Domestic helpers are a valuable source of support for many households. However, due to the copious procedures involved in the hiring process, most consumers engage employment agencies to handle the arrangements. The Consumer Council receives over 100 complaints relating to domestic helper employment agencies each year, involving issues such as substitute arrangements when domestic helpers failed to report duty as scheduled, repeated no‑shows by selected candidates, and domestic helpers’ language proficiency not meeting expectations.
The Council urges employment agencies, as a bridge between employers and domestic helpers, to strengthen communication with both parties. This includes gaining a comprehensive understanding of prospective employers’ needs and domestic helpers’ experience and capabilities in order to make appropriate matching, as well as verifying domestic helpers’ information as far as practicable to fulfil their gatekeeping role. In the event of situations such as domestic helpers backing out, agencies should notify consumers as soon as possible and provide appropriate assistance, such as arranging substitute domestic helpers or refunds, to enhance consumer confidence.
On the other hand, as some agency contracts may stipulate that payment by the client constitutes acceptance of the terms and arrangements without the need for a separate contract, consumers should not rush into paying. They should carefully read the service agreement or contract before the transaction to understand the refund policy and the terms and conditions for replacing domestic helpers, so as to safeguard their rights. The Council will continue to closely monitor industry developments and reflect consumers’ concerns to traders in a timely manner, with a view to encouraging service quality enhancement.
Case 1: Domestic Helper Backed Out and Substitute Requested a Higher Wage
No Contract Signed but Agency Refused Refund
Under the arrangement of Agency A, the complainant conducted a video interview with a domestic helper in Hong Kong in early February. On the following day, the complainant confirmed with Agency A via an instant messaging app to employ the said domestic helper, and paid a service fee of approximately $16,500. However, in mid‑February, Agency A expressed that it was unable to contact the domestic helper, thus an employment contract between the parties could not be signed. The complainant immediately requested a refund, but Agency A gave no clear response.
4 days later, the complainant requested a refund again. Agency A cited contractual clauses stating that domestic helpers might withdraw and therefore no refund would be provided, but substitute candidates could be offered, and the complainant must select a substitute within 60 days. Among the 3 substitute candidates, 1 did not meet the complainant’s requirements, while the other 2 requested higher salaries than the domestic helper who had withdrawn. The complainant considered this unfair, as all communications from the initial contact with Agency A to the confirmation of employment had been conducted via instant messaging apps, and no contract had ever been signed. It was only after the refund was refused that the complainant reviewed the transaction document sent by Agency A before confirming the employment of the first domestic helper and discovered the clause stating that no refund would be offered if the domestic helper backed out. Opining that the substitute arrangement restricted consumers’ freedom of choice and bargaining power, the complainant sought assistance from the Council, requesting a full refund of the service fee.
Agency A replied that before the complainant confirmed the employment of the domestic helper, it had sent her the service contract and documents setting out the refund and replacement terms. As the complainant subsequently agreed to the transaction and transferred the payment, the contract came into effect, and her case did not meet the refund criteria. During conciliation, the Council raised concerns about whether the refund clause was fair to consumers and whether Agency A had allowed the complainant to fully understand and agree to the relevant contractual terms during the sales process, and urged the agency to reconsider. After multiple rounds of negotiation, Agency A eventually agreed to provide a full refund, and the case was resolved.
Case 2: Prospective Employer Waited 5 Months with No Domestic Helper Taking up Duties Yet Refund Request Was Rejected
After selecting a domestic helper through Agency B in July, the complainant paid a service fee of $14,800. The domestic helper was originally scheduled to arrive in Hong Kong and take up duties in mid‑October, yet in early October, Agency B claimed that it had lost contact with the domestic helper and suggested the complainant switch to another domestic helper. Agency B further indicated that as the new domestic helper came from another country, an additional handling fee of $2,000 was required. The complainant agreed and made the payment.
During the second hiring process, communication between the parties was mainly conducted via an instant messaging app, and Agency B did not provide another contract for the complainant to sign for confirmation. By mid‑December, when the new domestic helper was scheduled to arrive in Hong Kong and take up duties, she similarly backed out. The complainant stated that her household urgently needed assistance from a domestic helper, yet after waiting for 5 months, she was still unable to successfully hire one. Her daily life was severely affected and she was under immense pressure. She therefore requested a refund from Agency B, which was refused, and subsequently sought assistance from the Council.
Agency B stated that the contract terms stipulated that free replacement would be arranged if a domestic helper withdrew, but refunds were not provided. However, the complainant pointed out that the domestic helpers arranged by Agency B had backed out twice, causing her to lose confidence in its service. The Council therefore conciliated with Agency B again and urged it to consider the complainant’s experience and re‑examine the case. Eventually, Agency B agreed to refund half of the service fee. The complainant accepted the arrangement, and the case was successfully resolved.
Case 3: Agency Confirmed Domestic Helper Could Speak English Yet Communication Proved Difficult After Commencement of Duties
Under the arrangement of Agency C, the complainant conducted an English interview via an instant messaging app with a domestic helper who was overseas. During the interview, the complainant noticed that another voice occasionally assisted the domestic helper in responding, which raised concerns about her English proficiency. Agency C’s staff explained that the domestic helper needed accompaniment as she was nervous. The complainant specifically enquired again about the domestic helper’s English level and was assured by the staff that her English proficiency posed no problem and was sufficient for daily communication. The complainant therefore agreed to hire the domestic helper and paid a fee of approximately $14,000.
However, after the domestic helper commenced duties, the complainant found communication between them difficult, as the domestic helper was unable to understand simple English and had difficulty comprehending work instructions. The complainant was further concerned that the domestic helper might be unable to handle specific tasks, such as administering medication when his child was sick. Subsequently, the complainant attempted to contact Agency C multiple times to reflect the issues and request follow‑up, but received no response. He therefore sought assistance from the Council, hoping that Agency C could unconditionally replace the domestic helper with one who could communicate in English.
Agency C replied that interviews had been arranged during the recruitment process to allow the complainant to understand the domestic helper’s language ability, but acknowledged that there was a gap between the domestic helper’s English proficiency and the complainant’s expectations. It therefore offered to arrange 1 free replacement. The complainant subsequently informed the Council that he had conducted an interview with another domestic helper arranged by Agency C and would proceed with the employment without incurring additional fees. The case was successfully resolved.
Employment agencies may refer to the following recommendations when providing services:
- Proactively and comprehensively understand the actual circumstances of both parties, such as the composition of the prospective employer’s household, caregiving needs and expectations, as well as the domestic helper’s work experience, language proficiency, skills and expertise, etc. before making appropriate matching. In addition to arranging direct contact between both parties, such as video interviews, agencies should also verify and, as far as practicable, provide accurate and truthful information to both parties to fulfil their gatekeeping role;
- Clearly explain the service contract to prospective employers before collecting fees to ensure that consumers understand the content, so as to avoid disputes;
- Maintain close communication with prospective employers, domestic helpers or overseas partner organisations, follow up on the hiring progress and provide timely updates to both parties. In case of special situations such as domestic helpers backing out, agencies should notify prospective employers as soon as possible and provide appropriate assistance, such as setting a reasonable upper limit on the number of replacements or the time required. If the upper limit is reached without successful hiring, refunds should be arranged;
- Refer to Part XII of the Employment Ordinance, the Employment Agency Regulations and the Code of Practice for Employment Agencies, and operate in accordance with statutory requirements and standards, clearly explaining the operational basis and arrangements to employers and job seekers.
Consumers may take note of the following when hiring domestic helpers:
- Choose licensed employment agencies and pay attention to whether the agencies comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice for Employment Agencies. Consumers may visit the Labour Department’s Employment Agencies Portal (www.eaa.labour.gov.hk) to obtain relevant information about employment agencies, such as records of convictions, licence revocation or refusal of renewal, and written warnings;
- Clearly explain expectations of domestic helpers to employment agencies. Any special needs should also be raised as early as possible to facilitate suitable matching. If there are concerns about the domestic helper’s information during the interview, consumers should seek clarification on the spot. If there is suspicion that someone is assisting the domestic helper, this should be raised with the agency immediately to dispel doubts;
- As some employment agency contracts may stipulate that payment by the client constitutes acceptance of the terms and arrangements without the need for contract signing, consumers should carefully read the contract or service agreement before the transaction to ensure full understanding of all content and terms. After the transaction, consumers should obtain and retain contracts, receipts and other transaction documents, as well as records of communication with the agency, as evidence;
- The primary responsibility of employment agencies is to handle procedures for bringing domestic helpers to Hong Kong. If a domestic helper performs unsatisfactorily or encounters other issues after commencing duties, employers may not necessarily be able to request refunds or unconditional replacement. Therefore, when hiring domestic helpers, consumers should repeatedly confirm with agencies the circumstances under which refunds or replacements are available, and enquire about arrangements such as service guarantee periods and additional charges.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/594-employment
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.