SingPost apologises for 'lost' parcel but Betty is not happy

SingPost has apologised to Ms Betty Ong and her partners “for the difficulties and inconvenience” over a “lost” registered parcel sent from Taiwan last month.
        In an email to her yesterday, SingPost said: “After analyzing the issue and conducting several internal reviews, we have also extended the search in our Post Offices. Despite extensive search conducted, we are unable to locate the item.
        “We will officially declare item as lost by 05/06/2012 and Taiwan Post office will be notified. Investigation reports will be forwarded to them for their reviews on the compensation claims payable to the sender. This is as the sender would have the prior right of claims to the item.”
        Betty is obviously not happy with its reply. She says: “I have placed a $5,000 deposit on the items (sent) and (is) likely to lose it, so who do I go to for my compensation? ‘’
        The deposit to her Taiwan supplier was for “crystal and jadeite samples sent over for us to view and show our customers”.
       She says: “No business people will just send things over without some sort of payment first. The agreement was that once we have seen the items and want to buy, then we go from there either sending the supplier more cash or return the items to get the deposit back.
       “Hence if the parcel is lost, I won’t be able to get my money back and, to be honest, I believe the items are worth more than that.
      “I am so very displeased with Singpost. It is irresponsible and takes no accountability for items under its charge. If this is the case, isn’t SingPost encouraging its staff to mishandle items as they don’t have to account for them?
       “I am sure my supplier in Taiwan will not take this quietly as well.”

Registered parcel missing and SingPost cannot tell what's happened

Ms Betty Ong is totally frustrated with the service she is getting from SingPost over a "lost" parcel that had arrived from Taiwan for her.
     So she decided to google to find a way "to make a complaint to SingPost that will produce results" and stumbled upon my blog.
     She says: "I am at the end of my patience and tolerance right now and considering taking them to the small claims tribunal."
     Her problem started when her supplier in Taiwan sent her a registered parcel which arrived in Singapore on May 12.
      She says: "As we have been tracking its movement, we made it a point to have people home between May 13 and 18. But we were shocked to see a failed delivery note on Track and Trace on May 15 when there were two people home that day and no card was left behind to collect or redirect the item.
      "A call was made to SingPost that afternoon to ask for redelivery but my nephew made the mistake of telling the manager on duty that it contain something important.
      "We were told that they will call back the next day. However, no one rang and when we rang back we were put on hold for two hours at a time.
      "This happened repeatedly over two days. I emailed customer service to make enquiry and wastold to be patient. Finally, I received an email on May 21 telling me that the parcel has been missing since May 17 and nothing can be done.
      "My sister went down to Singpost HQ on May 22 to speak to someone of authority and was asked to give Singpost 24 hours to find the item and to give a reply.
      "This has dragged on from then to now and we still have no answer as the matter has been passed from one person to the next. We don't know what has happened to the parcel and what sort of action SingPost has taken.
      "How can we get someone up the top in Singpost to take notice of what is happening?
     "How can something like this happen when we have been assured by Mr Marcus and Ms Kathleen, two officers who were supposed to look into the matter, that all registered parcels are scanned and coded and also the delivery couriers are also coded and hence they would know the movement of the parcel?"
      Betty's sister has in the meantime lodged a police report.

Jessica Ho of Kinokuniya shows what good service is all about

My friend and neighbour, Leonard McCully, was a little peeved earlier in the week when his friendly nature failed to elicit a response from an unsmiling cashier despite him wishing her "good morning" a number of times.

But that bad experience was forgotten a couple of days later when he was served by Ms Jessica Ho at Kinokuniya's main store in Takashimaya.

"This lady has restored my faith in humanity," he says.

Leonard was so impressed with Ms Ho's service that he wrote to the bookstore's management to relate to them what she had done.

"I am writing to record the caring service provided by one of your sales staff , Ms Jessica Ho, at your Kinokuniya main store this afternoon, 11th May," his email says.

"I am recovering from a long illness, needing to use a walking stick to support a bad back. I had several books in hand when I asked Ms Ho for directions to the bookshelves containing books on cars.

"Noticing my impediment, she very kindly insisted she first park the books I had selected with the cashier, then accompany me to the correct bookshelf.

"At the bookshelf, she then insisted that I accept her offer of a chair to allow me to browse the books at my leisure and in comfort. I gratefully accepted as my back was just about "killing" me! What a relief.

"I then spent another 30 minutes browsing and picked up a couple more books.

"Ms Ho is such a great credit to your organisation. She made my afternoon shopping for books such a pleasant experience, that I will most definitely return.

"Please note Ms Ho's exemplary service. I believe it would not be out of place to place it in her record of employment with Kinokuniya."

Well, Ms Ho certainly deserves a bouquet for her outstanding service.

Bouquet to MAS for its quick response to feedback

I am encouraged by the Monetary Authority of Singapore's  response to feedback. It has replied to me each time I alerted them to something which they as regulators have oversight.

The latest was a complaint by Anne Wong Holloway over "impossible" conditions which AXA Insurance had set when she tried
to claim for expenses incurred as a result of her maid's hospitalisation after a stroke last month.

After I posted her story on April 19,  I alerted both AXA and the MAS.  AXA replied to me in 12 hours to say that it would be in contact directly with Anne.

Six days later,  the Consumer Issues Division of the MAS emailed me
to say that it "is aware of this matter and we have contacted the insurer to look into the issues raised by Ms Holloway."

I am not sure whether Anne had also informed the MAS at the same time, but I am happy that it has been pro-active in its response to our feedback.

Bouquet to MAS!

Eggs on FairPrice face

I was amused to read a letter in The Straits Times' Forum Page last week when a reader said that she had "noticed that various FairPrice outlets price their products differently."

Miss Chan Wan Wen had written in to the newspaper, together with photographs as proof, saying: "The Pasar eggs sold at the Tampines Mall outlet were priced at $1.75, while those at the Eastpoint Mall outlet were selling for $1.90.

"I noticed these prices on April 9 and 11 respectively. There was no offer in either case. I don't understand how the same product can have different prices. Aren't they all sold under FairPrice? Furthermore, Pasar is a house brand. This is not the first time I have noticed such price differences for the same products in FairPrice outlets.''

                     Tampines Mall outlet                         

                                   Eastpoint Mall outlet

The reason for my feeling the way I did was that last month, FairPrice had written a long email to me in response to my January posting about its recently-opened Scotts Square outlet. (See blog, FairPrice replies to my queries on its Scotts Square outlet )

I had commented that it was illogical of FairPrice, as a co-op, to pay such high rental for the outlet in the Orchard Road area when the majority of its customers were living outside that area.

In its reply, FairPrice maintained that it was still keeping to its core mission -- moderating prices of daily essntials for Singaporeans -- and what it was selling "are the same, uniformly priced products found in any other FairPrice store regardless of retail format or location."

Well, I guess what Miss Chan found out at its two outlets will now make the co-op more careful when it next makes a statement about product pricing.

And I hope what had happened was just a one-off mistake and not an indication of price discrimination to come.

Voices letter brings number plate issue to the fore again

A reader's letter in the Today newspaper on Saturday (April 22, 2012) jogged my memory over an issue which I had with the Land Authority of Singapore two years ago.

I had expressed my unhappiness in my blog on July 13, 2010, over my having to pay $1,300 for retaining my car number and using it on another used car that I had purchased.

I thought it was illogical and unfair when compared to the $100 fee which is charged on someone who retains his number and uses it on a new car.

I alerted the LTA about it and, after an exchange of email, it finally agreed to take my feedback "into consideration in our future review of the retention fees."

I had forgotten about the matter until a friend alerted me to yesterday's letter in the Voices page of Today as she had remembered about my unhappiness.

The writer, Mr Bok Hai Suan, has brought up the same issue which I had complained about two years ago.  He wants the LTA to explain "the objectives, relevance and effectiveness of the measure".

If my experience is anything to go by, the chances are he will be getting the same official reply from LTA.

Maybe it would be generous and tell him that his feedback would be taken into consideration in the next review.  Which means it is likely to be lost in the lallang, like mine did.

Mr Bok's letter in Today follows:

Here's an excessive car cost

Letter from Bok Hai Suan

04:45 AM Apr 21, 2012

THE high cost of car ownership here is partly regulatory-driven to control the growth and age of our vehicle population. This we can understand. But are there excessive costs that may be irrelevant, as similar measures are already in place?

Here is one: A car owner pays S$100 to retain the registration number of a vehicle to be de-registered immediately. He tops up S$1,200 if the number is used subsequently on an existing vehicle, but $0 if it is used on a new vehicle.

The cost difference is 1,200 per cent.

Similarly, a car owner pays S$100 to retain the number of an existing vehicle (which is not to be de-registered immediately) for a new vehicle, but S$1,300 for another existing vehicle.

It is clear that the cost difference lies in where the retained number is used: New or existing vehicle.

If this is a reflection of the amount of work involved, it is difficult to comprehend how it costs 12 to 13 times more to use a retained number on a new vehicle compared with an existing vehicle in this age of computers.

If this is to encourage car owners to switch to new vehicles, is not the Certificate of Entitlement, with its 10-year validity, already doing the job?

Could the relevant authority enlighten us on the objectives, relevance and effectiveness of this measure?

Battle with AXA: Anne wins Round 1

Twelve hours after I posted Anne Wong Holloway's complaint about how difficult it was to make an insurance claim for her helper's medical bills,AXA Insurance Customer Service Centre's manager, Ms Daphne Koh, emailed me to say that the company  would be "in contact with the insured directly with regards to the claim issue."

That sounded like good news to me.  Two hours later, Anne confirmed it through an email, saying that the company had sent her an Acceptance Note and Computation to settle a claim of more than $10,000.

She ended with this remark: "This just goes to show that these insurance companies ONLY pay up when the policyholder fights for his or her rights."

Don't I know.  I have had a few skirmishes with them and, believe me, it does take a lot of work and heart aches.

But Anne has not completely finished her battle with AXA.  There is still
an item which she is not satisfied with.  So she followed it up with this email:

"I have quickly checked the Computation and would like to enquire why the days of stay, from 15 March 2012 to 23rd March 2012 were not included in the days eligible for Wages Reimbursement?

"To the best of my knowledge and understanding, St Luke's Hospital is a hospital and recognized by MOH as such." 

Obviously, AXA is leaving out something which Anne feels should be included.

Let's see how Round 2 will end. Stay tuned.