P&O cancellation / Medical questionnaire

[Victoria2]

I'm not a P&O cruiser, but I'm a great fan of Megabear2's posts.

 

A fount of wise words and help.

 

Thank you.

[Cathygh]

Morning!

2 things I hope you find useful

Firstly on our recent P&O fly cruise lots of people ticked yes to every question on the health questionaire including the covid /cough one. As a real persom was present ( as opposed to a bot) to check the forms, they were able to check the replies and amend them.

Secondly in Jill Insley's column in the Sunday Times there was an article about covid isolation on a Cunard ship. The passengers wanted a refund not an fcc so they made an insurance claim. One was covered by Saga who paid out, the other by Aviva who didn't but when challenged by Jill paid £450 for the 9 day quarantine period and £50 for inconvenience. They used the emergency medical assistance outside the home territory and confined to accommodation  clause, and even though they weren't entitled to anything under this clause Aviva made a goodwill payment. I don't have a link to this but I can post a photo of the article later if anyone wants it.

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, Cathygh said:

Morning!

2 things I hope you find useful

Firstly on our recent P&O fly cruise lots of people ticked yes to every question on the health questionaire including the covid /cough one. As a real persom was present ( as opposed to a bot) to check the forms, they were able to check the replies and amend them.

Secondly in Jill Insley's column in the Sunday Times there was an article about covid isolation on a Cunard ship. The passengers wanted a refund not an fcc so they made an insurance claim. One was covered by Saga who paid out, the other by Aviva who didn't but when challenged by Jill paid £450 for the 9 day quarantine period and £50 for inconvenience. They used the emergency medical assistance outside the home territory and confined to accommodation  clause, and even though they weren't entitled to anything under this clause Aviva made a goodwill payment. I don't have a link to this but I can post a photo of the article later if anyone wants it.

Yes please!

[Bill Y]

2 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Yes please!

 

Jill Insley 23 Oct 22.pdf Cartoon 23 Oct 22.pdf

[Megabear2]

9 minutes ago, Bill Y said:

 

Jill Insley 23 Oct 22.pdf 615.87 kB · 3 downloads Cartoon 23 Oct 22.pdf 340.06 kB · 3 downloads

Thank you.  I intend to contact this lady directly next week as I feel she may have some interest in my discussions with Holiday Extras.

[Cathygh]

3 hours ago, Bill Y said:

 

Jill Insley 23 Oct 22.pdf 615.87 kB · 24 downloads Cartoon 23 Oct 22.pdf 340.06 kB · 18 downloads

Thanks Bill you bear me to it 

[Bill Y]

3 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Thank you.  I intend to contact this lady directly next week as I feel she may have some interest in my discussions with Holiday Extras.

Your welcome,

Jill’s email is questionofmoney@sunday-times.co.uk.

If there in any further mention tomorrow I will post it on this thread.

[molecrochip]

If you booked flights, hotel, cruise etc. Then the Travel Agent may have been acting as Principal / orgniser. In that case, under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018:

• The organiser of the package is liable for the proper performance of all the travel services included in the contract.

[molecrochip]

Additionally, where it is a package holiday:

11. Complaints 

11.1 If You have a complaint about any of the services included in Your holiday, You must:

a) At the time of the problem, inform the supplier of the service of the issue/s You have encountered to afford them an opportunity to put things right immediately; and

b) At the time of the problem, call Us on (+44) (0)XXXXXXXXXX during UK working hours and outside UK working hours telephone our 24-hour helpline supplied with your documentation, to enable Us to try to resolve the complaint as soon as possible; and

c) On Your return to the UK, if You have any further concerns, email Our customer services Department at customer.service@XXX.co.uk within 28 days to afford Us an opportunity to investigate the matter with our supplier/s.

11.2 If You fail to take this up with the supplier at the time, We will have been deprived of the opportunity to investigate and rectify it and this may affect Your rights under this booking. Please also see clause 10 above – ABTA.

 

I've specifically ignored Covid specific clauses and focused on the agent/Principal clauses.

[cruising.mark.uk]

All good stuff.  But, personally, I’d give P&O at least a couple of weeks to come up with the promised medical letter, to avoid the potential for a serious egg-on-face moment.  If P&O does manage to produce a letter that satisfies insurance companies, the argument that the risk is uninsurable will be undermined somewhat fatally, although there would still be grounds for criticising the somewhat arbitrary ‘computer says no’ manner in which cases like yours are being handled.  I sense that if you make the media and regulatory contacts aware of the full contents of your latest post, they too would advise you to afford P&O the opportunity to resolve the issue before taking it any further.

[Yorkypete]

8 hours ago, molecrochip said:

If you booked flights, hotel, cruise etc. Then the Travel Agent may have been acting as Principal / orgniser. In that case, under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018:

• The organiser of the package is liable for the proper performance of all the travel services included in the contract.

So how is a TA responsible for problems on the ship? Surely they cannot be responsible for say bad service or quarantines etc.If you have a problem with TCs or FCCs the TA cannot be anything to do with that.If that was the case then P&O TCs would not be relevant  on a holiday as we would be under the TCs of the agents company. 

 

[molecrochip]

1 hour ago, Yorkypete said:

So how is a TA responsible for problems on the ship? Surely they cannot be responsible for say bad service or quarantines etc.If you have a problem with TCs or FCCs the TA cannot be anything to do with that.If that was the case then P&O TCs would not be relevant  on a holiday as we would be under the TCs of the agents company. 

 

If you book a package holiday, say, Flight, hotel, cruise, flight then the law in the UK puts the onus the company assembling and selling you the package. The individual suppliers are then responsible to the package holiday company. Its just the way it works.

 

That's why you report a problem on the ship or at the hotel however the proper complaint process is to then complain to the package holiday company and they will investigate and raise with the cruise or hotel operator themselves. Per post #184.

[Megabear2]

7 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

All good stuff.  But, personally, I’d give P&O at least a couple of weeks to come up with the promised medical letter, to avoid the potential for a serious egg-on-face moment.  If P&O does manage to produce a letter that satisfies insurance companies, the argument that the risk is uninsurable will be undermined somewhat fatally, although there would still be grounds for criticising the somewhat arbitrary ‘computer says no’ manner in which cases like yours are being handled.  I sense that if you make the media and regulatory contacts aware of the full contents of your latest post, they too would advise you to afford P&O the opportunity to resolve the issue before taking it any further.

If the comment is directed to my suggestion, which I believe it may be, the poster has apparently already contacted the media etc and therefore has already taken steps that necessitate P&O being made aware of this.  I would agree with you 100% that P&O should be offered the chance to deal with the issue, however because they like to hide behind the 28 days of ABTA response and treat all correspondence the same, my experience is that the time afforded is not used to look at the issue but merely to buy time to do so.  In other words the automated response triggered is a false flag.

 

It will be better for all if those in the Executive Office are aware the poster has gone down the route he has chosen and as a result might actually speak to him and start to look into it.  Silence will just aggravate the problem.  If proper replies with a named person start to be received it takes the sting out of the problem.  Feeling ignored will make things even worse.  My suggested actions should, in my experience, get them to take the matter as urgent and actually open a line of dialogue and most importantly still within the 28 days.

 

Personally I would not have taken the route of using the media at this stage, but fully understand the frustration of the poster and his extended family in choosing to do so.  He has large sums of money involved, lost his holiday and now faces a long and arduous fight with his insurer and P&O.  Neither you or I are thankfully in that position.

 

A situation like the poster's can lead to very serious stress and mental health issues. P&O need to be aware of this when using their deliberate delaying tactics.  Never forget my dialogue started months ago and they still wiggle and thrash like a fish on a rod.  In fact a very slippery eel.

 

 

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 hour ago, Megabear2 said:

Feeling ignored will make things even worse.  My suggested actions should, in my experience, get them to take the matter as urgent and actually open a line of dialogue and most importantly still within the 28 days.

 

 

Kopchadder's cancellation happened on Thursday and their latest post suggests they have already had substantive dialogue with P&O who have undertaken to provide them with a doctor's letter.  So, in my view it is somewhat premature to accuse P&O of dragging their feet at this stage.

[Megabear2]

2 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Kopchadder's cancellation happened on Thursday and their latest post suggests they have already had substantive dialogue with P&O who have undertaken to provide them with a doctor's letter.  So, in my view it is somewhat premature to accuse P&O of dragging their feet at this stage.

Kopchadder I'm sure will clarify the position.  There are two ways to read his post.  The first is that his email to customer relations has received a reply leading to dialogue. The second is he has received the standard automated reply - I have approaching 30 of these over the past 18 months.  Many on this forum have indicated over the years they have had this "automated" reply and it certainly doesn't mean a case has opened only that P&O are undertaking to contact you after 28 days.

 

As for the letter he mentioned it in his first post as being provided.  I'm guessing - no doubt he will clarify - that this too is part of the standard automatic cancellation procedure.  Certainly when my famiky and i had to cancel a cruise due to covid earlier this year a flurry of automated emails were received within minutes of our failing the questionnaire.  Perhaps Kopchadder will post here when he has time details of exactly who is speaking with him and by which channels of communication and who initiated the conversations.

 

I have no axe to grind here, this is nothing directly to do with me.  However I am concerned that as Kopchadder has chosen to put his problem to the media at the same point as trying to open a dialogue with P&O then he may become trapped in the case one of those other mediums does take the bait and start a story.  I doubt P&O would speak to him or help him if a journalist from the Mail or whoever rang them out of the blue saying 'oy what's your game 'ere then"!

 

P&O's own channels are notoriously defensive and slow, I hope you would agree.  Neither you or I know if P&O are in this case actually in communication with Kopchadder. I'm guessing not because he's gone out of his way to join the forum and tell his story which indicates a man trying any channel to get help.

 

[Megabear2]

9 hours ago, molecrochip said:

If you book a package holiday, say, Flight, hotel, cruise, flight then the law in the UK puts the onus the company assembling and selling you the package. The individual suppliers are then responsible to the package holiday company. Its just the way it works.

 

That's why you report a problem on the ship or at the hotel however the proper complaint process is to then complain to the package holiday company and they will investigate and raise with the cruise or hotel operator themselves. Per post #184.

And then the trade association, ie ABTA, finds the travel agent has done nothing incorrect but the supplier (cruise line ) is not obligated to answer legitimate questions and throws up a defence wall stating sue us if you like - at least that's my experience!!! 

[Snow Hill]

21 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

And then the trade association, ie ABTA, finds the travel agent has done nothing incorrect but the supplier (cruise line ) is not obligated to answer legitimate questions and throws up a defence wall stating sue us if you like - at least that's my experience!!! 

I am wondering whether the CMA should be involved they advised the top 100 package holiday companies to ensure their refunds policy adhered to consumer law back in May 2021 in respect of the pandemic. To make a decision to cancel someone’s holiday at the last minute solely on a tick in the box seems unfair, without further involvement of medical experts. 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985949/Open_letter_to_package_travel_companies_May_2021_HV_edit.pdf

[Yorkypete]

5 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Kopchadder's cancellation happened on Thursday and their latest post suggests they have already had substantive dialogue with P&O who have undertaken to provide them with a doctor's letter.  So, in my view it is somewhat premature to accuse P&O of dragging their feet at this stage.

I would think that the 'doctors letter' is irrelevant as the gentleman did NOT have covid and will not be covered on insurance. I don't blame him for resorting to any means possible.

[molecrochip]

3 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

And then the trade association, ie ABTA, finds the travel agent has done nothing incorrect but the supplier (cruise line ) is not obligated to answer legitimate questions and throws up a defence wall stating sue us if you like - at least that's my experience!!! 

Interesting @Megabear2. Am I to assume that your problematic Princess holiday was sold to you as a package holiday? If so, irrelevant of the ABTA response, you can still make a claim against the TA under Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018. This would be a legal claim. Don't know if you've seen this document. 

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1093536/package-travel-regulations-2018-guidance.pdf

[Megabear2]

2 hours ago, Yorkypete said:

I would think that the 'doctors letter' is irrelevant as the gentleman did NOT have covid and will not be covered on insurance. I don't blame him for resorting to any means possible.

Unfortunately we cannot say that is the case.  The problem being faced by everyone is that travel insurance policies separate covid from other illnesses and treat claims in a separate way.  The rules they have in place in their policies are actually quite out of date in the modern covid era but it very much suits them.  Having a specific separate covid policy within a policy (which is what they effectively offer) means claims are in very grey areas with crusing.

 

The cruise lines are sailing on terms made up on the hoof, also very out of date, and as a result the passenger is caught in the middle.  Prior to covid the health questionnaire was a relatively small piece of paper handed to you at the terminal and to be frank was mainly looking for signs of norovirus.  Anyone refused boarding at the port would have a valid cancellation insurance claim, simple and straightforward. Now with the three day before online job it's become draconian and unfair.  The current purpose of the questionnaire is to search for covid but the questionnaire is so generic it includes almost any common ailment.  Not fit for either purpose at this stage in the pandemic. The insurer is left to choose which section he wants to judge a claim under and in many cases if the word "covid" rears its head that section is chosen and consequently there is deemed no valid claim.

 

However if it is looked at under the "normal" terms of cancellation there may well be a valid claim in some instances.  The original poster on this thread had an illness which was technically not covid and being treated by a doctor.  Her claim under the cancellation clause would most likely succeed but those denied boarding with her would have difficulty.  Similarly Kopchadder's wife is unwell, albeit with the common cold.  Normally no one would make an insurance claim for having the common cold but in light of P&O denying boarding based on their questionnaire and a refusal to even discuss the issue it may well be that is the route Kopchadder takes.  Again, however, his in laws will have difficulty.

 

Until the letter from P&O is seen and the reason for refused boarding is fully explained it is therefore impossible to say whether or not an insurance claim will succeed.  

 

Everything depends on the use of the covid being the reason for cancellation.

[Megabear2]

37 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Interesting @Megabear2. Am I to assume that your problematic Princess holiday was sold to you as a package holiday? If so, irrelevant of the ABTA response, you can still make a claim against the TA under Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018. This would be a legal claim. Don't know if you've seen this document. 

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1093536/package-travel-regulations-2018-guidance.pdf

Thanks Moley. You are correct. I had final response from ABTA last week stating as Princess have refused to answer any questions as they are not the organisers I would now need to start arbitration or legal action. They have exonerated IC completely stating that being locked in a port by the cruise line, together with the failed assistance not being within their remit.

 

I will look into your suggestion.  At the moment our hands are somewhat tied as Princess are now threatening to sue us for the outstanding funds they had to return to us and the insurance issue is with the Ombudsman.  Oh happy days!

[Yorkypete]

51 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Unfortunately we cannot say that is the case.  The problem being faced by everyone is that travel insurance policies separate covid from other illnesses and treat claims in a separate way.  The rules they have in place in their policies are actually quite out of date in the modern covid era but it very much suits them.  Having a specific separate covid policy within a policy (which is what they effectively offer) means claims are in very grey areas with crusing.

 

The cruise lines are sailing on terms made up on the hoof, also very out of date, and as a result the passenger is caught in the middle.  Prior to covid the health questionnaire was a relatively small piece of paper handed to you at the terminal and to be frank was mainly looking for signs of norovirus.  Anyone refused boarding at the port would have a valid cancellation insurance claim, simple and straightforward. Now with the three day before online job it's become draconian and unfair.  The current purpose of the questionnaire is to search for covid but the questionnaire is so generic it includes almost any common ailment.  Not fit for either purpose at this stage in the pandemic. The insurer is left to choose which section he wants to judge a claim under and in many cases if the word "covid" rears its head that section is chosen and consequently there is deemed no valid claim.

 

However if it is looked at under the "normal" terms of cancellation there may well be a valid claim in some instances.  The original poster on this thread had an illness which was technically not covid and being treated by a doctor.  Her claim under the cancellation clause would most likely succeed but those denied boarding with her would have difficulty.  Similarly Kopchadder's wife is unwell, albeit with the common cold.  Normally no one would make an insurance claim for having the common cold but in light of P&O denying boarding based on their questionnaire and a refusal to even discuss the issue it may well be that is the route Kopchadder takes.  Again, however, his in laws will have difficulty.

 

Until the letter from P&O is seen and the reason for refused boarding is fully explained it is therefore impossible to say whether or not an insurance claim will succeed.  

 

Everything depends on the use of the covid being the reason for cancellation.

To me, the big problem lies with P&O refusing boarding for people who are both honest AND have common ailments. I wonder if P&O will ban everyone who has a cold/sniffles/cough? If everyone is honest then I bet the cruiseline passenger numbers will be halved. Common ailments which are not dangerously infectious should not prevent a person cruising but it appears that P&O cannot see what harm they are doing themselves

 

 

[Teddy123]

The problem aired in this thread is people refused boarding because they say they have a symptom (eg a cough) which might, or might not, mean they have Covid.  The complaint in other threads is that ships are (allegedly) full of people who do have Covid.  The obvious solution would seem to be for P&O to ask those who say they have a symptom to take a test to show if the symptom is caused by Covid.  Only if the test is positive would boarding then be denied - and presumably insurance would cover the loss. This would stop unnecessary denial and reduce the number of people on board with Covid (assuming honest questionnaire responses, of course) - although it would still mean anybody with a highly infectious strain of flu would be allowed on board to spread it, something P&O's draconian approach is aimed at preventing.

[Megabear2]

52 minutes ago, Yorkypete said:

To me, the big problem lies with P&O refusing boarding for people who are both honest AND have common ailments. I wonder if P&O will ban everyone who has a cold/sniffles/cough? If everyone is honest then I bet the cruiseline passenger numbers will be halved. Common ailments which are not dangerously infectious should not prevent a person cruising but it appears that P&O cannot see what harm they are doing themselves

 

 

Very true, as I say the questionnaire based on searching for out dated signs of covid is the problem.  Until a common sense attitude to current covid infections is adopted honestly is most definitely not the best policy.

[Host Sharon]

I'll let posts 228 and 230 stand in this instance but please do not discuss Princess on this P&O board as they will be deleted. P&O and Princess are different and do not necessarily have the idential T&C so is irrelevant here. Thanks.