Hong Kong has long been hailed as a “gourmet paradise”, offering a wide range of dining options which form an essential travel experience for many visitors. However, disputes encountered by consumers when dining at restaurants still occur from time to time. Each year, the Consumer Council receives over 1,500 complaints relating to restaurants, with common issues including discrepancies between the actual dishes served and the information or images shown on menus, unclear promotional terms and conditions, as well as misunderstandings arising from dining time limits.
The local catering industry is facing considerable challenges. If such disputes are not handled properly, they not only affect consumer confidence but may also tarnish the reputation of the industry, and even impact visitors’ overall perception of Hong Kong as a “gourmet paradise”. The Consumer Council urges traders to improve the accuracy and transparency of information, including dish descriptions, charges and seating arrangements. Staff may also proactively inform consumers of the latest information to enhance their dining experience and avoid misunderstandings, while actively listening to consumer feedback and improving operations to attract repeat patronage.
Case 1: 3 Items in Barbecued Meat Platter Differed from Menu Image
Restaurant Claimed “Images for Reference Only”
When dining at Chinese Restaurant A, the complainant noticed a Cantonese-style barbecued meat (“siu mei”) platter priced at $198 on the menu. The image showed that the platter included 5 items: suckling pig, roast goose, smoked pork knuckle, jellyfish and poached chicken. However, when the dish was served, only the poached chicken and jellyfish matched the image, while the other 3 items were replaced by beef brisket, duck breast and cucumber, differing significantly from the image.
The complainant immediately enquired with staff, who responded that the menu had already stated that “images are for reference only”, without providing any further explanation. The complainant opined that while discrepancies involving only the portion size of individual items might be understandable due to manual preparation by kitchen staff, such a drastic difference in the types of food served was unacceptable. Moreover, as the menu did not list the items included in the platter in text, consumers could only rely on the image when making their choice. With 3 of the 5 barbecued meat items replaced with other items of lower value, the complainant contended that Chinese Restaurant A had delivered goods not matching the description and therefore lodged a complaint with the Council.
In its reply to the Council, Chinese Restaurant A stated that its menu contained a reminder that “images are for reference only”. However, the Council pointed out that menu images serve as important reference for consumers when selecting dishes. Even if such a reminder is provided, traders should not display images that differ significantly from the actual dishes, so as to avoid misleading consumers. After conciliation by the Council, Chinese Restaurant A agreed to refund the complainant the full amount paid for the barbecued meat platter and to remove the dish from the menu. The complainant subsequently confirmed receipt of the refund, and the case was resolved.
Case 2: Twice Confirmed Eligibility for Platform Booking Offer
Only to Learn at Checkout That Prepayment Was Required
The complainant made a reservation through an online platform for an afternoon tea set offer for 2 persons at Restaurant B. The platform showed a promotional price of $298, plus a 10% service charge. The complainant found the offer attractive. However, as the platform did not indicate that immediate payment was required during the reservation process, the complainant called Restaurant B to enquire. At the time, the staff stated that the complainant only needed to present the platform reservation record at the restaurant on the reservation date in order to enjoy the offer, and that no advance payment was required.
On the reservation date, when being seated, the complainant presented the platform reservation record to restaurant staff and enquired once again whether the offer could be used. Upon the staff’s confirmation that the complainant only needed to inform the cashier at checkout, she ordered and enjoyed the set afternoon tea for 2 persons. However, at checkout, the cashier stated that the offer was only applicable if payment had been made in advance through the platform at the time of booking.
The complainant immediately explained that she had enquired twice and received clear confirmation on both occasions that the offer was valid. The cashier responded that the relevant staff members were new recruits and were not fully aware of the promotional arrangements. The complainant ultimately had no choice but to pay the original price of $388, plus a 10% service charge, amounting to approximately $427 in total. Considering that restaurant staff had provided incorrect information and dissatisfied with the charging arrangement, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Council, requesting a refund of the price difference.
After the Council intervened, Restaurant B reviewed the complainant’s case and acknowledged that staff had provided incorrect information when confirming the conditions for using the offer. Restaurant B agreed to refund the complainant the difference between the promotional price and the original price, together with the relevant 10% service charge, amounting to a total of $99. The complainant subsequently confirmed receipt of the refund, and the case was resolved.
Case 3: Dining Time Limit Not Communicated
Consumer Dissatisfied with Request to Vacate Despite Available Seating
The complainant visited Restaurant C for lunch and ordered a Taiwanese-style soup noodle set priced at $63. After finishing the meal, the complainant remained seated to use his mobile phone and rest briefly. Restaurant staff later approached and stated that the complainant’s seating time had exceeded 60 minutes, requesting him to settle the bill and leave.
The complainant stated that no notice regarding any seating time limit was seen inside the restaurant, and that no reminder about a dining time limit had been given by staff throughout seating, ordering or dining. As such, he was unaware that such a restriction was in place. He further pointed out that there were plenty of vacant seats in the restaurant at the time of leaving. Together with the unpleasant attitude of the staff when asking him to leave, the complainant felt extremely disappointed with the dining experience and therefore lodged a complaint with the Council, requesting the restaurant to improve its arrangements and service quality.
After the Council intervened, Restaurant C apologised to the complainant for the unpleasant experience. Restaurant C explained that a notice regarding seating time limits during peak hours had been posted outside the entrance. However, it understood that some customers might not spot the notice. Restaurant C also stated that guidelines had been issued to all staff, requiring them to proactively explain dining time limits when customers are seated. The case had also been shared with staff to improve service quality and avoid similar incidents or misunderstandings in the future. The Consumer Council subsequently relayed Restaurant C’s improvement measures to the complainant.
With the rebound in the number of visitors to Hong Kong, the catering industry has also recognised the importance of continuously enhancing service quality and the overall dining experience. Over the past 6 months, the industry has stepped up efforts in various areas, including collaborating with the Employees Retraining Board to further enhance practitioners’ service skills and customer service attitude; maintaining close communication with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to enhance hygiene and management standards in different areas; and actively supporting the promotional work of the Hong Kong Tourism Board.
Traders may refer to the following recommendations to enhance service quality:
- Food images are an important reference for consumers when ordering. In particular, for platters or dishes comprising multiple food items, restaurants should ensure that images are as similar as possible to the actual dishes, and should not use “images for reference only” as an excuse. Restaurants may also consider clearly listing the included food items in text. If substitutions are required due to ingredients being sold out, consumers should be proactively informed before placing their order to allow informed choices;
- When restaurants launch joint promotions with different traders or platforms, they should clearly set out the relevant terms of use, such as whether prepayment is required, whether booking through the platform is necessary, whether payment using specific payment tools is required, and the validity period of the offer. Staff training should also be strengthened to ensure that all staff understand the arrangements to prevent providing incorrect information;
- If restaurants impose dining time limits or special arrangements during peak hours, such as table sharing, notices should be posted prominently at different visible locations within the premises, and staff should proactively remind customers when they are seated, so as to avoid misunderstandings caused by insufficient communication.
Consumers should pay attention to the following when dining out:
- Proactively enquire with staff in case of any questions about the dishes before ordering, such as ingredients or portion sizes, etc. If there are special dietary requirements, such as allergies to certain ingredients, consumers should also confirm with the restaurant before ordering whether arrangements could be made;
- If planning to enjoy promotional offers provided by restaurants, whether online promotions or physical coupons, consumers should read the terms and conditions carefully in advance, paying particular attention to the conditions for enjoying the offers, such as whether advance online booking or prepayment is required, the validity period of the offers, and whether there are specified time slots or headcount limits. Consumers are advised to enquire with the restaurant for confirmation before patronising, and to understand the restaurant’s charging policy to avoid exceeding their budget;
- If there are special needs, such as requiring a more relaxed dining time, specific seating arrangements (for example, no table sharing or the need for a private room), cake cutting, or bringing in alcoholic beverages, consumers may enquire with the restaurant in advance when making a reservation or before patronising, and understand whether surcharges are involved, so as to choose a suitable restaurant according to personal needs and dine with peace of mind;
- Consumers should check the receipt on the spot when settling the bill. Any issues identified, such as failure to apply the applicable offer, incorrect dishes charged, or charging errors, should be raised with the trader immediately. Receipts should also be retained after payment;
- As it may be more difficult for visitors to contact traders directly to raise or follow up on consumption disputes after leaving Hong Kong, visitors from regions that have established a complaint referral mechanism with the Hong Kong Consumer Council may submit complaints to their local consumer bodies after returning to their place of residence, which will then be referred to the Hong Kong Consumer Council for follow-up. Please refer to the Council’s website for regions that have established a complaint referral mechanism with the Council: https://www.consumer.org.hk/en/complaints-and-services/complaint-and-enquiry-channels
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/594-restaurant
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.