What constitutes a significant change to itinerary

[molecrochip]

8 minutes ago, Mollag said:

I knew we wouldn’t be able to do it with these few changes was asking for future reference. The answer the TA has given me is from P&O regarding they don’t know what a significant change is for one of their own cruises not the TA answering that part of the question. So if P&O don’t know who is supposed to?

It’s not a copy and paste - it’s a TAs summary of the situation. In the TAs words.
 

P&O know the answer to the question. It’s P&O’s policy to only talk about confirmed changes. They are just not prepared to talk about hypotheticals, nor should they have to.

[molecrochip]

11 minutes ago, Mollag said:

I’d have thought the same that they would have a formula  like 20% change of ports or something similar but it appears they are just making it up as they go along, now why does that not surprise me. 

There is an industry definition somewhere which talks about substance or character of holiday changing.

[Cloudyrain]

33 minutes ago, Mollag said:

I’d have thought the same that they would have a formula  like 20% change of ports or something similar but it appears they are just making it up as they go along, now why does that not surprise me. 

But possibly not though because when is “a change a change”. In my job we have to make judgements of “significance” based on guidance, but it’s still fluid and all the guidance is “for example” and caveated by “taking in to consideration X Y Z”. So although they may have guidelines that says “significant = 50% change” they may have other criteria (like extra sea days, loss of overnights, reduction in days etc). 

[tring]

5 hours ago, Mollag said:

I’ll message them tomorrow always get a faster response on there. One of the other changes is only one sea day from Key West to New Orleans which seems a big ask according to others on our group 

 

It is possible that you may miss Key West.  I am not sure if the current situation, but it is a port which is wanting to restrict cruise ships.  It was skipped from the Ventura itinerary last March and is not on that itinerary for 2025, which we have booked.  It is on the same itinerary for next Feb, but I would not be surprised if it is cancelled at some stage.

 

Yes, I was aware there have been cancellations of ships doing Panama recently, so yes a possibility if water levels remain low.

 

[Snow Hill]

7 hours ago, tring said:

 

It is possible that you may miss Key West.  I am not sure if the current situation, but it is a port which is wanting to restrict cruise ships.  It was skipped from the Ventura itinerary last March and is not on that itinerary for 2025, which we have booked.  It is on the same itinerary for next Feb, but I would not be surprised if it is cancelled at some stage.

 

Yes, I was aware there have been cancellations of ships doing Panama recently, so yes a possibility if water levels remain low.

 

Apparently the driest year for the Panama Canal since 1950, thus not enough rain to fill the reservoirs that enable the canal to work to its full potential. Apparently an El Niño event is forming that will possible make things worse for cargo ships that use the canal, thus reducing the number of ships that through it each day further. 

[9265359]

15 hours ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Which is the point at which the customer goes to the Small Claims Court, explaining why their (customer's)  interpretation of significant change holds more water than P&O's.  By the sound P&O's response, they would simply get ruled against at the Small Claims Court, as they can't even put forward at which point a change becomes significant.

 

Before the court claim I would be tempted to go s75 to the credit card company who are jointly and severally liable.

 

If the supplier has demonstrated in writing that they don't have a clue about what they are doing, then it is rather doubtful that a credit card company would try and support any such argument, particularly as the credit card company would have to answer to the Financial Ombudsman as to why they did so.

[Mollag]

12 hours ago, molecrochip said:

It’s not a copy and paste - it’s a TAs summary of the situation. In the TAs words.
 

P&O know the answer to the question. It’s P&O’s policy to only talk about confirmed changes. They are just not prepared to talk about hypotheticals, nor should they have to.

So you’re saying the TA are lying and have not contacted P&O even though it says in the final paragraph P&O are awaiting clarification which indicates to me they have been in contact

[gsmt47471015]

8 hours ago, tring said:

 

It is possible that you may miss Key West.  I am not sure if the current situation, but it is a port which is wanting to restrict cruise ships.  It was skipped from the Ventura itinerary last March and is not on that itinerary for 2025, which we have booked.  It is on the same itinerary for next Feb, but I would not be surprised if it is cancelled at some stage.

 

Yes, I was aware there have been cancellations of ships doing Panama recently, so yes a possibility if water levels remain low.

 

Key west is a lovely place to visit but is becoming part of a number of ports who are trying to restrict the number and size of cruise ships 

[Mollag]

8 hours ago, tring said:

 

It is possible that you may miss Key West.  I am not sure if the current situation, but it is a port which is wanting to restrict cruise ships.  It was skipped from the Ventura itinerary last March and is not on that itinerary for 2025, which we have booked.  It is on the same itinerary for next Feb, but I would not be surprised if it is cancelled at some stage.

 

Yes, I was aware there have been cancellations of ships doing Panama recently, so yes a possibility if water levels remain low.

 

It’s already been put back a day because a Carnival ship is showing as being in port the same day presumably 

[tring]

2 hours ago, Snow Hill said:

Apparently the driest year for the Panama Canal since 1950, thus not enough rain to fill the reservoirs that enable the canal to work to its full potential. Apparently an El Niño event is forming that will possible make things worse for cargo ships that use the canal, thus reducing the number of ships that through it each day further. 

 

I thought it was likely to continue for a while as one of the big company's, RCL I think, have changed a ship from doing that over the whole season to a totally different itinerary, to the ABC islands, iirc.  I knew it was causing big problems for cargo ships as well.

 

[molecrochip]

1 hour ago, Mollag said:

So you’re saying the TA are lying and have not contacted P&O even though it says in the final paragraph P&O are awaiting clarification which indicates to me they have been in contact

I’ve accused no one of lying and was not suggesting contact hasn’t been made. The team your TA contacted will be awaiting details of any change to any future cruise.

 

What I said was that P&O will know what threshold constitutes a significant change and that position has not been met. P&O have no definitive information that constitutes a significant change to your cruise. That may change, it may not.
 

P&O and other cruise lines don’t divulge the threshold for a significant change in advance as it varies cruise by cruise based on length, location and character etc of the cruise. When a change gets made, someone considers whether that is significant.

[Son of Anarchy]

2 hours ago, 9265359 said:

 

Before the court claim I would be tempted to go s75 to the credit card company who are jointly and severally liable.

 

If the supplier has demonstrated in writing that they don't have a clue about what they are doing, then it is rather doubtful that a credit card company would try and support any such argument, particularly as the credit card company would have to answer to the Financial Ombudsman as to why they did so.

I forgot about that route.  No upfront cost as well.

[david63]

47 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

someone considers whether that is significant

The problem is that the "someone" at P&O who decides whether it is significant is probably a bean counter and does so based on the potential cost to P&O whilst the customer decides as to whether it is significant based on their expectations of the cruise that they booked, and trying to fight that decision is like pushing water uphill.

Edited August 16, 2023 by david63

[Son of Anarchy]

The only person who knows who whether or not it is a significant change is the man on the Clapham omnibus.

 

Just need to know which bus he's on.

[molecrochip]

27 minutes ago, david63 said:

The problem is that the "someone" at P&O who decides whether it is significant is probably a bean counter and does so based on the potential cost to P&O whilst the customer decides as to whether it is significant based on their expectations of the cruise that they booked, and trying to fight that decision is like pushing water uphill.

The travel industry has guidelines as to whether it’s a significant change or not, it’s not a bean counters opinion, it’s implementation io those guidelines. This ensures that those trade bodies ABTA etc are supportive if complaints are raised.

 

The decision is made with regard to the whole cruise. That means that passenger preference is not a part. Say you book a Caribbean Island cruise and St Lucia is swapped for Grenada, it’s not a significant change. If you’ve booked to specifically visit St Lucia then you may feel hard done by but you’ve still got a Caribbean Islands cruise.

 

If you’ve booked a cruise to the Americas and New Orleans with two overnights in New Orleans, and New Orleans is cancelled, that would change the whole character of the cruise and be a significant change.

 

These are not P&O specific guidelines.

[david63]

3 hours ago, molecrochip said:

The decision is made with regard to the whole cruise. That means that passenger preference is not a part. Say you book a Caribbean Island cruise and St Lucia is swapped for Grenada, it’s not a significant change. If you’ve booked to specifically visit St Lucia then you may feel hard done by but you’ve still got a Caribbean Islands cruise.

I would not argue with that - however

 

3 hours ago, molecrochip said:

If you’ve booked a cruise to the Americas and New Orleans with two overnights in New Orleans, and New Orleans is cancelled, that would change the whole character of the cruise and be a significant change

If you book a cruise to Norway and Iceland and three ports in Iceland are removed and replaced with two in Norway and one in Liverpool and the order of the the whole cruise is reversed that, according to P&O is not a significant change.

[9265359]

5 hours ago, molecrochip said:

P&O and other cruise lines don’t divulge the threshold for a significant change in advance as it varies cruise by cruise based on length, location and character etc of the cruise. When a change gets made, someone considers whether that is significant.

 

If P&O (and other cruise lines) have an official policy for the threshold for significant change but don't disclose that to the consumer then they are risk of losing any legal case under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

To quote some extracts from a government publication produced by the Competition and Markets Authority on the subject - 

 

21. A term in a consumer contract is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

22. Transparency is also fundamental to fairness. The Act requires that a written term in a consumer contract is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. This sits alongside a more general requirement that consumers are given a real chance, before entering a contract, to see and understand all terms that could operate to their disadvantage (see paragraph 28 below).

 

...

 

28. ‘Good faith’ relates to the substance of terms as well as the way they are expressed. It is based on the general principle of ‘fair and open dealing’, where terms are expressed fully, clearly and legibly, and with due respect for the consumer’s interests. Agreements with consumers should not contain concealed pitfalls or traps, and terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence. A business should not take advantage of consumers’ vulnerability in deciding what their rights and obligations should be and should look like. Businesses need to deal fairly with 7 consumers, taking into account their legitimate interests. Consumers tend to have weaker bargaining power because of their lack of financial resources, their need for the service or product they are buying, their lack of experience of negotiation and their relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract.

 

Unfair contract terms explained (publishing.service.gov.uk)

 

P&O (and the other cruise lines) having a set threshold for significant change but refusing to tell the consumer what that threshold is, would likely fail the 'transparency' test and would also likely fail the 'good faith' test.

 

If the threshold rules are applied in a fair and even-handed way, then there is no reason at all not to publish what those rules are as everyone knows where they stand.

 

The only reason to conceal them would be for the cruise line to try to not apply them when a significant change has occurred and hope that none of their customers challenge them - and these days, hope that none of the disgruntled customers do a Subject Access Request when all sorts of nasties can then fall out of the cupboard...

[molecrochip]

Given it’s a cruise by cruise consideration, it’s not possible to crystal ball every scenario. Therefore it’s not possible to publish a list. 

 

Guidelines exist - section 3 of https://www.abta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/Code of Conduct Guidance June 2022.pdf

 

The approach is also detailed in the Package Travel regs para 11 & 15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/634/made

These are well tested and ultimately it comes down to character of the cruise. The tipping point will be different between a 2 night cruise, a 7 night cruise, a 14 night cruise. It will depend upon what replacements are offered and why the changes was made.

 

I’m sorry that this doesn’t provide the clarity   you wanted but I go back to the original post, the only point that a someone decides the threshold is breached is when the change has occurred that would cause the threshold to be breached. Until then the TA will always be seeking clarification.

[Megabear2]

22 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Given it’s a cruise by cruise consideration, it’s not possible to crystal ball every scenario. Therefore it’s not possible to publish a list. 

 

Guidelines exist - section 3 of https://www.abta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/Code of Conduct Guidance June 2022.pdf

 

The approach is also detailed in the Package Travel regs para 11 & 15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/634/made

These are well tested and ultimately it comes down to character of the cruise. The tipping point will be different between a 2 night cruise, a 7 night cruise, a 14 night cruise. It will depend upon what replacements are offered and why the changes was made.

 

I’m sorry that this doesn’t provide the clarity   you wanted but I go back to the original post, the only point that a someone decides the threshold is breached is when the change has occurred that would cause the threshold to be breached. Until then the TA will always be seeking clarification.

All very interesting.

 

On a cruise of this length approximately how many changes would be considered okay, ignoring the Panama Canal situation?  Clearly the mentioned swapping a Caribbean island for another isn't a big deal but what happens if they start cancelling them off one by one and replacing with seadays for instance?

 

The cynic in me says the big changes have been coming after the final balance due date every time even when a problem is seen on the horizon.  A 65 day cruise isn't cheap to lock into when the itinerary is already changing. 

[molecrochip]

24 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

All very interesting.

 

On a cruise of this length approximately how many changes would be considered okay, ignoring the Panama Canal situation?  Clearly the mentioned swapping a Caribbean island for another isn't a big deal but what happens if they start cancelling them off one by one and replacing with seadays for instance?

 

The cynic in me says the big changes have been coming after the final balance due date every time even when a problem is seen on the horizon.  A 65 day cruise isn't cheap to lock into when the itinerary is already changing. 

There comes a point on some cruises where even a number of little changes, taken together, could be a significant change from what was booked.

 

I can’t answer the specific question. If I could, I’d have done so. Clearly the Panama Canal is the feature point of the cruise hence why I identified that.

 

There feels like a lot of port alterations post Covid. As with hospitality in the U.K., distant ports have found themselves short of staff for port operations, excursions, taxis etc. Also crew visa seem to cause more issues than previously.

[Winifred 22]

8 hours ago, 9265359 said:

 

If P&O (and other cruise lines) have an official policy for the threshold for significant change but don't disclose that to the consumer then they are risk of losing any legal case under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

To quote some extracts from a government publication produced by the Competition and Markets Authority on the subject - 

 

21. A term in a consumer contract is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

22. Transparency is also fundamental to fairness. The Act requires that a written term in a consumer contract is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. This sits alongside a more general requirement that consumers are given a real chance, before entering a contract, to see and understand all terms that could operate to their disadvantage (see paragraph 28 below).

 

...

 

28. ‘Good faith’ relates to the substance of terms as well as the way they are expressed. It is based on the general principle of ‘fair and open dealing’, where terms are expressed fully, clearly and legibly, and with due respect for the consumer’s interests. Agreements with consumers should not contain concealed pitfalls or traps, and terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence. A business should not take advantage of consumers’ vulnerability in deciding what their rights and obligations should be and should look like. Businesses need to deal fairly with 7 consumers, taking into account their legitimate interests. Consumers tend to have weaker bargaining power because of their lack of financial resources, their need for the service or product they are buying, their lack of experience of negotiation and their relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract.

 

Unfair contract terms explained (publishing.service.gov.uk)

 

P&O (and the other cruise lines) having a set threshold for significant change but refusing to tell the consumer what that threshold is, would likely fail the 'transparency' test and would also likely fail the 'good faith' test.

 

If the threshold rules are applied in a fair and even-handed way, then there is no reason at all not to publish what those rules are as everyone knows where they stand.

 

The only reason to conceal them would be for the cruise line to try to not apply them when a significant change has occurred and hope that none of their customers challenge them - and these days, hope that none of the disgruntled customers do a Subject Access Request when all sorts of nasties can then fall out of the cupboard...

Carnival UK  do have a legal department so I am sure they are fully aware of all these policies and their application. 

[david63]

14 hours ago, molecrochip said:

Given it’s a cruise by cruise consideration, it’s not possible to crystal ball every scenario. Therefore it’s not possible to publish a list. 

 

Guidelines exist - section 3 of https://www.abta.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/Code of Conduct Guidance June 2022.pdf

 

The approach is also detailed in the Package Travel regs para 11 & 15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/634/made

These are well tested and ultimately it comes down to character of the cruise. The tipping point will be different between a 2 night cruise, a 7 night cruise, a 14 night cruise. It will depend upon what replacements are offered and why the changes was made.

 

I’m sorry that this doesn’t provide the clarity   you wanted but I go back to the original post, the only point that a someone decides the threshold is breached is when the change has occurred that would cause the threshold to be breached. Until then the TA will always be seeking clarification.

If this is the basis on which "substantial" is based then, for clarity, that should be stated within P&O's T&Cs - although as it is relatively vague especially where cruising is concerned it is probably not of much help.

 

If this is the ABTA guidance there is then another issue in that all cruise lines do not apply this equally.

 

I had a P&O cruise booked where three ports of call were changed well before final balance date and there was no compensation in any form offered. I have another cruise booked with another cruise line where three ports of call have changed well before final balance date and not only was I offered a full refund if I wanted to cancel but if I wanted to stay on the cruise I was given a substantial OBC and a FCC (some other options were also offered)

[gsmt47471015]

11 minutes ago, david63 said:

If this is the basis on which "substantial" is based then, for clarity, that should be stated within P&O's T&Cs - although as it is relatively vague especially where cruising is concerned it is probably not of much help.

 

If this is the ABTA guidance there is then another issue in that all cruise lines do not apply this equally.

 

I had a P&O cruise booked where three ports of call were changed well before final balance date and there was no compensation in any form offered. I have another cruise booked with another cruise line where three ports of call have changed well before final balance date and not only was I offered a full refund if I wanted to cancel but if I wanted to stay on the cruise I was given a substantial OBC and a FCC (some other options were also offered)

Ditto , 

[Windsurfboy]

Two questions 

 

The first I think it's been made clear. A significant change is measured against the orginal intinerary. So 5 insignificant changes could end up being significant 

 

The second, is there any timescale in which the company must act. For example it was immediately clear that our cruise to black sea would be changed from the day the war started. However Saga waited till late May well after final payment to admit it couldn't go ahead and major change needed. Delaying refund.

 

So in this case if Panama canal is shut to big ships, can they wait till last minute hoping for rain or are they obliged to make a decision .

[terrierjohn]

20 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Two questions 

 

The first I think it's been made clear. A significant change is measured against the orginal intinerary. So 5 insignificant changes could end up being significant 

 

The second, is there any timescale in which the company must act. For example it was immediately clear that our cruise to black sea would be changed from the day the war started. However Saga waited till late May well after final payment to admit it couldn't go ahead and major change needed. Delaying refund.

 

So in this case if Panama canal is shut to big ships, can they wait till last minute hoping for rain or are they obliged to make a decision .

It seems ABTA  set the criteria  so maybe its them we should be asking.