Many consumers who shop online believe that “Cash on Delivery” is an added safeguard compared to paying in advance. Yet, this mindset was well caught by unscrupulous sellers, bringing 89 complaint cases to the Consumer Council in 2017, that consumers purchased goods with reduced wariness and discovered the product delivered was not as described, only after giving the payment to the courier. The Council advises consumers to be more vigilant and calls for stringent law enforcement from the Government against sales malpractices.
The Council points out that some online stores involved in the complaints do not provide real name of the operator, business address or telephone number. Should things go wrong, it would be extremely difficult to contact the sellers. Further, even if consumers approach the courier to make a complaint or request refund, the courier would only refuse to get involved in the ensuing dispute, leaving the hapless consumers in the cold with no redress.
Case 1: Misplaced trust on mendacious web as seller goes missing
Through the social media platform the complainant bought from a fashion website which offered “Cash on Delivery”, a coat claimed to be of a well-known British brand. Upon delivery, she paid in cash $429 to the courier. When the package was opened, the coat turned out to be of a Korean brand of the same colour. Despite repeated emails, the seller originally agreed to refund 40% of the price but later just vanished and not to be found again.
The case was referred to the Council which followed up with attempt to contact the seller via email but to no avail. It also tried on a phone number given by the complainant; the call was answered by someone who claimed to be with a transport company and had no knowledge of the transaction. But when the Council called the number again the phone went dead with no answer. The complainant approached the Customs and Excise Department for assistance.
Case 2: Courier insists on payment first; the product turns out wrong but redress is unavailable
The complainant bought from an online store on the social media platform a backpack of her favoured brand with an original price tag of $900, which was reduced to only $469 for 2 in a sale promotion of “buy one gets one free”. The web also offered return of goods unconditionally. A purchase order was placed and the goods duly delivered in a week. The complainant requested to inspect the merchandise before payment but this was rejected by the courier. Reluctantly the complainant acceded but on opening the package the 2 backpacks were not what she had ordered – both were of an unknown brand and much smaller in size. He refused to accept the backpacks but the courier would not take back the goods as the complainant had already signed the receipt. Shortly afterwards, the online shop ceased to be in operation and the complainant was left with no means of contacting the seller for redress.
Despite repeated attempts by the Council to send email to the seller, no response was forthcoming. The complainant was referred to seek legal advice or to consider reporting the case to the law enforcement agency.
Case 3: Variances in web & email addresses; waybill without sender information
Through a sports shoes website redirected from a social media platform, the complainant bought a pair of casual sports shoes at $490 to be paid upon delivery. When he unpacked the shoes after payment, he was shocked to find the left and right shoes were not of identical size, and the quality was poor. He complained via email to the seller who replied that his refund request would be handled by the courier but first he had to return the shoes for which he paid the courier an extra $58 and the refund would be delivered in person by special courier to his home later. As no refund was forthcoming he chased the courier for arrangement. The courier confirmed that it had successfully returned the shoes but stressed that refund wasn’t their responsibility.
The complainant later found that the sender on the waybill consisted of only a few English alphabets, and the sender’s address was that of a container port pier. There was no way he could locate the responsible web operator on the basis of such information. With the consent of the complainant, the Council referred the case to the Customs and Excise Department for follow-up action.
Regarding diverse sales malpractices and a rising number of consumer complaints involving online purchase these days, the Council reminds consumers to be always paying attention to the following:
- Choose online stores with good reputation, physical business address and contact telephone number and verify the authenticity of the information;
- Read and understand fully the payment method, mode of delivery, refund and return of goods policy, etc.;
- Exercise extra vigilance where the price is paid by fund transfer made only directly into personal bank account, or request for payment in cash upon delivery of goods;
- Save records and take screenshots for online transactions, including chat log history, product description, model, function and price, order invoice, etc.;
- Some credit cards are protected by chargeback mechanism; in the event that the goods fail to correspond with their descriptions, the card-holders apply to the card issuers for refund;
- Be always rational in consumption – do not be easily enticed by price reduction or special privileged discounts promotion by online stores;
- Be on the alert of products priced well below their normal levels, stay rational to avoid falling into sales traps;
- If consumers suspect a shop has engaged in selling counterfeit products or goods with false trade descriptions or omitted material information that a consumer needs to make in informed purchase decision, report to the Customs and Excise Department.