A hair salon at Boon Lay Shopping Centre, namely Organic Salon, has faced a string of allegations of unethical acts, with numerous complaints have been made against the salon since last year, but the shop remains open with new allegations arise.
The most recently reported incident involved a foreign man, who has allegedly been cheated into paying S$1,450 for a hair appointment session that he was expecting to pay only S$228.
The incident was revealed by the man’s employer, who wrote to Mothership on 22 July. He noted that his foreign worker, whose last name is Tiew, went to have a haircut and hair treatment at Organic Salon on 20 July after seeing a banner promoting haircuts priced from S$2.
According to his employer, Tiew’s haircut and styling were each priced at S$45, while colouring was S$39. He noted that Tiew has also agreed to pay S$99 for a scalp treatment.
Tiew, however, did not check the receipt after making his payment and headed to work afterwards.
Later on, he received a text from OCBC bank informing him that he has been charged S$1,450 for the session, instead of the agreed sum of S$228.
When Tiew demanded a refund from the salon, they argued that the extra money charged was for future appointments. Though he did not agree to such arrangements, the salon only returned S$725 “out of goodwill” and told him that the balance was for the services he received earlier that day.
Tiew also noticed from the receipt that he was charged S$598 for the scalp treatment that he was previously told cost S$99, but the salon claimed that the amount charged was based on their price list which was not shown to him earlier.
It was noted that the man has since filed a police report against the salon.
Organic Salon allegedly cheats senile grandfather of S$50 last year
As it turns out, such allegations are not new to the salon. On 6 September last year, Facebook user Jovanna Chng shared that her elderly grandfather was charged S$50 for a haircut at Organic Salon.
In her post, she noted that the salon has claimed that the amount charged was inclusive of hair scalp treatment that her grandfather has agreed to.
Ms Chng pointed out that both her grandfather and her maid—who accompanied him there—hardly converse in Mandarin or English, and that her grandfather is “slightly senile”.
“The salon charged him S$50 saying they did a HAIR SCALP treatment on my grandpa who is slightly senile and claims that my grandpa agreed to it. Never ever patronize them!!!” she wrote.
Though Ms Chng noted that the salon returned S$40 to them, she hinted that they would have probably paid the S$50 had she not make them pick up her call and “make a scene”.
CASE did order Organic Salon to cease unfair practices last year
Organic salon was subsequently ordered to cease its unfair practices in October last year, after it signed a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
CASE noted that it received 23 complaints against the salon between 1 January 2019 to 31 August last year.
“In some instances, consumers complained that they were led to believe that they were paying promotional prices for treatments, but were subsequently pressured to purchase higher-end treatments at higher prices.
“Some consumers also complained that the salon charged them for additional treatments or packages without their expressed consent,” it stated.
Under the VCA, Organic Salon had agreed to offer a five-day cooling-off period for consumers to cancel their contracts and to compensate affected consumers.
Yet, the salon continues to operate with its “unfair practices”
Notwithstanding the agreement, Organic Salon continued to operate with such unfair practices even until now.
One member of public shared with TOC that she has filed a complaint to CASE against the salon for giving “unreasonable charges” in May this year.
The customer noted that her father went to Organic Salon on 16 May to get a haircut. He was initially told that he can get a promotional price of S$3 for both male and female haircuts but later told that he had to pay $60 for a membership card.
The daughter also alleged that the salon staff charged her father another S$35 for a hair wash that he did not agree to.
“I was shocked and disagreed with him as he did not tell us the extra charge in the first place. He then charged me a total of S$40 which I find [extorbitant]. He should at least let me know the extra charges whether we are agreeable before proceeding,” said the father to CASE.
Mother charged twice for a haircut at Organic Salon.
The daughter also shared with TOC about how her mother was charged twice by the salon. She noted that her mother was unhappy with her haircut, prompting a second hairdresser to takeover and trimmed her hair. The salon then charged her twice for the second hairdresser’s work.
Her mother was also charged for a hair wash that she did not agree to, and when she confronted them about it, they blamed her for “not asking if it’s chargeable”.
She further alleged that the salon staff called them “cheapskate” and told them that it is up to the salon how to cut because they “pay cheap”.
The daughter complained about their unethical behaviour, “They are smart to choose old people estate, so the old people won’t know where to find help also… Lure old people in with $3 hair cut, posted big outside their shop”
One customer alleged that the salon staff threatened to call the police and post a video of him on Facebook if he refused to pay S$25.
Just two months before Tiew’s case surfaced, Facebook user Kai Wuee shared on 24 May that he was charged S$25 for a haircut that was advertised as S$2 at Organic Salon.
In a Facebook video, Kai Wuee alleged that the salon claimed there are “terms and conditions” applied to the S$2 haircut and tried to convince him to buy a S$100 membership package that will enable him to get S$2 haircut at the salon.
He refused to pay S$25 and offered to pay S$5 instead, but the salon rejected and told him that they will make a police report against him. Kai Wuee also alleged that the salon staff recorded a video of him and threatened to post it on Facebook.
Not intimated by the threats, Kai Wuee placed S$5 on the table and took a picture as evidence of his payment before leaving the shop. He also found out that the salon has no Facebook page, and that the video they threatened to make viral was never even posted.
CASE officer allegedly said to complainants that Organic Salon will face “no penalty”
TOC understands that numerous complaints have been filed to CASE but no further action has been taken so far to halt the salon’s unfair practices.
One customer told TOC: “I just spoken with the acras consumer act officers. They mentioned that this salon has signed a binding contract since 2020. Yet they are still practicing such unethical acts.”
Another complainant shared with TOC that he was told by an officer at CASE that the salon will face “no penalty” and customers will get “no refund” from them.
It appears that no further actions have been taken by the authorities, despite both Boon Lay Shopping Centre and Clementi—where Organic Salon branches are located—are commonly visited by elderly people.
Netizens question why such salons can still operate and continue “cheating” people
Penning their thoughts under the comments section of Mothership’s Facebook post, many netizens noted that the promotional price of S$2 for a haircut has been used by various salons to lure customers, asking why no actions were taken by the authorities despite numerous reports have been made.
Some even noted that CASE seems to be powerless as it “cannot do anything” to stop these salons from “cheating” people.
“Why can’t the law make this salon pay heavy price? Using $2 as a bait. Then they charge over $1k and hard sell package. Process high fee on credit card or ATM card without customer’s acknowledge. Surely police can do something about it by suspend their licence,” said one netizen.
Another netizen wrote: “$700 hair cut? How come after so many police report these people haven’t been charged? There are no laws against such unscrupulous conduct?”
“CASE Singapore is useless against these type of shop. That is for sure. A dog that has no teeth at all, just wayang for people to see only. How many complaints made before this report and what did CASE do? Nothing at all.. No enforcement, no jail time for boss nor employees,” said one Facebook user.
