Elderly Couple Feels Disrespected by NCL

[oteixeira]

Even though you did not get a confirmation email the fact that you did both and one went through makes me think that NCL should bend a little by understanding your circumstances. All that being said, they are running a business and probably will not help as we all hope they would.  Go to your credit card company, explain it as you did here, and I am sure they would be willing to go through the processes of disputing the charge and getting your money back to you.

[MoCruiseFan]

23 hours ago, OzCanuck said:

Blame the victim gets boring. 
 

to the OP - dispute it with your credit card. 

No one blamed anyone.  It was merely pointed out that an email between her and her son is proof of nothing.  That is 100% factually accurate.

Filing a false dispute with a CC company is fraud.  In this case, the cruise line is refunding the amounts paid in form of a FCC which is what was agreed to by lack of action on the customers' part (unless of course she has actual proof of her requesting a refund, none of which has been described in any of her posts).

[MoCruiseFan]

41 minutes ago, Travelling2Some said:

Sounds like you did nothing wrong.  I agree with others that your best bet is to do a charge back to your credit card asap.  Sorry this happened to you.  Persistence is key, but do not waste any more of your time trying to get your money back from NCL.  My personal experience has been that they never budge on any policy that benefits them even in cases where it would cost them nothing.  Ignore the usual cheerleaders.

 

 

Since when does sending someone cash 'cost nothing'?  Since you seem to know a way to send someone cash and it cost you nothing, please send me $10,000 immediately!

[raytamt1]

1 minute ago, MoCruiseFan said:

No one blamed anyone.  It was merely pointed out that an email between her and her son is proof of nothing.  That is 100% factually accurate.

Filing a false dispute with a CC company is fraud.  In this case, the cruise line is refunding the amounts paid in form of a FCC which is what was agreed to by lack of action on the customers' part (unless of course she has actual proof of her requesting a refund, none of which has been described in any of her posts).

Whether they have proof of refund request, or not, does not matter!

 

In my case, I admit I didn't request a refund during a short arbitrary window that NCL picked months after our initial ticket contract agreement. I admit I missed the window because it didn't matter. Again, Pargagraph 6(b) reads:

 

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."
 

1. Ship did not sail on scheduled date for any reason.

2. Carrier (NCL) did not substitute vessel with some other means of transportation on contracted sailing date.

3. The only other option for the Carrier, in accordance with our only written, mutually agreed-to contract, is a refund of fare paid without further liability or damages.

 

Simple as that, folks. 

[Pugzila1022]

22 hours ago, SouthLyonCruiser said:

I am sorry to hear about your plight but, by the same token, whenever you use a travel agent, never contact the cruise line directly; all communication with the cruise line should be made through your travel agent. Otherwise there is no reason to use a travel agent. It is their job to take care of all communications with the cruise line.

 

Very good point.  While it's possible the outcome would have been the same (assuming there was some kind of error in submitting), the agent is more likely to have verified the request was processed properly.  The agent in this case reached out to the client but the client informed the agent that she had already taken care of it.  That took the agent out of the equation.  Had the agent handled it on behalf of the client, they may have had recourse with the cruise line and avenues to appeal beyond those the client had.  

 

For example, I had a client who wanted a refund (on a canceled Royal Caribbean booking) rather than the cruise credit.  This was for one of the first round of cancellations.  I submitted the request.  I followed up by phone a week later to check status and verified the request was received.  I was told it was going to take 60-90 days for the refund to process.  I called back a few weeks later and was told the same.  I called again a few weeks later and was told a future cruise credit was issued and that they did not show the initial refund request.  I had made a record of the date & time and agent name of each of the previous calls and asked for supervisor.  I was told no exceptions and it would be a future cruise credit.  I got it escalated to higher supervisor, and still denied.  Finally got through to someone in corporate that reviewed everything and based on my having the specific dates & times of the calls I had made, they agreed that the error was on their part and refunded the client.

 

It's been a really difficult time for all of the cruise lines, and they are doing their best with limited staffs but they DO make mistakes.  It's more important than ever to use a travel agent, and to let them be your advocate.  A good agent is much more likely to be able to resolve an issue like this by taking all of the proper steps and by reconfirming every step of the process, so if something does go wrong they will have backup documentation to make sure there is a positive outcome.

[hallux]

2 hours ago, electro said:

This, the refund should be automatic and if you want the FCC you should have to opt in, not the other way around.

And how, exactly, is this implemented?  It's REAL easy to issue the FCC by default because the system is set up for issuing FCCs under certain circumstances.  That then gives them time to set the system up to "convert" that FCC to cash refunds if the customer requests such.  However - if the default is cash refunds with FCC as an option, how long do you give the customers to make the decision?  Once a cash refund is issued the customer can't then decide on a FCC instead.  Should NCL have given more time to decide on cash refunds as RCI has?  Absolutely.  But they didn't, and those eligible for such were aware of the terms for requesting refunds.

 

35 minutes ago, raytamt1 said:

1. Ship did not sail on scheduled date for any reason.

2. Carrier (NCL) did not substitute vessel with some other means of transportation on contracted sailing date.

3. The only other option for the Carrier, in accordance with our only written, mutually agreed-to contract, is a refund of fare paid without further liability or damages.

To be fair - the clause in the contract does not say it has to be on the same date, as you've interpreted it.  A different interpretation is that the FCC is suitable for the "substitute any other vessel or means of transportation".  Yes, I realize that the beginning of the clause indicates that "if the vessel does not sail on the advertised date".

[raytamt1]

7 minutes ago, hallux said:

To be fair - the clause in the contract does not say it has to be on the same date, as you've interpreted it. 

Contract reads:

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon  or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."

 

 

there·on

/T͟Heˈrän/

adverb

• 1.on or following from the thing just mentioned:

The "thing just mentioned" is the contractual scheduled sailing date of the vessel that Carrier can substitute with another vessel.

 

That was all it took for my successful chargeback.

15 minutes ago, hallux said:

A different interpretation is that the FCC is suitable for the "substitute any other vessel or means of transportation"

Sorry, but an FCC is anything but a "substitute vessel or means of transportation." Especially, if it misses the contractual sailing date.

[SeaShark]

1 minute ago, raytamt1 said:

Contract reads:

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon  or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."

 

 

there·on

/T͟Heˈrän/

adverb

• 1.on or following from the thing just mentioned:

The "thing just mentioned" is the contractual scheduled sailing date of the vessel that Carrier can substitute with another vessel.

 

That was all it took for my successful chargeback.

Sorry, but an FCC is anything but a "substitute vessel or means of transportation." Especially, if it misses the contractual sailing date.

 

Being the legal scholar, the section you quote plainly states: "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to". Note that it does NOT say "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be required to".

 

Please explain the difference between being entitled to do something vs being required to do something.

[raytamt1]

30 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Being the legal scholar, the section you quote plainly states: "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to". Note that it does NOT say "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be required to".

 

Please explain the difference between being entitled to do something vs being required to do something.

"Entitled" to choose between one thing, or another, says that the Carrier is entitled to choose between substituting the vessel with another, or refunding fare paid. Apparently, NCL chose NOT to substitute vessel on scheduled sailing date. That only leaves one option, my friend.

[OzCanuck]

1 hour ago, MoCruiseFan said:

No one blamed anyone.  It was merely pointed out that an email between her and her son is proof of nothing.  That is 100% factually accurate.

Filing a false dispute with a CC company is fraud.  In this case, the cruise line is refunding the amounts paid in form of a FCC which is what was agreed to by lack of action on the customers' part (unless of course she has actual proof of her requesting a refund, none of which has been described in any of her posts).

Wrong on all counts.  But go on, if it makes you feel good. 

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, raytamt1 said:

"Entitled" to choose between one thing, or another, says that the Carrier is entitled to choose between substituting the vessel with another, or refunding fare paid. Apparently, NCL chose NOT to substitute vessel on scheduled sailing date. That only leaves one option, my friend.

 

Seems like you are confusing "entitled" with "required to x or y". Entitled doesn't mean you HAVE TO. 

 

Try again.

[raytamt1]

54 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Seems like you are confusing "entitled" with "required to x or y". Entitled doesn't mean you HAVE TO. 

 

Try again.

I don't know why you are injecting "required" into the language of the contract paragraph, thereon. But if I must have to explain it to you in terms of where "required" applies, Carrier is "required" to live up to the terms of contract Paragraph 6b, that they wrote, specifically, to have a clause to dodge refunding the entire passenger list in normal times if they could easily transfer passengers to another vessel. However, the clause only offers two options. Since the other one is no longer an option, Carrier's "entitlement" of options became the sole option, which became the "requirement" to give a freaking refund. Hope that chums the water for you SeaShark. Your move.

[SeaShark]

4 hours ago, raytamt1 said:

I don't know why you are injecting "required" into the language of the contract paragraph, thereon. But if I must have to explain it to you in terms of where "required" applies, Carrier is "required" to live up to the terms of contract Paragraph 6b, that they wrote, specifically, to have a clause to dodge refunding the entire passenger list in normal times if they could easily transfer passengers to another vessel. However, the clause only offers two options. Since the other one is no longer an option, Carrier's "entitlement" of options became the sole option, which became the "requirement" to give a freaking refund. Hope that chums the water for you SeaShark. Your move.

 

I didn't inject it, I'm just hoping you'll explain why you seem to take one word to mean the other. Regardless, you still fail to comprehend that they have the option, not the requirement, to choose one...or none. Not only that, but you completely miss the section of the GTC that covers what happens when the Government issues a no-sail order.

 

But thats what happens when you take things out of context.

 

Keep flailing.

[raytamt1]

Tennessee law for condemned death row inmates "entitles" them the option to choose method of execution between lethal injection or electrocution prior to sentence being carried out. Inmates cannot simply refuse to choose one of the options to escape their inevitable "requirement". Are we there yet on that one? 

 

Paragraph 6(b) exists in a contract, that NCL wrote, and rewrote, to their maximum benefit from all angles. Any other part of that same contract that can somehow be spun into an "argument" against a no-brainer refund situation, does not get rid of NCL's problem that that paragraph 6(b) still exists, by means of their own writing. In any event that NCL created a self-made contradiction in their own drawn up contract, a push goes to the other party that had no part in drawing up the terms of the agreement.

[hamrag]

12 hours ago, SeaShark said:

 

...Note that it does NOT say "the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be required to".

 

Nor does it state that the Guest shall be required to accept from the Carrier an inferior solution to a full cash refund....nor require to do so only from a determined future date for a fixed period of time before that option is withdrawn! 🙄

[beerman2]

Haven't seen or read what/how cruise lines word the refund/FCC language or limited timeframe. 

 

Simply put:

A) I want a cash refund (check box)

B) I want FCC (check box)

You have 2 weeks from your cancelled  SAIL date to return form. 

 

If only it was that simple, and maybe it is but I doubt it.

[sanger727]

18 hours ago, MoCruiseFan said:

No one blamed anyone.  It was merely pointed out that an email between her and her son is proof of nothing.  That is 100% factually accurate.

Filing a false dispute with a CC company is fraud.  In this case, the cruise line is refunding the amounts paid in form of a FCC which is what was agreed to by lack of action on the customers' part (unless of course she has actual proof of her requesting a refund, none of which has been described in any of her posts).

 

This argument is ridiculous and getting old. The OP filed for a refund. It appears that there is no confirmation from NCL on these requests but the fact that her son's refund went through supports her case. It does seem quite unlikely that she would file for a refund for her son and not for her. And the fact that the son's refund was processed shows that she did understand how to submit it correctly. Filing a dispute is the only reasonable alternative at this point. It is not fraud. 

[raytamt1]

14 hours ago, SeaShark said:

but you completely miss the section of the GTC that covers what happens when the Government issues a no-sail order.

This is Guest Ticket Contract Paragraph 6(e) that SeaShark is referring to:

 

(e) Compliance with Government Orders: The Carrier shall have the absolute right, without liability for compensation to the Guest of any kind, to comply with governmental orders, recommendations or directions, including but not limited to those pertaining to health, security, immigration, customs or safety. In the case of quarantine, the Guest agrees to bear all risks, losses and expenses caused thereby and will be charged for maintenance, payable day-by-day, if maintained on board the vessel for such period of quarantine. The Guest assumes all risks and losses occasioned by delay or detention howsoever arising. Costs connected with embarkation or debarkation of Guests and/or baggage and costs of transfer between vessel and shore as a result of the circumstances enumerated in this paragraph must be borne by the Guest.

 

This paragraph provides protections for the Carrier from liability claims from their guests sailing on vessels forced to comply with government orders while sailing. As to what happens when a vessel does not sail at all on scheduled date, for any reason, was already covered two paragraphs earlier in Paragraph 6(b). Since it covered not sailing at all, for any reason, the issue is already covered. Nice try though.

[PTC DAWG]

Round and Round by Ratt comes to mind.  🙂

[MoCruiseFan]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 2:34 PM, raytamt1 said:

Whether they have proof of refund request, or not, does not matter!

 

In my case, I admit I didn't request a refund during a short arbitrary window that NCL picked months after our initial ticket contract agreement. I admit I missed the window because it didn't matter. Again, Pargagraph 6(b) reads:

 

"If vessel does not sail on advertised or scheduled date for any reason, including the fault of the Carrier, the Guest agrees that the Carrier shall be entitled to substitute any other vessel or means of transportation, regardless of whether owned or operated by the Carrier, and to re-berth Guests thereon or, at the Carrier's option refund the fare paid or a pro rata portion thereof, without further liability for damages or losses of any kind whatsoever."
 

1. Ship did not sail on scheduled date for any reason.

2. Carrier (NCL) did not substitute vessel with some other means of transportation on contracted sailing date.

3. The only other option for the Carrier, in accordance with our only written, mutually agreed-to contract, is a refund of fare paid without further liability or damages.

 

Simple as that, folks. 

They will be refunded with FCC since they did not request a cash refund or at least have no proof of doing so.  "at the carrier's option"...

[raytamt1]

1 minute ago, MoCruiseFan said:

They will be refunded with FCC since they did not request a cash refund or at least have no proof of doing so.  "at the carrier's option"...

Not if they do a credit card chargeback. They never asked for the FCC either. They did ask for a refund though, even if it was after NCL's self made-up, after the contract agreement, "deadline", which does not exist in original contract. The original contract is all that matters. A party to a contract cannot make new beneficial rules after both parties agree to original terms. As long as you have never used the FCC to book another cruise, do the chargeback to your issuer, pointing out the contract terms in Paragraph 6(b), and it will be successful, just like mine. Do it now, before NCL declares bankruptcy, because then you will know for sure that you are stuck with a worthless FCC and out of thousand$.

[beerman2]

6 hours ago, raytamt1 said:

Not if they do a credit card chargeback. They never asked for the FCC either. They did ask for a refund though, even if it was after NCL's self made-up, after the contract agreement, "deadline", which does not exist in original contract. The original contract is all that matters. A party to a contract cannot make new beneficial rules after both parties agree to original terms. As long as you have never used the FCC to book another cruise, do the chargeback to your issuer, pointing out the contract terms in Paragraph 6(b), and it will be successful, just like mine. Do it now, before NCL declares bankruptcy, because then you will know for sure that you are stuck with a worthless FCC and out of thousand$.

Any business if something is cancelled/ out of stock, basically a Good that isn't provided should Always revert back to original form of payment . In today's age that is more than likely a 💳.

[NLH Arizona]

On 8/23/2020 at 4:00 AM, beerman2 said:

TA to initiate the refund. 

Obviously if the TA called and told her she would miss the deadline that day, something had gone wrong.  OP why didn't you have your TA follow up on the deadline date, since he didn't think you had requested a refund?

[beerman2]

51 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

Obviously if the TA called and told her she would miss the deadline that day, something had gone wrong.  OP why didn't you have your TA follow up on the deadline date, since he didn't think you had requested a refund?

OP has answered back on post 22/23 on the TA aspect.