<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>SMRT failed to probe overcharging of passengers
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I WOULD like to highlight a recent example of poor service by SMRT. On the morning of Feb 1, I boarded SMRT bus service 963 along Jelebu Road.
The ez-link card reader became faulty when the bus stopped outside St Joseph's Church along Upper Bukit Timah Road about 10 minutes later. The driver then stopped the bus and waited for the ez-link card reader system to restart.
After about five to 10 minutes, the system appeared to be back to normal. However, along the way, alighting passengers received a 'card error' message when they tapped their cards on the exit card reader.
One man who encountered this problem tried to tap his card at the entrance reader and received a beep sound and a green light. I did the same thing at the entrance reader.
However, I realised that the beep sound and the green light may not mean a successful deduction but a double deduction instead, as the restarting of the ez-link card reader system had wiped out the record of my earlier transaction when I first boarded the bus.
Later the same day, I wrote to SMRT and TransitLink to ask them to investigate, highlighting the possibility of a busload of passengers being overcharged, and not just me.
True enough, last Wednesday, I received a letter and cheque from TransitLink, stating that I had been overcharged as a result of the faulty card reader.
SMRT, however, responded a day earlier with a standard reply telling me to file a claim with TransitLink without even bothering to investigate whether a busload of passengers could have been overcharged.
If I had not filed a claim with TransitLink, SMRT's reply, nine days after the incident, would have been too late for me to file a claim. This is because TransitLink does not allow claims more than five days after an incident has taken place.
I am disappointed that SMRT chose not to investigate or respond appropriately. Judging by what happened to me, it seems that many other passengers on the same bus were literally taken for a ride by paying more than they should have. Some were foreign workers and maids who do not earn much and have to watch their transport expenses carefully.
I hope the Land Transport Authority will look into this and ensure that affected passengers are treated fairly in terms of fare payment, as much as SMRT expects passengers to pay their fares correctly and honestly. Wai Wing Tai
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I WOULD like to highlight a recent example of poor service by SMRT. On the morning of Feb 1, I boarded SMRT bus service 963 along Jelebu Road.
The ez-link card reader became faulty when the bus stopped outside St Joseph's Church along Upper Bukit Timah Road about 10 minutes later. The driver then stopped the bus and waited for the ez-link card reader system to restart.
After about five to 10 minutes, the system appeared to be back to normal. However, along the way, alighting passengers received a 'card error' message when they tapped their cards on the exit card reader.
One man who encountered this problem tried to tap his card at the entrance reader and received a beep sound and a green light. I did the same thing at the entrance reader.
However, I realised that the beep sound and the green light may not mean a successful deduction but a double deduction instead, as the restarting of the ez-link card reader system had wiped out the record of my earlier transaction when I first boarded the bus.
Later the same day, I wrote to SMRT and TransitLink to ask them to investigate, highlighting the possibility of a busload of passengers being overcharged, and not just me.
True enough, last Wednesday, I received a letter and cheque from TransitLink, stating that I had been overcharged as a result of the faulty card reader.
SMRT, however, responded a day earlier with a standard reply telling me to file a claim with TransitLink without even bothering to investigate whether a busload of passengers could have been overcharged.
If I had not filed a claim with TransitLink, SMRT's reply, nine days after the incident, would have been too late for me to file a claim. This is because TransitLink does not allow claims more than five days after an incident has taken place.
I am disappointed that SMRT chose not to investigate or respond appropriately. Judging by what happened to me, it seems that many other passengers on the same bus were literally taken for a ride by paying more than they should have. Some were foreign workers and maids who do not earn much and have to watch their transport expenses carefully.
I hope the Land Transport Authority will look into this and ensure that affected passengers are treated fairly in terms of fare payment, as much as SMRT expects passengers to pay their fares correctly and honestly. Wai Wing Tai
