"Winning at the starting line" is regarded as the Words of Wisdom by many Hong Kong parents. Capturing this psychological factor, some traders sell their teaching materials under the disguise of various activities and competitions. Some even dispatch promotional pamphlets through schools to make parents believe that their products or services are recommended by the respective education institution. The Consumer Council reminds parents to be extra wary of such sales tactics to avoid unnecessary spending. Schools should also scrutinise their own pamphlets to see if there is a hidden sales agenda, clearly explain to parents their relationship with the products, courses or activities being promoted, their necessity for students' learning and, whether they are compulsory or optional, for parents to make a well-informed choice.
In one of the complaint cases received by the Council, the complainant's daughter participated in a colouring competition through her school and was notified to collect a certificate and gift at Company A. Upon their arrival, the staff suggested to conduct a free language ability assessment for the complainant's daughter which showed that she was relatively weak in English language. The staff also pointed out that the rather low ranking of the girl's school made it difficult for her to compete against others if she did not improve her English proficiency. The staff then persuaded the complainant to purchase an English learning kit valued at $20,000 and, claimed that the material was good enough to tackle tests and interviews in any schools.
The complainant, having seen many "good reviews" of other parents posted in the company, agreed to pay. While processing payment, the staff informed the complainant that she would receive a supermarket voucher if she submitted her review. Upon receiving the learning materials, the complainant sought school teacher's advice and was told the learning material was nothing special.
The complainant believed that the colouring competition should not contain a hidden sales agenda. Company A allegedly used supermarket voucher to lure parents into writing "good reviews", creating a false impression that their products were well received. The complainant then approached the Council and requested to cancel the transaction.
Company A's person-in-charge refused to refund. They stated that the sales tactic was not problematic and the transaction was made in the complainant's consent. In view of Company A's reply, the complainant indicated that she would pursue the refund through a civil claim.
The second case involved an alleged abuse of personal data. The complainant believed that she was misled by the "homework support" saleswoman into purchasing unnecessary service. The visiting saleswoman could accurately identify the name of the complainant's son, his school and the class attended and, claimed the purpose of her visit is to conduct an academic survey.
The complainant thought this was a home visit arranged by the school and revealed her son's academic performance. Subsequently, the saleswoman introduced a homework support service which she claimed that the service was suitable for the complainant's son and, requested the complainant to sign up, without mentioning any fees involved.
Though the complainant was aware that she was not offered a detailed description of the service, she let down her guard as the receipt bore a name resembling a welfare agency. Once the complainant had signed, the woman requested a service fee which she claimed was lowered than the market price of tutorial classes. For the sake of her son, the complainant finally agreed to pay $4,500.
Later that night, complainant's son told her that he was not aware of any home visit arranged by the school, and the "homework enquiry" service purchased by the complainant would be of little help. She then inquired the school who made it clear that parents would be notified before any home visit was conducted and this duty would not be performed by any tutorial company. The complainant made multiple phone calls to Company B but did not receive any reply. The complainant then sought help from the Council.
The Council could not get hold of Company B's person-in-charge. In a written reply, Company B claimed their staff had strictly followed the sales guidelines, denied all allegations about false trade description and, refused to refund. The Council relayed this message to the complainant and did not hear from her since.
The Council especially reminds traders that regardless of the sales channel used such as distribution through schools and so on, it is their responsibility to ensure the promotion information is accurate and clear. Under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, traders who deploy unfair trade practices against consumers during the sales process, including misleading or false trade descriptions of services or misleading omissions, will be liable.
When parents encounter any promotions of teaching materials, they are advised to pay attention to the following:
- Purchase products according to their children's needs and study time arrangement. Seek advice from teachers or experienced people on practicality of learning materials or services to avoid wastage caused by purchasing unsuitable or excessive extra-curriculum exercises;
- Salespersons may use "time-limited offers" to entice consumers in making hasty decisions. As some teaching materials or services are very costly, consumers are warned that a great loss may incur when they are urged to make impulsive purchase;
- Many mobile phone apps, questionnaires, forms and, lucky draws require participants to write down their personal details. Consumers should protect their personal information and weigh carefully whether the scope and use of information and data collected is appropriate. When in doubt, they should seek help from the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data's Office.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.