Wedding service has been a booming business in the market in recent years. The standard of services offered, however, differs a great deal from shop to shop. During the first half of this year, the Consumer Council received 31 complaints about wedding venues and wedding related services, and another nine cases about wedding car rental. It is a matter for consumers' to take heed.
From the analysis of various complaint cases, it is worth noting that unscrupulous traders often take advantage of some common consumer mentalities. Since wedding is one of the most important occasions in life, prospective couples usually long for an exceptional wedding and the service providers can easily win their trust by promising to offer extraordinary services. What they eventually deliver, however, often does not match what have been promised. On the big day, the newlyweds are always under action-packed itineraries while having to catch up with the "auspicious time" as a traditional practice. Due to the tight schedule, they have no choice but compromise with alternative arrangement. Worse still, most of these companies were uncooperative towards the Council's conciliation, hence, made it more difficult for consumers to seek redress.
In one case, the complainant enquired with a wedding specialist Company A on banquet pricing and was told food would be cooked by a former hotel executive chef. So the complainant agreed to book 20 tables and the ceremony hall at a package cost of about HK$200,000. The complainant paid an immediate deposit of HK$50,000. But shortly afterwards, a friend told her there was no kitchen in the venue at all. The complainant asked Company A to clarify this straight away but was assured that all food would be cooked onsite instead of using outside catering service.
The complainant was still doubtful about the arrangement. She decided to seek advice from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and found out that flame cooking was definitely not allowed in that venue. In that case, all banquet food had to be cooked and prepared in a food factory and then delivered to the banquet venue. The complainant believed that staff of Company A has misrepresented the service details during the sales pitch. She asked for a refund but was rejected on the grounds that it had been stated clearly in the agreement that food would be "provided and handled by the service provider" and the complainant had signed her name. The complainant insisted she was not presented with the terms and conditions of the deal and the staff had not clearly explained the part about "outside catering". In the end, she decided to file a complaint to the Consumer Council.
The council tried to conciliate the case but in vain because Company A adopted an evasive attitude without actively taking any follow-up action. Finally the Council suggested the complainant to seek redress through civil proceedings and referred the case to the Customs and Excise Department.
Another case was about outdoor wedding ceremony. The complainant purchased a glass hall ceremony package worth HK$32,000 from Company B and settled an advance payment of HK$3,000. But afterwards, the complainant heard that the venue was an unauthorized building work, which was proven to be true after verifying with the Buildings Department. He thus asked for a refund from Company B. However, the company only suggested him change the venue or transfer the service opportunity to another person. The complainant did not accept this and decided to seek help from the Council. Finally, Company B agreed on a refund after the Council's conciliation.
The third case was related to the limousine rental service. The complainant rented a pink London taxi as wedding limousine and another 28-seater coach at a total cost of HK$3,688 and paid a deposit of HK$1,800. During sales pitch Company C promised to provide timely pick up and presented a leaflet highlighting "limo guaranteed" and "Free upgrade in case of the breakdown of the designated vehicle".
On the wedding day, however, the driver called up claiming that the wedding car got its tire blown out on the way and an ordinary sedan was assigned as back-up. Since the schedule was already delayed, the complainant had no choice but accepted it. Worse-still, the back-up car turned out to have a damaged window which affected photo and video taking on the vehicle. The complainant decided to file a complaint with the Council because Company C failed to fulfill the contractual obligation. He refused to pay the balance and requested Company C to reimburse the deposit as well as paying a penalty fee of HK$1,800 for breaking the contract.
The Council attempted repeatedly to contact Company C but the company has changed its address a number of time. The Council has also invited the company owner for a meeting but was in vain. With Company C refusing to engage in conciliation, the Council had no choice but suggested the complainant seek redress through other means, and file a complaint with the Customs and Excise Department.
The last case also involved rental services of wedding limousine. The complainant rented a wedding limo and a coach from Company D at a total cost of HK$5,200. A deposit of HK$3,000 was paid and the balanced were to be settled on the wedding day. Company D called the complainant two weeks before the wedding and requested for an early settlement purportedly due to peak season. On the day before the wedding day, the company called the complainant again and asked for an extra payment of HK$2,200 for the coach driver and assured a full refund after wedding. Company D insisted the complainant to pay such amount, otherwise he would risk having no coach service provided. Owing to the tight schedule, the complainant finally agreed on the payment.
After wedding, the complainant urged Company D many times for a refund but only received HK$1,000 two weeks later. He visited Company D, but discovered that the shop had changed hands. What's more, he happened to find the company owner in another shop in the same shopping mall. After a series of negotiation, he managed to collect the remaining HK$1,200. Nevertheless, he decided to file a complaint with the Council about the unfair trade practice of Company D, and requested the Council to closely monitor such kind of malpractice matter and keep his case on record.
The Council has the following suggestions for consumers looking for wedding services:
- Beware of the license of the venue before booking, verify whether cooking is allowed and alcoholic drinks can be served, and confirm whether there is any unauthorized building work.
- When booking a special wedding car, the consumer should check the number of available vehicles owned by the company and whether a proper contingency plan is in place, including the exact models of the back-up cars and terms of indemnity.
- When renting a wedding car, consider paying the deposit first and settling the balance after the service has been complete. Remember to keep the proof of all payments in case they are needed to support claims when necessary.
- Newlyweds should make a budget for their wedding, collect relevant service information and check service provider's reputation.
- Make comparisons and go for a reputed service provider. Visit online wedding information platforms for more details if necessary.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE ( https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/ ).