Porsche owner takes dispute with workshop to Case, small claims court and police to no avail: 'Is there justice in S'pore?'

It all started because his Porsche's door was damaged.

Stomper Jonny has since gone to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case), Small Claims Tribunal and police over a dispute with the car workshop he contacted to get his Porsche fixed.

He told Stomp: "As a concerned consumer, I'm seeking to highlight a troubling experience I had with a local car workshop, Porschify, and how the current consumer protection processes in Singapore failed to deliver any justice."

The Stomper recounted: "Under my insurance scheme, I was supposed to pay an excess fee only after the repair work was completed.

"However, the workshop asked me to pay upfront, which I did in good faith as I had never made a claim before.

"What followed was a series of delays, broken promises, and false statements - including claims that the workshop owned a spray booth, which was untrue, and the inability to show proof that the spare parts used were genuine, despite their prior assurances.

"I ultimately cancelled the repair due to their lack of reliability and requested a refund of the excess fee. Instead of honouring that, the workshop refused to return the money and issued what I believe was a falsified invoice to justify the charge."

The Stomper said that even after he went to Case, progress was minimal.

As for the Small Claims Tribunal, he said: "I submitted all my evidence and went through a full hearing - only to be told at the end that it was outside its jurisdiction."

He added that the police have yet to take any substantive action, classifying the case as a civil matter.

"This situation has left me frustrated and disappointed - not only by the workshop's conduct, but also by how poorly the system protects consumers when disputes involve small sums but serious misconduct," said the Stomper.

"The processes in place seem to shield businesses like this from consequences while leaving everyday people without real recourse."

He asked: "Is there justice in Singapore?"

In response to a Stomp query, Case president Melvin Yong said: "Case had assisted Mr Jonny in his dispute against the car workshop, Porschify."

To avoid disputes, Case advises consumers to take the following precautions when engaging car workshops:

• Ensure the scope of work is clearly stated, and request a written estimate before any work begins, detailing labour costs, parts, and additional fees, if any.
• Verify there are no hidden charges in the work order that may affect the final price.
• Keep all records, including invoices, receipts, estimates, and communications, as evidence in case of disputes.

Mr Yong added: "Consumers are encouraged to patronise CaseTrust accredited motoring businesses as they are committed to fair trading, transparency and consumer-friendly policies."

Stomp also contacted Porschify and received a reply from the workshop's lawyer, Mr James Gomez Jovian Messiah.

His response is below:

At the outset, we categorically reject the serious and false allegations made against our Client. These same allegations were already litigated by Mr Jonny before the Small Claims Tribunal. After the hearing, Mr Jonny's claim was dismissed in its entirety. It is, therefore, deeply regrettable that he now seeks to relitigate his grievances through media sensationalism. We are perplexed at his repeated attempts to damage our Client's good name and reputation.

Our Client's position is set out below and is supported by contemporaneous evidence.

• Mr Jonny contacted our Client sometime on or about Dec 14, 2023, with regard to certain repair works to be conducted on his motor vehicle, a Porsche Taycan.
• On or about Dec 15, a staff member of our Client requested Mr Jonny to send photographs of the damage to the vehicle. Our Client made a preliminary assessment of the damage and informed Mr Jonny of the rough cost estimates.
• On Dec 15, after reviewing our Client's preliminary quotation for the repair works based on the pictures sent, Mr Jonny instructed our Client to notify his insurance company and request that a surveyor be sent to inspect the Vehicle. He gave firm instructions to inform the insurer that the vehicle had been sent to our Client;
• Mr Jonny intended to proceed with the repairs via an insurance claim, and our Client, acting under his instructions, contacted Allianz Insurance Singapore on Dec 15.
• Our Client also contacted Ajax Adjusters & Surveyors on or about Dec 19 to schedule a survey of the vehicle.
• On Dec 19, the surveyor informed our Client that the vehicle would be authorised for repair pending inspection and subject to a payable excess fee of $1,500.
• On the same day, the surveyor requested our Client to hold off on repairs as investigations were underway by the Insurer. Over a phone call, the surveyor informed our Client that Mr Jonny had approached another workshop for the same repairs. This caused a significant delay.
• On or about Dec 19, our Client informed Mr Jonny that it had also requested the insurer to cover the cost of additional repair works to the rear bumper, rear quarter panel, and side skirt of the vehicle.
• On or about Dec 19, over a phone call, Mr Jonny informed our Client that he would proceed with only one workshop, namely Porschify. Our Client then informed the surveyor to proceed again.
• On or about Dec 20, the surveyor informed our Client that the case was still under investigation.
• On Dec 21, our Client again informed Mr Jonny that it was following up with the surveyor on the repair approval.
• On Dec 26, our Client once again informed Mr Jonny that it was pursuing approval from the Surveyor for the repair works.
• On Dec 26, our Client followed up with the surveyor, and on Dec 27, the surveyor approved the claim, subject to the $1,500.00 excess. Our Client then requested payment so that it could commence repairs and the insurance claims process.
• On Dec 27, Mr Jonny requested our Client to include a PCM (powertrain control module) upgrade in the claim by inflating the repair costs. During a voice call, our Client explained that this was unethical and not possible. Evidence of Mr Jonny sending pictures of the PCM via WhatsApp is available.
• On Dec 27, Mr Jonny enquired about the estimated arrival date of the vehicle's doors. Our Client responded that due to the Christmas-New Year holidays, the parts supplier was closed and could only confirm delivery within 12 to 14 days.
• On Dec 28, our Client received a partial payment of $1,000.00 instead of the requested $1,500, but nonetheless placed the order for the necessary parts on goodwill for Mr Jonny.
• On Jan 2, 2024, Mr Jonny requested a certificate confirming the authenticity of the parts. Our Client informed him that only a supplier's letter could be provided and that it would be furnished upon receipt.
• On Jan 31, the parts arrived. It bears emphasis that the vehicle, being a rare battery electric luxury sports sedan, has limited part availability. Our Client undertook best efforts to expedite the process despite the delays initially caused by Mr Jonny's attempt to claim with another workshop.
• On Jan 31, our Client informed Mr Jonny that the parts had arrived and requested him to deliver the vehicle to its premises. Our Client explained that since the repairs were under an insurance claim, the vehicle had to be inspected by the Surveyor after dismantling.
• Mr Jonny insisted that our Client paint the new doors before sending the vehicle over. Our Client explained that as the repairs were insurance-claim based, the works had to be documented after possession of the vehicle. Our Client also informed him that only estimated timelines could be provided as final approval rested with the surveyor.
• Thereafter, Mr Jonny cancelled the repair works, notwithstanding that our Client had already incurred costs in ordering parts, arranging inspections and performing other preparatory works as set out in its invoice.

We trust that the above factual chronology comprehensively rebuts every baseless allegation raised by Mr Jonny. We now respond specifically to the contentions made in his email to your publication.

Excess Fee

Mr Jonny's assertion that he was only to pay the excess after completion of works is factually incorrect. As is the industry standard, the excess is payable before repairs begin, especially in insurance-authorised jobs where the workshop must first incur costs for parts procurement and labour allocation. It is also emphasised the Mr Jonny's claim was an at fault claim and not a third party claim. Indeed, Mr Jonny was explicitly informed of this, and despite being requested to pay $1,500, he voluntarily remitted only $1,000. It was on goodwill alone that our Client proceeded to order parts, absorbing the shortfall.

Delays and Misrepresentations

The alleged delays that Mr Jonny alleges were our Client's fault, stemmed not from our Client's conduct but directly from Mr Jonny's own indecision. His simultaneous engagement of multiple workshops led the insurer's appointed surveyor to freeze approvals pending investigation. This duplicity caused weeks of delay and contradicts his complaint of being misled. It is disingenuous for him to now allege unreliability on our Client's part when the timeline was repeatedly disrupted by his own actions.

Spray Booth Allegation

On the allegation that our Client made false representations that it owned a spray booth, we wish to unequivocally state that this is denied. Our Client is owned by Prem Roy Motoring, referred to as PRM Group. At the material time, PRM Group owned 50 per cent of Sprayboxx, which was then a sole proprietorship. Due to lease assignment issues, PRM Group converted Sprayboxx into a private limited company registered as Sprayboxx SG and owns 49 per cent of its shares. A Business Profile search will confirm the same or our Client is prepared to extend a copy of the ACRA documentations to you.

Authenticity of Parts

Contrary to Mr Jonny's baseless claim, our Client assured him that all parts would be sourced from their verified suppliers. He was informed from the outset that a supplier's letter confirming authenticity would be issued once the parts were received. The parts arrived on Jan 31, 2024. Mr Jonny never followed through on bringing the vehicle in for inspection or repair. We trust that you would appreciate that unlike luxury goods, car parts do not come with authentication documents safe for the confirmation of the same by reputable suppliers and authorised distributers.

Invoice and Alleged "Falsification"

The invoice issued by our Client itemises the parts procured, inspection arrangements made, and administrative work performed, all of which were necessitated by Mr Jonny's instructions. There is nothing "falsified" about it. To accuse a business of fraud simply because it declined to provide a refund after it had already incurred legitimate expenses is disingenuous. Accordingly, accusations of falsification are both defamatory and wholly without basis.

Exhaustion of Legal Channels

Finally, we highlight that Mr Jonny has exhausted every official avenue, viz Case, the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), and even the police. His claim was rejected by the SCT after a full hearing. The police never contacted our Client which is wholly demonstrative that Mr Jonny's baseless allegations could not even sustain a suspicion of the serious criminal conduct he has alleged. Yet, rather than accept the outcome, he has now turned to the media to sensationalise his narrative and inflict reputational damage on a reputable business that simply refused to be complicit in dishonesty.

• porsche