Multiple legal claims filed against interior design firm for unfinished homes, overdue payments

SINGAPORE: After months of shopping around for interior designers, Mr Calvin Ho and Ms Melissa Tan finally found one they liked and were looking forward to celebrating Chinese New Year in their new home.

They signed a contract in October 2022 with interior design firm Formal Informal Practice, which they said had unique designs.

But nearly two years on, Mr Ho and Ms Tan still have not been able to move into their home. Hiccups occurred soon after the contract was signed, with the firm making mistakes taking measurements and the designer overseeing their renovation abruptly leaving the project.

The project then went through the hands of two more designers before the firm’s director – Aden Amos Seow – took over in September last year.

But months rolled by and their home was still not ready. Tired of the delays and constantly chasing for updates, the couple sought help from the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) in mid-January this year. The consumer watchdog told them there was little it could do as Mr Seow did not respond to any of its emails and calls.

That was also when Mr Seow “ghosted” the couple. WhatsApp screenshots showed no response from Mr Seow for nearly two months.

“We are both outstationed most of the time … that’s why we chose to pay a premium for (an interior designer),” said Mr Ho. “In the end, it felt like a nightmare.”

The couple decided to pursue legal action to claim their money back from the firm and have been awarded a court judgment for nearly S$75,000 (US$56,000).

CNA also spoke to other home owners who faced delays and unfinished homes despite making partial or close to full payments to Formal Informal Practice. Two of them were granted orders from the Small Claims Tribunals for refunds of around S$7,500 and S$20,000, while the third home owner did not file a claim with the tribunal as the refund he is asking for exceeds the claim limit of S$30,000.

Another home owner Fang Wenkai, who was also granted a Small Claims Tribunal order, is asking for his S$8,424 payment back after the firm provided incomplete designs and raised the quotation by S$18,000.

CNA has seen and verified the orders.

But Formal Informal Practice has not complied with the orders, said those interviewed, adding that Mr Seow did not show up for any of the tribunal consultations or hearings.

“If you can’t enforce the order, what you're left with is a piece of paper that you can frame up in your home as memorabilia,” said Mr Fang.

The police have confirmed that multiple reports have been filed against the company and that investigations are ongoing. 

CASE said it received five complaints against Formal Informal Practice in the last year about delays in the completion of renovation projects.

The firm’s director, Mr Seow, has denied most of the complaints, telling CNA they are “not entirely true”.

Formal Informal Practice, also known as Formal Informal Office Pte Ltd, is still listed as a “live” company on Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).

Mr Seow said the firm is no longer in operation and he moved out of the company’s listed address in February.

More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/interior-design-formal-informal-practice-renovation-delays-aden-seow-4501051

Customers left with unused credits worth over S$1,850 after JCube nail salon closes abruptly

Two customers of a nail salon at JCube have filed police reports after the salon closed abruptly, leaving them with unfulfilled packages which they had bought for between S$500 and S$2,000.

They have also filed claims with the Small Claims Tribunal.

Speaking to Mothership, one of the customers, Juvina, said the salon was under a brand known as Beauty Nails Spa (BNS), which operates a second outlet at Far East Plaza.

Juvina added that she had been a long-time patron of the shop from around six to seven years ago and was familiar with the owner, a Vietnamese woman by the name of Nguyen Thi Ngoc Giau.

Bought a S$540 package just before the salon closed

According to Juvina, she had bought an "additional" package from a manicurist at Beauty Nails Spa's JCube outlet on Jan. 31.

It cost her S$540, bringing the total amount of her package to S$850.

Clients of the spa used the packages on a "credit basis", Juvina said, which means the cost was paid upfront.

On Mar. 1, she attempted to call the salon to book her next appointment, but was unable to reach anybody despite repeated attempts.

Juvina said she then went to their website to look for the details of the Far East Plaza outlet.

Instead, she saw that the addresses of both the JCube and Far East Plaza outlets had been replaced with a new address listed at Eastpoint Mall.

Juvina further claimed that when she called the Eastpoint Mall outlet, she found out from the manager there that the owner had already sold the business about six to seven months ago.

In addition, she was also told by the Eastpoint Mall outlet manager that her package with BNS would not be honoured.

Juvina then filed a police report.

Salon gave no notice of closure

Juvina was not alone in her encounter.

Another long-time customer, Jane, told Mothership that she recently bought a new package worth S$540 from the salon's JCube outlet on Jan. 10.

Jane last visited the JCube outlet in February for an appointment, but was not told anything about the salon's impending closure.

On Feb. 28, she called the salon to book another appointment but was unable to get through.

Jane then claimed that when she went down to the salon on Mar. 3, she found that it had closed.

She was also supposedly told by the salon's next-door tenants that BNS had already been closed for a few days.

Jane also alleged," (The) customer service of JCube mentioned that the owner (had) said they were short of manpower and so the shop was closed. However, when we tried to call them (the salon) again, the line had been terminated."

Jane said she then called BNS's Far East Plaza outlet, where a staff member allegedly told her that the Far East Plaza branch had detached from the JCube outlet in 2022, and will not honour any package that had been signed there.

This resulted in her filing a police report.

In total, Jane has over $1,000 worth credits that have yet to be utilised

More at https://mothership.sg/2023/03/jcube-beauty-nails-spa-scam-close

Fitness studios in S'pore shut down overnight, owner uncontactable, customers stranded

Police reports have been lodged against two fitness studios in Singapore after customers and instructors discovered that they have closed down without notice.

Kyklos Studio and its affiliated brand X Fitness are reportedly run by Atlas Ang, 31, according to The Straits Times.

Kyklos Studio customers discovered something was amiss when they stepped into a deserted yoga studio on Sep. 12.

The lights were on, the equipment were ready, but the instructor was nowhere to be seen even 20 minutes into the scheduled class.

Kyklos Studio runs yoga classes at Tekka Place and spin classes at the GR.iD shopping mall, according to ClassPass, which is used to book sessions at gyms and fitness centres.

A disgruntled customer complained online about the Sep. 12 yoga class, further mentioning that the business has remained incommunicado despite repeatedly calling and messaging the number it provided.

A quick online search revealed that the Kyklos Studio website is no longer accessible, while its Instagram and Facebook pages are also no longer available.

ST reported that Ang has become uncontactable.

The X Fitness website, which is no longer available, also lists classes in Hougang Sports Hall.

Left hanging

Even though a refund to the affected customer was still made through ClassPass for the credits that were spent on the class without the instructor, other customers who had booked classes and packages with the studio directly were left hanging and were provided no recourse for refunds.

Another person left high and dry said she had only discovered that Kyklos Studio had shut down when she went to their Instagram page to book another class.

According to her, customers with existing packages were meant to directly message the Instagram page to book classes as the studio was migrating to another application.

The only information she could find was from an instructor who said they were also "very much shocked and confused".

The instructor apologised and said they have been trying to reach the studio since Sunday night, Sep. 11.

Sep. 11 likely last day of operations

ST also reported that a customer was at the Kyklos Studio at GR.iD on Sep. 11 just before 11am and was likely the last person to see the business in operation.

Shouting was heard coming from inside the studio at that time, and there were two men inside the studio's premises.

A few minutes later, the customer received a notification on her phone that the class had been cancelled and then the studio’s doors were locked by the staff.

Customers' classes expired without notice

Before the sudden disappearance of the studio, it allegedly removed tickets for classes from its members' accounts without prior notice.

Mothership reader Stephanie Say said she sent the studio a message on Sep. 7 after realising that a ticket went missing in her account.

The studio responded by claiming that her ticket had already expired.

According to Say, she had bought a package of 10 classes for S$120 during a sale in 2021, which was supposed to be valid for a year.

Then, in mid-August 2022, the studio migrated to a different host app.

"This caused a lot of dissatisfaction because people lost their old tickets when the owner claimed that the tickets expired, even though we know they hadn't," said Say.

She is far from the only customer to face this problem, based on the studio's Google Reviews.

In the recent two weeks, numerous users have complained about a glitch that caused their tickets to disappear after a system revamp.

When queried on this, the studio told the users that there were no tickets left in their accounts as they had expired.

More at https://mothership.sg/2022/09/kyklos-studio-x-fitness-closed-down/

All Nails Mama outlets close down suddenly, leaving customers with unused packages in the lurch

Nail salon Nails Mama has shut down both its outlet at Kovan Heartland Mall and Block 152 Serangoon North Avenue 1, leaving customers with unused packages worth hundreds of dollars.

Stomper Diana said: "I bought a nails package from Nails Mama and still have $342.20 outstanding."

She told Stomp: "The last time I visited them was in January. Since March, I have been having trouble getting a slot to do my nails. This rarely happens in the last few years when I patronised them.

"On Aug 4, Nails Mama sent me a WhatsApp message to inform me that they will not be continuing their lease at Heartland Mall and the last day of operation will be Aug 28.

"However, we can use our outstanding credits at another outlet in Serangoon North Ave 1.

"I have tried replying to their WhatsApp message, calling their shop, calling their mobile numbers for both outlets, Facebook Messenger and even Instagram to fix an appointment to use my credits, but never once did they respond or pick up the calls.

"A few days after I messaged them on FB, they closed down their page. I started to get worried and am suspicious that they might have closed their business totally.

"A friend who also patronises them was at Kovan Heartland mall on Aug 19 and informed me that Nails Mama was totally closed.

"I decided to Google online to see if there were any comments or complaints from Nails Mama customers. I found many of their customers stranded in the same situation and they have left reviews on Nails Mama's Google page."

One reviewer said: "Took packages from them but no one called or even messaged regarding them ceasing their operations. I have a $300 package with them and they did this unethically. Tried calling them but no one answered."

Another wrote: "This is so horrible. Made an appointment with them on Aug 16. When I went there, the entire place was closed. Been trying to call the shop to reschedule an appointment to a later date but couldn’t get hold of them. I just went to the shop on Aug 9 and the staff just said it was due to (Nails Mama) not renewing the lease. I still have hundreds worth of credits."

Diana told Stomp that she went to the Serangoon North outlet on Saturday (Aug 20). "And indeed, it was totally shut."

The Stomper said: "I patronise the Kovan outlet and I know they have quite a fair bit of elderly customers too and they may not be aware of the closure and that their credits are no longer accessible."

https://stomp.straitstimes.com/singapore-seen/all-nails-mama-outlets-close-down-suddenly-leaving-customers-with-unused-packages-in

AMK Nail Salon Closes, CASE Receives 47 Complaints From Customers Who Bought Packages

Ang Mo Kio Nail Salon Closes With Over S$40,000 Worth Of Customers’ Packages Unfulfilled

Frequent patrons of beauty services would typically buy packages that offer a better bang for their buck.

However, customers of Bling Bling Nails, a manicure parlour at Ang Mo Kio (AMK), lost hundreds to thousands of dollars after it shuttered suddenly last October.

Disgruntled, over 100 of them banded together and lodged a police report on the matter.

Shin Min Daily News later reported that between 1 Oct 2021 to 20 Jun 2022, the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received 47 complaints about Bling Bling Nails.

AMK nail salon closes suddenly

Bling Bling Nails had been operating at Block 452 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 for four to five years when it suddenly closed down in October last year.

A customer named Ms Huang told Shin Min Daily News that she had frequented the nail salon since 2017 and even signed up for packages.

She had always trusted them, especially since she knew the owner, Ms Low Kaining.

But when the nail salon closed down, Ms Huang still had over S$1,000 left in her package.

Initially, customers were told that when the new salon, Collate Nails, takes over the premises, they would be able to continue using their packages there.

However, shortly after taking over, Collate Nails founder Cherie Yu shared that the shop had disputes with Bling Bling Nails. Therefore, they would not be allowing customers to utilise the remainder of their packages.

In a Facebook livestream on Tuesday (21 Jun), Ms Yu explained that she was not given the full story when she took over the salon.

According to Ms Yu, she was told that customers would be able to finish using their Bling Bling Nails packages fairly quickly. She and Ms Low also agreed that some customers will be getting refunds for their packages instead.

It was only after taking over that she realised the salon had promised customers that if they spent S$300, they would receive S$800 worth of credits.

Alleging that the packages were worth over S$100,000 in total, Ms Yu said that if she were to fulfil all of them, her business will go bankrupt.

Many customers still have packages remaining

The affected customers then formed a Telegram group with over 100 people. Together, they lodged a report against Bling Bling Nails with the police as well as with the small claims tribunal.

The case was later dropped after the owner of Bling Bling Nails promised to open an outlet at Thomson Road so that they could complete their packages.

While the new shop did indeed open in November, Ms Huang claimed that it was extremely difficult to book an appointment.

The salon owner previously said she was willing to allow them to use their packages to buy products, but she did not fulfil this promise.

Speaking to MS News, Bling Bling Nails customer Joey Lee shared that on 13 Feb, the Thomson Road outlet shuttered as well.

Patrons, as well as three staff members, were only informed about the closure on the day itself. The employees, who were foreigners, were suddenly left without their work permits.

Customers like Ms Lee and Ms Huang also lost contact with the salon owner as she had changed her number.

Ms Lee, who had signed a package before Covid-19 hit, still had over S$1,000 remaining.

Another customer, Ms Yang, said she signed two packages with Bling Bling Nails, one in 2018 and another in 2021. She still has over S$500 left in it.

Bling Bling Nails’ website states that they had another outlet at Novena, which has also closed down.

CASE receives 47 complaints

According to Shin Min Daily News, CASE received 47 complaints about Bling Bling Nails between the period of 1 Oct 2021 and 20 Jun 2022.

Most complaints were about how Collate Nails was not allowing customers to utilise their Bling Bling Nails packages. Several other complaints also address the lack of a refund.

The total value of these customers’ packages is reportedly worth over S$40,000.

CASE President Melvin Yong said those who face similar issues may reach out to them for help.

Ms Lee told MS News that the police had said they could not take action against the owner. She shared that the situation was particularly concerning since many of the AMK outlet’s customers were elderly folks in the area.

She now hopes that the authorities will be able to do something to help those who were affected.

Hope CASE will get to the bottom of things

Due to the nail salon’s sudden closure, many customers have a lot of money on the line.

With the owner uncontactable, they can only look to the authorities for help.

Hopefully, CASE will get to the bottom of things and resolve the matter once and for all. But ultimately, it should also be up to Bling Bling Nails to take responsibility and do right by their customers.

https://mustsharenews.com/amk-nail-salon/

S'porean couple paid S$28,700 for renovation works that never began, refund delayed for months

A Singaporean couple paid S$28,700 to an Interior Designer (ID) company for their renovation works, only to have the renovation process delayed, and subsequent promises for a refund protracted.

Speaking to Mothership, Grace Tay, 25, shared that the entire ordeal had impacted herself and her husband, both new homeowners, greatly.

Found company on Instagram

Tay shared that she had discovered the company – Signature K Concept Pte. Ltd. – via Instagram advertisements.

After taking a look at the company's profile, she had decided to give the company a shot despite them being relatively new, as they had good designs.

She added that as the company's team comprised younger people, their target audience appeared clear: young and new homeowners like Tay and her husband.

As theirs was an HDB resale flat, Tay shared that the process had happened "pretty quickly". The total sum quoted for their renovation works was at S$55,000, reportedly because it was a resale flat.

The boss of the company had also showed them a couple of "three-dimensional designs" of the renovations, and they had even viewed the flat together.

The couple made a payment of S$28,700 on Dec. 19, 2021, for the deposit and an initial payment, as the contract required payments to be made progressively.

According to Tay, renovation works for the apartment was supposed to start the following week. However, that was when things went awry.

"Excuses every week"

Tay shared that the boss of the company, who they were liaising with, started giving "new excuses each week", as to why the works on the house had not begun.

No updates were provided on what the timeline for the renovation works was, added Tay.

Citing suspicions over the company's reliability, Tay and her husband decided to withdraw from working with Signature K Concept, and requested for a refund.

Refund drags on

According to Tay, the boss of the company had promised to refund their money in full by the end of the week itself, in December.

However, after the week had passed, Tay shared that the boss had continued to delay their refund.

She added that he had later informed them in late January 2022 that he had used their money to "tide over his company" during the previous month.

The boss also claimed that their company had "needed to do a year end audit", and would thus only be able to provide Tay with a refund on Jan. 21.

Tay said: "We still have yet to receive any updates on the settlement agreement or if any money is going to be refunded to us."

Company apparently experiencing financial problems

According to scam.sg, a site where users can "report" scams, nine individuals have reported that the company – Signature K Concept Pte Ltd. – could be a scam.

Most comments also shared similar experiences to Tay, of delays in renovation works, followed by subsequent delays in the refunding of their monies.

According to Shin Min Daily News, another affected customer said that they had received a lawyer's letter from the company on Jan. 18, explaining that the company had run into financial difficulties, and was experiencing problems in sustaining the business.

As such, they would be making the refunds to their customers in "progressive repayments", as soon as they could.

The lawyer representing the company told the Chinese paper that they would be speaking to the company on Feb. 28, to better understand their position, before updating the affected customers on the next steps for the refund process.

Mothership has reached out to Regal Law LLC, and will update this story with their response.

Tay shared that on her end, they had been supposed to receive the settlement agreement from the lawyer by Feb. 28.

Monthly repayments from the company were supposed to start in March. However, that too, is delayed, and Tay has not yet heard back from the lawyer or the company regarding the settlement agreement and their refund.

Tay noted that the company has since taken down all of their profiles on social media, as well as their website.

https://mothership.sg/2022/03/renovation-id-company-scam/

61 year old shu shu went to salon for a haircut, ended up paying $1.7K for 13 sessions of chapalang treatments!

99 Reno is a scam empire! Beware!

S’pore Wedding Company Allegedly Owes Customers Up To $30K, Over 17 CASE Reports Filed

Wedding By LQ Allegedly Owes Multiple Customers Refunds From Cancellations

Organising a wedding is no mean feat, which is why most couples would engage a wedding company to help plan and sort out the nitty-gritty details.

Unfortunately, things have been far from smooth-sailing for customers of Wedding by LQ.

Following the cancellation of their weddings due to Covid-19 restrictions, customers have allegedly been unable to receive compensation. The amounts that the company owes different couples apparently range from $500 to $30,000.

According to BERITAmediacorp, at least 4 police and 17 Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) reports have been filed against the company between 1 Jan and 5 Oct. Police investigations are ongoing.

Futile attempts to receive a refund from Wedding by LQ

A Wedding by LQ customer, Mr Fariq, took to Facebook on 9 Oct to share his failed attempts to get a refund from the company.

Mr Fariq detailed his futile attempts to contact the vendor, claiming that countless calls were left unanswered. The single call that eventually went through entailed the vendor promising to make a refund by a certain time.

When the refund never came and Mr Fariq tried to contact the vendor again, he was allegedly blocked from all forms of communication.

You can read the post in full here, and have a look at the screenshots of their exchanges which Mr Fariq posted.

Customers post complaints on Wedding by LQ Facebook page

A look at the Wedding by LQ Facebook page also shows various comments requesting an audience with the company.

One netizen even shared that he has been waiting for a refund for over a year.

Another netizen claimed that despite the company’s rampant activity on social media, they have not responded to his email.

At the time of writing, comments are disabled on their more recent Facebook posts.

Wedding by LQ’s offices shifted without notice

According to BERITAmediacorp, various customers have resorted to visiting Wedding by LQ’s physical office to seek compensation.

However, upon reaching the addresses stated on their Facebook page, the office seemed to no longer be in operation.

They apparently discovered that Wedding by LQ had shifted to a different office without informing customers.

But when some of them tried to visit the new office, they found it closed too, reported BERITAmediacorp. The company’s website also appears to be unavailable.

Government issues guidelines for dispute resolution

As Covid-19 has affected many wedding plans, the Government has issued guidelines for anyone seeking to find solutions to disputes relating to deposit repayments.

While they can help mediate proceedings, they urge both service providers and clients to find a compromise between themselves.

One couple had attempted this route but have yet to find an agreement, according to BERITAmediacorp.

Meanwhile, at least 4 others have filed police reports, which the police have confirmed receipt of with BERITAmediacorp. They stated that they’re investigating the matter.

CASE also confirmed that they’ve received 17 complaints between 1 Jan and 5 Oct 2021.

https://mustsharenews.com/wedding-by-lq-company-refunds/

Over 40 disgruntled members of 2 F45 fitness studios begin to get refunds after months of delays

SINGAPORE — For a few months, disgruntled members of two fitness studios have been trying to secure refunds after they continued to be charged even after they said they asked to terminate or put their memberships on hold.

Nine complaints have been lodged with the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) against F45 Training Yio Chu Kang and the unopened F45 Training Geylang Bahru.

Responding to TODAY’s queries, the police confirmed that one gym member had made a police report.

The gym operators have started issuing more refunds in recent days after one unhappy member set up an Instagram page last month to air her frustrations and attracted more than 40 members with similar grievances.

When TODAY visited the studio at Yio Chu Kang at 1pm on Wednesday (Sept 8), a man who declined to have his name published had just finished teaching a class. He identified himself as the former owner who stepped down two months ago and is now only teaching classes.

Checks by TODAY showed that his name is listed among the registered owners of two firms that run the gyms.

F45 Training operates on a franchise business model around the world, with an “own an F45” page linked to its website, where people can make enquiries.

The man admitted to having a “lack of communication” with customers, adding that he and the studios’ three other partners are in the midst of “restructuring”.

“The entire team will get a new management team to come to do a whole restructuring and to give better communication to all members,” he said.

​​The Yio Chu Kang outlet is owned by JDAA Private Limited, which was incorporated in August 2019.

Based on the contract for members of the Geylang Bahru outlet seen by TODAY, it is owned by JDA Fitness Private Limited, which was incorporated in January this year.

When asked about the situation of the Geylang Bahru gym, originally due to open in March, the man said that it is now slated to start operating in October.

“We have faced many delays… (getting) approval, licensing, things like that. We didn’t have an update ourselves so, of course, we can provide them with an update that says that we don't have an update… but we understand we could have done a better job,” he told TODAY.

He said that the delay in providing refunds boils down to “mismanagement”. “At the end of the day, we won’t create an excuse for it. What we are trying to do is to salvage the situation.”

When TODAY visited the Geylang Bahru studio, neighbouring tenants said that they have noticed workmen at the site “once in a while”, most recently last month. They have not heard construction noises or seen gym equipment being moved into the space.

At about 2.30pm, F45 Training Geylang Bahru issued an apology on its Instagram page, noting its “lack of communication and updates”. It also urged members who are seeking a refund to email the gym.

Operators of fitness studios have been hit by various restrictions since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and they have been forced to close their doors during various periods.

The latest official advisory from the authorities, as of Sept 2, is that gyms and fitness studios can host mask-off activities in groups of up to five if all individuals are vaccinated.

MEMBERS’ GRIEVANCES

Complaints from members mainly centre on lack of communication, having trouble getting refunds or being charged fees without their agreement.

One former member of F45 Training Yio Chu Kang told TODAY that she continued to be charged for two months after she thought her membership had been terminated. Another member claimed that her membership had been renewed for four months without her agreement.

The woman who set up the Instagram account, who wanted to be known only as Jin and is a former member of the Yio Chu Kang studio, said that she did so to shed light on the issue she was facing because she felt “helpless”.

“So many people were affected for so long and he really ignored all of us until we got together on this account, making it clear we were impatient and were putting pressure on him,” the 27-year-old administrative assistant said.

She added that most of the more than 40 people who had reported negative experiences across both studios have been refunded in recent days.

“Maybe about eight of them from Geylang Bahru are still waiting for refunds, but the management reached out to them this afternoon promising to refund them by today (Wednesday). I think about three or four from Yio Chu Kang have yet to be refunded.”

Jin, who had been a member of the studio since late last year, had paid a total of S$828 for 12 weeks of classes and managed to attend classes for four weeks before the Phase Two (heightened alert) measures came into effect.

She said that she had some difficulties suspending her membership, an option offered by the gym.

After sending numerous emails and text messages, and creating the Instagram account, Jin finally received a refund on Aug 18 and her membership was cancelled.

“A gym is a place to get healthy, but when the management doesn't care about your health concerns and ignores your questions and valid, reasonable requests especially during times like these, it ruins the whole purpose of going to one,” she said.

“We do understand that gyms have been affected due to the heightened alert measures, but we would really appreciate having some assurance from the owners during these stressful periods when everyone is stuck in limbo.”

Ms Sumi Neo, 39, another former member of the Yio Chu Kang studio, filed a complaint with Case and sought help from her bank, which advised her to cancel her credit card linked to her membership after she continued to be charged two months' worth of fees (a total of S$512) despite asking for the termination of her membership.

The bank, DBS, also helped her raise a dispute over the matter.

Ms Neo, who works in the aviation industry, said: “I asked for my termination so shouldn’t there be a reply on the status of my termination? I even completed the notice period required before I could stop going there.

“When the gym deducted the first amount, it insisted that it was a system glitch but when it happened again, I knew it couldn’t be anymore. So I asked the company what was going on but I was left in the dark.”

On Tuesday, Ms Neo said that DBS managed to receive one month’s worth of fees from the studio.

“And today, the bank decided to fully just credit back the amount after hearing everything that had happened over this time. It said (it did so) out of goodwill,” she said.

Human resource executive Sylvia Chee, 29, has not been as fortunate.

Ms Chee thought she had signed up for a “one-off” four-month membership that lasted from January to the start of May after she was given one complimentary week.

“I needed to move out from that area so I told the people in charge that I would like to continue on but only for two months. But before we could have a proper discussion, I was charged for another four months again,” she said, noting that the gym charged her S$1,076.

Her requests for help have fallen on deaf ears, she added.

“I feel really frustrated as he promised to do something but he has dragged it on for months and eventually totally ghosted me.

“Also I feel really stressed now as I know that he has many refunds to make and I’m scared that I may not get back my money.”

Case president Melvin Yong told TODAY that eight of the complaints it received were against the Yio Chu Kang outlet and one against the outlet at Geylang Bahru.

"In general, consumers complained that they were charged membership fees despite them having terminated or suspended their memberships. Consumers also complained about the auto-renewal of their fixed-term memberships," said Mr Yong.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/over-40-disgruntled-members-2-f45-fitness-studios-begin-get-refunds-after-months-delays

已签剪发配套 6旬嫲不满被换地点理发 坐代步车挡发廊外

不满签下剪发配套后，却被告知要到另一间分店剪发，六旬阿嫲不买账，还一度用行动辅助工具挡在发廊外，惊动警方到场调解。阿嫲怒称：“我曾开过发廊，他们要耍别人耍得过，但是耍不过我。”

这起纠纷发生在前天（8月26日）中午，地点是位于文礼购物中心的Organic Salon，该发廊曾被多名顾客指收费不合理。

记者接到通知到现场，阿嫲张月华（68岁）还在发廊外。据她说，她去年签了60元的会员配套，每次剪发收费3元，她就住在附近的组屋，经常来这家分店理发，还剩27元。

她称中午上门剪发时，却莫名被拒绝。“理发师说我的会员卡不能在这里用了，只能到金文泰的分店剪发。”

张月华气得当场报警。据她称，警方到场调解后，理发师就让她在店内剪发，但过程中两人又起争执。“理发师质问我为什么要跟人家说这里剪发需要60元，我听了很生气，要他们立刻退回配套里剩下的钱，我不想再来这里。”

她用行动辅助工具挡在发廊外，以示不满。张月华还称，她曾是一家发廊的老板娘，经营生意39年，“他们要耍别人耍得过，但是耍不过我。”

发廊指是一场误会

发廊员工受询时指这是一场误会。据员工说，当时需要张月华的电话号码证实她是会员，但对方给不出正确的资料，他们因此无法为她剪发。员工也指出，警方来调解后，理发师还是照样为张月华剪发。员工也称，阿嫲挡在发廊外，影响他们的生意。

针对Organic Salon发廊投诉　消协今年已接38起

消协指出今年已接获38起针对Organic Salon的投诉，已将此案交由新加坡竞争与消费者委员会（CCCS）调查。

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20210828-1187586

Case issues alert against renovation contractor after getting 30 complaints

SINGAPORE - The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) has issued a company alert against 99 Reno, a renovation contractor based in French Road.

Case said it received 30 consumer complaints against the contractor from July 2020 till end of June 2021.

Most of the complaints were from consumers who made advance and instalment payments but experienced repeated delays in renovation works, Case said on Friday (July 30).

Case had tried to resolve the issues with 99 Reno but was unsuccessful. The company, which has an office registered at Kitchener Complex in French Road, also did not respond to a warning letter issued by Case.

When The Straits Times visited the registered address of 99 Reno on Friday, the company there was found to be Panaoffice Business Centre. A staff member at the office told ST that 99 Reno uses the place as its registered address but only for its mail to go there.

"In many cases, renovation work such as installation of kitchen cabinets, carpentry work and electrical works were left incomplete," Case said. "Some consumers reported that 99 Reno had collected prepayments for their projects, but did not start work."

Consumers had also reported that the company cited the Covid-19 pandemic, manpower shortage and cash flow issues as reasons for the delay in renovation works.

The company was also allegedly unable to provide a firm date for completing the works.

Yet, 99 Reno continued to take on new projects and collect deposits from consumers, said Case. The company is also said to have asked existing customers to pay the full contract sum to restart uncompleted renovation work.

"According to consumers, the cost of the renovation projects ranged from $6,000 to $54,000," said Case.

It would monitor 99 Reno closely, and said it would not hesitate to take the necessary action provided for under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), which may include referring the matter to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore.

More at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/consumer/case-issues-alert-against-renovation-contractor-after-getting-30-complaints

EDMWer alleges bicycle shop at Far East Plaza scammed him:

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/scam-bicycle-shop-applesports-sg-at-far-east-plaza-02-87.6495555/

'You cannot resign': SGUnited Traineeship firm threatens fresh grad who found full-time job elsewhere

Michael ‘closed one eye’ when he was made to do a full-time job without proper training. But when the company tried to discourage him from resigning using threats and half-truths, he sought help from government authorities, only to have his complaints ignored.

Back in June 2020, the government rolled out the SGUnited Jobs & Skills Package in response to the "epic challenge" posed by job losses amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

Displaced workers would be able to apply for over 40,000 new jobs and 30,000 skills-training vacancies, while fresh graduates could look into applying for 25,000 traineeships.

More than a thousand employers offered traineeships under the scheme, in response to government encouragement, which included generously sponsoring 80 per cent of training allowances.

Amid hiring freezes and a glum economic outlook, the traineeships offered job-seekers industry experience in their field of choice, as well as competitive training allowances — the next-best thing to a full-time job, and a significant step up from what a typical internship would offer in terms of length of experience or remuneration.

But it was still the next-best thing.

"You cannot resign"

Which is why two months after starting his traineeship, Michael (not his real name) tendered his resignation to his supervisor after finding full-time employment, only to be given a rude shock.

The company told him, in no uncertain terms:

Michael's training agreement contains strict non-disclosure requirements, which is why he requested that Mothership keep him anonymous, for fear of potential legal repercussions from the company. In hindsight, this in itself was a "red flag" which, he admits, he did not pay close attention to initially.

The traineeship contract that he signed with the company was for a year. Michael says that he was also asked to compensate the company for the remaining months in the contract — a point that was anyway denied by the company in later email correspondence.

In spite of that threat, Michael proceeded to send an official resignation letter via email, and — to be doubly sure — mailed a copy to the company's HQ.

The email reply he received reiterated the company's rejection of his resignation, and piled on other discouragements.

"I don't know whether [they were trying] to threaten me or make me feel scared," he says, showing Mothership the email reply he received.

It was clear enough to Michael that the company was keen to minimise turnover, especially since his role was one that involved regular client interaction.

He was even threatened with the prospect of a "written complaint" that the company had allegedly received from a prospective client about how he handled their inquiries, though he never received a copy of the complaint or more information about what it supposedly said, despite requesting for it.

Backed up by the advice of friends who are lawyers, Michael is sure that these are empty threats. "I know it's bullsh*t," says Michael. "I'm not that naive."

As long as he served out his contractually-agreed one-month notice period, he knew that he would be covered.

Which is why his reaction to being told he could not resign was not fear, but disappointment — in the company, and in the way they tried to discourage him from resigning.

Guilt tripping

The contents of the email, Michael says, were aimed at "guilt tripping me lah."

The email said that if he was looking for a job, he should not have applied for a traineeship and deprived another applicant of the place, and suggested that his early departure would disadvantage him in his future interactions with "all" government agencies.

Michael felt that this was a misrepresentation of the traineeship and various government agencies, and so he copied the Singapore Business Federation — the government's "appointed programme manager" for the SG United Traineeships — in his email reply, hoping that they would pick up on the company's unbecoming conduct, and intervene somehow.

He also attached a copy of the official traineeship FAQs, citing the fact that it said rather clearly that "trainees can leave the traineeships at any point in time, if there are good reasons to do so (e.g. offered a full-time role elsewhere)."

It was not the first time Michael had felt disappointment at his employer's behaviour, and would not be the last.

In fact, that email marked the start of a frustrating two-month long process of trying to serve out his notice period and to get the company to pay his final training allowance.

Asked to serve clients on day one

Michael's issues with his traineeship employer began on his first day at work.

To begin with, Michael did not even know that it would be his first day.

He had been awaiting further confirmation after signing the employer's traineeship agreement, only to be surprised by a call from them in September 2020, informing him that his traineeship was confirmed, and asking him to report to the office on that very day.

Eager to start off on the right foot, Michael agreed, and rushed down to meet his supervisor for the first time.

When he arrived, his supervisor thrust a bundle of documents at him, gave him a cursory briefing, and then instructed him to start serving clients who had appointments on that very day.

No training

That brief interaction would be the closest thing to any "training" that Michael would receive at his traineeship.

He did not go in expecting to be spoon-fed.

"I can just close one eye," he says, regarding the overall lack of structured training in the traineeship programme.

"In fact I can close two eyes," he adds, reiterating that he had entirely expected to be working independently and meeting clients at some point.

But even with this attitude, Michael was taken aback by how he was left to his own devices with actual clients, from the first day of his traineeship.

It also turned out to be one of the rare times when he actually saw his supervisor at all.

Michael was soon required to be — in his words — a "one man show", with basically unlimited latitude as to how to meet with and serve the company's clients.

"There was not even a point in time where she was there [in client meetings] guiding me, or saying 'don't [do] like this' or whatever," Michael says.

And while his traineeship agreement came with a copy of a "development plan" in its annexes, laying out the training and exposure that he would supposedly acquire, Michael says: "I didn't learn anything stated in the development plan."

One month's notice

Bewildered as Michael was by the employer's behaviour in trying to bully him into staying with them, he simply decided not to engage with them any longer, and stopped replying any emails from the management relating to his resignation.

Besides interacting with his clients, he reduced his vocabulary to "yes", "no", and "noted" when speaking to his supervisor or other staff at his workplace. "The point for talk is over," Michael said.

Aside from the fact that the company never acknowledged his resignation, he got through his final month without too much difficulty, since after all, his supervisor hardly showed up at work.

In that final month, Michael continued to perform the tasks required of him, but admits that "[his] mindset did change a bit," and started to be more selective about which tasks he would give 100 per cent effort.

Nonetheless, he made sure to maintain "bare minimum" standards of work.

"I don't want them to have anything to use against me," explains Michael.

Why might a company choose to hire a trainee for a full-time job?

Putting aside the rushed start he had, where "everything was on the fly", Michael does not think that he was underpaid — in his view, his tasks and hours did match up to the amount he received as an allowance.

So what might have stopped the company from advertising the same job, with the same pay, as a full-time position instead?

Some key differences between a traineeship and a full-time position is the 80 per cent subsidy on the training allowance payable to a trainee by the company, and the fact that employers are not required to make CPF contributions.

Benefits such as leave are non-obligatory, and up to the company to extend, "on a discretionary goodwill basis".

In other words, it is a lot cheaper for a company to take in a trainee as compared to a full-time worker.

How are traineeships regulated?

During his last month at the company, Michael sought clearer directions from government agencies involved.

Trainees are not covered under the employment act as they aren't employees

Michael sought advice on his situation from Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shortly after submitting his resignation, in hopes that they would be able to back him up and make it easier for him to leave the traineeship.

However, traineeship contracts, Michael would discover, are not covered under the Employment Act, meaning that he was not able to rely on MOM's advice for contract termination, which laid out clear parameters for an employee in his situation.

While employers are "obliged to accord statutory benefits prescribed under the Act to an intern", MOM said in 2013, trainees do not have the same protection, and are not considered employees.

Therefore, MOM referred Michael to the Singapore Business Federation.

SBF promises to take cases of potential abuse "seriously"

Michael would read in The Straits Times — some time after the last day of his traineeship — that SBF promised to take cases of potential abuse of the traineeships "seriously", in a forum letter published on Jan. 14. SBF said:

This did not give Michael much assurance. Rather, it came off as jarring, since it did not seem to line up with his experience at all.

He explains that a few weeks after the contentious email exchange with his company, he received a call from someone at SBF seeking his side of the story and explaining that SBF would also need to get the company's account of the facts, before following up.

By his last day, he had not heard back, and wrote SBF an email (seen by Mothership) which summarised the whole debacle — including his suspicion that the company was misusing the funds set aside for the traineeship to fill what was essentially a full-time position, and a detailed account of how the company had tried to stop him from leaving.

According to Michael, the replies he got were "all about allowance".

Emails from SBF requested administrative information (such as the dates when he reported to work) for the agency to follow up on the matter of his unpaid allowance, but appeared to show no interest in looking into Michael's complaints about the company.

Michael subsequently called SBF to follow up, only to be told that he should take his issues to the "higher management" of his company.

Shortly after that, he received another email from SBF, informing him that "there are no outstanding disputes".

In the meantime, Michael continued to see advertisements for similar traineeships under the company on the mycareersfuture website.

Allowance finally paid, but is the case closed?

Michael was eventually paid his outstanding allowance, more than a month after his last day at the company in December.

But the monetary compensation did not go far in assuaging his concerns about how the traineeship programme is being handled, given how the company "got off the hook just like that".

"This is taxpayers' money," he says, expressing disappointment at the fact that the issues he raised were not looked into more proactively.

While Michael had the benefit of advice from lawyer friends, he wonders how someone else — perhaps less connected, or less wary — would react if their traineeship employer resorts to "guilt-tripping" them into staying on for the rest of the traineeship.

https://mothership.sg/2021/01/sg-united-traineeship-exploitation/

It seems she ain't the only frustrated home owner in that forum.

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/125687929-post4.html

EDMWer kpkb window grilles installed by U-Gate Design Pte Ltd had scratches on them:

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/beware-u-gate-design-pte-ltd-6424845.html

A shitstorm is brewing at Imperial Treasure:

SLM Visioncare kenna investigated by MOH and HSA liao!

SINGAPORE — The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is investigating two companies, SLM Visioncare and ICC Visioncare, which have been advertising their treatments to cure myopia after receiving two complaints against the firms.

In a response to queries from TODAY, HSA said it is investigating them for possible contraventions of the Health Products (Medical Devices) Regulations.

Separately, the Ministry of Health (MOH) said it is investigating SLM Visioncare, after receiving six complaints against them.

SLM Visioncare claims on its website that it uses physiotherapy to help “improve the blood circulation and elasticity” of the eyes' ciliary muscles — which controls the focusing of the eye — and this will help patients recover from myopia naturally with no adverse side effects.

It also states on its website that its therapies are “especially effective” for children aged between six and 16.

CHILDREN'S EYE CONDITION WORSENED AFTER TREATMENT: PARENTS

TODAY spoke to two customers who sent their children to be treated at SLM Visioncare.

Mr Daniel Wang said he paid S$2,490 to send his 10-year-old-son for myopia treatment at SLM Visioncare at least three times a week for three months.

According to the 40-year-old sales manager, his son’s eye condition showed no improvement and a check at a public hospital found that his condition worsened.

Another customer, who wanted to be known only by her initials CP, said her son’s eyesight has deteriorated since going for the treatments.

The senior manager at an engineering firm bought a 60-session package for S$3,800 for her six-year-old after coming across the company’s advertisement on Facebook.

She has since made a complaint to the Consumer Association of Singapore (Case).

Case said in response to TODAY’s queries that it has received 11 consumer complaints against SLM Visioncare between Jan 1 last year and Nov 16 this year.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/moh-investigating-company-touting-cure-myopia-after-receiving-complaints-customers