The Consumer Council today named three companies - an aluminium works company, an overseas studies/emigration agency and a modelling agency - for engaging in undesirable trade practices detrimental to consumer interests.
The companies in question were the subject of a total of 36 consumer complaints involving some $1.18 million. They were identified as:-
- San Hing Enterprise Ltd.
G/F., 1 Sun Cheung Street
Sheung Shui, New Territories and
G/F., 27D Kwong Fuk Square
Tai Po, New Territories
- Hong Kong Oversea Group Ltd.
Suite 915 Houston Centre
63, Mody Road
Tsim Sha Tsui East, Kowloon
- AM International Publication Group Co. Ltd.
Unit 602, 6/F., Chuang's Tower
30-32 Connaught Road Central
Hong Kong
(It appears that this company has ceased operation as the premises was last seen closed on August 6.)
San Hing Enterprise Ltd.
In the case of San Hing Enterprise Ltd., 5 complaints involving $21,650 were received. But it seems that this company is related to the following proprietorships :
- San Hing Enterprise Co.
G/F., 138 Jockey Club Road
Sheung Shui, New Territories
(5 complaints involving $43,830 were received.)
- San Hing Enterprise Co.
G/F., 138 Jockey Club Road
Sheung Shui, New Territories
and
G/F., 27D Kwong Fuk Square
Tai Po, New Territories.
(10 complaints involving $45,300 were received.)
The two directors of San Hing Enterprise Ltd. have been the sole proprietors of the above two companies. San Hing Enterprise Ltd. conducts the same line of business as before - provide and install aluminium window frames, grills, gates and rooftop structures for customers - but it is now a company with limited liability.
A total of 20 complaints involving $110,780 were received against these businesses for adopting undesirable trade practices as follows :
- The company would not carry out any works despite payment of deposit and when asked to refund, would simply refuse to do so.
- Or, on receipt of a deposit or even the full cost, the company would carry out only a portion of the works leaving it uncompleted despite repeated reminders. Again no refund was made for the works not yet provided.
- The works done were of a poor workmanship but the company would refuse to make good any defects nor refund or pay compensation.
As the operators of the businesses were uncooperative in the resolution of these complaints, two of the complainants, on the advice of the Council, filed their claims to the Small Claims Tribunal. Judgement was obtained in their favour but the company (San Hing Enterprise Co.) has not yet paid up the sums awarded by the Tribunal.
Hong Kong Oversea Group Ltd.
A total of 11 complaints involving $1,006,718 was brought against this company which is engaged in services for consumers who wish to further their studies overseas or emigrate to other countries. The modus operandi of the company involved includes :
- delay (of over 6 months in one case) in remitting the applicants' school tuition fees and other expenses to the schools, without the knowledge of their customers (applicants or their parents) despite having already received separate consultation fees for their service.
- demand a guardian fee from applicants or their parents for providing a guardian service although it was unnecessary in the case of the complainants.
- withhold refund to customers whose application for further studies or emigration had already been turned down by the relevant authorities.
On the intervention of the Council, the company has so far agreed on redress in only one complaint - a partial refund of $57,380.96 out of a claim of $82,416.51.
One complainant filed a claim in the District Court. Since the company did not attend to its defence in court, the complainant won the case. However, the company has not yet paid up the sum awarded by the court.
AM International Publication Group Co. Ltd.
Five complaints involving $60,000 were recorded against this company in the month of July this year. The complainants reveal that the company has adopted similar tactics by dishonest modelling agencies to entice unwary job seekers with offer of modelling jobs.
Complainants told the all-too-familiar tales of how they were enticed in the streets with promise of jobs posing as models in advertisements. They were invited to the office of the company where they were persuaded to sign agreements appointing the agency as manager for their modelling career.
Thereupon, they were required to pay, with credit cards, large sums of "deposits" ranging from $6,000 to $20,000 purportedly to ensure that future job appointments would be kept, and with assurance that the "deposits" would be refunded on job completion.
The complainants were arranged to attend photo sessions but never any jobs with remuneration.
The Council has referred these cases to the Police for investigation if any criminal offence may have been committed.
Meanwhile, consumers are advised to stay alert to other undesirable trade practices reported by complainants against modelling agencies, for instance, :
- Complainants were persuaded to join fitness or beauty treatment courses, purportedly to make them more suitable for modelling job, at exorbitant charges.
- Complaints were taken to attend audition or screen test, photo session and modelling training course and charged fees of an exorbitant level.
- Complainants were given some simple modelling jobs to do but the remuneration was invariably far less than what they had already paid.
- At least in one instance, a complainant was taken to a jewellery shop to purchase gold items by credit card as the agency did not have an account with that particular credit card company. The gold merchandise purchased, worth $13,000, was then handed over to the agency as substitute for cash payment.
A bona-fide model agency or advertising firm in conducting screen test or audition for a suitable candidate would usually provide some forms of remuneration such as transportation fee and would not ask for payment of any sort. It is worth bearing in mind the following:-
- Don't be in a hurry to sign a contract without first consulting with people whom you can trust.
- If the company suggests the applicants ought to improve their grooming and body and that a beauty treatment/fitness course or a photo session is required, there is no reason why the consumers cannot make their own arrangements as long as the objective is achieved (i.e. weigh loss). Put this question to the company to gauge their reaction.
- Be skeptical about oral promises that there will be modelling job at generous remuneration.
- Be wary if urged to pay charges and sign a contract in a hurry.
- Some agencies now use the pretext of offering job as fashion fitting model to entice unwary consumers.