The Consumer Council received over 2,300 complaints relating to maintenance and repair issues last year, up 15% year-on-year, accounting for about 10% of overall complaints. In the event of sudden break-down of household appliances, consumers look for repair service technicians trying best to prolong the life of the products, to put the concept of sustainable consumption into effect.
The Council has found that many consumers look for repair services from the Internet. They are vulnerable to being misled by some advertising slogans on websites, such as "unsuccessful cases won't be charged" or "after-service maintenance be provided". When choosing to hire a repair service, consumers should be cautious, confirm promises, quotations and charges stated on the websites directly with the traders, to avoid having new troubles over the existing unresolved ones.
Case one: Violating service pledge and delaying on follow-ups
A complainant had a serious plugged toilet at home and learned from the website of Company A that it purported to charge nothing for unsuccessful cases. The complainant made an appointment by telephone. After checking the toilet, the service worker presented a quotation for $3,000. Relying on the promise on the company's website, the complainant decided to pay immediately for the repairs.
Within a few days, the toilet became plugged again. The complainant contacted Company A but the company declined service, stating that the worker responsible for that district could not be contacted. Then, the complainant requested that Company A fulfil service pledge, namely offering "free door-to-door check-up and repair if the same problem happens again within a week after repair." The staff member responded that the repairs had been undertaken more than a week, and that additional charges would apply. Feeling deeply displeased, the complainant averred that he had contacted Company A within a week after repairs, but got stalled off. The complainant took the case against Company A to the Council, stating that the company had broken its service pledge. The complainant requested prompt repair at no charge, or a refund. However, Company A replied that the unclogging service had been carried out properly and had warned the consumer that there would be no after service maintenance. Company A refused to provide further service.
Case two: Incorrect address on the invoice and parts were not replaced truthfully
Water leaking from an air-conditioner prompted the complainant, after searching the web, to contact Company B. Charges stated on Company B's website appeared reasonable so the complainant made an appointment for door-to-door repairs. Two months after repairs had been completed, the complainant found that the cooler of the same air-conditioner was out of order, thus called Company B and requested repair again. The complainant was not at home while the second repair took place. The technician sent a text message to the complainant, stating that refrigerant had been added and a capacitor had been replaced. The complainant's domestic helper paid the service at $1,050.
That same evening, the complainant found that the cooling efficiency of the air-conditioner had not improved and the problem of dripping water had returned. Company B sent a text message, promising to follow up but it never did. For many times, the complainant was unable to reach the company on the phone number listed on the company's website. Later, the complainant also found that the address printed on the invoice was not Company B's business address. The complainant then hired another company, which charged $1,200 to carry out the repairs. The service worker informed the complainant that Company B had not replaced the capacitor for the air conditioner. The complainant then reported the case to the Customs and Excise Department, and requested the Council to help obtain a refund.
The Council encountered difficulty contacting Company B, because of the inaccurate address listed on the invoice. The Council did contact the company through its website. The responsible person for Company B avoided direct response to the charge that the capacitor for the air conditioner had not been replaced. The company representative merely stated that the repair was complete, while costs of labour and material had already been incurred, so the company would stand firm on its refusal to compensate the complainant. After conciliation, the responsible person of Company B verbally promised to pay a $500 refund and the complainant agreed. Thereafter however the responsible person refused to acknowledge that any refund arrangement had been made.
Case three: Discrepancies between actual charge and quotation, both parties held to their positions
The complainant made an appointment with Company C for door-to-door repair service for a broken computer. Staff sent by Company C was of the initial view that the motherboard was damaged. The complainant paid $280 for the inspection and permitted the staff to take the computer away for a comprehensive examination. Company C later advised the complainant that he might have the motherboard replaced for $1,200 or the computer re-assembled for $3,200. The complainant deemed the prices too high and declined. The company then changed its offer, saying the cost of replacing the motherboard would be only $800, and the new one would last for 2 years. The complainant agreed.
After several days, Company C returned the computer to the complainant who failed to notice, in haste, that the total fee became $1,080. The computer became unusable again a few months later. The complainant dismantled the computer and found that Company C had not replaced the motherboard. After fruitless efforts for redress, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Council. Company C told the Council that it never had promised the complainant that it would change the motherboard. It was added that the receipt had already listed the scope of repairs, and the total repair costs which included the staff cost. Moreover, the maintenance period lasted for only 7 days following repairs and the company would decline any additional service to the complainant.
From the above cases, the Council is of the view that when seeking repair services online, no matter how simple and efficient they appear, consumers should not take matters lightly. Promises for the services on any website should not be taken at face value. If in any doubt, consumers should confirm promises made on the website directly with the trader. Consumers also should be present throughout the repairs. Traders should also be aware that it is their obligation to ensure any claims they make on their company websites are accurate. They must live up to their service pledges, or may otherwise risk violating the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
Consumers generally lack knowledge or skills to repair appliances, and can only trust the expertise of skilled workers. Consumers may be incapable of making immediate judgements about service quality. Not until the problem reoccurs, do they realise that the repair services undertaken previously were unsatisfactory. Even though consumers may find it hard to grasp whether a trader is reputable, simply by judging its company website, they could consider the following tips to safeguard their rights:
- When looking for door-to-door repair service on the Internet, ascertain whether the trader provides information of a physical business or retail address and contact information;
- Read the terms and conditions relating to the repair services, charges, and after-service maintenance, and make reference to and comparison with other users' comments;
- When making an appointment, request that the trader provide an official receipt and means of payment. Be wary of the trader who requires customer to bank in the service fees to a personal bank account. If the repairs are related to plumbing and electricity works, ask the trader to provide proof of the workers' certification;
- Since most household repairs are one-time services, consumers should enquire if there is a maintenance period, and about the manner in which the problems reoccur after the repairs be followed up. Consumers should request that these details be recorded on the receipt or invoice to avoid disputes.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.