Case Studies For April 2014

Case Study #1

In Jan 2014, Ms Tay* purchased a dark blue dress costing $55.90 from a clothes shop after trying on the display dress. As it was free-size and the dress was a suitable fit for her, Ms Tay requested for a new dress and paid after checking that there were no defects. However, when Ms Tay returned home and tried on the dress again, she realised that the cutting for the new piece was unsuitable as the sleeve region was too tight. As it was the festive season, Ms Tay went to the shop again about one week later to request an exchange. However, the staff refused. Ms Tay was unsatisfied and approached CASE for assistance.

CASE negotiated with the shop on her behalf and Ms Tay was given a one-to-one exchange of the dress.

Case Study #2

In Jun 2013, Mrs Suainah* purchased a branded brown leather bag worth $510 from a shop. The bag was defective after three months of use as the buckle of the strap was dislodged due to a loosened screw. Mrs Suainah was issued a product exchange form in Oct 2013, stating that the shop would provide an exchange for the bag. However, despite the staffs’ claims that the exchanged bag was new, Mrs Suainah found the buckle of the strap in similar condition as her earlier bag. She requested for a satisfactory repair of the replacement bag, failing which a refund.

Mrs Suainah reported the matter to CASE and the business was informed that they may have infringed upon - CPFTA Section 12A – Lemon Law – Defective Goods. CASE negotiated with the business and they agreed to provide a replacement bag. Mrs Suainah received the replacement bag and deemed it defect free.

Case Study #3

In Feb 2014, Mdm Rina* visited a beauty salon for an eyebrow embroidery session. She specifically requested for the promotional $58 session which was advertised on their Facebook page. The staff at the salon acknowledged her request and proceeded to do the treatment. After the treatment, the staff informed Mdm Rina that the promotional $58 session had ended. Mdm Rina was charged $406 for the treatment which she disagreed as the advertisement on Facebook had indicated that the promotion was valid until Mar 2014. Since the treatment was already done, Mdm Rina had no choice but to pay $406 in protest. She requested for a refund of $350.

CASE contacted the business and they were advised that they may have infringed upon the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) - making false claims that goods or services are available or available in particular quantities or prices. After negotiation, the business agreed to refund Mdm Rina $350.

Case Study #4

In Jan 2014, Mr Wayne* purchased a queen size bed frame at $280. It was delivered a day later. Upon investigation, Mr Wayne discovered that the bed frame which was made of wood had multiple black patches and there was a layer of wood lacquer peeling off, exposing the bare wood. The item differed from the picture that Mr Wayne saw at the company’s outlet which had smooth finishing and was without defects. Mr Wayne informed the company who agreed to replace the bed frame. 10 days later, another bed frame set was delivered. However, the set was in worse condition than the previous set. Mr Wayne was not satisfied and requested for a replacement of a set in good condition, if not, a replacement of a different bed frame model.

CASE negotiated with the company on Mr Wayne’s behalf and the company eventually agreed to provide a replacement of a new set of bed frame in good condition. The bed frame was subsequently delivered in good condition.

Case Study #5

In Dec 2013, Mr Foo* purchased a used car from the company at $52,000 and paid in full. The vehicle was delivered on one day later. Two months later, the ownership of the vehicle had yet to be transferred to him. Upon research, Mr Foo discovered that the vehicle was not registered with the company. He notified the company and they admitted to neglecting the procedure works. The company gave a further promise to act on the matter within a week but to no avail. Mr Foo requested to expedite the proper transfer of ownership without further delay.

The case was reported and the company was informed that they may have infringed on – CPFTA Section 4(a) - misleading claims, Section 4(b) - false claims and the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Motor Vehicle Dealer Deposits) Regulations 2009 – delay in submitting finance. The issue was resolved after the company successfully transferred the vehicle ownership to Mr Foo.

*Please note that surnames have been changed to ensure the privacy of the consumers.

Should you find yourself in a similar situation, please do not hesitate to seek assistance from CASE. For general enquiries, you can call our hotline at 6100 0315 between 9am and 5pm from Mondays to Fridays and between 9am and 12pm on Saturdays. For an in-depth consultation with our officers, please visit us at 170 Ghim Moh Road, #05-01 Ulu Pandan Community Building, between 9am and 4pm from Mondays to Saturdays. You can also file a complaint online here.
This website's content is Copyright © CASE | Website Designed and Maintained By Elves Lab | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy