She spends 73 cents to get 10-cent refund
By Joyce Lim
She has been overcharged for her bus rides more than five times this year alone.
Each time, Miss Lee Hwee Teng, 39, made a claim, even though the amount could be as little as 10 cents.
She would do this even if she had to take a bus - and pay a fare costing more than the claim amount - to a bank to deposit the refund cheques.
This is because she does not have a bank account with DBS or POSB, the banks to which TransitLink can credit the refunds.
Just last week, on Nov 17, Miss Lee received yet another cheque, refunding her the extra 10 cents that was deducted from her Cepas (Contactless ePurse Application Standard) card on Nov 8.
Miss Lee, who is self-employed in the biotechology sector, submitted this latest claim - her fifth - through TransitLink's website and received her cheque refund within a week.
WHY BOTHER?
Although the cheques were mailed to her home in Yishun Street 61, Miss Lee had to take a bus to the OCBC bank branch in either Yishun or Ang Mo Kio Town Central, the nearest branches to her home, to deposit them.
She said: "It would cost 73 cents for me to take a bus from home to Yishun Central."
So why go through all that trouble?
Said Miss Lee: "It is a matter of principle...
"Most people I know wouldn't bother to get a 10-cent refund. I have shared my experience with my friends, but they told me that it's only 10 cents and asked me to forget it.
"But just imagine a whole busload of people being overcharged 10 cents for the ride."
The first time Miss Lee noticed that she had been overcharged for a ride was on Feb 7 this year. She was charged 10 cents more for her ride to work.
Miss Lee takes SMRT bus service 851, 852 or 853 from home and gets off at the Yio Chu Kang MRT station, near her workplace.
The journey usually costs her 91 cents, but she was charged $1.01 that one time.
Noticing the wrong amount deducted from her Cepas card as she alighted the bus, Miss Lee headed to the ticketing office at Yio Chu Kang MRT station to report the error.
"I had to fill in a claim form and was asked to return to the station to get my 10 cents refund 10days later," recalled Miss Lee, who did just that.
She was also told that she can submit her claim online if it happens again.
On June 20, Miss Lee was again charged an extra 10 cents when she took the bus to work.
This time, she filed for her claim online and got her refund in the form of a cheque.
Miss Lee Hwee Teng tapping her farecard on the card reader as she boards the bus.
Said Miss Lee: "Now, I try to check the amount deducted on my card when I tap on the card reader before I alight. But if the bus is very crowded, I wouldn't be able to see the display clearly.
"Also, when I take the bus to other destinations, I don't know the correct fare."
On Aug 2, Miss Lee was charged an extra 91 cents for her ride from home to work.
She said: "When I tapped my card to exit, nothing was shown on the display. So I tapped my card again and it showed 'entry'. I asked the bus driver, who told me to tap my card one more time before I alighted the bus.
"It didn't show the amount deducted. I was a bit concerned and went to the station control at Yio Chu Kang MRT station to enquire. I followed up with an e-mail and was given a refund of 91 cents." She was charged 62 cents more on Oct 18 for her normal commute to work.
On the Nov 8 overcharge, she said: "When I saw the error, I thought, 'Here we go again!'"
An SMRT spokesman explained to The New Paper that the overcharging was due to human error or intermittent technical glitches experienced by the card reader.
When told of Miss Lee's experience, Miss Deborah Dayani Nanayakara, 26, a public relations manager, said: "It is shocking that this happens and that it has happened so many times to one person."
Asked if she too would make a claim if she had been overcharged, she said: "Not if it's 10 cents. But I will claim if it is more than $1."
Student Tammy Lim, 19, asked: "If the overcharge is due to a technical glitch on the card reader, does it mean everyone on the bus would also be overcharged? If so, wouldn't that come out to be quite a big amount since the bus would be packed in the mornings?"
Undergraduate Lim Hengxin, 20, said that most people do not even know the exact fare for their trip. She added: "It can be quite stressful to mentally calculate the distance and fare each time we take the bus."
SOME BUSES RECALLED AFTER HER CLAIMS
An SMRT spokesman confirmed the refunds given to Miss Lee Hwee Teng on the five occasions.
Said the spokesman: "We have investigated these incidents and wish to explain that Miss Lee was overcharged 10 cents on Feb 7, June 20 and Nov 8, due to intermittent technical glitches experienced by the card reader.
"Miss Lee had filed claims and obtained a refund from TransitLink accordingly.
"On Aug 2, Miss Lee experienced a double deduction likely due to her tapping the card reader twice.
"On Oct 18, human error caused the service direction to be set to 'outbound' instead of 'inbound' and Miss Lee to be overcharged 62 cents.
"Miss Lee also referred to TransitLink to obtain a refund."
The spokesman explained that card readers on board the buses are automatic and are designed to update the fare according to the distance the bus has travelled.
SYSTEM RE-CALIBRATED
"Following these incidents, we have recalled the affected buses and re-calibrated the system," added the spokesman.
"We apologise to Miss Lee for the inconvenience caused."
When the new distance-based fare system was introduced in July last year, an error led to commuters being overcharged a total of $316,006. On average, commuters who were overcharged paid 4 cents more than they should have. The mistake was rectified last November.
Only $138,281, less than half the overcharged amount, was claimed.
Bus operators SBS Transit and SMRT have donated the unclaimed amount of $177,725 to the Public Transport Fund.
The fund is disbursed by voluntary welfare organisations to needy families to help them with their transport costs. This includes giving out vouchers when there is an increase in fares.
This article was first published in The New Paper.
Last edited:
