Update:
A Grab spokesperson responded to TISG’s queries and said: “Grab carefully evaluates every refund request by consumers to firstly determine if it is valid. We do this by checking the consumer’s refund history and verifying the completeness of evidence provided, such as photos or even medical certificates, depending on the nature of the complaint.
We then look at who the refund should be attributed to. In the case of spillages, like this incident, we consider several factors such as whether the item packaging meets the standards laid out in our guidelines to merchant-partners, and whether similar complaints have been raised previously for a particular merchant- or delivery-partner. Merchant- and delivery-partners alike have the option to appeal if they disagree with our decision and have a strong reason for us to review their case.
As a multi-sided marketplace, Grab aims to be fair and reasonable towards all stakeholders, including our consumers, merchant- and delivery-partners”.
SINGAPORE: A food stall owner aired his grievances online after having to bear the full cost of a refund made to a customer whose order arrived spilled. The order was delivered by Grab, which paid the customer for the spillage but then passed the cost to the food stall owner. He called incidents such as this part of “a sad sad system” that is “eating into our livelihoods.”
Mr Raymond Jeremiah wrote on the COMPLAINT SINGAPORE Facebook page on Wednesday (May 18): “It’s very sad and disappointing as hawkers barely making a profit compared to food delivery giants who make(s) tons of money from their extravagant rip off commission from us.”
These companies, he added, “can’t even protect us from such unreasonable refunds being the reason of spillage that in the first place has got nothing to do with us. He asked, “Whose fault is it? Rider or Hawker?”
The post author posted a screenshot of an email from Grab addressed to Reimondo Seafood Congee at Pasir Ris Central Hawker Centre.
The email showed that a refund had been issued on May 16 (Tuesday), with “spillage” given as the reason.
“Please note that we will offset the refunds against your future earnings,” Grab wrote, adding that if Mr Jeremiah wished, he could lodge an appeal within three business days.
Mr Jeremiah added in his post that the hawker ends up bearing the full refund cost when such incidents occur.
“So now everyone is aware that when your food is request(ed) for refunds someone has to pay and always sadly it’s us,” he added.
Last week, the owner of a food and beverage establishment said his business was “barely surviving when he was left with only $9.70 after receiving instructions from foodpanda to issue a refund on an order worth $84.60.
Some commenters on Mr Jeremiah’s post shared his sentiments.
“It’s always either the merchant or the rider to bear the cost. Never will the delivery company bear the cost. N there are some cheapos out know how to do something intentionally to hv free meal,” one wrote.
Another tried to offer helpful advice. “Maybe can take this as an opportunity to review and see if it’s the packaging or how it is packed that have caused spillage. Cos sometimes it’s really how the merchant packed or use the containers etc that are easily not secure and spill. But of cos sometimes is driver handling. Sometimes customer are more particular.”
/TISG