take action

The column for anyone fed up with bureaucracy, frustrated with delays or furious with poor service. Tell us your complaint and we'll try to fix it...

Laundry operator Kenny Chan said his shop in the Household Center has been suffering water leakage from a restaurant upstairs. He said it has been a regular problem over the past 18 months but the management company, Goodwell-Fortune Property Services, has only offered temporary solutions. The Household Center is a shopping mall that forms part of the Nob Hill residential complex in Mei Foo.

'When is management going to fulfil the rest of the leasing contract by providing us with a water-proof environment to conduct business?' he asked.

'Ignoring water leakage problems can lead to serious infrastructure issues. I detailed the problem in writing during the renewal of the lease and asked for an investigation. I guess it was ignored, as usual.

'Besides visiting the site and speaking with a 'contractor', no immediate action has been planned to trace the source of the leak. I was informed that there are a couple of alternatives to solving the problem. However, they are all in the 'investigating and planning' stages.'

Mr Chan said he was told by the management company that such leaks occurred at buildings they manage all the time.

'If that's the case, why didn't they fix it?' he said. 'The same team of people had investigated the water leakage problem a couple of months ago.'

Goodwell-Fortune said there had been three leakage reports - the current one, one in January and another dating back to early last year.

A company manager said each leak was caused by a different source but the current one had been repaired. 'There is a restaurant upstairs. The recent problem was caused by water overflowing from an air-conditioning system,' he said, while the leakage problem in January was caused by something else.

'We fixed a different problem each time. It is not the case that the same problem had persisted. We have written to inform Mr Chan of our repair and the cause of the problem.'

Mr Chan said he was keeping his fingers crossed and wondered whether there would be another leak later.

A reader ordered a suit, three pairs of black trousers and two blouses from Monaza Fashions in Tsim Sha Tsui in February for $4,000. Despite several fittings and re-fittings, she claims the tailor never delivered what it had originally agreed to. The tailor hung up the phone on her several times and then threatened to call the police if she called again.

'At my first fitting, almost everything was wrong. I pointed out the mistakes to both the assistant and tailor, and drew diagrams of what I wanted. I was told I could collect the order later,' the reader said.

'When I got the order it was wrong and incomplete, and the work was shoddy. I explained the problems to the shop and returned the clothes. Weeks later I went to collect them, but nothing further had been done. I explained I was going to need them for a special function and the assistant promised they would be ready. I was told the order would be ready in a few days.

'My helper collected the clothes, but the order was incomplete. She was told the rest would be ready within a day. When she returned, it had not been completed as my measurements had been 'lost'. No one had told me about this until she was in their shop. The clothes they had produced were still substandard, incorrect and did not fit.

'I told them I wanted a refund. They asked for another chance, promising the clothes would be ready in time for my function. Once again the clothes were returned and collected. No alterations had been done and I could not wear the clothes to the function. When I phoned the shop, the sales assistant hung up on me. Several attempts to speak to him met with the same 'customer care' response.

'My helper went on her day off to take the clothes back. They assured her she could collect them at 8.30am on Monday. When she got there the shop was closed. She phoned them to be told they had not managed to fix the clothes. They didn't bother to phone her to stop her making another trip from the New Territories. I contacted the shop to request a refund. The owner hung up on me. He then threatened to call the police.'

After a Take Action inquiry, Monaza said it would refund the $4,000 she had paid if she returned the clothes.

However, when the reader's maid went to the shop, the shop owner said he would not give back the money unless the reader wrote and signed a statement saying she had returned all the clothes and had collected the money.

The maid called the reader, who asked to speak with the shop owner. He refused to talk to her. The reader is now filing a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal.