear and how on earth could anyone interpret his words any other way?

 

By the way @julig22, the first use of the term "friendly fraud" was your post #103.  That's the post where you tried say no one was accusing anyone of fraud.  Perhaps the problem here is that you are adding "friendly" to everyone's use of fraud and maybe if you didn't do that you could more accurately follow along with this discussion.

Edited April 18, 2020 by PATRLR

[ColeThornton]

Most people at this point in the discussion are arguing just to be arguing.  People are going to have different opinions and strategies for resolving the underlying issue.  What's left to be said?

 

Do it or don't do it.  Simple.

[Waquoit]

8 hours ago, smplybcause said:

A credit card dispute gives you no more leverage than you did before. Amex is the sole arbitrator of this and if they find in NCLs favor it will be charged back on your account without needing your permission. 

 

I'm not sure you understand the concept of leverage. In this case, whoever is holding the $4,300 I paid for my cancelled cruise has the leverage. On Monday that was NCL. Currently, the $4,300 in question is in electronic transit (for lack of a better term) from AMEX to my checking account. By Monday or Tuesday that money will literally my money again. 

 

Sure, if NCL wins the dispute (they won't, they did not provide the service I paid for),  AMEX can put the charge back on my account without needing my permission. So what?  It'll just be numbers on a computer screen that will go away before the due date in June. But they can't take any money from me without my permission. And that's all that matters here. Because I have the leverage.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Waquoit

[Waquoit]

On 4/16/2020 at 10:59 AM, ellasmomanddad said:

 Just curious how did they handle the points earned? Was it subtracted immediately?

 

They didn't subtract the points yet. I'm sure they'll get around to it. Maybe they wait until the end of the process.

[murfette]

I also did a dispute with AmEx. I waited and filed through NCL for refund and received confirmation. However a couple weeks later they applied a FCC to my account which wasn’t what I asked for. AMEX also credited me amount paid in less then a week. If NCL bans me so be it. Platinum plus they loose not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SeaShark]

3 hours ago, PATRLR said:

This:

Lead to this:

 

It's scary how common the concept of revising history on the fly has become: 

• @julig22 says @BirdTravels isn't accusing people of fraud. 
• @Julig22 also says I shouldn't shorten "friendly fraud" to "fraud". 

 

Well here are the facts:

 

First use of "fraud" in this thread is post #5:

 

Bird then comes along and doubles down on the term and creates a phrase of his own:

 

So @julig22 don't tell me not to shorten "friendly fraud".  "Friendly fraud" wasn't the term being used.  

 

Let's continue with our review of the history....  

 

I didn't really care for Bird accusing me of committing fraud and told him so:

 

So Bird adds in that what we are doing is also not legal.  And for good measure continues with the fraud nonsense (I still don't see "friendly fraud" that I am accused of shortening😞

 

 

 

I don't understand how anyone could read those replies from Bird and not interpret them to be accusing people like me of committing fraud and to not be stating that by doing a charge back I am accusing NCL of fraud.  How could Bird's language be any more clear and how on earth could anyone interpret his words any other way?

 

By the way @julig22, the first use of the term "friendly fraud" was your post #103.  That's the post where you tried say no one was accusing anyone of fraud.  Perhaps the problem here is that you are adding "friendly" to everyone's use of fraud and maybe if you didn't do that you could more accurately follow along with this discussion.

 

Actually "friendly fraud" is the appropriate term. It isn't something julig22 "added" or created. Google it.

[SeaShark]

6 hours ago, pokerpro5 said:

 

There's a fixed cutoff for every date-related rule in life.

 

Why are children considered adults at age 18?  Are they more mature on their 18th birthday than they are at 17 years and 364 days?  Obviously not, but when setting a date for something, you need to pick something that makes sense, and make that it.

 

You asked me a question, I gave an answer.  With every day above 21 quoted to me for a refund, I would become less and less tolerant, and more likely to charge back.  I thankfully don't have a cruise booked, so I don't have to make that decision.

 

The justification for 21 days is simple:  3 weeks for a refund is already excessive, and anything past that is unreasonable and should be charged back.

 

Sounds like you understand all of this and are just choosing to argue for argument's sake.

 

Choosing to argue? No, not at all. Of course, I knew that there would be someone on CC that would take it as an argument...that it specifically why I put the whole "FWIW, as some people here just won't get it,..." paragraph in my post so that people would plainly see that this was a demonstration of the fault with arbitrary timelines and not an argument for/against a point.

 

Sorry, but you didn't justify the 21 days. "3 weeks for a refund is already excessive"...OK...how many days is not excessive and how many days are? Give me numbers. Be specific. Then please explain why one day is acceptable, but the next is "excessive". 

 

You try the age example with adulthood. Just pick something that makes sense...OK...Why does 18 make sense, but 17 does not? Please be specific. Include drinking and renting a car in your reply.

 

I could go on and on, but unless you can explain why one day is good, but the next day is bad for ANY timeline example you aren't going to change my position on how ridiculous this whole timeline thing is.

[Newleno]

Just now, SeaShark said:

 

 

 

I could go on and on, but unless you can explain why one day is good, but the next day is bad for ANY timeline example you aren't going to change my position on how ridiculous this whole timeline thing is.

🌲

[mafig]

9 hours ago, julig22 said:

 

 

Oh,  and by the way, I once lost a CC dispute with Sears because they conveniently excluded the part of the contract that included the information pertaining to their breach of contract.  I submitted the information and Discover still sided with the merchant.

 

Did you commit fraud?

Did Sears blackball you?

Did Discover revoke your card?

[mafig]

56 minutes ago, Waquoit said:

 

They didn't subtract the points yet. I'm sure they'll get around to it. Maybe they wait until the end of the process.

 

In my case (Celebrity, BOA), I received a credit the next day....which was marked RESOLVED.

AND they subtracted my points.

[ellasmomanddad]

1 minute ago, mafig said:

In my case (Celebrity, BOA), I received a credit the next day....which was marked RESOLVED.

AND they subtracted my points.

Thanks to both responses, I asked because I used my points oops.