Getting married is a major milestone in life, and many engaged couples plan a year ahead for their big day, extending invitations to friends and family to celebrate this memorable occasion. However, their plans may be upset if the quality of the wedding banquet venue or arrangements fall short of expectations. Indeed, the Consumer Council has received many complaints related to these issues, from unexpected venue renovation after booking, resulting in drastically different decor incongruent with the couple’s taste; ambiguous terms in banquet catering contracts that led to disagreements; to deposit requirements before site visits, with no refunds given to dissatisfied consumers afterwards.
The Council urges the industry to proactively improve communication with consumers and step up customer service training, with the goal of providing more sincere and attentive service for soon-to-weds. At the same time, it is essential to provide concrete and accurate information in a timely manner, including proactively informing consumers about any potential changes to the venue. Apart from striving to arrange on-site visits, service providers should also consider including relevant terms in the contract, and setting a reasonable timeframe for free cancellations after site visits. These measures not only help boost consumer confidence, but could also significantly enhance the trader’s reputation.
Case 1: Refund Requested Due to Unexpected Makeover of Banquet Venue Not Matching Complainant’s Taste
The complainant attended Trader A’s open house to explore their wedding banquet venue. During the visit, he asked the staff whether any renovation projects had been scheduled by the end of the year. After hearing that there were no such plans, he proceeded to sign a booking contract and paid 50% of the total price (about $130,000) as a deposit. However, a few months later, the complainant was taken aback when Trader A informed him about an upcoming restaurant renovation. After the renovation works were completed, he revisited the venue only to discover that the new style was drastically different from the original and did not align with his taste at all. He complained to Trader A, who then proposed relocating his wedding banquet to another venue of the group. However, this was not feasible due to various reasons such as limitations in venue size and guest capacity. The complainant requested to cancel his booking and sought refund of the deposit in addition to compensation for his losses, but received no response. Consequently, he lodged a complaint with the Council.
Following the Council’s intervention, Trader A agreed to fully refund the deposit. They also expressed willingness to negotiate additional compensation directly with the complainant. Concerning that, the Council advised the complainant to consider seeking advice from independent legal counsel if needed.
Case 2: Food Service Limited to 2 Hours
Contract Wording Led to Dispute
The complainant purchased Trader B’s wedding buffet package, which offered 2 options: lunch (10:30 to 14:30) or dinner (17:00 to 22:30) session. Opining that the dinner session ran longer for a similar price, the complainant chose dinner and went on to pay $50,000 in total in 2 instalments for the deposit. Just when he was about to pay the third instalment, he was asked to decide the 2-hour window for the food service. The question took him by surprise, as he had assumed that the buffet would be available throughout the entire dinner session, based on the contract specifying 17:00 to 22:30 as the “Time of Serving”. However, the staff clarified that 17:00 to 22:30 was merely for venue rental, while the buffet service normally lasted for only 2 hours. The complainant then re-examined the contract of his wedding ceremony package also purchased from Trader B, and found that a different term, “Time of Using”, was employed to denote the venue rental time. For this reason, he maintained that the “Time of Serving” on his buffet package contract should refer to the buffet service time instead. He filed a complaint with the Council, requesting the trader to abide by their contract and serve food for the entire dinner session.
In response, Trader B explained to the Council that it is their general practice to provide food service for any 2 hours within the venue rental time. This is done to prevent interruptions to the wedding proceedings, and to ensure food hygiene by not letting food sit out for an extended period. After conciliation, Trader B eventually agreed to serve the buffet for the entire dinner session, thereby resolving the case.
Case 3: 50% Deposit Required Before Site Visit
Venue Below Expectations Yet Refund Denied
The complainant paid a $5,000 deposit for booking Trader C’s wedding banquet venue after reviewing its information at a wedding fair. The staff requested her to pay an additional $55,000 (totalling $60,000 which was 50% of the overall service charge) within 2 weeks to guarantee the venue’s availability. The complainant asked to see the venue before the payment, but the staff claimed that a site visit was only possible at their open house event happening a month later. Though the complainant had difficulty fully comprehending the terms in English when signing the contract, and the staff did not provide any explanations, the complainant decided to pay the remaining deposit as instructed as she believed that an ideal venue was hard to come by. On the day of the open house, however, the complainant found discrepancies between the actual venue and the staff member’s descriptions. In particular, there were pillars in the hall that obstructed views, contrary to the staff’s assurances. Furthermore, the staff did not proactively introduce the available facilities and showed a lack of enthusiasm throughout her entire visit. These led the complainant to ask for cancellation of the booking and a refund of half the deposit paid ($30,000), which was turned down by the staff.
Trader C explained to the Council that their contract had explicitly stated that the 50% deposit was non-refundable in any case of cancellation. However, as a gesture of goodwill, they offered to convert the deposit into cash credits which could be used towards renting other venues they owned. The complainant disapproved of such an arrangement, and eventually resorted to holding her wedding banquet at the original venue.
Below are some recommendations for consumers to minimise disputes during the wedding banquet booking process:
- Securing popular venues and dates can be challenging, prompting many soon-to-weds to book as early as possible. However, it is important to note that a venue’s operating conditions and setting may change, such as closure due to lease expiration, or extensive renovations. Prior to signing the contract, carefully review the terms regarding compensation in case of a breach on the part of the merchant;
- Before committing to a contract, it is advisable to learn more about the venue facilities and catering arrangements. For instance, find out if a bridal makeup room, reception table, projector or other amenities are provided for free, and whether there will be extra charges for special services like alternative wedding entrances or on-site wedding ceremonies. Ensure that these provisions or plans and their associated fees are detailed in the contract, and check if modifications are allowed after the contract has been signed and within the respective deadlines;
- Wedding fairs serve as a one-stop shop for soon-to-weds to collect information on various wedding services and take advantage of special offers. However, at such events, they can only learn about a venue through the sales information provided by traders, which might differ from the actual site. New couples are advised to carefully check if a contract includes any cancellation or refund policies before signing, or if possible, visit the desired site first before finalising the deal at the wedding fair.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/576-wedding
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.