Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

MALAYSIAN consumers are often encouraged to seek redress through the Tribunal for Consumer Claims (TCC), known in Malay as Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna.

On paper, the system works. Claims are heard, decisions are issued, and awards are granted.

But what happens when those awards are ignored?

In my case, a travel service dispute resulted in a tribunal award issued in my favour on July 14 last year. The respondent was required to comply within the stipulated period but didn’t.

What followed was another round of waiting, filing further complaints and relying on enforcement that is neither immediate nor certain under the Consumer Protection Act 1999.

The experience was both disappointing and deeply frustrating. Non-compliance raises a serious concern about the effectiveness of the TCC. After the compliance period expires, action is not automatic. Consumers must initiate further steps before investigations begin.

Each delay increases the likelihood of the business becoming unresponsive, untraceable or continuing to operate without consequence.

This is not an isolated concern. There have been cases where companies failed to comply with tribunal awards, leading to prosecution. Studies have also highlighted gaps in enforcement and regulatory coordination, particularly in travel-related services. If tribunal decisions do not translate into timely outcomes, confidence in the TCC will inevitably weaken.

Several practical improvements could strengthen the enforcement system.

First, tribunal awards should be directly enforceable without requiring additional action from the consumer.

Second, enforcement should be triggered automatically once the compliance period lapses.

Third, enforcement authorities under the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry should be empowered to take immediate administrative action against non-compliant businesses.

Fourth, a public registry of businesses that fail to comply with tribunal awards would improve transparency and accountability.

Fifth, stronger coordination between regulatory bodies is needed to prevent repeat misconduct through new or rebranded entities. At present, enforcement actions and company registration processes operate in silos. A business that fails to comply with a tribunal award may still be able to continue operating or its directors may set up new entities with minimal restriction.

This gap allows accountability to be confined to a company name rather than the individuals responsible.

To address this, enforcement outcomes under the Consumer Protection Act 1999 should be formally integrated with the systems of the Companies Commission of Malaysia and sector regulators.

Directors of companies that fail to comply with tribunal awards should be flagged within the registration and licensing frameworks. Such flags could trigger additional scrutiny, conditional approvals or temporary restrictions on forming or managing new entities until outstanding obligations are resolved.

Licensing authorities for travel-related services, such as the Tourism, Arts and Culture Ministry, should also be notified of non-compliance cases with the TTC, enabling suspension or revocation of operating licences where appropriate. This ensures that enforcement is not limited to legal proceedings after the fact but is reflected in a company’s ability to continue operating.

A centralised, cross-agency registry of non-compliant entities and directors would further strengthen oversight. This would allow enforcement actions to follow patterns of behaviour across multiple entities rather than being reset each time a new company is registered.

Without such coordination, the current system risks enabling a cycle where non-compliance carries limited immediate consequences, and where business activities can resume under different identities. This not only weakens enforcement but also places future consumers in the same situation.

Moreover, accountability should not end with the closure of a company. It should extend to those who make the decisions behind it.

The purpose of the tribunal is not merely to issue decisions but also to deliver outcomes. When consumers go through the full process, present their case and obtain a decision in their favour, it is reasonable to expect closure, not further uncertainty.

Salina Abdullah

Senior lecturer

UiTM Cawangan Melaka

The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my