Enough is enough

[dusababy]

That is a shame. In the UK - and I over simplify but you will understand the point more easilly - our consumer laws basically means that all consumer contracts to a very high degree can be completely ignored. We have both a concept of "implied terms" ie terms that most sensible people would presume should be there and "unfair terms" ie terms that are onerous and shouldn't be. We also have a third concept and that is the relative power of both sides in making the contract. So again to over-simplify our judges have as a starting point that consumers do not have the power to make large corporations delete unfair terms so a judge will do it for them. Those are three of the many factors that help us.

 

So a court here might easilly conclude that the contract does include an implied obligation with respect to providing sanitary conditions. Actually I can guarantee it. It would also not necessarily be enforceable to charge a cancellation charge if that were deemed unfair. And in this siutation it seems to be.

 

Anyway - in the UK people - because of the lack of confidence SS are causing customers to reasonably feel - a judge might decide if asked - that SS weren't entitled to keep a cancellation charge due to their behaviour and lack of cogent and believable reassurance being the cause of the cancellation. Failing that, if SS hadn't provided at least exactly what they promised or what customers "reasonble believe" to have been promised they can expect a reasonable chance of refunds and compensation. Id document my expecations, give a chance for a non-chargeable cancellation, warn I will be returning if the ANY promise hasn't been delivered - then claim if justified on my return.

 

For example, my holiday claim the judge decided that for the price I had paid for my holiday in question "I should have expected and received luxury". He then decided that whilst he couldn't specifically define what "luxury" meant he could define what it wasn't and he decided that what I recived "wasn't". So the contract ignored - common sense prevailed. Now in the UK many holiday claims rely on some of the precedences I had set.

 

The judge said a lovely thing in his summing up. "Where the defendant agrees with the claimant I find wholly in favour of the defendant. However, where the defendant disagrees with the claimant I find wholly in favour of the claimant" You can't do better than that.

 

Good luck.

\\

 

Goody for you. We've all heard countless times THINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE UK -- we know it -- this is getting tiresome.

.:mad:

[UKCruiseJeff]

\\

 

Goody for you. We've all heard countless times THINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE UK -- we know it -- this is getting tiresome.

.:mad:

 

Then don't read it.

[TheRampantSnail]

Goody for you. We've all heard countless times THINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE UK -- we know it -- this is getting tiresome.

.:mad:

 

Surely this is an international board and therefore the UK position is just as valid, or no more invalid, than the US position. There is a world beyond your borders.

[Merriem]

I don't think it is tiresome. We have NO PROTECTION when we pay for our cruise, which I just did on July 13 th, and it should be different. The lobby is to busy in Washington to get anything done.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks. :)

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

who's planning to bring their own mres on their next ss cruise?

:d:d:d:d

[West Windsor girl]

My husband and I are booked on the Shadow in Sept from Vancouver to Tokyo. We are not concerned, as I am sure the ship will be spotless then, but we are very disappointed in Silversea. We have taken many cruises with them and have been very pleased, but tis incident was outrageous. Obviously the crew did not do this on their own. Someone (probably the hotel manager needs to be fired. They have been slow to respond and this is a major PR problem.

[dusababy]

Then don't read it.

 

Thanks for reminding me of the IGNORE LIST -- done -- and bye bye Jeff...:D

[freddie]

In his opening post of this thread, Jeff posted, amongst other things:

 

"They demand that their staff conspire with them to cheat themselves out of their meagre earnings. Or they lose their job and find their own way home without a reference. ... They even demand that their staff substitute adulterated drinks in replacement of the drinks their customers have paid for."

 

These statements, and many others like them in Jeff's various recent posts, appear to be based upon the allegations in the complaint filed by M. Asenov and cited by Jeff.

 

While I entirely agree with most other posters that the actions of Silversea with regard to the sanitation inspection debacle are quite disturbing and that SS's preposterous responses to this point indicate a serious lack of good sense and corporate responsibility, I would respectfully suggest that it might be prudent to decouple the discussion of the inspection mess from the Asenov case. The Asenov allegations are simply mucking up the discussion of the inspection issue. SS certainly deserves to be well tarred for the inspection nonsense; but it would be wildly premature to tar SS with the same brush for the alleged mistreatment of Asenov.

 

First, although Jeff did not mention this fact (and, in all fairness, likely doesn't know it), the civil suit that Jeff cited was dismissed by the federal court in March, 2012.

 

Second, although the complaint in that civil case referred to "overtime" in relation to a "40-hour wage payment", Asenov's attorney conveniently failed to include in the "documents" cited by Jeff the section of the employment contract that stated that the base work week for employees in Asenov's category B was 70 hours, not 40. Indeed, the exhibits attached to the complaint do not provide any particular support for the allegations in the complaint, which is typically over-broad and over-reaching, as many such former employee complaints are.

 

What I am attempting, however inartfully, is to demonstrate that the claims of Mr. Asenov are by no means worthy of being treated as fact at this point. They may well be proven out, although the new complaint filed by Asenov last month is pretty much a repeat of the same sloppy allegations as the first and therefore just as likely to be dismissed, either for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim.

 

Therefore, as for the threads regarding the inspection mess, could we try to keep accusations of Silversea cheating its employees out of their just compensation or forcing them to doctor the hooch out of the conversation? A separate thread would be welcome, if anyone has any facts to contribute.

 

Cheers, Fred

[RachelG]

As a person married to an attorney for 32 years, I can say that in any lawsuit there are the allegations of the plaintiff and of the defense, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. I really am not that bothered by the lawsuit or the claims by the plaintiff. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

 

I am more upset about the sanitation and food issues. But I will be aboard in late August and will be paying close attention for sure.

[Travelcat2]

As a person married to an attorney for 32 years, I can say that in any lawsuit there are the allegations of the plaintiff and of the defense, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. I really am not that bothered by the lawsuit or the claims by the plaintiff. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

 

I am more upset about the sanitation and food issues. But I will be aboard in late August and will be paying close attention for sure.

 

Am looking forward to your comments since we will be aboard right after you:-)

[Otis]

Count me as another person struggling with a future booking....in our case, the Explorer to Antarctica in December. It will be difficult if not impossible to replace this destination and date combination at the last minute. In the back of my mind, I am also concerned that there is very little risk of a surprise inspection!

 

I posted a review of the Shadow from a trip in the Fall of 2011 which was - and continues to be - the worst cruise we have ever taken. It just felt off. In part, I think the crew was exhausted, because the Shadow had just completed its summer Alaska runs. We ended up in the galley for a buffet that was moved inside - I saw a few cockroaches scurrying around, which I chose not to report. It should have been a sign.

 

I'd welcome any thoughts re: the Explorer....

[wripro]

What should be very troubling to SS is that though we posters on CC are only a small fraction of the passenger base we are the most frequent passengers and usually the most loyal. The general unhappiness with the current situation reflected on these boards will translate into lower bookings if they do not immediately address the hygiene situation and the public relations situation. My guess is that they will indeed take care of the hygiene situation promptly. If not, it's bye bye SS.

[UKCruiseJeff]

What should be very troubling to SS is that though we posters on CC are only a small fraction of the passenger base we are the most frequent passengers and usually the most loyal. The general unhappiness with the current situation reflected on these boards will translate into lower bookings if they do not immediately address the hygiene situation and the public relations situation. My guess is that they will indeed take care of the hygiene situation promptly. If not, it's bye bye SS.

 

I have read of your confidence that SS will soon be the most hygienic ship on the other thread but in my view there is not logical reason to presume that and I'm neither as convinced as you and I can't quite see what exactly will cause customer confidence to increase. Certainly not the statements.

 

There has been extraordinary damage and there isn't a mechanism for increasing confidence except what management states. There is a vacuum until the next set of inspections. If they are good they will simply be as they should and it won't increase confidence, simply return a few loyals back. If they are less than really good then it will seal SS's fate once and for all.

 

Of course they will ensure that future inspections will not catch them out. But that isn't likely to convince most passengers who have understood what has happened that they are more hygienic or trustworthy. Only that they did a good job in a US port on the day they were inspected. That doesn't make them more hygienic. If they mean what they are currently saying they are telling customers that this was a minor blip on a single day. So where does the confidence supposed to grow from. It convinces me they will not improve just ensure they don't get caught again.

 

This has moved on from an issue of hygiene to a much large issue of trust and confidence - and integrity. That represents an almost insurmountable mountain on their current trajectory.

[chengkp75]

Now that I've had some time (what with scanning C-Span for the Triumph), and Dutch TV (for the Schettino interview) to think some more on the Silversea debacle, one thing that Silversea could do to help reinstill confidence in their commitment to vessel sanitation would be to voluntarily request even more frequent inspections than the USPH has scheduled. Each inspection costs the company, so this would be a way of showing that they are willing to spend profits on showing transparency in regards to passenger safety.

 

Just a thought, and not entirely perfect, I know.

[Mr Luxury]

Now that I've had some time (what with scanning C-Span for the Triumph), and Dutch TV (for the Schettino interview) to think some more on the Silversea debacle, one thing that Silversea could do to help reinstill confidence in their commitment to vessel sanitation would be to voluntarily request even more frequent inspections than the USPH has scheduled. Each inspection costs the company, so this would be a way of showing that they are willing to spend profits on showing transparency in regards to passenger safety.

 

Just a thought, and not entirely perfect, I know.

 

Good idea chengkp75 but I think that they are already cutting enough things where profit is concerned.

Something else would have to give to accommodate it.

[chengkp75]

Good idea chengkp75 but I think that they are already cutting enough things where profit is concerned.

Something else would have to give to accommodate it.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that. They may be cutting costs, but I doubt it is to preserve profits, merely to increase them.

[Merriem]

Sorry, I don't believe that. They may be cutting costs, but I doubt it is to preserve profits, merely to increase them.

 

Agree

[Mr Luxury]

Sorry, I don't believe that. They may be cutting costs, but I doubt it is to preserve profits, merely to increase them.

 

Maybe,but I do not think that we will find out here.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Maybe,but I do not think that we will find out here.

 

 

Most people understand the word "profit" but it is understandable that many do not have an understanding about "cash flow".

 

For every minute most organisations spend thinking about profit they spend an hour planning and worrying about cash-flow. Profitable companies go bust. Bankrupt companies run out of cash.