I refute the response, “SingPost has invested over S$100m to meet rise in e-commerce” (Jan 24), with regard to my case.
Instead of doing a thorough investigation and acknowledging its service lapses, SingPost stated that my intercom was not working on the days its postmen claimed to have tried unsuccessfully to deliver two registered articles.
My intercom showed no record of being buzzed, yet during that week, I had other deliveries from FedEx, EMS and Ta-Q-Bin couriers.
I checked my letterbox twice a day and found the first delivery advice, dated Jan 7, on Jan 9. The postman must have inserted it in a neighbour’s letterbox.
The second delivery advice, for another parcel, was dated Jan 13. Again, I checked my intercom register and found no attempt made.
I wrote to SingPost’s head office and its delivery base to lodge my complaints, but its investigation seems now to have been partial.
Consumer rights and interests in Singapore are paper-thin. At best, people get an apology and a promise that service would be improved.
Instead of doing a thorough investigation and acknowledging its service lapses, SingPost stated that my intercom was not working on the days its postmen claimed to have tried unsuccessfully to deliver two registered articles.
My intercom showed no record of being buzzed, yet during that week, I had other deliveries from FedEx, EMS and Ta-Q-Bin couriers.
I checked my letterbox twice a day and found the first delivery advice, dated Jan 7, on Jan 9. The postman must have inserted it in a neighbour’s letterbox.
The second delivery advice, for another parcel, was dated Jan 13. Again, I checked my intercom register and found no attempt made.
I wrote to SingPost’s head office and its delivery base to lodge my complaints, but its investigation seems now to have been partial.
Consumer rights and interests in Singapore are paper-thin. At best, people get an apology and a promise that service would be improved.
