Update on P&O Insurance Issues

[bbtablet]

"You may be right that physically stopping a ship going into a port may be difficult."

That's an interesting scenario to imagine.

I would imaging simply withdrawing the pilot would do it, and if the ship's captain entered anyway that would be "hazarding the safety of the ship" and also against marine law if refused entry?

Edited January 17, 2022 by bbtablet

[molecrochip]

3 hours ago, howmuch! said:

Its like 'pass the parcel' , but we have no idea who's controlling the music!

Yes!

 

4 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Actually if you think about it, back in October my P&O contact told me in the event of someone's insurance not covering their quarantine the individuals' insurance companies would be contacted by P&Os to discuss who should pay.  This would indicate some form of insurance requirements on the part of P&O possibly being necessary?  Also if no one has been out of pocket from P&O/Cunard and ex gratia payments have been taking place could this be precisely because of this Spanish document as opposed to the protocols we have been assuming were what were directing Spanish actions.

 

If you recall a week or so back when the new terms and conditions arrived on the website Molecrochip indicated that was the way it had always been meant to operate, ie passengers had cover from someone regardless of who.

I always said that it was intentionally vague because one insurance company would not want to pay if they could get the other side to say yes.

 

5 hours ago, Teddy123 said:

I imagine what it can do is say "you can't come into any Spanish port unless you have this insurance" - which is what the referenced document is about, I think.

Yes - Spanish ports have full control over who enters their waters, let alone their ports.

 

5 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Can the Spanish govt dictate insurance terms to companies insuring UK passengers sailing on ships based in the UK, I wonder?

If they wish to call at their ports.

[molecrochip]

9 hours ago, Teddy123 said:

This seems a great find, and crucial - if still valid.  To me, it says cruise lines must have insurance to cover all the costs of people offloaded and quarantined, whether positive or negative.  A "nothing to do with us" stance from any cruise line thus seems unjustified, and the question of passengers' insurance seems irrelevant.  Cruise lines should have the insurance and should consequently meet the offloading costs.

 

11 hours ago, Stu UK said:

This is an interesting document if still current - especially the healthcare guarantee section. 
 

https://www.mitma.gob.es/recursos_mfom/paginabasica/recursos/health_measures_for_the_restoration_of_cruise_ship_activities_in_spain_def_en_20210531.pdf

This phrase is interesting: "The costs derived from these actions will be covered by the shipping company, directly or through an insurance company." This would appear to allow the cruise line to pass on the cost to the insured passenger. 

 

The healthcare section says "must be covered by the shipping company by subscribing an insurance policy" but that doesn't stop the cruise line's insurance policy saying "your passengers will have X cover and you will rely on this".

 

Bear in mind that the cruise companies all restated their insurance requirements before resuming.

 

Also, the EU document, and this document, are guidance. It would be interesting to see the actual law which has been put in place (which will be country by country law). I'm not looking for it - I can't read Spanish!

 

[Megabear2]

2 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

This phrase is interesting: "The costs derived from these actions will be covered by the shipping company, directly or through an insurance company." This would appear to allow the cruise line to pass on the cost to the insured passenger. 

Great if such insurance is on sale - it clearly still isn't.  If this continues much longer the lid will definitely come off along the way and press, campaigners and goodness knows who else will be on it.

 

I doubt there's a person cruising or buying insurance who wouldn't be prepared to spill the beans as a last resort.  Put simply a test case would most likely find against the cruise line because they are fully aware its impossible to buy the cover they require.

 

What more can be reasonably expected of an individual than to look to purchase a policy covering all risks? If it doesn't exist what exactly would you have them do?

 

[Teddy123]

The key statement in the document is, I think: "All the derived costs [resulting from an 'event' on board] must be COVERED BY THE SHIPPING COMPANY by subscribing an insurance policy that includes agreements with health centers and other established establishments in which to accommodate the people who need it" - my emphasis.

 

I see this as the Spanish government wanting to be sure somebody pays, and putting the onus on the cruise line to do so, and to take out insurance. But perhaps no such insurance for cruise lines exists. I have no idea what can(not) be insured by lines. In any case. the line and its insurer will wish the passenger's insurer to pay if possible. But the document is clear it's the line's insurer that pays if necessary.

 

The status of the document is not so clear. It says "The measures established in this document will be certified within the framework of the Puertos del Estado Certification Schemes, applying the Quality of Service for Cruise Traffic Reference document".  This seems to me to make it more than just guidance, but who knows?!  Perhaps it's just a model of how the Spanish government would have liked things to be arranged and it has not materialised - or perhaps it is active and binding.

[terrierjohn]

6 hours ago, Teddy123 said:

You may be right that phyisically stopping a ship going into a port may be difficult, but preventing anybody leaving the ship if it can't provide the right paperwork is surely trivial - and that's the only incentive a cruise line will need.

Have you actually read all the terms and conditions on your travel insurance policy, it would take Spanish immigration official a week to clear all 5000 Iona passengers. That is assuming they have an army of immigration officials at every port, something I have not noticed.

[Teddy123]

Just now, terrierjohn said:

Have you actually read all the terms and conditions on your travel insurance policy, it would take Spanish immigration official a week to clear all 5000 Iona passengers. That is assuming they have an army of immigration officials at every port, something I have not noticed.

But the question is not "have all 5,000 passengers got the right insurance?", it's "does the cruise line have the right insurance?". 

[terrierjohn]

1 minute ago, Teddy123 said:

But the question is not "have all 5,000 passengers got the right insurance?", it's "does the cruise line have the right insurance?". 

I take the phrase "by subscribing an insurance policy that includes etc etc", as requesting the passenger to buy a policy that covers these etceteras. Which is what P&O have done, but as Megabear2 has discovered, such a policy is as rare as hens teeth.

 

[Teddy123]

9 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I take the phrase "by subscribing an insurance policy that includes etc etc", as requesting the passenger to buy a policy that covers these etceteras. Which is what P&O have done, but as Megabear2 has discovered, such a policy is as rare as hens teeth.

 

Well, I think it's clear the insurance is taken out by the cruise line.  However, since the status of the document is unlear, such debate is fairly academic!  It may well be that the whole offloading issue goes away before there is clarity!

[Snow Hill]

8 hours ago, Teddy123 said:

The key statement in the document is, I think: "All the derived costs [resulting from an 'event' on board] must be COVERED BY THE SHIPPING COMPANY by subscribing an insurance policy that includes agreements with health centers and other established establishments in which to accommodate the people who need it" - my emphasis.

 

I see this as the Spanish government wanting to be sure somebody pays, and putting the onus on the cruise line to do so, and to take out insurance. But perhaps no such insurance for cruise lines exists. I have no idea what can(not) be insured by lines. In any case. the line and its insurer will wish the passenger's insurer to pay if possible. But the document is clear it's the line's insurer that pays if necessary.

 

The status of the document is not so clear. It says "The measures established in this document will be certified within the framework of the Puertos del Estado Certification Schemes, applying the Quality of Service for Cruise Traffic Reference document".  This seems to me to make it more than just guidance, but who knows?!  Perhaps it's just a model of how the Spanish government would have liked things to be arranged and it has not materialised - or perhaps it is active and binding.

The details contained in the document were adopted as a Resolution by Spanish Government and came into force on 7 June 2021.

 

https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2021/20210529cruise-ships.aspx

 

 

 

 

[bee-ess]

What a ridiculous situation this is. We are unable to insure ourselves against a real scenario that could happen to any of us although the odds are very low against it happening. Even if the insurance companies made it a small supplementary policy I'm sure we would all pay it.

My opinion is that the cruise line should just pick up the cost weighed out against the extra people that will cruise if they are fully covered.

Puts me off cruising really until this is resolved.

[jeanlyon]

Yep, has put me off too.  I moved mine even before I knew about this.  Let's hope life is different by next year.

[Megabear2]

Well we have a reply from Holiday Extras.  It makes interesting reading!

 

Quote

 

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your patience while I have investigated this, I have now reviewed all the information and documents we provide and will address the points you have raised.

I would firstly like to apologise that our Contact Centre team were unable to provide you with the definitive answers to your questions regarding a potential claim. I would like to explain that our Holiday Extras Travel Insurance is sold and administered by Holiday Extras Cover Limited and is provided by Taurus Insurance Services and underwritten by Great Lakes Insurance SE. All claims are processed and assessed on a case by case basis by Insurance Administration Services Limited, and due to this we (Holiday Extras) do not have access to their systems and are unable to discuss or advise on any claims, as this is not our area of expertise.

All of our policy documents include details of what cover is provided by the policy, as I am sure you can appreciate it would be impossible to include every potential scenario and it wouldn't be relevant to detail everything that isn't covered, this is due to the size of the document that would be needed and the requirement for insurance providers is to detail what cover is provided.

All of our policies include cover if you were to need emergency medical assistance due to contracting COVID-19 whilst you were away, including if the travel insurance assistance team and the ship’s doctors recommend disembarkation at the next port.

If you were to test positive for COVID-19 and didn't need emergency medical assistance or had been identified as a ‘close contact’ of a positive case, there would be no cover if the travel insurance assistance team and the ship’s doctors recommend the passenger quarantines on board, but the port authority forces disembarkation. - After some market research we have concluded this is not a common insured event within the current UK Travel Insurance market.

It’s worth noting that at this point the UK Chamber of Shipping suggests passengers are quarantined onboard for the duration of their illness and that it is the cruise operator’s responsibility to ensure the passenger are looked after and can get home safe if disembarked.

On this basis, I am sorry to inform you that I cannot uphold your complaint as the policy documents include the details of the cover provided. However, it is clear that you have not received the usual hassle-free service we expect our customers to receive and for this, I do sincerely apologise.

I would like to assure you I have passed your feedback on to the underwriter and asked that they review the policy wording to give more clarity on this particular point of cover. I have also raised this with our Contact Centre managers to ensure our team are providing clear explanations of the cover to our customers.

I hope the above has answered the points you have raised, although, I do need to let you know that, should you remain dissatisfied, you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS]. Your complaints and the ombudsman leaflet can be found on their site www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm, we can send a hard copy to you on request.

If you decide to escalate your complaint for further investigation, you will need to do this within six months from the date of this email. As soon as the Financial Ombudsman make contact with us to start their investigation, we will provide them with all communication relating to your complaint, you will not need to collate this yourself.

Thank you for allowing me the time to look into this for you and please do let me know if you have any further questions. 

Yours sincerely

UNQUOTE

 

I have replied accordingly as follows:

 

QUOTE

Thank you for your reply.  I am surprised that as the recommended insurer of P&O/Cunard you say there are few instances of offloading ashore.  These two cruise lines have published on their website the following:

 

 

The framework of protocols for cruise ships can differ slightly to those on land or to other forms of travel and some ports, such as those in Spain, require guests and their close contacts who have tested positive to disembark to continue the period of isolation ashore in that country. 

In situations where guests are required to disembark the ship, we shall always work with the local authorities to secure the most appropriate accommodation to continue the period of isolation. In most instances, these will be pre-determined hotels which have been identified as ones able to accommodate positive cases of COVID-19. The guest’s travel insurance provider will handle all matters in relation to their isolation stay and repatriation home, providing they took adequate COVID-19 coverage on their policy. Guests will be able to make a complimentary call from the ship to their insurance provider to advise of their disembarkation and should email their positive test result to them as soon possible. Our dedicated support team will provide ongoing support to any guests in these circumstances.   

Regardless of the UK Chamber of Shipping Shipping Regulations you quote, the Spanish authorities (and other European countries) are insisting on offloading ashore under their country's laws and rules. Since the arrival of Omicron there have already been dozens of people offloaded in the circumstances I described.

 

You have treated my enquiry which was made on behalf of my family as a complaint.  Please note it was not but was specifically to ask how your company would treat the scenario I described.

 

You may be interested to know that I have already contacted the FCA regarding two other insurers who my husband and I are personally insured with.

 

I was informed by the FCA that an item as important as this should be dealt with and if it is excluded must be clearly stated.  They were of the opinion that cruise lines are asking passengers to purchase full insurance to cover any eventualities that may occur on their ships and this is definitely a scenario the terms and conditions forming part of the contract of travel are clearly spelling out may occur.

 

As a result my "complaint" against my own insurers have been upheld by the FCA for this failure.  Looking at your reply it would appear that I should recommend my other family members contact the FCA regarding this omission from policies issued in your name.

 

I would be grateful if, before I do this, you could confirm my understanding that your company offers no cover in these cases and that they are nowhere mentioned as an exclusion.

 

I look forward to a swift reply.

 

 

[zap99]

2 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

Yep, has put me off too.  I moved mine even before I knew about this.  Let's hope life is different by next year.

It's not put me off. Our next cruise is July. It will probably all be over by then. If not we will take a chance and cover any costs ourselves. 2022 is pretty full for us, so we are looking at 2023 now.

[wowzz]

12 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Well we have a reply from Holiday Extras.  It makes interesting reading!

 

Quote

 

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your patience while I have investigated this, I have now reviewed all the information and documents we provide and will address the points you have raised.

I would firstly like to apologise that our Contact Centre team were unable to provide you with the definitive answers to your questions regarding a potential claim. I would like to explain that our Holiday Extras Travel Insurance is sold and administered by Holiday Extras Cover Limited and is provided by Taurus Insurance Services and underwritten by Great Lakes Insurance SE. All claims are processed and assessed on a case by case basis by Insurance Administration Services Limited, and due to this we (Holiday Extras) do not have access to their systems and are unable to discuss or advise on any claims, as this is not our area of expertise.

All of our policy documents include details of what cover is provided by the policy, as I am sure you can appreciate it would be impossible to include every potential scenario and it wouldn't be relevant to detail everything that isn't covered, this is due to the size of the document that would be needed and the requirement for insurance providers is to detail what cover is provided.

All of our policies include cover if you were to need emergency medical assistance due to contracting COVID-19 whilst you were away, including if the travel insurance assistance team and the ship’s doctors recommend disembarkation at the next port.

If you were to test positive for COVID-19 and didn't need emergency medical assistance or had been identified as a ‘close contact’ of a positive case, there would be no cover if the travel insurance assistance team and the ship’s doctors recommend the passenger quarantines on board, but the port authority forces disembarkation. - After some market research we have concluded this is not a common insured event within the current UK Travel Insurance market.

It’s worth noting that at this point the UK Chamber of Shipping suggests passengers are quarantined onboard for the duration of their illness and that it is the cruise operator’s responsibility to ensure the passenger are looked after and can get home safe if disembarked.

On this basis, I am sorry to inform you that I cannot uphold your complaint as the policy documents include the details of the cover provided. However, it is clear that you have not received the usual hassle-free service we expect our customers to receive and for this, I do sincerely apologise.

I would like to assure you I have passed your feedback on to the underwriter and asked that they review the policy wording to give more clarity on this particular point of cover. I have also raised this with our Contact Centre managers to ensure our team are providing clear explanations of the cover to our customers.

I hope the above has answered the points you have raised, although, I do need to let you know that, should you remain dissatisfied, you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS]. Your complaints and the ombudsman leaflet can be found on their site www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm, we can send a hard copy to you on request.

If you decide to escalate your complaint for further investigation, you will need to do this within six months from the date of this email. As soon as the Financial Ombudsman make contact with us to start their investigation, we will provide them with all communication relating to your complaint, you will not need to collate this yourself.

Thank you for allowing me the time to look into this for you and please do let me know if you have any further questions. 

Yours sincerely

UNQUOTE

 

I have replied accordingly as follows:

 

QUOTE

Thank you for your reply.  I am surprised that as the recommended insurer of P&O/Cunard you say there are few instances of offloading ashore.  These two cruise lines have published on their website the following:

 

 

The framework of protocols for cruise ships can differ slightly to those on land or to other forms of travel and some ports, such as those in Spain, require guests and their close contacts who have tested positive to disembark to continue the period of isolation ashore in that country. 

In situations where guests are required to disembark the ship, we shall always work with the local authorities to secure the most appropriate accommodation to continue the period of isolation. In most instances, these will be pre-determined hotels which have been identified as ones able to accommodate positive cases of COVID-19. The guest’s travel insurance provider will handle all matters in relation to their isolation stay and repatriation home, providing they took adequate COVID-19 coverage on their policy. Guests will be able to make a complimentary call from the ship to their insurance provider to advise of their disembarkation and should email their positive test result to them as soon possible. Our dedicated support team will provide ongoing support to any guests in these circumstances.   

Regardless of the UK Chamber of Shipping Shipping Regulations you quote, the Spanish authorities (and other European countries) are insisting on offloading ashore under their country's laws and rules. Since the arrival of Omicron there have already been dozens of people offloaded in the circumstances I described.

 

You have treated my enquiry which was made on behalf of my family as a complaint.  Please note it was not but was specifically to ask how your company would treat the scenario I described.

 

You may be interested to know that I have already contacted the FCA regarding two other insurers who my husband and I are personally insured with.

 

I was informed by the FCA that an item as important as this should be dealt with and if it is excluded must be clearly stated.  They were of the opinion that cruise lines are asking passengers to purchase full insurance to cover any eventualities that may occur on their ships and this is definitely a scenario the terms and conditions forming part of the contract of travel are clearly spelling out may occur.

 

As a result my "complaint" against my own insurers have been upheld by the FCA for this failure.  Looking at your reply it would appear that I should recommend my other family members contact the FCA regarding this omission from policies issued in your name.

 

I would be grateful if, before I do this, you could confirm my understanding that your company offers no cover in these cases and that they are nowhere mentioned as an exclusion.

 

I look forward to a swift reply.

 

 

Will you be passing on the HE reply to your contacts in P&O?

It will be interesting to hear how they justify the fact that their nominated insurance provider specifically states that the cover provided does not cover any individual testing negative,  but forced to disembark. 

[jeanlyon]

1 minute ago, wowzz said:

Will you be passing on the HE reply to your contacts in P&O?

It will be interesting to hear how they justify the fact that their nominated insurance provider specifically states that the cover provided does not cover any individual testing negative,  but forced to disembark. 

yes very interesting.  It will be good to hear what P&O says to that.

 

The longer I don't cruise for, the less interested I have become.  I'm almost sorry I have 2 cruises moved to 2023!!  Next thing is they will sell Aurora and I won't be going at all!

[lujaha]

Still trying to get my head round this!  In a nutshell, HE are saying they will not cover the negative passenger being disembarked with a positive passenger.  But does the positive passenger have to need medical assistance to be covered by insurance, where they could have little or no symptoms?  Whereas we were led to believe P&O were "making sure no passengers were out of pocket" before, they are now putting the responsibility purely on the insurers?  Have I got that right?  Seems things are getting worse.

[wowzz]

18 minutes ago, lujaha said:

Still trying to get my head round this!  In a nutshell, HE are saying they will not cover the negative passenger being disembarked with a positive passenger.  But does the positive passenger have to need medical assistance to be covered by insurance, where they could have little or no symptoms?  Whereas we were led to believe P&O were "making sure no passengers were out of pocket" before, they are now putting the responsibility purely on the insurers?  Have I got that right?  Seems things are getting worse.

My understanding is that if you test positive, even if you have little or no symptoms, you will be covered by your insurer as you have been disembarked for a medical reason. 

[clearblueseas]

Staysure reply. Really disappointed we purchased a covid insurance for all eventualities and it seems this isn’t the case.

 

Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. You have 'cruise plus cover' on your policy so you do have cover for cabin confinement if you should need to quarantine/isolate. I have included the Covid 19 cover as it is stated in our policy wording booklet: Section 14 COVID-19 Cover PLEASE NOTE: Your policy will not cover you if you travel against the advice of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), unless you have purchased the European FCDO Travel Advice Extension cover and the advice is only against all but essential travel solely as a result of COVID-19.This section of cover extends the Emergency Medical and repatriation section, the Cancellation or Cutting Short Your Trip sections of this policy as follows: What is covered for Emergency Medical and Repatriation Expenses: We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits under section 3a Emergency Medical & Repatriation expenses for each insured person who contracts COVID-19, as proven by a medically approved test showing a positive result for COVID-19, during an insured trip outside the United Kingdom for the following: a) medical expenses (including transportation to the nearest suitable hospital) for the immediate needs of an unforeseen medical emergency, when deemed necessary by a recognised Doctor and agreed by our Medical Officer. b) additional travelling costs to repatriate you home when recommended by our Medical Officer. c) additional travel and accommodation costs as authorised by our Assistance Company up until our Medical Officer advises that you can be repatriated home. d) additional travelling costs to repatriate you home when you are denied boarding on your pre-booked return travel due to you contracting COVID-19. e) a benefit payment of £20 per complete 24 hour period up to £300 where you are ordered into self-isolation in your holiday accommodation by a relevant Government authority, as a result of you contracting COVID-19. Or, where you are travelling solely within the United Kingdom, Jersey or the Isle of Man during your trip of 2 or more consecutive nights in pre-booked accommodation we will pay up to £10,000 for: a) extra transport and accommodation for you and one other person who stays with you, or who has to travel to you from within your home country and/or travel back with you, if this is necessary due to medical advice. b) your body or ashes to be transported home. All of our claims are assessed on a case by case basis. If you require further information, please respond to this email. Olivia

 

[nosapphire]

This is an extremely interesting thread, and I add my thanks to Megabear2 for the information.

My understanding is that it will be the underwriters that dictate what will be covered, and I think that the included insurance for Saga cruises is underwritten by Great Lakes - so the same situation may apply with their ships.

On a ship operating under the UK package tour regulations, I think that a passenger offloaded for medical reasons (i.e, testing positive) should be covered by their own insurance (whether purchased individually or as part of the holiday).

A passenger being offloaded when they have not tested positive, are not otherwise ill, and have not breached any of the on-ship rules, should come under the responsibility of the tour operator to cover enforced extra costs and return home.

The grey area is, of course, if the non-positive passenger is allowed to stay on board but instead chooses to be offloaded in order to stay with their positive tested partner (which I would certainly do)  and all the cruise lines seem very coy about giving a definitive answer on this.

Me - I'm waiting for things to settle down before rebooking.

[Megabear2]

7 minutes ago, clearblueseas said:

Staysure reply. Really disappointed we purchased a covid insurance for all eventualities and it seems this isn’t the case.

 

Good afternoon, Thank you for your email. You have 'cruise plus cover' on your policy so you do have cover for cabin confinement if you should need to quarantine/isolate. I have included the Covid 19 cover as it is stated in our policy wording booklet: Section 14 COVID-19 Cover PLEASE NOTE: Your policy will not cover you if you travel against the advice of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), unless you have purchased the European FCDO Travel Advice Extension cover and the advice is only against all but essential travel solely as a result of COVID-19.This section of cover extends the Emergency Medical and repatriation section, the Cancellation or Cutting Short Your Trip sections of this policy as follows: What is covered for Emergency Medical and Repatriation Expenses: We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits under section 3a Emergency Medical & Repatriation expenses for each insured person who contracts COVID-19, as proven by a medically approved test showing a positive result for COVID-19, during an insured trip outside the United Kingdom for the following: a) medical expenses (including transportation to the nearest suitable hospital) for the immediate needs of an unforeseen medical emergency, when deemed necessary by a recognised Doctor and agreed by our Medical Officer. b) additional travelling costs to repatriate you home when recommended by our Medical Officer. c) additional travel and accommodation costs as authorised by our Assistance Company up until our Medical Officer advises that you can be repatriated home. d) additional travelling costs to repatriate you home when you are denied boarding on your pre-booked return travel due to you contracting COVID-19. e) a benefit payment of £20 per complete 24 hour period up to £300 where you are ordered into self-isolation in your holiday accommodation by a relevant Government authority, as a result of you contracting COVID-19. Or, where you are travelling solely within the United Kingdom, Jersey or the Isle of Man during your trip of 2 or more consecutive nights in pre-booked accommodation we will pay up to £10,000 for: a) extra transport and accommodation for you and one other person who stays with you, or who has to travel to you from within your home country and/or travel back with you, if this is necessary due to medical advice. b) your body or ashes to be transported home. All of our claims are assessed on a case by case basis. If you require further information, please respond to this email. Olivia

 

I had hoped since July there may have been some changes.  I  afraid nothing is changed in any way. We cannot force insurers so our only leverage is via FCA to name these companies to ask the FCA to censure them (as they did yesterday regarding Halifax and Avanti) for not showing clearly there is this exclusion.

 

Have you asked Staysure the question in the plain terms format we have used for Holiday Extras? I did not contact them in my "round robin" because I was aware you had.

 

I am thinking of collecting and collating all the replies and forwarding them to P&O, copied to the unfair contracts team at the FCA.  Any opinions?

 

Cheers!

[clearblueseas]

Yes, I did.

[wowzz]

3 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

am thinking of collecting and collating all the replies and forwarding them to P&O, copied to the unfair contracts team at the FCA.  Any opinions?

 

Seems a good plan of action.

I am intrigued to know how P&O will sqare the circle of recommending an insurance company that does not provide the insurance cover that they say you need.

[Megabear2]

19 minutes ago, nosapphire said:

A passenger being offloaded when they have not tested positive, are not otherwise ill, and have not breached any of the on-ship rules, should come under the responsibility of the tour operator to cover enforced extra costs and return home.

The cruise lines were asked about this in October when the issue first became known.  They chose for weeks to stonewall the enquiries and then sent an email to those that enquired which aggravated the issue enormously.  At that stage they promised a more customer focused reply which never arrived.  

 

I would agree that those who choose to stay rather than actually being forced into quarantine are making their own informed decision to do so.  Although there are some who would be upset by this occurrence it will be a matter for them.

 

The passengers with negative tests made to quarantine and isolate are a totally different thing.  If, as we believe, the cruise lines are responsible for these people we are back to why they cannot put it in writing in their terms as a comfort to the passenger.

 

Interestingly the statement covering this issue which RCI and Celebrity were offering back I  October has now gone - lots of outraged Americans speak volumes!  The only cruise line who have not taken this stance now appears to be MSC who actually now let people cancel/move up to 48 hours before sailing.

 

P&O reverted in September to 12 week full payment terms thereby trapping many people into the insurance issue before the offloading position came to light. Many thought the situation would mend itself once these people had travelled but it seems most of the Caribbean cruisers have not had an issue.  The problem now is those balances paid going into the European season.

[Harry Peterson]

28 minutes ago, wowzz said:

Seems a good plan of action.

I am intrigued to know how P&O will sqare the circle of recommending an insurance company that does not provide the insurance cover that they say you need.

A larger negotiated percentage of total premia paid?