A consumer and her husband booked a 10-day summer cruise which cost over €2,000. The problem with the cruise was the cabin they were given. The consumer claimed that during the night she could not sleep because of the intolerable noises and mechanical vibrations in her cabin.

She complained with the cruise liner’s customer care who visited the cabin to check the noise. The officer confirmed that the level of the noise was in fact significantly high but unfortunately the cabin could not be changed as there weren’t any vacant ones.

The couple were provided with earplugs as a temporary solution for the night. After the seventh night, the cruise liner changed the couple’s cabin and the problem was resolved.

The consumer claimed compensation of over €1,500 from the travel agency through which she booked the cruise – as proportional compensation for the number of nights she could not sleep due to the noise in her cabin.

The agency rejected the consumer’s claim so the latter filed a complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs within the MCCAA. Mediation was carried out but, unfortunately, the two parties did not reach an amicable understanding. Hence, the consumer opted to take her case in front of the Consumer Claims Tribunal.

During the sitting the travel agency’s representative said that every cabin on a cruise may be affected by some kind of noise but usually such noise is of an acceptable level. The agency’s representative also said that what is acceptable usually varies from one person to another.

After taking into consideration the evidence presented during the sitting, the arbiter, while agreeing that noise inconvenience is subjective and may therefore vary from one person to another, ruled in favour of the consumer as the cruise liner had in fact changed the couple’s cabin after agreeing that the noise level was unacceptable.

The tribunal, however, did not award the consumer the full compensation claimed but only €450. The reason being that the consumer had claimed compensation for seven nights for two people, hers and her husband’s, but the case presented in front of the tribunal was only in the consumer’s name and no proof was presented that the husband suffered the same inconvenience.

Furthermore the tribunal took into consideration that during these seven days the consumers made use of the cruise liner’s facilities, such as, for instance, the meals, swimming pools, entertainment and other activities that are usually available for guests on a cruise liner and hence full compensation would result in unjustified enrichment.