Purchasing electrical appliances involves more than comparing product features and prices. Consumers should also understand retailers’ delivery efficiency, installation arrangements and after-sales services. The Consumer Council receives more than 2,000 complaints concerning electrical appliances every year, involving product quality, delivery delays, after-sales follow-up and even cross-boundary shopping disputes. These include cases where consumers sought returns due to faulty appliances but retailers failed to follow up proactively; retailers failed to honour same-day delivery promises; or refunds were issued by post-dated cheque that could not be honoured. The Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) also provided a case for sharing in issue 598 of CHOICE Magazine, involving a trader who continued to accept consumers’ payments after ceasing business operations and was ultimately convicted of contravening the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (TDO).
The Consumer Council urges traders to establish clear refund and exchange policies, explain the relevant terms to consumers before transactions and specify the arrangements in transaction documents. Traders should also strengthen product quality monitoring and after-sales follow-up mechanisms to enhance consumer confidence and build a good reputation. On the other hand, consumers should understand the background of the trader, product lead time, and arrangements for installation and refunds before making a purchase. After receiving the appliance, consumers should promptly check whether it is functioning properly and verify that the model number, specifications and energy label information match the order. The Council will continue to closely monitor industry developments, communicate with stakeholders in a timely manner, and maintain close collaboration with the C&ED to promote ethical business practices and foster a safer consumption environment.
Case 1: Newly Purchased Refrigerator Failed to Cool
Retailer and Agent Shifted Responsibility to Each Other
The complainant purchased a refrigerator from Electrical Appliance Store A for approximately $4,200 on 23 December, with delivery and installation arranged for the following day. However, after installation, the refrigerator failed to cool and continuously emitted noise. The situation remained unchanged after 2 days. On 26 December, the complainant reported the fault to Store A, but staff stated that they had not encountered a similar situation before and suggested observing the appliance for a longer period. As the refrigerator still failed to function properly the following day, the complainant returned to the store to request a refund. Staff then arranged for a technician from Agent B to conduct an on-site inspection on 30 December. The technician confirmed that a refrigerant leak had prevented the refrigerator from cooling. The complainant immediately brought the inspection report to Store A and requested that the product be collected and refunded as soon as possible. Over the following 2 days, the complainant repeatedly visited the store for updates, but staff only indicated that they were awaiting instructions from the company. During this period, the complainant also contacted Agent B directly, but was informed that follow-up action should be handled through the retailer. As Store A still failed to provide any concrete solution, the complainant sought assistance from the Council.
Store A and Agent B replied that they would discuss the follow-up arrangements with each other. Subsequently, Store A advised that it had reached a consensus with Agent B and had proactively contacted the complainant to resolve the matter. The complainant confirmed that the refund was completed on 9 January, and Store A collected the refrigerator 2 days later.
Case 2: Washing Machine Not Delivered on the Same Day as Promised
Trader Delayed Refund and Post-dated Cheque Could Not Be Honoured
The complainant purchased a washing machine from Electrical Appliance Store C on 1 March and paid approximately $3,900 in cash. The salesperson stated that same-day delivery could be arranged. However, later that day, the complainant was informed by phone call that the product was out of stock and that delivery would be delayed by 2 to 3 days. As the complainant urgently needed the washing machine, she rejected the arrangement and requested a refund. The salesperson suggested that she return to the store 2 days later to complete the refund procedure. When the complainant visited the store 2 days later, staff claimed that the person-in-charge was not in Hong Kong and that the accountant was absent, making an immediate refund impossible. She was advised to return 1 week later to collect a cheque. When she returned after a week’s time on 10 March, staff only provided a post-dated cheque dated 17 March, which she reluctantly accepted. However, when she deposited the cheque on the specified date, the bank informed her that it could not be honoured. After more than 2 weeks of hassle, the complainant lost confidence in Store C and lodged a complaint with the Council.
Following referral by the Council, Store C indicated that it was willing to arrange an immediate refund and invited the complainant to bring the original receipt to the store for a cash refund. However, the complainant explained that she had already surrendered the original receipt when collecting the cheque at the trader’s request and only retained a copy. After further conciliation by the Council, Store C eventually accepted the receipt copy and provided a full cash refund, resolving the case.
Case 3 (C&ED Case): Trader Continued Accepting Payments After Business Closure Eventually Convicted Under TDO
In early 2024, 3 complainants searching for household electrical appliances on an online price comparison platform discovered that Electrical Appliance Retailer D offered prices lower than prevailing market levels and claimed to operate a physical shop located in an industrial building in San Po Kong. Believing the trader to be credible, the 3 complainants separately purchased dehumidifiers or tumble dryers priced between $3,000 and $5,000, paying in full via online payment or bank transfer. Retailer D also sent photographs of the invoices through an instant messaging application, clearly displaying company information, customer details and product descriptions in a well-organised format. However, when the agreed delivery dates arrived, the products were never delivered. Initially, Retailer D repeatedly delayed delivery using various excuses, but once the complainants requested refunds, all communication ceased. Realising they had been deceived, the complainants reported the incidents to the C&ED immediately.
C&ED’s investigation revealed that the sole director of Retailer D was the holder of the bank account and instant messaging account involved in the case. C&ED also discovered that although Retailer D had rented the purported “physical shop” premises in 2019, the landlord had repossessed the property as early as 2020 because of long-term rental arrears. In other words, the physical shop did not exist at the time of the transactions. Furthermore, the trader’s instant messaging number had been suspended due to unpaid charges, while its account on the price comparison platform had been terminated following numerous complaints. The evidence indicated that Retailer D continued to collect consumers’ payments despite clearly being unable to fulfil transactions, constituting an improper trade practice. After the incident, the director involved left Hong Kong for several months but was arrested and prosecuted by C&ED upon returning. The court ultimately convicted the director of contravening the TDO and imposed a 10-day imprisonment sentence suspended for 12 months.
The industry may refer to the following recommendations to enhance service quality and consumer confidence:
- If traders cannot confirm a product’s delivery date, they should inform consumers of the situation before the transaction so that consumers can make an informed decision, rather than providing misleading or false trade descriptions. Any changes should be communicated as early as possible, and flexible arrangements should be offered, such as permitting and promptly arranging refunds;
- Transactions involving electrical appliances may include retailers, agents, installation contractors and maintenance service providers. The trade should strengthen coordination and communication, clearly define responsibilities under different circumstances, and inform consumers which party should be contacted in each situation to avoid misunderstandings and delays;
- Establish clear refund and exchange policies, explain the relevant terms to consumers before transactions, and specify the arrangements in transaction documents, including required documents, procedures and timelines, to enhance transparency and reduce disputes;
- Strengthen product quality monitoring and after-sales follow-up mechanisms, and continuously review products and consumer feedback so that potential product issues can be identified at an early stage.
Consumers should note the following when purchasing electrical appliances:
- Before making a purchase, consumers should compare the functions, specifications, dimensions and warranty coverage of different products, and select a suitable model according to their needs. If professional installation is required, consumers should first understand the basic installation charges, additional chargeable items and their costs. Some appliances may also require a pre-installation on-site inspection. Consumers should enquire in advance about the cancellation or exchange arrangements if the appliance is found to be unsuitable following the inspection before paying;
- Before completing a transaction, consumers should understand the product lead time. If a trader indicates that the product must be pre-ordered and cannot provide a definite arrival date, consumers may ask about the estimated lead time and, where practicable, request that it be specified in the transaction documents. Consumers should also enquire about arrangements for cancellation, refunds or replacement with another model in the event of delivery delays;
- Upon receiving or after installation of an electrical appliance, consumers should verify that the model number, specifications and energy label information match the order and should promptly check that the appliance is functioning properly. Any issues discovered should be followed up with the trader as soon as possible;
- Consumers should use publicly available information or online reviews to understand the trader’s background and operating status. If a product’s price is substantially lower than prevailing market levels, consumers should exercise caution. In addition, consumers should retain transaction receipts, promotional materials and communication records with the trader as supporting evidence.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/598-appliance
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.