2022 has barely begun and once again we are thrown into the midst of another saga.
This time, it involves a Chicken Hotpot restaurant at Compass One and an NUS student, Xu Xiuwen. After Xu left a bad review for the restaurant, they retaliated by allegedly contacting NUS.
Refusing to back down, Xu took to her Instagram to post a detailed infographic on her perspective of the situation on 14 January, which you can read here.
Well, guess it’s over now right?
Chicken Hotpot’s Facebook Post
Chicken Hotpot took to their Facebook to share their side of the story.
The restaurant claimed that Xu “did not give time to the company to do its internal checks and proceed[ed] to post misleading and malicious video towards [them].”
The Facebook post also included a series of slides (albeit less aesthetically pleasing compared to Xu’s) containing CCTV footage details of the events that occurred when Xu visited the restaurant on 2 January 2022 and screenshots to substantiate their claims, probably because they knew how the WP Saga has unfolded.
So, what really happened?
Snack was Not Rejected & Should be Paid For
Chicken Hotpot claimed that after the chargeable peanut snack was served to Xu’s table, it was not rejected. Her friend then opened the snack and consumed it.
Attaching an image of the snack, the restaurant stated that it was wrapped, and opening it indicates that the customer wants to eat it. If not, they are to leave it untouched.
The restaurant continues claiming that even after the summary list of the orders was presented to Xu and her friends, none of them raised any issues.
Chicken Hotpot then proceeded to show CCTV footage of the cashier and said that since Xu’s friend consumed the peanut snack, “naturally the snack will be billed” and “she cannot claim ignorance”.
But let’s face it: a dispute like this is so common, it might be happening somewhere in Singapore right now as you read this. Everyone just want to know why the restaurant contacted Xu’s school. Was it really an attempt to get Xu to remove her review, or was it something else?
According to the restaurant. it was something else.
Emailed NUS to Verify Xu’s Review
When Xu contacted them, she had used an NUS email. The restaurant then replied promptly (and politely), seeking more details and apologising for her “unpleasant experience”.
But they also had to do their “due diligence check with NUS” as her email had come from “an important organization domain address”.
It’s “in view of the many scams happening recently.”
I don’t know how to interpret that, and while Goody Feed seeks to simplify even the chim-est subjects in the world, this is beyond us at this moment.
Here’s the exact explanation they gave:
There was no mention of what they had asked (or told) NUS.
They then state that Xu “had no patience to wait for [their] internal investigations” and posted a video on Douyin specifically naming their restaurant’s name.
Accepts Xu’s Criticism
Finally, on the eighth slide, the restaurant acknowledges their actions and makes an apology to Xu regarding the lack of communication about the chargeable snack. Once again, they reiterated that the snacks are sealed and can be rejected or returned.
However, they did not just end it off there.
Chicken Hotpot claimed that the information Xu posted on Instagram was not communicated to the restaurant and instead, she “attacked” them with many negative reviews, multiple videos on Douyin and the Instagram post. This then resulted in a bad reputation for their restaurant as mentioned to Xu by a staff in a message.
In a final summary slide that is considerably wordy and obviously made from MS Powerpoint, the restaurant highlights the main points.
Xu’s Response, Slide by Slide
Well, Xu responded almost immediately, because why not?
In a series of Instagram Stories, she rebutted each of their point, and also highlighting that “they have communicated with every party except me.”
In fact, she claimed that she had reached out to them twice for a private explanation before she posted her experience on Instagram.
For the peanuts issue, she said that the bowl of peanuts was placed “quietly ALONG” other paid sides she ordered.
She said that she did not refuse to pay; she was merely displeased with the practice. In other words, it was never about the money but about how the peanut was “sold”.
Next, of course, would be the NUS issue: she said that NUS told her that the restaurant “told them that a student posted a negative review and damaged their reputation.”
If so, she said that it was “not for the purpose of checking as they claimed.”
And at 4:30am this morning (19 January), when we were all dreaming about peanuts and peanut butter, Xu submitted a formal complaint to the Personal Data Protection Commission .
Suffice to say, this probably won’t be the end. Would this be one of the top sagas in 2022?
You can watch this video on what the top local sagas in 2021 are:
- NOC Now Has a New Website With Ryan & Aiken Missing from Its Team
- 10 Facts About the OCBC SMS Phishing Incident That Has Reportedly Wiped Out Some People’s Life Savings
- NUS Student Claims Sengkang Eatery Contacted Her School After She Wrote a Bad Review
- Vivian Hsu Appeared to Make a Dig at Lee Jinglei With Her New Comments
Featured Image: Facebook (Chicken Hotpot)
iPhone users’ CPF savings are safe from Malware scams…but not for long. Here’s why:
- Partners in Cai Png Empire Chang Cheng Suing Each Other in Court
- SKH Responds After Patient Claims He Has to Order Painkillers from foodpanda As His Request From the Nurse Took Too Long
- Elderly Who’s Dining Alone Tells Daughter on Phone He’s With Friends, Then Cries Alone in Restaurant
- Man in S’pore Forced to Pay $2,000 Cancellation Fee After He Clicked on FB Ad Offering Loans
- Here’s Why Both PAP & WP Reject PSP’s Call to Suspend Iswaran as an MP & Remove His Allowance
- Everything About the Public Transport Price Hike That’ll Start from 23 December 2023