Complain queens banned from all NTUC outlets

[Cootie-Monster]

'Frivolous' complaint put sisters on ban list

 

SINGAPORE - Her litany of complaints over the years is long and extensive.

 

Whether it's bus companies, supermarkets, department stores or her neighbours, she has complained about them all.

 

So much so that two years ago NTUC FairPrice took the unusual step of banning her and her elder sister from all its outlets to protect its staff and other customers. This emerged during a 17-day trial in which Miss Khek Ching Ching, 43, sued bus company SBS Transit.

 

Yesterday, The New Paper reported that in May, District Judge Leslie Chew found the bus driver to be negligent and liable for her injuries suffered as a result of the incident on April 28, 2004.

 

Miss Khek claimed that she was thrown off her seat and hit the knees of her sister, who was seated opposite her,when the bus driver braked suddenly.

 

The court was told that Miss Khek and her sister, See See, 47, both unemployed, were known to be difficult customers.

 

Evidence of their history of complaints against various companies was put forward by SBS Transit's lawyer, Mr Anthony Wee, to support his client's argument that Miss Khek had"simply invented" the accident.

 

The defence described her as someone who "has a history of lodging complaints against third parties for economic and/or other gains".

 

Several witnesses testified about how in their dealings with Miss Khek, "she had behaved, from their perspective, unreasonably, complaining about various incidents".

 

Judge Chew noted that the "strongest suggestion of the 'unreasonableness' of (Miss Khek) and to a lesser extent her sister" was the fact that NTUC FairPrice had classified Miss Khek as "persona non grata" (an unwelcome person).

 

Yet, in a two-hour interview with The New Paper, the sisters emphasised repeatedly that they were friendly and had no problems with people.

 

Still, there was no denying that their relationship with the supermarket chain was strained.

 

The court heard that from April 2007 to October 2008, the sisters lodged 19 complaints with NTUC Fair- Price about various issues.

 

These included gripes about customer service, poor quality of products and even about injuries caused to them by the staff or third parties at the outlets.

 

A NTUC FairPrice staff member testified that each complaint of theirs was taken seriously.

 

The sisters would be refunded money or allowed to exchange products they had bought even though it meant that NTUC FairPrice had to deviate from its standard exchange and refund policy.

 

Under the policy, the goods had to be defective and the goods and receipt produced no later than 15 days from the date of purchase.

 

On some occasions when a refund or exchange could not be given, the sisters would be given gift vouchers instead.

 

The company said it also took action, including counselling, against the staff members whom the sisters had accused of poor service.

 

Last Straw

 

But one incident the Kheks griped about was "the last straw" forNTUCFairPrice.

 

The company found the complaint "frivolous and vexatious" and said it "amounted to an abuse of (the) goodwillshown tothem" in their earlier complaints.

 

The court heard that on Aug 8, 2008, the sisters were at the Tiong Bahru Plaza store to return a bag of potatoes they claimed wasof very poor quality. At the store, they got into a dispute with two other customers.

 

Miss Khek See See alleged that one of the customers had"knocked into" her younger sister'sabdomen,causing her "to feel discomfort". She showed a staffmember a photo of the latter's surgicalwoundon the abdomen. But she "became agitated when asked to give more details" of the alleged injury. The customers also denied knocking into either sister.

 

When she claimed that her younger sister was about to faint, a staff immediately got her a chair from the office.

 

And upon her insistence, an ambulance was called to take Miss Khek to hospital. The police were also alerted.

 

The sisters later lodged a complaint about the incident. After investigating, NTUC FairPrice decided to ban the sisters from all its stores.

 

The court heard that on Oct 9, 2008, a notice was sent to the sisters informing them of the ban. NTUC FairPrice also warned them that legal action would be taken against them "if they set foot in any of our supermarkets island wide".

 

The supermarket chain had found that the sisters "were being unreasonable to the extent of harassing our staff and became a nuisance to other patrons", the court heard.

 

"They also caused our staff to suffer from mental anxieties and distress in dealing with them." The sisters appealed to a member of parliament to help overturn the ban but NTUC FairPrice stood firm. The ban remains to this day.

 

Two years before that, the sisters had complained about Yue Hwa emporiumin Chinatown. They had been walking along an aisle in the emporium in October 2006 when Miss Khek said she tripped on a raised metal strip on the floor.

 

She had just come from an acupuncture session and was shopping with her sister then.

 

The sisters claimed that this aggravated an existing swelling in one of her legs and demanded compensation of close to $10,000. The emporium eventually paid them about $6,000. Pointing to these incidents, Mr Wee told the court that Miss Khek "ought to be considered as someone who was unreasonable, making unreasonable complaints frequently, often exaggerating claims and complaints".

 

The Khek sisters should not be allowed to "run rings around unsuspecting retailers and service providers and be allowed to benefit and unjustly enrich themselves by filing frivolous complaints", the court was told.

 

The court heard that Miss Khek had also been injured on buses on two occasions in 2002.

 

The first was on June 6 that year when her right ankle was bruised after her foot was caught by the closing doors of a bus she was travelling on.

 

Then, about a month later, she sprained her right knee after knocking it because a bus she was travelling on had suddenly braked.

 

In 2004, she said she was again injured when the driver suddenly braked. This time, she sued SBS Transit - albeit three years later.

 

Judge Chew found in her favour and awarded her about $82,000 in compensation. Even then, she is unhappy with the amount and is appealing.

 

We don't create trouble, say sisters

 

WE ARE amiable and enjoy good rapport with others, said the Khek sisters.

 

And they do not agree that they are habitual complainants.

 

Miss Khek Ching Ching, 43, said: "My sister and I are very friendly people. We have no problems elsewhere...and we have very good rapport with people, you know.

 

"Those in our neighbourhood know us, we don't create trouble for them."

 

But when The New Paper visited the Khek sisters at their one-room rental flat at Chin Swee Road on Tuesday, two police officers were at their door.

 

When we asked the sisters later why the police were there, they declined to say. But The New Paper understands that they were unhappy that the smell of soap from their neighbour's flat had drifted into their flat.

 

The sisters confirmed they received a letter from NTUC FairPrice in October 2008 informing them they had been banned from its outlets.

 

Miss Khek's sister, See See, 47, said: "They said that we can't go there any more." When The New Paper asked to see the letter, See See pointed to a huge stack of documents on the table and said it was somewhere in the stack and that she needed time to find it.

 

The sisters claimed that before they were banned, they would visit the NTUC FairPrice branch at Tiong Bahru Plaza for groceries three to four times a week. Each time, they would spend $70 to $80. The older Miss Khek said they would sometimes buy food in bulk when there was a discount.

 

Unhappy

 

As they could not carry everything home at one go, they would ask to leave some items at the counter and collect them another day.

 

When told by supermarket staff that they should not do so, the sisters became unhappy. "Now we go to wet markets to shop for groceries. There is no point going there (NTUC FairPrice)," she added.

 

Miss Khek Ching Ching had told the court that she suffered a sprained ankle and tenderness in her chest as a result of the bus incident in 2004.

 

She said she later developed a more serious medical condition known as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) - a chronic condition in which patients experience continuous and intense pain, usually in the limbs. Since then, she has not left home without her sister.

 

She still has difficulty walking and would lock arms with her sister as they walk side by side.

 

But surveillance footage tendered by the defence showed her and her sister shopping in Chinatown Point and that "she was not so severely hampered in her physical mobility".

 

So do they think that they complain a lot?

 

Miss Khek See See said: "No, it's not true that we complain too much. We don't agree that we are being difficult, it's not true."

 

She claimed that she had also been injured in the bus incident.

 

"If we were like what they said, claiming for economic reasons, I would have claimed from SBS Transit. But I didn't," she said.

 

The sisters used to run a paper doll-making business which was wound up in 2007 after it lost money.

 

They are jobless but declined to say who is supporting them.

 

When asked, they said they did not have other siblings and their parents were "not around". "We have only each other," the elder sister said.

 

Link

[ODC]

Typical leeches and swindlers

[Little_prince]

same sisters that sue SBS????

[RadX]

Now i hoep Giant, Shop/Save, ShengSiong ban them

 

 

MO would make a good hubby for them.....see if they even complain abt him [laugh]

 

The other give Porker...but they will complain he gay

Edited August 10, 2010 by RadX

[Parkingidiot]

but it's also interesting to note that one can sue the transport company and win!

[RadX]

but it's also interesting to note that one can sue the transport company and win!

 

 

judge blur F#%^

[ODC]

but it's also interesting to note that one can sue the transport company and win!

 

All you need to do is when a bus jam breaks just fall and bruise your knee.

[Cootie-Monster]

but it's also interesting to note that one can sue the transport company and win!

 

Not only did they win, they won $82,000! That's almost $7k a month!

[Parkingidiot]

what if we kena squeezed in MRT during peak period.. and experience difficulty in breathing due to overcrowding ... and faint and hit head against metal pole/door... and sure the MRT... I wonder can win, say 100-200K?

[RadX]

what if we kena squeezed in MRT during peak period.. and experience difficulty in breathing due to overcrowding ... and faint and hit head against metal pole/door... and sure the MRT... I wonder can win, say 100-200K?

 

 

CEO already say, that the trains are not 'crowd killing'...so LLST

[Parkingidiot]

recently so many bus accident... those victims should learn from these sistas and sue the bus companies left and right.

[Mockngbrd]

wah power..

 

In 2004, she said she was again injured when the driver suddenly braked. This time, she sued SBS Transit - albeit three years later.

 

Judge Chew found in her favour and awarded her about $82,000 in compensation. Even then, she is unhappy with the amount and is appealing.

 

 

82k.... s--t.... i also going to take SBS bus and fall down later

[Yuan]

Now i hoep Giant, Shop/Save, ShengSiong ban them

 

 

MO would make a good hubby for them.....see if they even complain abt him [laugh]

 

The other give Porker...but they will complain he gay

 

Then there will be an orgy.

[Jman888]

Now i hoep Giant, Shop/Save, ShengSiong ban them

 

 

MO would make a good hubby for them.....see if they even complain abt him [laugh]

 

The other give Porker...but they will complain he gay

 

they will not complaint when come to your business

[RadX]

they will not complaint when come to your business

 

 

Even in teh grave [laugh]

[Yuan]

They might be very "stressed" and leash out on innocent people around them.

[Ericongy]

Not only did they win, they won $82,000! That's almost $7k a month!

 

82k really alot leh...

if their medical fee is $500 per mth for the next 10years.. still got change..

 

[LoverofCar]

be careful what we said here....if these sisters read our posts...they may sue MCF...HAHAH!!