Consequence of getting cruise refund by disputing the credit card charge

[crooooze]

3 minutes ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I bet Carnival's accounting department doesn't see it that way. More than likely they show a negative balance for your booking. You need to talk to Angela Ross in accounting.

Nah, This was closed out last year. The cruise would have sailed in Sept 2020. Have two bookings now, with one leaving in several weeks. No other issues. Just not getting the max rewards from my CC.

[Keys2Heaven]

8 minutes ago, crooooze said:

Nah, This was closed out last year. The cruise would have sailed in Sept 2020. Have two bookings now, with one leaving in several weeks. No other issues. Just not getting the max rewards from my CC.

o.k. yes, if you dispute a charge with Carnival, they will flag the card as no longer being acceptable.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Keys2Heaven

[ontheweb]

4 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Some day soon we will agree, I can feel it.  😉

We are agreeing. We are agreeing to disagree.🤣

[Alibaster McGillicutty]

2 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

I get it.  There are different views.  

 

Yep.

IMO, 7 months is pushing it.  I'm sure others would see it differently......BUT I am the most reasonable person I know 😁

Edited August 16, 2021 by Alibaster McGillicutty

[BlerkOne]

8 hours ago, ontheweb said:

As a stockholder, I do not like Carnival's actions in this matter. Banning customers in the future because you did not fulfill your promise of refunds within 90 days and they complained is just going to send them to different cruise lines.

As a stockholder, I know some customers need to be fired. The charge was legitimate, contesting it creates more work for Carnival and the credit card company, and slows things down even more. Those customers are not worthy of being on a Funship.

 

 

[satxdiver]

On 8/14/2021 at 4:19 PM, 4hunters said:

I guess folks aren’t reading my explanation correctly or maybe I wasn’t clear.
 

I made another reservation and successfully paid in full using another credit card. Cruise looked like it was a go until about 3 business days later when my cruise was cancelled due to being on the Do Not Sail list.

 

So, those of you who recommend using a different credit card, this is incorrect and will not help in the long run. Just pay Carnival what you owe and they (accounting department)  will remove you from the Do Not Sail list.  

 

Now that is a bit different in that Carnival saw what the OP did and put them on the Do Not Sail list similar to what the airlines do if you antagonize them.  There are many ways to get on the Do Not Sail list for example being put off the ship at the next port for something you did.  The OP is now in the position of begging forgiveness to get off the list.  Maybe canceling the charge using the credit card issuer instead of working with Carnival was not the best idea.  

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

As a stockholder, I know some customers need to be fired. The charge was legitimate, contesting it creates more work for Carnival and the credit card company, and slows things down even more. Those customers are not worthy of being on a Funship.

 

 

Did you even read the hoops that the OP went through before contesting? Do you care?

 

The charge was legitimate at the time, but Carnival could no longer provide the cruise. The charge was legitimate if the refund was within a reasonable time. But at some point the legitimacy became questionable.

[sparks1093]

26 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Did you even read the hoops that the OP went through before contesting? Do you care?

 

The charge was legitimate at the time, but Carnival could no longer provide the cruise. The charge was legitimate if the refund was within a reasonable time. But at some point the legitimacy became questionable.

But in spite of this for every person who was impatient and challenged the charge there were thousands of people who recognized the uniqueness of the situation and waited patiently for everything to be sorted out. I am a little concerned about the punitive nature of CCL's response but as one of the patient ones I have mixed feelings about it.

[ontheweb]

1 minute ago, sparks1093 said:

But in spite of this for every person who was impatient and challenged the charge there were thousands of people who recognized the uniqueness of the situation and waited patiently for everything to be sorted out. I am a little concerned about the punitive nature of CCL's response but as one of the patient ones I have mixed feelings about it.

That's reasonable. I know we got our Princess refund just short of 90 days, so I did not have to really consider a chargeback. But at what point does it become unreasonable? 6 months? 9 months? A year?

 

And Carnival could have also considered this before their punitive measures. I would not treat someone who waited say a year the same as someone on the 91st day entered a dispute with their cc company. It's just too easy to say not our fault the computer does it automatically as if the computer does not get its directions from them.

[sparks1093]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

That's reasonable. I know we got our Princess refund just short of 90 days, so I did not have to really consider a chargeback. But at what point does it become unreasonable? 6 months? 9 months? A year?

 

And Carnival could have also considered this before their punitive measures. I would not treat someone who waited say a year the same as someone on the 91st day entered a dispute with their cc company. It's just too easy to say not our fault the computer does it automatically as if the computer does not get its directions from them.

It would take someone time and effort to distinguish the "fair" charge backs from the "unfair" charge backs. Automatically blocking a credit card that was used in a dispute can certainly be considered an anti-fraud measure since many erroneous charges that are disputed are caused by fraud and while it may seem punitive in nature it probably isn't (as long as it is automatically applied to all) and at the end of the day is easy enough to fix (use a different card). Now being put on a "no sail list" as one poster stated as happening to them would be punitive.

[Rob-Bob]

1 hour ago, sparks1093 said:

It would take someone time and effort to distinguish the "fair" charge backs from the "unfair" charge backs. Automatically blocking a credit card that was used in a dispute can certainly be considered an anti-fraud measure since many erroneous charges that are disputed are caused by fraud and while it may seem punitive in nature it probably isn't (as long as it is automatically applied to all) and at the end of the day is easy enough to fix (use a different card). Now being put on a "no sail list" as one poster stated as happening to them would be punitive.

This makes sense.

 

People suggesting that "only 7 months" is being impatient is open for debate.  I think if you have been in communication with the payee and they have made multiple promises to the customer that have not been kept, I can see the customer getting nervous.

 

To some the price of their cruise may be a significant amount of money.  A sum they may not want to see gone forever.  No one knows the future of the cruise industry. 

[ProgRockCruiser]

Dunno if anyone cares, but here are my two-pennies worth of thoughts:

 

The long delays some people experienced in getting a refund was indeed "unfair" (even if not intended by the cruise line, so maybe just "unlucky").  To expect to wait six or more months for potentially thousands of dollars is a big ask for some folks.  So I understand why some people did the charge-back dispute process.  Especially when the future of the whole industry was unknown.  Some people would have had to delay their vacation by years to save up that amount again if lost forever.

 

But on the other hand, when you do claim a charge-back, you are basically claiming the vendor is exhibiting unfair business practices, and is maybe on the verge of what might be considered fraud or theft.  In that case, to look at it from a neutral point of view, why would you choose to do business with that vendor again, especially in the open market where there seems to be plenty of competition?

 

So naturally they black-list you, to avoid future hassle, and expect you to perhaps do the same to them, because fair is fair.

 

If I order something from someone and they "disappear" or fail to deliver my purchase and I have to do a charge back claim, I am never doing business with them again anyway.

 

If I (successfully) did a charge back for this situation, I would book with a different cruise line and just move on - I'd have too much left over bitterness to book with the same line again.

[volfan22701]

20 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

You are 100% incorrect.  Let mw know if you want the facts.  

I DISAGREE AND STAND BY MY STATEMENT.

[jimbo5544]

46 minutes ago, volfan22701 said:

I DISAGREE AND STAND BY MY STATEMENT.

Well using caps must make you right.  If you want, I can explain why I am right, but if not that is fine as well.Your choice.

[ProgRockCruiser]

4 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Well using caps must make you right.  If you want, I can explain why I am right, but if not that is fine as well.Your choice.

Jimbo, even if that particular poster isn't interesting in knowing, I am.  I always want to understand such things, even if never useful in my day to day life, lol.

[sanger727]

I don't blame the OP for disputing the charge after waiting 7 months and being told that the refund was already issued. But what I don't understand is them wanting to continue to cruise with Carnival after this. I've only every disputed a couple charges, but they were in circumstances where we believed the business did not follow the agreement/contract we made. I don't do business with businesses that don't follow agreements/contracts. There are too many fish in the sea to waste my time and money on a company that rips me off. So, even thought I think the OP was being reasonable; I also think that Carnival blacklisting the card/person is also reasonable. Frankly, the customer should also blacklist the company. If you thought Carnival was wrong, and wrong enough that the credit card company should take money from their account and put into yours, why would ever give them more money???

[volfan22701]

15 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Well using caps must make you right.  If you want, I can explain why I am right, but if not that is fine as well.Your choice.

as a business owner for the past 35 years making a customer wait even 90 days is disgraceful. and then not even hitting that date shows total disregard for your customers. my businesses would not survive treating customers that way. there is no explanation you can give that makes that acceptable. sorry.

[jimbo5544]

Just now, volfan22701 said:

as a business owner for the past 35 years making a customer wait even 90 days is disgraceful. and then not even hitting that date shows total disregard for your customers. my businesses would not survive treating customers that way. there is no explanation you can give that makes that acceptable. sorry.

I am answering for someone else you can ignore, not rtying to provoke ou good luck, and oh btw, all the cruise lines did the same thing.  Happy cruising.

[volfan22701]

6 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

I am answering for someone else you can ignore, not rtying to provoke ou good luck, and oh btw, all the cruise lines did the same thing.  Happy cruising.

not provoked. just have to say you seem not to understand what a good business does to take care of their customers. and if they are all doing this, shame on them all. that's it for me, work to get done.

[ontheweb]

12 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

I am answering for someone else you can ignore, not rtying to provoke ou good luck, and oh btw, all the cruise lines did the same thing.  Happy cruising.

And the fact that all cruise companies did this does not make it right. As someone else posted making people who need to make the rent and buy food wait is disgraceful.

 

If they could not deliver in the 90 days promised, they should have not made that promise. Or at least after the 90 days gave some sort of update as to when a refund  should be expected.

[jimbo5544]

15 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Jimbo, even if that particular poster isn't interesting in knowing, I am.  I always want to understand such things, even if never useful in my day to day life, lol.

OK, the poster does not care and I am really not trying to provoke them, but I will answer your question.  There is only one system.  This system was designed to book clients, not cance or cancel and rebook them in mass.  No booking engine in the travel industry was designed for that.  The system works the same for all situations.  They have to be done one at a time and touch several systems, the booking engine, the accounting system and others that I could mention but really do not pertain to the reply.  So the important piece is that everything has to go through the same process, which requires people contact, either the client to Carnival, client to PVP or client to TA.  

 

To add to this, Carnival (and every other cruise line) wanted to try and retain the booking.  The way they accomplished this was to offer a credit (it varied somewhat over the span of what was to come).  Again thinking. That there is one system, for sake of discussion, I will talk to the way we did, which was client to TA.  Someone would call, or be notified that there cruise was cancelled, or that they wanted to cancel.  There is important distinction between these two, because if it triggered several items.  Examples of this were like the following:  was it a cancellation by Carnival, by the customer, was it inside final payment or not, was there penalties in play (if the customer cancelled) stc etc etc.. Then add another variable to the equation, do they want to cancel or rebook.  Then add another variable to the mix is this the first time or was a booking rolled from one cruise, to another cruise, to another cruise etcetcetc.  Then add another variable, was all the payments on the same card, was there credits involved, was there gift cards involved etc etc etc.  Then add another variable, it matterd what the payments were for in some instances, port charges, taxes etc.

 

So each time, we would get a call, determine what the customer wanted and call Carnival.  Their system was overloaded, again not designed for anything like this, AS WAS EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY (hey I kind of like this caps thing…. So the caller on the other end would have to look at the booking from birh to death (the case for a cancellation, others varied) and walk through with accounting while we were on hold, all the transactions that had occured.

 

Now someone cans ay they should have built a system to handle covid, but the truth and fair reply to this is nobody knew and nobody did.  Take all of what I wrote and multiple times hundreds of thousands of bookings, all happenign again and again, because who thought this would be a year and half.  

 

Long answer 

[jimbo5544]

4 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And the fact that all cruise companies did this does not make it right. As someone else posted making people who need to make the rent and buy food wait is disgraceful.

 

If they could not deliver in the 90 days promised, they should have not made that promise. Or at least after the 90 days gave some sort of update as to when a refund  should be expected.

Agaun we disagree. IF COURSE THEY DID, your libness is showing thru.   They did their very best they could for their customers.  Those rents you talk about got stimulus money, did the cruise lines?  Did one person get evicted? Food, give me a break.

[jimbo5544]

15 minutes ago, volfan22701 said:

not provoked. just have to say you seem not to understand what a good business does to take care of their customers. and if they are all doing this, shame on them all. that's it for me, work to get done.

OF course I do,

[jimbo5544]

15 minutes ago, volfan22701 said:

not provoked. just have to say you seem not to understand what a good business does to take care of their customers. and if they are all doing this, shame on them all. that's it for me, work to get done.

Well we disagree again, but you are right, you already told me so, several times.  

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Agaun we disagree. IF COURSE THEY DID, your libness is showing thru.   They did their very best they could for their customers.  Those rents you talk about got stimulus money, did the cruise lines?  Did one person get evicted? Food, give me a break.

how hard would it have been to let people know after 90 days where they stood for getting their refund? Say we are sorry, your refund is not yet processes. We expect it to be within....