Buyer beware

Story Print Friendly
April 28, 2006
Buyer beware

A weekly look at what to watch out for in the world of banking.

Figures, case studies and tips come from the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case).

The world of banking

16 No. of cases filed (January to December 2005)

Top complaints

1. Misrepresentation

2. Unsatisfactory service

# CASE STUDY

A retiree was persuaded to sign up for two accounts of $20,000 each. He was told that he would get a 10 per cent interest on the capital. He was not told what he was signing for and for how many years. He did get an interest payout of S$2,000 soon after. But he felt uncomfortable and approached Case for advice.

# OUTCOME OF CASE

The consumer had signed up for a 10-year equity-linked deposit. Though the consumer was illiterate in English and had no formal education, no needs analysis was conducted. Case wrote in on his behalf. The bank refunded the money without interest and without any admission as to liability.

# CONSUMER TIPS

1) Beware of hype.

2) Do not sign on the spot; get a second opinion if in doubt.

3) Read the fine print.

4) Most banks have a Quality Service Manager, who you should contact first. Case or the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre would be the next step. The Monetary Authority of Singapore is responsible for the conduct of banks and wrongdoings should be reported to the MAS.

Buyer beware

Story Print Friendly
April 14, 2006
Buyer beware

A weekly look at what to watch out for in the world of retail. Figures, case studies and tips come from the Consumers Association of Singapore.

The world of mobile phones

51 No. of cases filed (January to December 2005)

Top complaints

1. Defective goods

2. Unsatisfactory service

CASE STUDY

A consumer bought a new mobile phone and found it was faulty. He sent it for servicing but after several repairs, it still did not function properly. On the last attempt, the manufacturer told him the phone was beyond repair, even though it was still within the warranty period. He then went to Case to get a one-to-one exchange of the phone, or a change to another of similar value.

OUTCOME OF CASE

Case wrote to the manufacturer on behalf of the consumer. The manufacturer told the consumer corrosion had been detected, which is not covered by the warranty. However, the manufacturer offered a one-to-one exchange for a new phone on a goodwill basis, if the consumer agreed to pay a top-up fee. The consumer agreed.

CONSUMER TIPS

1. Check the terms of the warranty before purchase. A common exclusion is moisture damage. These terms can be found on the websites of the various manufacturers, so consumers can read them before deciding which brand to choose.

2. Remember to follow instructions to ensure validity of the warranty. Some companies require certain procedures to be taken, for example, mail back the vendor's portion within 14 days, ensure the warranty card has the company stamp of the phone shop, produce receipts as proof of purchase during repair and so on.

3. Check that a warranty card is provided at the point of purchase. Export sets usually do not have a warranty card, and thus cannot be repaired at authorised service centres.

4. Resolve the issue progressively. Most companies will first try to repair the defective phone. Ask for a replacement only if the phone remains defective after several repairs.

Property firm in the dark till agent was jailed

Story Print Friendly

April 18, 2006
HOUSING LOAN SCAM
Property firm in the dark till agent was jailed
Errant agent kept closing deals even after police started probe; too late to pull out his ads

By Daryl Loo

A PROPERTY agent continued working and closing deals even after police began investigating him for his part in an elaborate scam.

In fact, ERA Singapore agent Syed Abdullah Alhamid's employer found out about his wrongdoing only after he was jailed last Thursday.

To make matters worse, his ads - asking others to join him as property agents - continued to appear in the Malay-language Berita Harian newspaper throughout the weekend.

Ads for two other property agents jailed on Thursday also appeared in Berita Harian, and its Sunday edition Berita Minggu, over the weekend.

Readers complained this gave the confusing impression that agents could still operate after they were convicted.

Syed Abdullah, 63, was jailed for a month and six other agents were jailed for one to nine months each for cheating and abetting cheating in 2003 and 2004.

They helped flat buyers get bank loans through fake employment documents. The buyers obtained more than $1 million in home loans.

But Maybank, one of the banks approached by the buyers, grew suspicious and alerted the authorities.

ERA assistant vice-president Eugene Lim said the company found out about Syed Abdullah's conviction only on Friday. It immediately suspended him.

The agency then informed Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) to pull out the ads from the Malay papers that night. SPH is also The Straits Times' publisher.

SPH's head of classified advertising, Ms Elsie Chua, said ERA had alerted it on Friday night, but those pages where the ads appeared had gone to print by then.

'However, we managed to pull out these ads for Monday,' she said.

Mr Lim said ERA would take steps to prevent such scams.

Industry experts say this exposed a lack of proper controls on property agents.

Mr Mohamed Ismail, CEO of PropNex, the biggest local property agency, acknowledged a problem: His agents were bound by contract not to engage in illegal activities but not compelled to inform the agency when they are being investigated for crimes.

One of the jailed agents, Mohammed Rusli Abdul Rahman, was with PropNex when he committed the crimes, but later joined ERA.

'This is something that we will fix,' Mr Ismail said.

But the Government should also act, he said, and require agents to be licensed. Currently, anyone can easily enter the profession, he said.

The authorities have always allowed the industry to regulate itself.

A voluntary accreditation scheme for agencies and agents was started last November.

About half of the estimated 10,000 agents here have signed up so far.

The chairman of the scheme's accreditation board, Dr Lim Lan Yuan, said one of the seven agents was accredited, and would likely be expelled.

But critics say the scheme still lacks bite as it is not compulsory. Dr Amy Khor, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development, said she would urge Parliament to make accreditation compulsory.

'There are obviously some big loopholes in the industry. But if the authorities can step in and make accreditation compulsory, it can act as a big deterrent,' she added.

darylloo@sph.com.sg

Charities sound alert after their logos appear on lucky draw tickets

Story Print Friendly

April 6, 2006
Charities sound alert after their logos appear on lucky draw tickets

By Theresa Tan

FIVE well-known charities are sounding the alert on a possible scam after seeing their logos reproduced on tickets to a lucky draw of which they were not even aware.

The logos of the Community Chest (ComChest), the Singapore Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and the Singapore Children's Society, all appear on the company Great Concepts' 'Crack the Safe' National Lucky Draw tickets.

The troubling thing is, that they are not involved in the draw, nor had they even heard of it until tip-offs arrived via concerned and suspicious members of the public.

The draw offers a Chevrolet Aveo and $10,000 in cash as prizes.

Worried that people may take part in the lucky draw thinking they were helping the charities, ComChest, SPCA and the Singapore Red Cross went to the police last week.

The police told The Straits Times they were looking into the matter.

The charities say they have not been able to reach the people behind the draw for the past week.

The Straits Times also drew a blank. Staff at Great Concepts' Shaw Centre office, who appeared to be doing telemarketing, said the manager was out. By press-time last night, no one was available for comment.

An address in a Great Concepts mailer obtained by The Straits Times was found to be that of Oriental Travel, against which about 160 complaints were filed last year with the Consumers Association of Singapore, by people upset at how it was pushing the sale of memberships of a travel club.

The National Council of Social Service (NCSS), for which ComChest is the fund-raising arm, is concerned. Its chief, Mr Benedict Cheong, said: 'Community Chest is a known and trusted charity. If people misuse our good name or logo, we have to take action.'

The charities note that Great Concepts does not seem to be selling the tickets to raise funds. Instead, it is approaching people on the street and inviting them to take part in a survey, at the end of which they are given lucky draw tickets.

Participants - who do not have to pay anything - are informed by Great Concepts a few days later that they have won a prize in the draw.

But the catch is, that they have to sit through a two-hour 'presentation' in order to claim it, said the Red Cross, Salvation Army and ComChest, who have handled public queries on this matter.

The letter and lucky draw tickets state that unclaimed prizes are donated to charity, adding that an unclaimed Toyota Corolla has already gone to ComChest.

But ComChest knows of no such donation.

The SPCA has also smelled a rat: The logo on the tickets is not even the correct one, said spokesman Deirdre Moss. For one thing, it does not include Chinese characters.

Last year, 15 reports of donation scams were filed with the police. Seven arrests came from this.

And just last month, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) heard that two men were going around raising money for it. Home, which looks into the welfare of maids and foreign workers, said it had not asked anyone to raise funds.

theresat@sph.com.sg

Charities issue warning after lucky draw

Story Print Friendly
April 5, 2006
Charities issue warning after lucky draw

FIVE well-known charities on Wednesday warned of a possible scam after seeing their logos reproduced on tickets to a lucky draw of which they were not even aware.

The logos of the Community Chest (ComChest), the Singapore Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and the Singapore Children's Society, all appear on the company Great Concepts' 'Crack the Safe' National Lucky Draw tickets.

The troubling thing is, that they are not involved in the draw, nor had they even heard of it until tip-offs arrived via concerned and suspicious members of the public.

The draw offers a Chevrolet Aveo and $10,000 in cash as prizes.

Worried that people may take part in the lucky draw thinking they were helping the charities, ComChest, SPCA and the Singapore Red Cross went to the police last week.

The police told The Straits Times they were looking into the matter.

The charities say they have not been able to reach the people behind the draw for the past week.

Multiple rates instead of 'prevailing board rate'

Story Print Friendly
April 5, 2006
Multiple rates instead of 'prevailing board rate'

I HAVE a similar experience with United Overseas Bank (UOB) as that described in the letter, 'Why do existing customers pay a higher 2nd-year rate?' (ST, March 31).

The interest rate for my housing loan was fixed for the first two years, followed by a floating rate pegged to 'UOB's prevailing board rate'. Since the floating rate took effect in August last year, I have had five 'board rate' increases totalling 1.25 per cent.

When I enquired as to why my 'prevailing board rate' was higher than the one currently published and offered to new customers, I was given the same explanation - that the cost of funds had gone up.

This may be the case, but it does not justify the bank charging me a higher board rate than that offered to new customers. If the bank failed to hedge its exposure to rising rates, it should not try to recover the higher cost by implementing a policy of multiple board rates, whereby existing customers are subjected to higher rates.

This policy of multiple board rates was not made known to me at the time I took up the mortgage, nor was it stated in the loan agreement. The agreement merely stated 'prevailing board rate'.

The meaning of 'prevailing board rate' is clear. I should be able to access the rate through a public channel, and it would be the current (prevailing) rate.

I was thus shocked that when I called the hotline to check the board rate, I had to furnish my account number to find out the rate applicable to my account. How can I be assured that this is indeed the rate applicable?

I signed a contract stating I would enjoy X per cent discount on the 'prevailing board rate', and I believed that the rate was a number that was published by the bank and is applicable to all housing-loan customers.

The reason one negotiates a discount to the board rate is so that one can lock in a position with regard to future rates.

If the bank can unilaterally decide on different 'prevailing board rates' for different customers, why bother negotiating at all? You would still end up paying whatever the bank decides.

Gan Li Lian (Mdm)