Do not sail list

[Eli_6]

Also, I hate when someone is bamboozled by a fraudster and everyone blames the victim or says "Well, I wouldn't have used Zelle" or "this and that should have been a red flag."  Come on. Most people don't go around living their lives like that.

 

People who run these sorts of criminal enterprises set them up to fool even the most discerning customer. They have websites, store fronts, referrals, the proper business affiliations (usually fake), the proper licensing (also usually fake), the proper insurance papers (they pay for it than drop it), etc.  

 

How do you think Madoff and R. Allan Stanford bamboozled people out of billions?  I worked on the civil side of the Stanford case and some of my clients were people who highly successful businesses worth tens of millions who were fooled by him.  Yes, I know a travel agent isn't on his level but when someone comes as a referral and looks legitimate with a legit page, 98 percent of people wouldn't look further than that.  Heck, it may even be that the business started out as a legitimate business and then that particular agent started doing this to make extra money.  So, OP's friend could have had a good experience. 
 

[ChutChut]

1 minute ago, Eli_6 said:

Also, I hate when someone is bamboozled by a fraudster and everyone blames the victim or says "Well, I wouldn't have used Zelle" or "this and that should have been a red flag."  Come on. Most people don't go around living their lives like that.

 

People who run these sorts of criminal enterprises set them up to fool even the most discerning customer. They have websites, store fronts, referrals, the proper business affiliations (usually fake), the proper licensing (also usually fake), the proper insurance papers (they pay for it than drop it), etc.  

 

How do you think Madoff and R. Allan Stanford bamboozled people out of billions?  I worked on the civil side of the Stanford case and some of my clients were people who highly successful businesses worth tens of millions who were fooled by him.  Yes, I know a travel agent isn't on his level but when someone comes as a referral and looks legitimate with a legit page, 98 percent of people wouldn't look further than that.  Heck, it may even be that the business started out as a legitimate business and then that particular agent started doing this to make extra money.  So, OP's friend could have had a good experience. 
 

You're absolutely right - BUT - OP's beef is with the sleezy agent not Carnival. Carnival is out thousands of dollars and has every right not to accept passage in this circumstance. OP needs to deal with the travel agent, get the money, and pay Carnival - or use other cruise lines.

[ray98]

1 hour ago, EllieinNJ said:

What I don't understand is that if the OP cruised then Carnival was originally paid.  What reason would a bank agree to credit a charge back after a cruise was already taken?  And Carnival could have contested the charge back at that time and probably have won.

 

 

.....because it was likely some sort of fraud behind the method used to pay Carnival for the cruise.  That is why the "TA" requested the initial payment through Zelle.

 

As a business owner I wouldn't put the effort into investigating if the the customer was a willing participant in this scam or not especially when I am left holding the bag.  Ban everyone involved and move on.

Edited January 17 by ray98

[EllieinNJ]

Final payment has to be paid 90 days before the cruise.  If the TA used someone else's credit card wouldn't they have seen it on their bank statement before the cruise and contested it right away?

[sparks1093]

11 minutes ago, EllieinNJ said:

Final payment has to be paid 90 days before the cruise.  If the TA used someone else's credit card wouldn't they have seen it on their bank statement before the cruise and contested it right away?

From the OP it sounds like the OP did go on the cruise, so the charge back would have been done after the cruise was completed. It is entirely possible that the TA used his/her own credit card (possibly issued in another name, even) and did the charge back after the cruise.

[Eli_6]

3 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

But Carnival is treating this like a bad debt, and a collection account against the OP, not the original agent (in Carnival's eyes the OP took a cruise and didn't pay for it). Who knows when the SOL started tolling on that. They may or may not have the right to keep OP's deposit but they are acting like they do have that right which means that the OP might have to go to court to recover what they are keeping (unless he can somehow convince them otherwise). Any way that you slice it, this is a mess of highest order.

Carnival has no claim against he OP or the original fraudster because they knew about the claim and sat on it and did nothing. 

 

Tolling of a statute of limitations would not enter into the scenario you are painting. Carnival knew about the charge back so the SOL would not be tolled.  Tolling would have only come into play if Carnival had just found out about the fraud.  For example, if someone buys a house with a defect that the prior owner purposefully covers up then the SOL would be "tolled" until the buyer discovered the hidden defect and THEN it would start to run.

 

Carnival knew about this situation all along so none of their claims would be tolled.  OP could bring a claim against them for holding on to his deposit because that is a new claim.

 

The only place "tolling" would enter into the discussion is if OP wanted to pursue the original fraudster agent because OP knew absolutely nothing about the original fraud. Since he can't even find him, that's a non-issue.

 

OP has a right to his deposit back because Carnival no longer has any claim against anyone regarding the money from 7 years ago. Not even thefraudfeasor.  Even if the OP was the actual fraudfeasor, Carnival STILL couldn't keep his deposit for a different cruise at this point. Their claim from seven years ago doesn't exist anymore.  

At this point, I have to bow out of this discussion.  I try to make it a point not to argue with non-lawyers about the law because I have already spent enough of my life arguing with lawyers about the law.

 

OP: I wish you the best of luck. Get your ducks in a row with your paperwork (as much as you still have) and then create an outline or letter detailing the rest.  (I personally would present it in a signed, sworn and notarized affidavit to show you are telling the truth. The IRS accepts this as proof so Carnival can as well.)  Present it to guest care or one of John Heald's helpers and hopefully that will be enough to get you off the "no sail" list. At a minimum, it should at least get you your deposit back.  

[ZoeyVictoria]

40 minutes ago, EllieinNJ said:

Final payment has to be paid 90 days before the cruise.  If the TA used someone else's credit card wouldn't they have seen it on their bank statement before the cruise and contested it right away?

It is possible the cruise was booked well after the ninety-day final payment date. A last-minute booking would be easier for a bad/fake TA to scam. 

[sparks1093]

20 minutes ago, Eli_6 said:

Carnival has no claim against he OP or the original fraudster because they knew about the claim and sat on it and did nothing. 

 

Tolling of a statute of limitations would not enter into the scenario you are painting. Carnival knew about the charge back so the SOL would not be tolled.  Tolling would have only come into play if Carnival had just found out about the fraud.  For example, if someone buys a house with a defect that the prior owner purposefully covers up then the SOL would be "tolled" until the buyer discovered the hidden defect and THEN it would start to run.

 

Carnival knew about this situation all along so none of their claims would be tolled.  OP could bring a claim against them for holding on to his deposit because that is a new claim.

 

The only place "tolling" would enter into the discussion is if OP wanted to pursue the original fraudster agent because OP knew absolutely nothing about the original fraud. Since he can't even find him, that's a non-issue.

 

OP has a right to his deposit back because Carnival no longer has any claim against anyone regarding the money from 7 years ago. Not even thefraudfeasor.  Even if the OP was the actual fraudfeasor, Carnival STILL couldn't keep his deposit for a different cruise at this point. Their claim from seven years ago doesn't exist anymore.  

At this point, I have to bow out of this discussion.  I try to make it a point not to argue with non-lawyers about the law because I have already spent enough of my life arguing with lawyers about the law.

 

OP: I wish you the best of luck. Get your ducks in a row with your paperwork (as much as you still have) and then create an outline or letter detailing the rest.  (I personally would present it in a signed, sworn and notarized affidavit to show you are telling the truth. The IRS accepts this as proof so Carnival can as well.)  Present it to guest care or one of John Heald's helpers and hopefully that will be enough to get you off the "no sail" list. At a minimum, it should at least get you your deposit back.  

It is regrettable that you are bowing out because all of this is helpful. At the end of the day unless the OP can convince CCL otherwise all of this would require a court to sort out because at issue is CCL's right to keep the deposit. They are asserting that right, presumably because they are applying it to money owed from 7 years ago. 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

Many legitimate businesses don't accept Amex. The reason is because it charges a significantly higher processing fee. Most businesses of the size of a travel agency having a credit card processing company that charges around 2.2 to 2.4 percent (some slight lower and some slightly higher) to process credit cards.  Amex's fee is closer to 4 percent while Visa, MC, Discovery all charge lower fees.  I would not personally take it as a red flag that a business didn't take Amex.  Now if they didn't take ANY credit cards...that's a different story.  

 

 

I understand that and in fact have dealt with businesses that will not take Amex, but the charge should be straight through to the cruise line which does take Amex. That is the first red flag. And rereading the original post you will see the sham travel agent did not say use a different credit card. That would be the second red flag.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

Also, I hate when someone is bamboozled by a fraudster and everyone blames the victim or says "Well, I wouldn't have used Zelle" or "this and that should have been a red flag."  Come on. Most people don't go around living their lives like that.

 

People who run these sorts of criminal enterprises set them up to fool even the most discerning customer. They have websites, store fronts, referrals, the proper business affiliations (usually fake), the proper licensing (also usually fake), the proper insurance papers (they pay for it than drop it), etc.  

 

How do you think Madoff and R. Allan Stanford bamboozled people out of billions?  I worked on the civil side of the Stanford case and some of my clients were people who highly successful businesses worth tens of millions who were fooled by him.  Yes, I know a travel agent isn't on his level but when someone comes as a referral and looks legitimate with a legit page, 98 percent of people wouldn't look further than that.  Heck, it may even be that the business started out as a legitimate business and then that particular agent started doing this to make extra money.  So, OP's friend could have had a good experience. 
 

Has anyone ever asked you to use Zell, whatever that is? A credit card whether Amex or another card is the standard to use when booking a cruise.

[sailingships]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

It should not even be a question about which credit cards the TA accepts. The charge should go straight to the cruise line, and they take all major credit cards. At the point the agent said, American Express would not be accepted, you should have run away from that transaction, unfortunately, an expensive lesson.

I agree with you but I meant if the TA accepted any cc at all. Yes, they should have accepted all, especially a biggy. 

[ChutChut]

1 hour ago, Eli_6 said:

Carnival has no claim against he OP or the original fraudster because they knew about the claim and sat on it and did nothing. 

 

Tolling of a statute of limitations would not enter into the scenario you are painting. Carnival knew about the charge back so the SOL would not be tolled.  Tolling would have only come into play if Carnival had just found out about the fraud.  For example, if someone buys a house with a defect that the prior owner purposefully covers up then the SOL would be "tolled" until the buyer discovered the hidden defect and THEN it would start to run.

 

Carnival knew about this situation all along so none of their claims would be tolled.  OP could bring a claim against them for holding on to his deposit because that is a new claim.

 

The only place "tolling" would enter into the discussion is if OP wanted to pursue the original fraudster agent because OP knew absolutely nothing about the original fraud. Since he can't even find him, that's a non-issue.

 

OP has a right to his deposit back because Carnival no longer has any claim against anyone regarding the money from 7 years ago. Not even thefraudfeasor.  Even if the OP was the actual fraudfeasor, Carnival STILL couldn't keep his deposit for a different cruise at this point. Their claim from seven years ago doesn't exist anymore.  

At this point, I have to bow out of this discussion.  I try to make it a point not to argue with non-lawyers about the law because I have already spent enough of my life arguing with lawyers about the law.

 

OP: I wish you the best of luck. Get your ducks in a row with your paperwork (as much as you still have) and then create an outline or letter detailing the rest.  (I personally would present it in a signed, sworn and notarized affidavit to show you are telling the truth. The IRS accepts this as proof so Carnival can as well.)  Present it to guest care or one of John Heald's helpers and hopefully that will be enough to get you off the "no sail" list. At a minimum, it should at least get you your deposit back.  

Agree that Carnival must refund current deposit and agree the SOL is implicated on any claim Carnival may have had against (if any) OP. That being said, Carnival is a private company and can ban you for any reason (that doesn't violate the law).

[tonit964]

This would not show up on the OP's credit report. No credit card in the OP's name was used nor is there a SSN involved.

[Elaine5715]

2 minutes ago, tonit964 said:

This would not show up on the OP's credit report. No credit card in the OP's name was used nor is there a SSN involved.

There could be if the OP gave the TA the card to check in and for onboard charges.  

[kdr69]

17 hours ago, BIGBANG22 said:

What i don't understand is why i was never notified!

Because you were not the person who booked the cruise.  as stated if you use a TA Carnival will only talk to them. Sorry your just now being made aware of what someone else did to you. 

[ARcruisin2]

never mind

Edited January 17 by ARcruisin2
.

[BlerkOne]

So many opinions with so much unknown and only one side. Trial by public opinion is meritless.

[BlerkOne]

12 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

This action was done by your agent and they probably communicated this to your agent. Not surprising that your agent didn't pass the communication on to you.

This would be my guess.

 

I would think law enforcement somewhere would have a file on the fraudster and how the operation works.

[sparks1093]

13 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

So many opinions with so much unknown and only one side. Trial by public opinion is meritless.

And hopefully in all of it there may be some kernels that actually help the OP. I know that this thread opened my eyes about this type of thing and even though I don't use a TA all of this still helps me be on the alert.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

And hopefully in all of it there may be some kernels that actually help the OP. I know that this thread opened my eyes about this type of thing and even though I don't use a TA all of this still helps me be on the alert.

Yes, and it is not blaming the victim when I write not taking American Express should have been a re flag because Carnival like all other cruise lines accept Amex for payment. It is a warning for others who may not realize what a red flag that was.

[2wheelin]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, and it is not blaming the victim when I write not taking American Express should have been a re flag because Carnival like all other cruise lines accept Amex for payment. It is a warning for others who may not realize what a red flag that was.

I’ve cruised quite a bit and would not have known that all cruise lines accept Amex since quite a few places do not—especially outside the US. There are logical red flags-like “you have to pay for this in full with no refund possibility”, and there are red flags that aren’t as logical. You learn them through a bad experience or from sites such as this.

It would be nice if people would post “that would have been a red flag for ME since I have had X experience, rather than heap blame by stating that should have been a red flag for anyone.

[Pyxie]

On 1/16/2024 at 4:19 PM, cyntil8ing said:

The red flag was the payment to the agent instead of to the cruise line. The agent should use your card to pay the cruise line directly. Any other way, as you unfortunately found out, is ripe for trouble.

 

Sorry this happened. Hope you can get some sort of resolution.

 

Absolutely this. Agents should never ask you to pay them directly. You submit your payment info to them and then the agent pays Carnival directly with *your* card. Which would mean they absolutely accept Amex. This agent was definitely running a scam and he knew this the entire time. Take the client's money, pay with his own card, and then charge back so that he gets the commission *and* all of your money. Sounds like he was caught and this is why he disappeared off the face of the earth, but that does not help your situation. You likely will have to pay the previous balance owed if you want to sail with Carnival again. At this point, it may be best to find a different cruise line.

[Destiny0315]

1 hour ago, 2wheelin said:

There are logical red flags

The red flag for me in this thread is the OP who joined CC on Tuesday at 11am and posted for 10 hours while stirring the pot then disappeared and hasn't been heard from since!

[2wheelin]

1 hour ago, Destiny0315 said:

The red flag for me in this thread is the OP who joined CC on Tuesday at 11am and posted for 10 hours while stirring the pot then disappeared and hasn't been heard from since!

They obviously joined because they had a question. Why is that a red flag? He stated he was taking peoples advice from here and gathering the necessary paperwork to pursue. He has nothing more to add until he hears from Carnival. What pot is being stirred?

Some people have jobs and/or don’t spend every day on social media.

[Destiny0315]

 

23 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

Some people have jobs and/or don’t spend every day on social media.

Ouch!! Well spend some time after your done with work and closely re-read the posts and you'll find some holes in the pot.