TA retaining funds

[vozzie]

The TA's response sounds rational and reasonable...on the surface.

The reality is that I paid $70 in interest to withdraw my funds from my credit card 1 month before it was "really" due...to allow for their processing systems and to allow for the possibility that I might cancel before the real last drinks call.

 

As people have said, it's up to me whether I accept this type of system or not.

I feel that I will now be more tempted to book directly with the Cruise Line in future.

[Aus Traveller]

I can see the TAs reasoning. If you needed to cancel prior to the official final payment date, I dare say it would be easier to get a refund from the TA than from the cruise line after the funds were transferred. I can also see that they transmit all the payments from various customers in the one lump sum.

[MicCanberra]

2 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

We have a couple of cruises booked. The payment date for the first one, according to the cruiseline, is 8th July (75 days prior) but the TA asked for payment by 28th June. I don't mind that because it gives the TA a buffer to make sure they have payment in time to pass it on to the cruise company. We also like a bit of a buffer so we paid yesterday (25th July). I will monitor the website to see when our cruise is marked as "paid" rather than "outstanding".

BTW, yesterday was 25 June, so you have another month more than you thought to wait until your cruise goes.

[Aus Traveller]

1 minute ago, MicCanberra said:

BTW, yesterday was 25 June, so you have another month more than you thought to wait until your cruise goes.

Typo. sorry. Paid yesterday, 25th June, not 25th July.

[banzaii]

10 hours ago, vozzie said:

The TA's response sounds rational and reasonable...on the surface.

The reality is that I paid $70 in interest to withdraw my funds from my credit card 1 month before it was "really" due...to allow for their processing systems and to allow for the possibility that I might cancel before the real last drinks call.

If they used the potential earnings to waive the credit card surcharge, I wouldn't mind so much.

 

Businesses, these days, seem to find endless ways to reduce their overheads and shift as much risk back on the customer as possible.

[MicCanberra]

Oh yeah, I remember when businesses would refuse to make profits over the satisfaction of their customers. But all those businesses went bust for some reason.😋

 

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Oh yeah, I remember when businesses would refuse to make profits over the satisfaction of their customers. But all those businesses went bust for some reason.😋

 

 

Really? All those government departments seem to still be around...

[Aus Traveller]

I mentioned in an earlier post that we have booked a September cruise with payment due by 8th July. We paid the TA on Tuesday 25th June. I checked on line this morning and see that our cruise is now marked as "fully paid" (last night it was still marked as "outstanding"). The TA obviously passed the money on to the cruise company very quickly. 🙂

[MicCanberra]

12 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Really? All those government departments seem to still be around...

That is because they are not businesses and are not supposed to make profits.

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

I mentioned in an earlier post that we have booked a September cruise with payment due by 8th July. We paid the TA on Tuesday 25th June. I checked on line this morning and see that our cruise is now marked as "fully paid" (last night it was still marked as "outstanding"). The TA obviously passed the money on to the cruise company very quickly. 🙂

Good for you to know.

[banzaii]

22 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Really? All those government departments seem to still be around...

Govt not doing much to support consumers or business either..... Except those really big companies that "need" help reducing tax liabilities and increasing profits.

[The_Big_M]

11 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

That is because they are not businesses and are not supposed to make profits.

 

Yet they operate as commercial entities, and charge more than private companies for the same service in many cases.

[MicCanberra]

7 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Yet they operate as commercial entities, and charge more than private companies for the same service in many cases.

Of course they must be accountable and operate some aspects as a corporation. 

[The_Big_M]

5 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Of course they must be accountable and operate some aspects as a corporation. 

Being accountable doesn't mean they need to charge more than private businesses.

 

The difference is the monopoly aspect.

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

Being accountable doesn't mean they need to charge more than private businesses.

 

The difference is the monopoly aspect.

How can there be a monopoly if you have competing private businesses.

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

How can there be a monopoly if you have competing private businesses.

 

Where they charge they have a monopoly in that function, but the private market doing a similar thing doesn't. 

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Where they charge they have a monopoly in that function, but the private market doing a similar thing doesn't. 

Any specific example, as I am not following.

[banzaii]

10 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

Being accountable doesn't mean they need to charge more than private businesses.

 

The difference is the monopoly aspect.

What are you getting at?  Successive Govt keep selling off anything they could profit from!  In what sector(s) do they monopolise the market?

Edited June 28, 2019 by banzaii

[The_Big_M]

5 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Any specific example, as I am not following.

 

One example, cancelling registration on a car. For the unused CTP, the insurer will refund you the balance in entirety. For the unused registration, the government will charge a significant fee when they refund.

 

This happens with many other things e.g .there was a recent recalc of fire? insurance levies; the government didn't refund amounts under $25 when any private company has to. They also enforce credit card fees e.g. again registration, anything through RMS without alternative when private businesses with competition typically do offer fee free alternatives.

[The_Big_M]

18 minutes ago, banzaii said:

What are you getting at?  Successive Govt keep selling off anything they could profit from!  In what sector(s) do they monopolise the market?

 

Sure, there's a lot sold off - but there are still some government functions they have kept a control on for whatever reason.

[MicCanberra]

7 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

One example, cancelling registration on a car. For the unused CTP, the insurer will refund you the balance in entirety. For the unused registration, the government will charge a significant fee when they refund.

 

This happens with many other things e.g .there was a recent recalc of fire? insurance levies; the government didn't refund amounts under $25 when any private company has to. They also enforce credit card fees e.g. again registration, anything through RMS without alternative when private businesses with competition typically do offer fee free alternatives.

I would like to know how being charged CC fees is the government profiteering, surely that goes to the CC company, but I take your point about not offering any other way of paying with out a fee, (just like ticketek and qantas, to name a few).

[The_Big_M]

15 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

I would like to know how being charged CC fees is the government profiteering, surely that goes to the CC company, but I take your point about not offering any other way of paying with out a fee, (just like ticketek and qantas, to name a few).

 

That was one of a number of examples, and yes the point was the lack of offering because they have no concern on customer service and abuse their monopoly position.

 

Qantas is incorrect as you can certainly pay via fee free approaches e.g. bpay.