Trying to transport his sick father-in-law across the border from Johor Bahru to Singapore turned from a sincere attempt to a nightmare when one family contracted the service of the Singapore Emergency Ambulance Services.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday (13 July), Nicholas Lim detailed his experiences with the company that he thought would be able to help transport his father-in-law who was hospitalised with COVID-19 in Malaysia back to Singapore where his wife, children and grandchildren were.

Noting that the family felt he would get better care in Singapore, Mr Lim searched online for a way to bring his father-in-law back safely.

That’s when he came across the Singapore Emergency Ambulance Services. Speaking to someone named Eugene on the phone, Mr Lim recalled explaining the situation to the company and asked if they did cross-border transportation of hospital patients.

“He was really helpful, empathized with our situation, and said they definitely had the expertise to make it happen,” Mr Lim wrote.

He added, “And while we were there struggling to find ways to bring our dad back, he called back even in the wee-hours of the morning to update us on what he could do, it comforted us a little bit and we thought we were in good hands.”

Now, the catch was that in order for Eugene to provide more advice to the family and start working on the issue, the family was asked to make a non-refundable deposit of S$4,900.

Though the family thought about it given the ‘sizeable’ amount, they ultimately decided that their relative’s life was worth it, said Mr Lim.

Unfortunately, after making payment, “the nightmare started”, recalled the netizen.

Mr Lim’s family was informed that they had to get approval from the Ministry of Health to bring a COVID-19 positive patient into the country and that they needed to find a hospital that would accept his father.

The company would contact private hospitals on their behalf but the family would need to call government hospitals themselves to see if any beds were available.

“As much as possible, we told him we preferred a public hospital (we were expecting enormous fees from Private Hospitals), but also stressed that we were at a point where beggars couldn’t be choosers,” noted Mr Lim, adding “So if a private hospital was able to accept, we will take it.”

Though they tried, neither the family nor the company was successful in getting a spot for the elderly man.

Tragically, as the family was trying to get him into Singapore, Mr Lim’s father-in-law had passed on due to complications from COVID-19.

Mr Lim wrote, “With dismay, I then called Eugene and emailed Singapore Emergency Ambulance Services to inform them that we no longer need their services.”

“I would also then ask for a refund of the payment that we made since an ambulance was never dispatched, and they were never successful in finding us a spot in a private hospital.”

You would think that would be the end of it, but getting a refund from the company turned out to be an extended nightmare as well.

Mr Lim had asked for a refund on 28 May. The company responded on the same day that they would “review the case:”

A few days later on 1 June, Mr Lim’s attempt at getting in touch with Eugene from the company via phone went unanswered. He then sent an email to which he received a response saying that they were still looking into it.

When he asked when they might get back to him, Mr Lim received no reply.

Later between 9 to 16 June, Mr Lim said he made may phone calls to the company trying to get a response. When he managed to get in touch with Eugene, the man only said, “I understand, I will get back to you”.

When a chaser email was sent on 16 June, the company finally responded and agreed to a 50 per cent refund on a “goodwill” basis and to settle the matter, said Mr Lim in his post.

He noted, “To make it clear, I wasn’t expecting a full 100% refund, and am willing to pay for services/time they have spent on making calls to the hospitals etc.”

“But I felt really sore that a few calls/emails to hospitals and MOH costs me $2,450?!?! HOLY CRAP those are really expensive calls/emails”

Mr Lim explained that he wanted a refund on the basis that the company never succeeded in getting a spot in a local hospital for his father-in-law, no ambulance was ever dispatched, “core service” was not executed, and the company has “questionable business practices”.

The netizen then said he asked the company for a breakdown to justify the costs incurred and the mere 50 per cent refund. This was on 17 June.

However, once again the company went silent with the exception of speaking to Eugene on the phone. The family still hadn’t received a breakdown of costs.

Eventually on 2 July, the company said they would not refund more than 50 per cent of the deposit and reminded the family that they knew it was “non-refundable”.

Mr Lim proceeded to give the company his account number on 3 July, asking them to make the refund and provide a receipt of the services rendered.

However, the company delayed again. They said on 6 July that the email server was down.

Eventually, they finally provided a receipt. They also asked for Mr Lim’s wife to approve the refund since she was the one to make the original deposit payment. She confirmed the next day.

Still, no refund was made.

“I want to stress that everytime I call, Eugene keeps bringing up that we were informed that the deposit is NON REFUNDABLE (I GET IT), and that the calls are all recorded,” Mr Lim wrote.

“I have, every single time I spoke to him, treated him with respect, speaking nicely and be extremely patient with him.”

Finally losing patience on 9 July, Mr Lim said he called the company up again and gave them a “piece of [his] mind”. He also demanded that payment be made that day.

However, the man on the phone kept telling him that since it was Friday, they could only get back to him on Monday. Eugene then said they could only transfer the money back to the original payer.

Mr Lim wrote, “In the first place, I don’t think they will have been able to identify what was the original payment account number.”

“Secondly, if this was true, they have lost all credibility at this point”

Finally, on 12 July when Mr Lim called again for an update, the team finally transferred the refund. This was more than two months after the family had requested it.

Mr Lim did admit at the end of his post that it was his mistake for proceeding with payment even though he knew it was non-refundable.

However, he still lamented the terrible after service support, saying “why would I trust a life with this kind of bad customer service?”

Mr Lim also tagged the MOH in his post and questioned if this particular industry was regulated.

Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

年迈小贩因伤休业一周被罚款3500元 富食客辩称曾给机会免罚款

早前,一名小贩女儿向媒体申诉,自己年迈父亲在职总富食客管理的机场食阁开档营生,因受伤而找不到替代员工,想休息数日,却被管理层罚款3千500元。 有关不愿具名的小贩女儿是在日前,向英文时事网站《独立》媒体爆料。小贩的父亲在富食客管理的樟宜机场第四航空楼食客开档,担任主厨。今年六月,由于父亲在工作时受伤,由于伤势严重,被迫休息一周。 女儿解释,由于不能聘请客工,越来越少国人和永久居民肯在食阁摊位工作,父亲一直面对人手不足问题。父亲甚至要轮早晚班连做,才不会被富食客管理层罚款。 “由于父亲伤势较严重,我们被迫休业一周。我致函职总富食客解释父亲的状况,指出我们一时找不到头手来顶替父亲,希望对方能通融。然而,富食客不接受我们的解释,却开出3500元的罚款。” 女儿也向媒体揭示与富食客的电邮往来截图,也附上医生开出的病假单和父亲骨折的X光扫描图: 然而, 女儿收到富食客零售部助理运营经理Aaron Chia,在回绝对方取消罚款的请求时说: “请注意,作为摊位管理者,若员工因无法预知状况无法工作、又没人能顶替经营摊位,我们不能纳入考量。更重要的是,摊位不应只有一个人来经营。” 女儿对于对方的答复表达失望,也很遗憾这个声称是非营利的官联餐饮机构,无法弹性处理和罔顾旗下摊贩的健康。   富食客:曾献议休业一周后三天内开档,可免罚款…

Reconsider CCTVs at Hong Lim Park

Security cameras in park do not bode well for S’pore’s reputation. Leong Sze Hian.

Lee Hsien Yang is modest and more in touch with the ground: Former NTUC Income CEO Tan Kin Lian

In his recent Facebook post on 27 Dec, the former Chief Executive…

《慈母舰》采访普杰立视频出现政党标志、宣传政策 本地导演质问资媒局:是否抵触《电影法》?

本地电影导演施忠明在脸书发文分享,他今早电邮致函资讯通信媒体发展局(IMDA),向后者询问本地英语网络媒体“慈母舰”制作的一段视频,因其内容呈现政党标志、有政治人物宣传政治课题,是否抵触了《电影法》禁止制作政党政治影片的条文? 新加坡英语网络媒体“慈母舰”(Mothership sg)日前录制视频,采访交通部高级政务部长普杰立医生,内容谈及陆路交通规划和2040年陆路交通发展总蓝图。 由于普杰立的父亲多米尼克(Dominic Puthucheary),曾是社阵政治人物,视频中的快问快答访谈,不免询问普杰立,行动党和社阵,会如何选择。后者则回答选行动党,不过他说很久以前两者过去曾在一起(指社阵领袖原一同创立行动党,惟后来因政见不同离开)。 针对这段视频,施忠明质疑,既然这是“慈母舰”拍摄、并非政府创作的视频,就不能在《电影法》下的第40条文被豁免(只有政府指示或发行的影片可豁免)。 而根据新加坡《电影法》第33条文,私自制作政党政治影片是被违法的。在该条文下,任何人进口、制作、发行或放映政党政治影片即属犯罪,可面对不超过10万元的罚款或监禁不超过两年。 施忠明认为,上述视频里又出现偏驳政治立场、政治人物推介政治课题、出现政党标志等等。 ”敢问有关视频是否已送交(资媒局)进行分级?在电影法第33条文下,会否被归类为政党政治影片?“他在电邮中如是质问资媒局。 2015年民主党拍《白衣牌洗衣粉》视频 此外,施忠明也在贴文中附上2015年的一个案例,那时资媒局指民主党制作的一段诙谐讽刺短片,根据《电影法》定义乃是政党政治影片。 对此民主党领导徐顺全批评资媒局选择性地诠释该法,因为政府也有以漫画的形式,借中国寓言和歌舞等来生动描绘建国一代配套和终身健保等重要政策。…