Consumer Alert – CASE Advisory on Cancellation of Korean Music Wave Concert

CASE has received a total of six complaints regarding requests for ticket refunds by consumers for the MBC Korean Music Wave Concert scheduled on 16 November 2013.

The concert was cancelled on 8 November 2013 and the organiser, Fatfish Entertainment Pte Ltd (“Fatfish Entertainment”) wound up two days later. The company announced that ticket refunds would be handled by its ticketing agents and appointed provisional liquidators from Stone Forest Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd.

CASE would like to advise affected parties who had purchased their tickets from ticketing agents (e.g. Sistic, Groupon, Qoo10 and Singtic) to contact their respective agents for ticket refunds.  We expect the ticketing agent to refund the consumers within a reasonable time period, which should not exceed 30 days after the cancellation of the show.

For consumers who purchased tickets directly from Fatfish Entertainment, there will be a creditors’ meeting at the end of November 2013 where ticket refunds will be discussed in further detail. CASE would like to advise affected parties to file their proof of debt with the provisional liquidators as soon as possible.

Lastly, we would like to remind consumers to always read the terms and conditions of the agreement before purchasing any tickets. Consumers should also check the refund policies of the respective good or service before making the commitment to purchase the item.

Consumer Alert – Beware of Delayed Delivery Orders by Furniture Companies
From January to October 2013, CASE has handled 20 cases on complaints by consumers about delayed delivery orders that they have placed with two furniture companies - Olena (formerly known as Mattress Atrium) and The Montella Pte Ltd (The Montella Design) (view Table 1).
Company Jan - Dec 2010 Jan - Dec 2011 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Oct 2013
The Montella Pte Ltd 2 9 5 9
Mattress Atrium / Olena 6 1 2 11

Table 1: Filed and assisted cases handled by CASE from 2010 to Oct 2013.

 The said 20 consumers informed CASE that (a) there was no delivery on the agreed delivery date(s) or the company could not commit to a delivery date, (b) the furniture delivered was not what was contracted for or was defective, or (c) the company failed to honour a refund or changed their mind about a refund to the consumers (even though there was no delivery). Please view some examples of the disputes below.


No. Date Order Placed Agreed Delivery Date Actual Delivery Date Summary of Case Complaint
1 28 Apr 2013 6 Jul 2013 21 Sep 2013 - no delivery of sofa and leather box kit till date On 7 April 2013, the consumer purchased a sofa and a leather box kit at $3,150 from the company. The consumer paid $1,650 as a deposit. The delivery date should be on 6 July 2013. However, the two items have not been delivered despite the consumer’s repeated correspondence with the company. The consumer requested for a full refund of the deposit. 
2 29 Apr 2013 Before 30 Jun 2013 25 Sep 2013 - no delivery of sofa till date On 29 April 2013, the consumer purchased several furniture items from the company. The total contractual value was $6,846 and the consumer paid $4,846 till date. This purchase includes a sofa, which costs $3,946, scheduled for delivery between two to three months. There was also a written commitment that the delivery would take place before 30 June 2013. However, the sofa has not been delivered. The consumer has lost confidence in the company due to this incident and other delays with a previous order and requested to cancel the purchase of the furniture and seek a refund of $6,846.
3 4 May 2013 24 Aug 2013

4 Sep 2013 - mattresses and small sized bed frame delivered with defects

15 Sep - big sized bed frame not delivered till date

On 4 May 2013, the consumer purchased a big sized bed with single mattress and a small sized bed with three mattresses from the company costing $5,219. The agreed date for delivery was on 24 Aug 2013, but was delayed. On 4 September 2013, the company delivered defective furniture. The colour of bed frame for the small sized bed was wrong and the mattress of the big sized bed was defective. The company has not delivered the bed frame for the big sized bed till date. The consumer requested for a full refund.
4 18 May 2013 21 Jun 2013

21 Jun 2013 - all furniture delivered except for mattress

5 Oct 2013 - no delivery of mattress till date

On 18-May-2013, the consumer paid in full for some furniture from the company at $2,000. The agreed delivery date was 21 June 2013 and all the items were delivered except for a mattress. The company informed the consumer that the delay was due to some shipment difficulties. Subsequently, they promised to deliver on several dates on July and September but the delivery failed to take place. The consumer lost confidence after a four months wait and requested to void the purchase of the mattress and recover the money paid.


Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), it is an unfair practice for retailers to make a false claim that they can deliver the furniture on a certain date when it is untrue. Consumers can seek redress and pursue their case under the provisions of the CPFTA and are advised to proceed to the Small Claims Tribunals or approach CASE if they are unable to resolve the dispute with the retailer on their own.

CASE would like to remind consumers to exercise prudence when making purchases. They should never pay in full up front to the retailer before the furniture is delivered. Consumers should only pay upon delivery or pay a small sum for a deposit initially and the rest of the payment after the furniture is delivered and in good condition.

Consumer Alert – Expiry Date required for Cosmetic Products

CASE has received complaints about cosmetic products1 without properly labelled expiry or manufacturing dates.

This is not an allowed practice. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) sets the guidelines for cosmetic products according to the ASEAN Cosmetic Directive (ACD). All cosmetic products may be marketed only if product label is in full compliance with the ACD. This includes labelling the manufacturing or expiry date of the product in clear terms (e.g. month/year or day/month/year). The date should be preceded by the words “expiry date” or “best before”. Indication of the expiry date is mandatory for cosmetic products with minimum durability2 of less than 30 months.

Consumers should ensure that all cosmetic products that they intend to purchase have properly labeled expiry dates which are legible. Should they purchase cosmetic products without expiry dates, consumers could file a complaint with the Health Sciences Authority. The consumer may approach the retailer to seek redress as an expired product can be deemed to be a lemon and consumer can pursue under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act. Consumers may also file a complaint with CASE.

The HSA defines cosmetic products as substances and mixtures manufactured and sold for the purpose of cleaning, protecting, and improving the appearance of one’s complexion, skin, hair or teeth. Cosmetic products include skincare products, make-up colours, bath and shower preparations.

The date of minimum durability is the date which the product, stored under appropriate conditions, continues to fulfil its initial function. If necessary, this information shall be supplemented by an indication of the conditions which must be satisfied to guarantee the stated durability.

Consumer Complaints Filed With CASE - People's Park Complex
(For the 3 months of August - October 2013)

To identify top tenants with the highest number of customer complaints filed with Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE)

No. Name Unit Number No. of complaints
1 Tele Mobile Communications* #01-90 9
2 Mobile Sensation* #01-50 6
3 G-Tech Mobile #01K-96A 3
4 Mobile Innovation #01-04 3

*No longer registered in Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Singapore (ACRA) as of 5th November 2013.

* Consumer with outstanding matters with Tele Mobile Communications or Mobile Sensation should consider lodging a claim with Small Claim Tribunal as soon as possible. For more information please visit

*Figures are accurate as of 1st November 2013. Table will be updated monthly.
People’s Park Complex Management (MCST 473) support this initiative


Consumer Complaints Filed With CASE - Sim Lim Square
(For the 3 months of Aug - Oct 2013)

To identify top tenants with the highest number of customer complaints filed with Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE)

No. Name Unit Number No. of complaints
1 Cyber Maestro Pte Ltd #02-77 29
2 JW World Pte Ltd #01-42 15
3 Mobile Apps Pte Ltd #01-50 15
4 S.M.S Gaming LLP #01-43 / 01-44 11
5 Mobile Planet Pte Ltd #01-42 6
6 K-One Mobile LLP #01-40 4
7 Square United Cam #02-72 4
8 Focuspoint Electronics Pte Ltd #01-43B 3
9 Mackin Pte Ltd #02-87 3
10 Royal Gadgets Pte Ltd #01-47 3

*Figures are accurate as of 1st November 2013. Table will be updated monthly.
Sim Lim Square Management (MCST 1440) support this initative


This website's content is Copyright © CASE | Website Designed and Maintained By Elves Lab | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy