Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal has ordered a childcare centre to pay a customer a deposit of RM1,460 after it failed to return the deposit.
Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim directed Ladybug Childcare Centre (the respondent) to pay the amount to the claimant, Jenifer Disip, within 14 days.
According to the case details, on July 9 this year, the claimant registered her child at the childcare centre and paid a deposit.
However, two days after leaving her child in their care, the claimant was transferred to Kota Belud for work and requested a deposit refund.
“My child was only there for two days, from July 10 to 11. However, when I asked for the refund, they said they were too busy to handle it at the time,” the claimant said.
In another case, a glass company was ordered to pay a deposit of RM4,000 to a customer after failing to meet the specifications for the customer’s balcony fence.
Salmi directed the respondent, Alukaca Bersatu, to pay the claimant, Zaidah Jaimin, the amount within 14 days.
According to the case details, on Jan 16 this year, the claimant hired a contractor to install a glass fence on her balcony for RM7,800 and paid the deposit.
The fence was completed by Feb 28, but the installation did not meet the specifications agreed and lacked the necessary safety features.
The claimant requested that the fence be corrected.
However, the respondent asked for an additional payment of RM3,000, which the claimant refused.
The respondent then offered a settlement of RM1,500 with a document.
However, the claimant rejected it and demanded the return of her deposit.
In a third case, a construction company was ordered to pay RM50,000 to a customer after failing to complete work on the customer’s house.
The respondent, Damai Borneo Construction, was directed to pay the claimant, Badhrianawati Bidin within 14 days.
According to facts of the case, on May 30, 2023, the claimant hired the respondent to build a house in Kampung Tebongon, Putatan, for a contract price of RM50,000.
The house was to be completed by the end of July, but by the deadline, the house remained unfinished and needed to meet the specified requirements. As a result, the claimant sought reimbursement.
Salmi ruled for all three cases after the respondents failed to appear at the hearings on Monday.
