CASE ASKS 2 MALLS TO PENALISE ERRANT RETAILERS WHEN IT CANNOT EVEN DO SO
Post date:
1 Dec 2014 - 5:22pm
Looks like Case wants to get in on the action again.
After failing to act against the scams at the Sim Lim Square and People's Park Complex, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) looks like it just realised that it has new-found powers.
It could send letters.
And so, Case sent letters to the two malls on Friday.
But funnily, Case is asking the malls to become the enforcer instead.
“While CASE is able to invite retailers to sign a Voluntary Compliance Agreement to stop their unfair practices from time to time, we believe that the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) of both malls should also do their part to strengthen the enforcement process against recalcitrant offenders,"Executive Director of CASE Seah Seng Choon said.
"We appeal to the MCST to amend their rules and by-laws to make it mandatory for all landlords to state that retailers must conduct their business in accordance to fair practices set out under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act in their rental agreements.
"If the landlord carries out their own retail business, the landlord should also be bound by duty to engage in fair practices under the CPFTA.
Case wants the malls to " to compel the landlords to terminate the rental agreement" and "impose severe penalties on the landlords and/or retailers that are in breach of the act".
It also said that the malls should have the "power to force sell the property to another owner".
Case said that it is “extremely concerned about the large increase in the number of complaints involving errant retailers” and that it has been “working hard” to mediate when the scams happen but said that the errant retailers “have refused to cooperate”.
Case also said that it was ignored.
It looks like Case is pushing the responsibility onto the malls to deal with the errant retailers, instead of improving its own regulatory and enforcement framework to deal with errant retailers on a broader basis.
Just asking the two malls to change their rules and by-laws will only work for the two malls and only if the two malls comply.
Where consumers would face similar problems at the other malls, there would still need to be broader powers that penalise errant retailers.
It is not known if Case is working on this.
Last month saw a series of scams at the Sim Lim Square that became viral news around the world and tarnished Singapore's image as a shopping destination when even the Chinese government issued a warning to its citizens against shopping for mobile phones and electronic products in Singapore.
News later got around that Case has been powerless against these errant retailers because it is not able to enforce any law nor take these retailers to task.
In fact, Case could only direct consumers to take the matter up to court, where these scammed customers would have to pay hundreds of dollars to fight for their case.
The police could also only step in to mediate without any enforceable powers as well.
Case said that it would be waiting for the two malls to respond to its plea to them in the letter by this Friday, December 5.
It is not known what other powers Case has to deal with the two malls.
Post date:
1 Dec 2014 - 5:22pm
Looks like Case wants to get in on the action again.
After failing to act against the scams at the Sim Lim Square and People's Park Complex, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) looks like it just realised that it has new-found powers.
It could send letters.
And so, Case sent letters to the two malls on Friday.
But funnily, Case is asking the malls to become the enforcer instead.
“While CASE is able to invite retailers to sign a Voluntary Compliance Agreement to stop their unfair practices from time to time, we believe that the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) of both malls should also do their part to strengthen the enforcement process against recalcitrant offenders,"Executive Director of CASE Seah Seng Choon said.
"We appeal to the MCST to amend their rules and by-laws to make it mandatory for all landlords to state that retailers must conduct their business in accordance to fair practices set out under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act in their rental agreements.
"If the landlord carries out their own retail business, the landlord should also be bound by duty to engage in fair practices under the CPFTA.
Case wants the malls to " to compel the landlords to terminate the rental agreement" and "impose severe penalties on the landlords and/or retailers that are in breach of the act".
It also said that the malls should have the "power to force sell the property to another owner".
Case said that it is “extremely concerned about the large increase in the number of complaints involving errant retailers” and that it has been “working hard” to mediate when the scams happen but said that the errant retailers “have refused to cooperate”.
Case also said that it was ignored.
It looks like Case is pushing the responsibility onto the malls to deal with the errant retailers, instead of improving its own regulatory and enforcement framework to deal with errant retailers on a broader basis.
Just asking the two malls to change their rules and by-laws will only work for the two malls and only if the two malls comply.
Where consumers would face similar problems at the other malls, there would still need to be broader powers that penalise errant retailers.
It is not known if Case is working on this.
Last month saw a series of scams at the Sim Lim Square that became viral news around the world and tarnished Singapore's image as a shopping destination when even the Chinese government issued a warning to its citizens against shopping for mobile phones and electronic products in Singapore.
News later got around that Case has been powerless against these errant retailers because it is not able to enforce any law nor take these retailers to task.
In fact, Case could only direct consumers to take the matter up to court, where these scammed customers would have to pay hundreds of dollars to fight for their case.
The police could also only step in to mediate without any enforceable powers as well.
Case said that it would be waiting for the two malls to respond to its plea to them in the letter by this Friday, December 5.
It is not known what other powers Case has to deal with the two malls.
