The Consumer Council today publicly named two retailers - a handbag and shoe shop with two retail outlets, and a wedding card and gift shop - for persisting in malpractices against the interests of consumers.
Since August this year, in the past 41/2 months alone, these shops have been the subject of altogether 32 consumer complaints involving a total of some $60,488 in dispute.
Despite the Council's repeated efforts in mediation and warning letters, the operators of these businesses have shown no sign of desisting in their malpractices, nor improvement in their sales tactics and service.
To safeguard consumers' interests, the Council has, therefore, decided to impose publicity sanction as a deterrence to these operators and to alert the consumer public to their malpractices.
1. Hollywood Gold Ltd. (T.A.C. - selling shoes and handbags)
Shop Z1, G/F., Euro Trade Center 21-23 Des Voeux Road, Central Hong Kong, and Basement 54, Yun Ping Road Causeway Bay Hong Kong
2. Macy Greetings Card & Gift Centre
G/F., 23 Lee Tung Street Wanchai Hong Kong
Hollywood Gold Ltd.
In the case of the above handbag and shoe shops, which have on the store signage the English initials T.A.C. but issued receipts in the name of Hollywood Gold Ltd., there were 20 consumer complaints involving purchases of a total of $4,798.
As of todate, Hollywood Gold Ltd. has refused to co-operate in the resolution of any of these complaints.
The complaints indicated that the operator of the shops used a tactic to create, deliberately or otherwise, confusion in the mind of prospective customers the exact amount of the price of a merchandise after discount.
The tactic involved advertising prominently two numerical figures on a same piece of price tag - on the top was imprinted a figure of a bigger sum and below of a smaller sum both set in bold type and in different colours. And in between was the word "discount".
Prominently displayed in the shop were also signs advertising "less 70% and up". Incidentally, the smaller sum, in many cases, was approximately the price after discount of that magnitude, reinforcing the confusion over the price of the product.
According to the complainants, they were led to believe by the price tag and the signs that the smaller sum would naturally represent the price after discount.
Only when they had made payments for the merchandise, were they informed that the amount payable was actually the difference between the two numerical figures on the price tag - and this invariably means a higher price for the purchase.
For examples, a handbag with a price tag of 360 and 100 (no dollar sign), the customer who paid under the impression that the handbag was only $100, was surprised to find out the shop had charged $260 instead. Or, if the price tag is marked 280 and 100, the selling price is $180 and not $100.
Nonetheless, any protestation to rescind from the transactions on the grounds of misleading price indication would be ignored and the hapless consumers left with no alternative but to pay more.
Some complainants who paid by credit card, were told that the sales amount was already imprinted on the credit card authorization slip and therefore could not be cancelled. Consumers are advised that they have every right no matter in cash or by credit card to refuse to go through the transaction and leave the shop.
Macy Greetings Card & Gift Centre
There were 12 consumer complaints involving deposits of a total of $55,690 against this shop which supplies wedding invitation cards and souvenirs such as crystal apples and chopsticks for such occasions.
In 1999, the shop, then known as Top Class Company, operating on the same premises was publicly named by the Council for malpractices. It subsequently changed its name to the present one.
The Council's search of Business Registration revealed that both shops were in fact registered under the same name of Cheng Mei Lan as the proprietor of the business.
According to the complainants, the shop consistently failed to supply the ordered goods on time despite repeated reminders of the customers.
The customers, in many cases, waited until a week or 10 days before the due wedding dates but still no delivery of the goods. Understandably such delay caused great anxiety to the consumers with their wedding dates drawing irrevocably near.
Furthermore, in some cases, the problem was compounded by spelling errors and unsatisfactory quality even if the orders were finally delivered.
Fearful of missing the deadlines in good time, worried consumers had little choice but to place new orders with other suppliers and claimed refund from the company which, however, would use delaying tactics to ward off such claims.
The malpractices by these traders demonstrate clearly the need to regulate such practices as misleading price indication or accepting payment for goods and services that they do not intend or are able to supply.
Legislation over deceptive, misleading and unfair practices in consumer transactions exist in many jurisdictions including Australia, the UK, the USA, and China.
In the absence of similar legislation in Hong Kong, traders are called upon to exercise self-discipline. They should realise the value of clear and accurate price indication, as well as adhering to good business practice generally which will greatly enhance consumers' confidence in their business.