Wedding celebrants and planners are as relatively new in their practice as they are hot in demand in the booming marriage industry here.
According to official statistics, the number of marriages has been continually on the rise from 51,200 couples in 2009 to 60,500 couples in 2012, an 18% increase in 4 years.
When you entrust the responsibility of your big wedding day in the hands of these professionals, make certain that they will be able to deliver as promised all the wedding services.
For any hitch or downright shoddy service could mar, if not ruin, what is otherwise a most memorable and joyous occasion of your life.
25 newlyweds have come forward to complain about poor wedding services in the first 11 months of 2013, a rise of 150% over the corresponding period 2012 (10 cases). This is almost certain to be just the tip of an iceberg of the problem as most others unhappy with a wedding service probably chose to simply ignore it afterwards.
In a typical case, the complainant (a Mr. Tien) purchased a $29,600 wedding service plan, including the provision of a civil celebrant, the venue for ceremony, and 3 hours of a buffet for 100 people. Five days before the wedding, he notified the wedding planner to increase the food for 20 more people - at an extra cost of $2,200.
But much to his utter disappointment, the wedding service that turned out was a far cry from what he had expected.
First, he found the amount of food served to be seriously insufficient; some of the food items he chose never did show up. He immediately approached the venue in-charge but to no avail.
Second, the celebrant service was not performed according to the plan. He had chosen a special wedding vow for the day to express his deep love and affection for his bride. But, on the day, he was given instead a standard traditional vow to recite.
Mr. Tien was also unhappy that the celebrant had arrived for the ceremony only at the last minute, leaving no time to go over the details of the proceedings and resulting in errors and omissions.
Third, the hygiene condition of the venue was poor as the flushing of the women's toilet was out of order. Also the attitude of the venue staff left much to be desired rudely interfering with his friends when decorating the venue.
The complainant and his bride had expected their big day to run smoothly by employing the wedding planner to make their wedding special. Instead the company had let them down.
Upon conciliation of the Council, the company insisted that the food served was exactly as ordered, and the toilet malfunction was due to an accident of a waterpipe burst nearby. The company agreed to apologise to the complainant for the mishandling of the wedding vow. The explanation and apology was passed on to the complainant who had not pursued the case further since.
In another case, the complainant (a Ms. Miew) bought a wedding celebrant service at $5,000, requesting specifically for a certain lawyer to be the celebrant. The company undertook to notify her if the lawyer of her choice was not available, and subject to her consent, recommend another lawyer, or else full refund.
Some three months later, the company informed her that the lawyer could not perform the ceremony due to other engagements.
As time was pressing with only three weeks away from the wedding day, and all the necessary papers already sent to the company in preparation, she had little choice but to reluctantly accept the service of another lawyer on the recommendation of the company.
On the wedding day, the lawyer showed up, duly verified the papers, and proceeded with the civil celebrant ceremony. The whole proceeding was recorded on video. At the banquet, the video was shown to the guests and to their surprise and dismay, the celebrant had mispronounced the bride's name. Ms. Miew was deeply embarrassed.
The next day, the newlyweds followed up the matter with the company. In reply, the lawyer proffered his regrets but since the wedding was over there was nothing else could be done.
In utter dissatisfaction, the groom suggested the company to do a new voice recording to replace the portion in question - at a cost of $1,500. At first the company agreed but later declined as the lawyer now retracted that he was at fault.
Upon conciliation, the lawyer contacted the Council to inform that he had rectified the error with a new recording.
For more information on other common complaints in relation to wedding services, and guidance to avoid such pitfalls, consumers can refer to the report in this (January) issue of CHOICE.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE (https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/ ).
- 2014.01.14