A cautionary credit card story

[owl61]

You are correct in that with some teamwork between RCI and the credit card issue and the OP, the pending auth could have been removed, but the poor OP would've had to fight the battle.

 

Sorry, but while all the anectdotes are interesting they don't get to the core of the OP's problem, to wit, what are his rights now? As I thought I made clear this has nothing to do with disputing the pending charge with the card issuer.

It seems to me that after the merchant has been informed that it has erred (and it even acknowledged as much) and has been asked to correct its error, the failure to act reasonably thereafter may be actionable based upon the merchant's tortious interference with the contractual relations between card holder and card issuer. Perhaps, Gmoney, you can confirm, as you now imply, that the pending charge could in fact be removed immediately if the merchant were to so request it.

It should not be necessary for the cardholder to "fight" the battle, make lots of conference calls and otherwise jump through hoops to get the merchant to correct its mistake. I would counsel the OP to send an email confirming his oral advice to the merchant.

ps. I don't think a defense of "the computers made me do it" would hold up in court.

[isles1]

Sorry, but while all the anectdotes are interesting they don't get to the core of the OP's problem, to wit, what are his rights now? As I thought I made clear this has nothing to do with disputing the pending charge with the card issuer.

It seems to me that after the merchant has been informed that it has erred (and it even acknowledged as much) and has been asked to correct its error, the failure to act reasonably thereafter may be actionable based upon the merchant's tortious interference with the contractual relations between card holder and card issuer. Perhaps, Gmoney, you can confirm, as you now imply, that the pending charge could in fact be removed immediately if the merchant were to so request it.

It should not be necessary for the cardholder to "fight" the battle, make lots of conference calls and otherwise jump through hoops to get the merchant to correct its mistake. I would counsel the OP to send an email confirming his oral advice to the merchant.

ps. I don't think a defense of "the computers made me do it" would hold up in court.

Other than an inconvienience, what are the damages to the OP? Maybe there are some, but probably not. This will clear itself up in under a week.

 

Tortious interference with the contractual relations? Really? My guess is that a few elements of the cause of action are not met here. But assuming they are...

 

Realistically, even if the OP attempted to expedite a ruling, by this time this made it to court, the issue would be moot and the case would be dismissed (as the hold would have dropped off). The OP would spend more in court fees than a potential recovery.

 

The solution is to deal with the merchant and the bank at the same time on the same call and have the hold removed (as discussed above by a few people who are familiar with the industry and the process). It is annoying when this happens, and it does happen (double swipes at a POS, CS error, too many clicks when ordering online, etc.).

 

Not to pass the buck if it is not the OP's fault, but do people really only rely on only one credit or debit card, especially when travelling? How about a backup plan? What if the CC was blocked for suspected fraud do to the size of the charge and the department needed to clear the account was not available until Monday?

[owl61]

Other than an inconvienience, what are the damages to the OP? Maybe there are some, but probably not. This will clear itself up in under a week.

Tortious interference with the contractual relations? Really? My guess is that a few elements of the cause of action are not met here. But assuming they are...

Realistically, even if the OP attempted to expedite a ruling, by this time this made it to court, the issue would be moot and the case would be dismissed (as the hold would have dropped off). The OP would spend more in court fees than a potential recovery.

 

Just thinking out loud here (one step above a guess) and see my previous qualifying statments re damages. I would not be so quick to belittle the case against the merchant.

Obviously, the account might be corrected within a week, but will the OP have suffered any legally cognizable hardship prior thereto? Absent physical injury are emotional distress/inconvenience damages available for the tort of ether interference with contract or the intentional infliction of emotional distress? I believe they are. And so are punitive damages.

Why would the issue be moot and the case be dismissed if such damages are recoverable? The tardy correction of the account hardly makes the damages case moot.

Some attorneys might treat this as a personal injury case and take it on a contingency fee basis. Depending on the OP's circumstances I could envision some not inconsequential noneconomic damages.

Yes, the immediate problem is to get the unauthorized charge off the account however possible so as to free up the card for use, but again, I did not and do not speak to that. My point is that the conduct of the merchant may be actionable.

I'm going to guess that written notice to the merchant might be required to state a claim and I am unsure whether an email qualifies, but I would send one asap.

[As the ship sails]

You guys are all missing the point. If it is a PENDING transaction than it is not yet a charge. You CANNOT dispute a pending transaction....only.....an ACTUAL charge. Only thing that you can do is either wait for the transaction to fall off (about 3-10 days) or have RCI remove the hold.

 

Gee, I m going to go out on a limb and disagree. It is not a matter of disputing the pending charge with the card issuer. It is a matter of RCL taking steps to have the unauthorized transaction removed asap. If you are saying that no matter what RCL does in conjunction with the card issuer that the pending charge (which impedes further credit) must necessarily continue to exist for between 3-10 days (and continue to impede further credit), then I would be very surprised.

 

It helps if you read the ENTIRE post before responding.:rolleyes: RCI is the only one that can request that a hold be removed from the OP's CC company. I am NOT saying that the pending charge must continue to exsist for 3-10 days but it is up to the OP to have RCI remove the hold from their card.

 

BTW owl61....there has been no illegal conduct on behalf of the merchant (RCI). It is standard practice for many companies to put a hold on a CC for an estimated charge and then charge the actual charge when the amount is known. Ie....hotels and car companies do this also. RCI does this to ensure that the customer has enough credit available on their card to cover their seapass account. If CC limit is low then it is best to have a cash account and then go to the pursers desk at the end of the cruise if you wish to pay by CC. This will avoid having a hold and a charge to the card. However RCI should be more helpful to the consumer by reqesting that the CC company remove the hold from the card. Again a simple 3 way phone call with both the CC company and RCI will resolve this in a matter of minutes.

[sprite]

I read thru this thread but I don't think I saw anyone mention increasing the credit limit. Most CC companies will temporarily increase your credit limit if you ask and I would think they'd be able to do it in this case too. That way, credit would be available until the problem is resovled.

 

I also haven't seen what CC company was used, I would imagine many are trying hard to keep customers so they should have been able to do something. There's no excuse for RCI not responding better either.

[gregjm]

So does anyone have any experience in this situation?

 

Unfortunately, I do. Last month I was on the Solstice and had the exact same thing occur. I reported it to my credit card company as fraud and it was removed immediately. (the only downside was the card number was cancelled and they had to issue a new car--it took about three days to get it)

 

I called Celebrity to inquire and was told that they do "Phantom charges" every night on your card just to make sure that you haven't gone over your credit limit and will be able to settle the account when you disembark. They are supposed to immediately be removed so that they are not apparent to the customer. Unfortunately, increasingly this is not the case as I have heard several instances of this happening.

 

What they should do is what hotels and car rental companies do and authorize an estimated amount of charges up front rather than going through this nightly phantom charge process... I also don't like it because if these charges account for activity on the account, it makes me wonder if it could have any impact on FICO scores.

 

So, my advice if it happens to anyone else is to immediately report the charges as fraudulent; which in my opinion they definitely are.

[owl61]

It helps if you read the ENTIRE post before responding.:rolleyes: RCI is the only one that can request that a hold be removed from the OP's CC company. I am NOT saying that the pending charge must continue to exsist for 3-10 days but it is up to the OP to have RCI remove the hold from their card.

 

BTW owl61....there has been no illegal conduct on behalf of the merchant (RCI). It is standard practice for many companies to put a hold on a CC for an estimated charge and then charge the actual charge when the amount is known. Ie....hotels and car companies do this also. RCI does this to ensure that the customer has enough credit available on their card to cover their seapass account. If CC limit is low then it is best to have a cash account and then go to the pursers desk at the end of the cruise if you wish to pay by CC. This will avoid having a hold and a charge to the card. However RCI should be more helpful to the consumer by reqesting that the CC company remove the hold from the card. Again a simple 3 way phone call with both the CC company and RCI will resolve this in a matter of minutes.

Not sure who it is that is failing to read...

As I read the OP post RCL charged for his entire cruise a second time. He is not sailing until March. This is not a case of interim billing for on board charges prior to disembarkation or an interim hold on a seapass account, but rather a totally erroneous 2nd charge for the price of the cruise. If that is not what is described by the OP then I admit I misread the OP post.

I am not sure what you mean when you say is up to the OP to have RCL remove the charge. What more can the OP do? I agree that RCI is the only one who can most expeditiously remove the erroneous charge. The OP has demanded that the merchant reverse the charge. What more is he required to do? If it is an erroneous charge why doesn't RCL rectify its mistake, get its act together and instruct the card issuer to reverse the charge? RCL has admitted the charge is wrong and the result of an error. It seems rather cavalier for it to wait for things to take their natural course while the cardholder is effectively prohibited from using the card. What am I missing that is causing you to get so adversarial. Hey, I'm the normally adversarial one.

[As the ship sails]

Not sure who it is that is failing to read...

As I read the OP post RCL charged for his entire cruise a second time. He is not sailing until March. This is not a case of interim billing for on board charges prior to disembarkation or an interim hold on a seapass account, but rather a totally erroneous 2nd charge for the price of the cruise. If that is not what is described by the OP then I admit I misread the OP post.

I am not sure what you mean when you say is up to the OP to have RCL remove the charge. What more can the OP do? I agree that RCI is the only one who can most expeditiously remove the erroneous charge. The OP has demanded that the merchant reverse the charge. What more is he required to do? If it is an erroneous charge why doesn't RCL rectify its mistake, get its act together and instruct the card issuer to reverse the charge? RCL has admitted the charge is wrong and the result of an error. It seems rather cavalier for it to wait for things to take their natural course while the cardholder is effectively prohibited from using the card. What am I missing that is causing you to get so adversarial. Hey, I'm the normally adversarial one.

 

RCI has not billed the cruise twice. They authorized the card for the amount and then posted a charge to their card. The pending charge is merely a hold not an ACTUAL charge. It is up to the OP to call RCI and insist that they remove the hold. This is easily resolved with a simple 3 way call with the CC company and RCI.

 

RCI can reverse a charge on their end but to remove a hold from the OP's CC account this can only be done with the participation of RCI, the OP and their CC company. It is not difficult to do and is solves the problem. Alot of times when purchasing online the system first authorizes the card and then posts the charge. IF credit limit is an issue than its best to use an alternative method of payment, have a secondary CC, or be prepared to follow up with necessary phone calls to fix the situation.

[cmich068]

Rental Car companies are also offenders... they often authorize a few hundered bucks above the rental rate on your card at time of rental.... meaning they have the funds available incase you return the car without fuel or damaged or something.... but they don't use the authorization usually when you return, they just process a new transaction because it's logistically easier.

[isles1]

Just thinking out loud here (one step above a guess) and see my previous qualifying statments re damages. I would not be so quick to belittle the case against the merchant.

Obviously, the account might be corrected within a week, but will the OP have suffered any legally cognizable hardship prior thereto? Absent physical injury are emotional distress/inconvenience damages available for the tort of ether interference with contract or the intentional infliction of emotional distress? I believe they are. And so are punitive damages.

Why would the issue be moot and the case be dismissed if such damages are recoverable? The tardy correction of the account hardly makes the damages case moot.

Some attorneys might treat this as a personal injury case and take it on a contingency fee basis. Depending on the OP's circumstances I could envision some not inconsequential noneconomic damages.

Yes, the immediate problem is to get the unauthorized charge off the account however possible so as to free up the card for use, but again, I did not and do not speak to that. My point is that the conduct of the merchant may be actionable.

I'm going to guess that written notice to the merchant might be required to state a claim and I am unsure whether an email qualifies, but I would send one asap.

Damages, if any, are likely nominal (maybe some consequential damages...if you can document them; punitives are unlikely w/o malice. So unless there are statutory damages, suing is pointless). An expedited action whould be to order RCCL to remove the hold. If the hold has dropped already, then the issue is moot.

[owl61]

Damages, if any, are likely nominal (maybe some consequential damages...if you can document them; punitives are unlikely w/o malice. So unless there are statutory damages, suing is pointless). An expedited action whould be to order RCCL to remove the hold. If the hold has dropped already, then the issue is moot.

I am reluctant to continue this discussion absent a clarification from the OP whether I am correct in interpreting his history of what transpired to be that RCL flat out made an error and billed twice for his March cruise ( a proposition which some cannot accept).

What convinces me to post again is the statement that suing is pointless. I don't mean to wave flags for the legal profession, but the cruise industry is not very well regulated in comparison to some others. The cruiseline lawyers bemoan the litigious passengers (I don't deny there are many out to take advantage at the drop of a hat), but recent successful class actions have brought benefits to the universe of disabled passengers and forced the lines to desist from overbilling for port charges which they commonly did. Suing is not always pointless. As far as the cruiseline industry, it is one way to regulate it - not a particularly good way, but any port in a storm so to speak.

I may have an overly developed sense of outrage at unfair and unscrupulous corporate conduct as I worked in the field for many years. It just seems to me that any merchant that willfully refuses to reverse an acknowledged billing mistake is acting in such a way as to support a finding of malice.