A woman was angry at Chicken Hotpot for quietly placing “side dishes” on her table and not telling her that she had to pay for it. Now, she is even angrier after seeing the restaurant’s insincere apology.
They basically pushed the blame back to her. They said that she did not reject the side dishes and should jolly well pay.
They blamed her for not giving them time to do internal checks. Strangely, they had time to contact her school after finding out that she used her NUS email to complain. They claimed that they only wanted to check if she was a scam. They think she’s OCBC meh? Are they allowed to misuse customer’s particulars like that?
“What I heard from NUS is very different: the restaurant told them that a student posted a negative review and damaged their reputation. It was not for the purpose of checking as they claimed. The intention of doing so is very obvious, and I have communicated to their staff that I felt threatened.”
The woman shoot back at Chicken Hotpot by saying that she has the right to leave negative reviews. After all, she did pay for what she ate. Why are they so sour until they check on her school? If they got time to do that, they should listen to her advice and at least put up a notice to inform customers of their chargeable “side dishes”.
I did not feel remorse at all in Chicken Hotpot’s response. I hope PDPA authorities can look into this to see if this is a valid reason…
I offered TWICE for the restaurant to provide me with an explanation privately!… But they refused to communicate with me in any way EVEN THOUGH my rights were violated.”
What do you think about this? Looks like Chicken Hotpot is in hot soup already!