Baltic cruises

[Cruiseabc12345]

3 minutes ago, Britboys said:

Whilst I appreciate how disappointing it is to miss St Petersburg for those who haven't been there, from P&O's point of view, it is only one port in a two-week or so cruise. The booking conditions state that itineraries may be amended for operational reasons and understandably, P&O will say that this change is beyond their control and is being taken with the safety of pax in mind.

Unfortunately I can't see any way they are likely to offer full refunds.

Yes I think you may be correct 

[twotravellersLondon]

2 hours ago, Cruiseabc12345 said:

Do you happen to know what that 2018 legislation is called please? Many thanks. It does seem a pity so many people here have had to fight to get their money back but having said that every cruise company is in business to make money to be fair to them also

 

I think that this was a reference to "The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018." Copy available on the Gov. Website.

[Cruiseabc12345]

11 minutes ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

I think that this was a reference to "The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018." Copy available on the Gov. Website.

Thanks so much. Although judging by the many responses I may be on a fools errand. Perhaps if I know the terminology I may have some little chance!

[twotravellersLondon]

20 minutes ago, Cruiseabc12345 said:

Thanks so much. Although judging by the many responses I may be on a fools errand. Perhaps if I know the terminology I may have some little chance!

 

Sadly, the terminology is...

 

The industry standard is that altering the Package pre-departure to miss one port is not a significant change especially as this has become reasonably necessary on operational, commercial or other grounds.

 

Wish it was otherwise.

[Denarius]

2 hours ago, gumshoe958 said:

 

P&O could just claim force majeure and would undoubtedly win.

 

Definition: unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract.

Whilst I am not a solicitor, my layman's knowledge of law suggests that it may well depend on how the cruise was marketed. If for example, it was marketed as something like "The magnificent Baltic" and St Petersburg was just one of a number of ports on the itinerary then P&O could reasonably argue that the substitution of one port for another did not constitute a significant change even if that port was the reason why some people chose that cruise. On the other hand, if the cruise was marketed as something like "St Petersburg and the Baltic" it could be argued that the former was the prime destination and its ommision does constitute a significant change.

[twotravellersLondon]

9 minutes ago, Denarius said:

Whilst I am not a solicitor, my layman's knowledge of law suggests that it may well depend on how the cruise was marketed. If for example, it was marketed as something like "The magnificent Baltic" and St Petersburg was just one of a number of ports on the itinerary then P&O could reasonably argue that the substitution of one port for another did not constitute a significant change even if that port was the reason why some people chose that cruise. On the other hand, if the cruise was marketed as something like "St Petersburg and the Baltic" it could be argued that the former was the prime destination and its ommision does constitute a significant change.

 

Certainly it could be argued...

 

But would anyone want to employ a solicitor at £200 and hour to prepare the case, an even more expensive barrister to present it In the Crown court... and become involved in months and years of legal dispute when, in fact, the matter would be decided on the basis of the technical T&Cs written by the cruise-line's legal experts and which were then agreed by the client when the cruise was purchased?

 

The case would not be settled on one person's opinion over another but on the basis of immensely complex legal technicalities and case law.

 

Have a look and see if you can find any record of any individual sucessfully suing a cruise-line for missing a port that it's own Government has advised against.

 

It's an area that I would "fear to tread." I would much prefer to spend my time money and energy cruising.

[twotravellersLondon]

My apologies... It would be in

12 minutes ago, twotravellersLondon said:

But would anyone want to employ a solicitor at £200 and hour to prepare the case, an even more expensive barrister to present it In the Crown court... and become involved in months and years of legal dispute when, in fact, the matter would be decided on the basis of the technical T&Cs written by the cruise-line's legal experts and which were then agreed by the client when the cruise was purchased?

 

My apologies... it would be heard in the County Court.

[tring]

9 hours ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

You have already have some good advice. However, as someone whose career involved more experience of legalities than I would like...

 

The fact is that; when you bought the cruise you entered into a contract. As part of that contract you agreed that a significant change of itinerary would be missing out more than one major port for cruises of 16 nights and under. 

 

The T&Cs of all UK cruise lines are essentially the same.

 

Having agreed and signed a legally binding contract with conditions which are similar across the UK cruise industry, any solicitor is likely, in a free initial interview, to advise that you have no grounds for court action. 

 

If you go ahead on your own to the small claims court, depending on how much you're claiming, it could well cost you £115 just to enter your claim. If it comes to a hearing, you may well be asked to pay more. The judge would look at the T&Cs that you agreed to as part of the contract and... very likely... you would lose. No jury, no Kavanagh QC, no heroic pleas... just a plain simple decision made by a judge in his/her room or in an empty court. And... no refund.

 

Alternatively, you would need to take on a much bigger case and argue that the T&Cs use by the UK cruise industry are wrong. For that you need a solicitor, a barrister and buckets and buckets full of cash. The cruise line industry would be professionally represented....probably by a whole expert legal team... as this would be a "test case." If you lost... you would pay their fees and expenses as well as your own. It's not unknown for disputes about a few hundred pounds to carry on for years and end up costing hundreds of thousands in legal fees... while the plaintive, you, would get older, poorer but wiser.

 

But what would happen if you won? Well you would still lose money. If there was a judgement in your favour and if you were awarded costs... these would have to be negotiated using separate firms of cost solicitors and the opposition would end up paying 60% to 80% of what you had shelled on for your own solicitors and barrister. So if you spent about £2,500 on your cruise, went to court spent the very modest sum of £10,000 and "won" after two or three years and then wanted to claim your legal costs from the cruise company... you would, after further expense, receive between £2,000 and £4,000 less that you had spent. A pyrrhic victory.

 

If I was in your situation... I would be to come to an amicable agreement or accept the offer or simply walk away and move on. Life is just too short to waste it on aggro.

 

A contract cannot overrule legal rights e.g. Package Travel Regs. 2018. 

 

Also, a simple holiday claim such as this would be dealt with on the Small Claims Track in the County Court.  District Judges on the Small Claims Track are well used to dealing with litigants in person.

 

[tring]

3 hours ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

Certainly it could be argued...

 

But would anyone want to employ a solicitor at £200 and hour to prepare the case, an even more expensive barrister to present it In the Crown court... and become involved in months and years of legal dispute when, in fact, the matter would be decided on the basis of the technical T&Cs written by the cruise-line's legal experts and which were then agreed by the client when the cruise was purchased?

 

The case would not be settled on one person's opinion over another but on the basis of immensely complex legal technicalities and case law.

 

Have a look and see if you can find any record of any individual sucessfully suing a cruise-line for missing a port that it's own Government has advised against.

 

It's an area that I would "fear to tread." I would much prefer to spend my time money and energy cruising.

 

3 hours ago, twotravellersLondon said:

My apologies... It would be in

 

My apologies... it would be heard in the County Court.

 

Again, a contract cannot overrule legal rights e.g. Package Travel Regs. 2018.

 

If you were entitled to a refund, Force Majeure (which has also been mentioned this afternoon) means you are not entitled to compensation, but it would not reduce your entitlement.  Package Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. 

 

Again, absolutely no need to go beyond The Small Claims Track and that fact is well known by most posters on this forum.  However, the whole process which would need to be followed would not be completed within two or three months, in fact with the backlog in the courts it may well not be completed within the year.  Hence, if someone felt they may be able to get a refund by that process, they would need to forego their holiday and hope to be able to reclaim their full payment in the future.  That is what I meant earlier today, by suggesting the risk of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk, as there could be no assurance a claim such as that would win.

 

Since this is the P&O forum, I can add that their Baltic Cruises are called just that, with no mention of St Petersburg or indeed any other port by name.

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by tring

[jaydee6969]

We are on a cruise that was due to call at SPB in the summer, and as above, was definitely marketed as a Baltic cruise.

 

I also see Princess and Aida have announced additional Baltic ports and overnight stays.

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26932-princess-modifies-select-baltic-cruise-itineraries-to-remove-russia.html

 

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/26928-aida-announces-substitute-ports-in-the-baltic.html

[twotravellersLondon]

3 hours ago, tring said:

 

 

Again, a contract cannot overrule legal rights e.g. Package Travel Regs. 2018.

 

If you were entitled to a refund, Force Majeure (which has also been mentioned this afternoon) means you are not entitled to compensation, but it would not reduce your entitlement.  Package Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. 

 

Again, absolutely no need to go beyond The Small Claims Track and that fact is well known by most posters on this forum.  However, the whole process which would need to be followed would not be completed within two or three months, in fact with the backlog in the courts it may well not be completed within the year.  Hence, if someone felt they may be able to get a refund by that process, they would need to forego their holiday and hope to be able to reclaim their full payment in the future.  That is what I meant earlier today, by suggesting the risk of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk, as there could be no assurance a claim such as that would win.

 

Since this is the P&O forum, I can add that their Baltic Cruises are called just that, with no mention of St Petersburg or indeed any other port by name.

 

 

How do the Package Travel Regs. 2018 apply to the loss of one port?

 

I am the director of a company and I have spent a considerable amount of time representing the company in court as a plaintive (100% success rate). I am also as someone who has spent over 10 years as a legal advisor to a major organisation, has frequently attended court proceedings, instructed solicitors, attended the County court  in the role of advisor, sat behind barristers with files of advice on hand, instructed firms of solicitors and briefed barristers, worked with one of England's most distinguished Head of Chambers and discussed details matters with judges in chambers  as my "day job."

 

However, I can't understand why you suggest that Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. relating to the "Termination of the package travel contract by the organiser" applies to a omission of a single port. But, I am always more than willing to learn.

 

The reason is that; missing one port, because of UK government advice, is not a case of the cruise-company cancelling the contract as it is within the cruise company's conditions and has been agreed to by the cruise passenger on booking as part of the T&Cs. Anyone taking that argument to any court is likely to have a very difficult time from cruise-industry Legal Counsel. 

 

Have you experience of taking a case through the small claims court and, if so, did you win the action?Alternatively, can you provide a link to one case that has been successful in the small claims court where a single individual has successful claimed compensation from a cruise company under the terms of Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13 for the omission of a single port?

 

It would seem that you are assuming that the loss of one port is the same as the termination of the package travel contract and should provide the traveller with a full refund of any payments made for the package.

 

I think that you're correct in suggesting the chance of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk. However I also think that there is a risk that the client could also lose a much greater amount in legal costs.

 

I really do think that it would be such a shame for someone to begin on an ill-advised course of legal action which would potentially result in a far greater loss than the entire cost of the original cruise.

 

Life is for the enjoying. We've all missed out on that recently. It's time to have fun now while we can.

 

 

 

 

 

[Harry Peterson]

6 hours ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

How do the Package Travel Regs. 2018 apply to the loss of one port?

 

I am the director of a company and I have spent a considerable amount of time representing the company in court as a plaintive (100% success rate). I am also as someone who has spent over 10 years as a legal advisor to a major organisation, has frequently attended court proceedings, instructed solicitors, attended the County court  in the role of advisor, sat behind barristers with files of advice on hand, instructed firms of solicitors and briefed barristers, worked with one of England's most distinguished Head of Chambers and discussed details matters with judges in chambers  as my "day job."

 

However, I can't understand why you suggest that Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. relating to the "Termination of the package travel contract by the organiser" applies to a omission of a single port. But, I am always more than willing to learn.

 

The reason is that; missing one port, because of UK government advice, is not a case of the cruise-company cancelling the contract as it is within the cruise company's conditions and has been agreed to by the cruise passenger on booking as part of the T&Cs. Anyone taking that argument to any court is likely to have a very difficult time from cruise-industry Legal Counsel. 

 

Have you experience of taking a case through the small claims court and, if so, did you win the action?Alternatively, can you provide a link to one case that has been successful in the small claims court where a single individual has successful claimed compensation from a cruise company under the terms of Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13 for the omission of a single port?

 

It would seem that you are assuming that the loss of one port is the same as the termination of the package travel contract and should provide the traveller with a full refund of any payments made for the package.

 

I think that you're correct in suggesting the chance of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk. However I also think that there is a risk that the client could also lose a much greater amount in legal costs.

 

I really do think that it would be such a shame for someone to begin on an ill-advised course of legal action which would potentially result in a far greater loss than the entire cost of the original cruise.

 

Life is for the enjoying. We've all missed out on that recently. It's time to have fun now while we can.

 

 

 

 

 

This is probably going to have a lot more to do with the terms and conditions used by individual cruise companies than the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.  And also to do with those companies' perception of the risks attached to losing a case in the County Court.

 

Whilst cases heard at that level don't create any precedent, they can receive a lot of publicity, and the sort of person prepared to take a case is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create that publicity.

 

The costs and risks of taking a case are relatively small, but I don't underestimate the knowledge and work required.  In practice, cruise companies will often settle well before a case goes anywhere near court. In P&O's case they frequently use non-disclosure agreements to keep it quite, and for all I know other companies do the same.  The loss of one port can give rise to a full refund, but it depends on a number of factors.  How long the cruise is, for example, how many nights are spent in the port, how the cruise was advertised.  No simple answer - depends entirely on the facts and the wording of the terms and conditions (and whether those terms are reasonable, though that's a little more complex).

 

In the case of P&O it's this that matters:

 

“If P&O Cruises makes a significant alteration to the Package the Guest will have the choice of either accepting the alteration, accepting an offer of an alternative Package of comparable standard if available (P&O Cruises will refund any price difference if the alternative is of a lower value) or cancelling the Package and receiving a full refund of all monies paid.”

 

And in particular the words ‘significant alteration’.  Losing SPB from a shortish cruise may not be too difficult to establish -  because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise.

[Son of Anarchy]

Whatever happens, the lawyers will be winners by reason of they will get paid.  Unless pro bono or no win no fee of course.

[Harry Peterson]

9 minutes ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Whatever happens, the lawyers will be winners by reason of they will get paid.  Unless pro bono or no win no fee of course.

No need for lawyers, and it wouldn’t be worth the cost in most cases. All perfect doable with the right knowledge, application, and perhaps appropriate free support if really required.

 

As always, though, the ones that succeed will be those that persist. Not difficult, but you do need to persevere - certainly with P&O.

[jaydee6969]

Isn't this all just a bit premature and speculative at this time?  Would it not be better to wait for P&O to actually publish their position and itinerary offerings etc?

 

Just my thoughts as an affected passenger.

[terrierjohn]

I am not affected by this until next year, but in our case we will welcome the loss of SPB, we have been twice and done all the accessible excursions we want to do, so it would have been 2 rather wasted stay on board port days for us.  So I hope they add at least one new port to our cruise which will make the cruise far more interesting for us, not that I am willing to pay more to subsidise those that will miss SPB.

[twotravellersLondon]

2 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

This is probably going to have a lot more to do with the terms and conditions used by individual cruise companies than the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.  And also to do with those companies' perception of the risks attached to losing a case in the County Court.

 

Whilst cases heard at that level don't create any precedent, they can receive a lot of publicity, and the sort of person prepared to take a case is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create that publicity.

 

The costs and risks of taking a case are relatively small, but I don't underestimate the knowledge and work required.  In practice, cruise companies will often settle well before a case goes anywhere near court. In P&O's case they frequently use non-disclosure agreements to keep it quite, and for all I know other companies do the same.  The loss of one port can give rise to a full refund, but it depends on a number of factors.  How long the cruise is, for example, how many nights are spent in the port, how the cruise was advertised.  No simple answer - depends entirely on the facts and the wording of the terms and conditions (and whether those terms are reasonable, though that's a little more complex).

 

In the case of P&O it's this that matters:

 

“If P&O Cruises makes a significant alteration to the Package the Guest will have the choice of either accepting the alteration, accepting an offer of an alternative Package of comparable standard if available (P&O Cruises will refund any price difference if the alternative is of a lower value) or cancelling the Package and receiving a full refund of all monies paid.”

 

And in particular the words ‘significant alteration’.  Losing SPB from a shortish cruise may not be too difficult to establish -  because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise.

 

1 hour ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Whatever happens, the lawyers will be winners by reason of they will get paid.  Unless pro bono or no win no fee of course.

 

I think that you're absolutely right that it is more about the T&Cs.

 

The vast majority of complaints are resolved amicably with no recourse to any court and that's usually the best way.

 

The real problem is what may seem "significant" to the cruiser may not be considered "significant" in law... or there is a cavate. In the same T&Cs that you quoted there's also the phrase... "Please note that compensation will not be payable if an alteration is not significant or if P&O Cruises is not able to provide a significant proportion of the Package due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances." And, very sadly, we do live in extraordinary times.

 

A cruiser can apply to have a case heard in the small claims court but it's the court that will look at the case, the papers from both parties, the amount claimed, the value of any counter claim the complexity of the case and how long it may take... then decide if the case will be heard as small claims track, fast track or multi-track.

 

There's a big difference between a builder looking to have a long overdue bill paid in small claims track and a cruiser arguing about the legal definition of "significant," "unavoidable and extraordinary."

 

Any claim over £5,000 can't be heard in the small claims track and would be allocated to the fast track or multitrack.

 

A cruiser indicating that they wish to argue that the loss of Saint Peterburg from a cruise is significant because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise...may also result in the case being allocated to the fast track or multitrack. 

 

So, while I fully agree with you that cases heard in the small claims court don't create a precedent and that the sort of person prepared to take a case to court is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create publicity... legal actions have a habit pf snowballing and we all know that people have lost considerable amounts by being dragged into a legal quagmire.

 

My feeling would be... to just wait and see what P&O and the other lines come up with, to try to come to an aimable agreement and to look forward to whatever relaxation and joy I can find in life. 

[Ulsteinvik]

Seems that Britannia will get Visby and Skagen as replacement ports on her May Baltic cruise. She is booked there.

[Fionboard]

My Baltic cruise is in May.  Not bothered about it as have done six times and the way things are going in Ukraine the whole of Europe could be in trouble by then. Poor Ukrainians, my heart goes out to them.

[Harry Peterson]

40 minutes ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

 

I think that you're absolutely right that it is more about the T&Cs.

 

The vast majority of complaints are resolved amicably with no recourse to any court and that's usually the best way.

 

The real problem is what may seem "significant" to the cruiser may not be considered "significant" in law... or there is a cavate. In the same T&Cs that you quoted there's also the phrase... "Please note that compensation will not be payable if an alteration is not significant or if P&O Cruises is not able to provide a significant proportion of the Package due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances." And, very sadly, we do live in extraordinary times.

 

A cruiser can apply to have a case heard in the small claims court but it's the court that will look at the case, the papers from both parties, the amount claimed, the value of any counter claim the complexity of the case and how long it may take... then decide if the case will be heard as small claims track, fast track or multi-track.

 

There's a big difference between a builder looking to have a long overdue bill paid in small claims track and a cruiser arguing about the legal definition of "significant," "unavoidable and extraordinary."

 

Any claim over £5,000 can't be heard in the small claims track and would be allocated to the fast track or multitrack.

 

A cruiser indicating that they wish to argue that the loss of Saint Peterburg from a cruise is significant because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise...may also result in the case being allocated to the fast track or multitrack. 

 

So, while I fully agree with you that cases heard in the small claims court don't create a precedent and that the sort of person prepared to take a case to court is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create publicity... legal actions have a habit pf snowballing and we all know that people have lost considerable amounts by being dragged into a legal quagmire.

 

My feeling would be... to just wait and see what P&O and the other lines come up with, to try to come to an aimable agreement and to look forward to whatever relaxation and joy I can find in life. 

May I correct your reference to the figure of £5000? It’s £10,000 in England, which is probably sufficient to cover most of these claims.

 

You’re right to say that there’s a small risk that the case might be dealt with outside the small claims procedure if there’s an involved legal point which would take more than a day to deal with, but these claims are in legal terms pretty straightforward, unless perhaps you’re planning to argue that the terms of the contract are unfair, and that’s unlikely. There’s also a small risk of costs being awarded against you, but that’s also unlikely in most circumstances.

 

Court action is never a good idea, and always a last resort. The trick is, though, to correspond in such a way that the other party believes that you will follow through with court action, knows that you understand the law and its relationship to the facts, and chooses to settle with you rather than run the risk of having to pay up to far more people.

[twotravellersLondon]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

May I correct your reference to the figure of £5000? It’s £10,000 in England, which is probably sufficient to cover most of these claims.

 

You’re right to say that there’s a small risk that the case might be dealt with outside the small claims procedure if there’s an involved legal point which would take more than a day to deal with, but these claims are in legal terms pretty straightforward, unless perhaps you’re planning to argue that the terms of the contract are unfair, and that’s unlikely. There’s also a small risk of costs being awarded against you, but that’s also unlikely in most circumstances.

 

Court action is never a good idea, and always a last resort. The trick is, though, to correspond in such a way that the other party believes that you will follow through with court action, knows that you understand the law and its relationship to the facts, and chooses to settle with you rather than run the risk of having to pay up to far more people.

 

Many thanks for being so helpful Harry. As you say, the Small Claims limit is now £10,000 in England. It's £5,000 in Scotland and £3,000 in Northern Ireland.

 

Having very successfully used the Small Claims Procedure in the past, when there has been no other alternative, it's not something that I would embark on lightly unless it was a last resort, I had a uncontentious case and the value of the claim was considerable. 

 

I think I made it clear that, in this case, my feeling would be to just wait and see what the cruise lines come up with, to come to some amiable arrangement and to spend my time enjoying life rather that becoming involved in any legal quagmire.

 

Life's too short and I'd rather be cruising.

 

[mrsgoggins]

Arcadia is now showing as in Stockholm (Stadsgarden) on 8th May instead of St Petersburg. This is from the Ports of Stockholm website.  

[Peppers mum]

[arlowood]

Just had an email from P&O. Our May 1st Baltic itinerary has now been amended. Stockholm and Riga have been added in place of SPB. Hopefully nothing kicks off between Russia and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania before then. However with the current uncertainty- who knows what FCO advice develop in the next weeks and months 

[Fionboard]

Yes I am delighted that Stockholm and Riga have replaced St P to which I have been too many times. Let's hope we are not vaporised before then!!