Latest news with #elderlyrights
Malay Mail
14 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
HairFun admits to unfair trade practices in Singapore; elderly customers pressured into expensive treatments
SINGAPORE, June 4 — Hair salon chain HairFun has admitted to using unfair trade practices targeting elderly customers and has agreed to cease such conduct, refund affected individuals, and implement consumer protection measures, authorities said. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) launched investigations into HairFun following complaints received by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) about aggressive and misleading sales tactics, according to a report published in Channel News Asia today. Unannounced visits to three HairFun outlets in October 2024 revealed that from May 2023 to July 2024, the salons lured elderly customers with offers of low-cost haircuts, then pressured them into paying for expensive treatment packages they did not request. In one case, an elderly man visited the Ang Mo Kio outlet for an S$8 (RM26) haircut but was falsely told he had scalp haemorrhaging. He was then charged nearly S$1,000 for a hair wash and 10-session treatment package he had not consented to. The customer only discovered the deception after a doctor confirmed there was nothing wrong with his scalp. CCCS also found that the same salons previously operated under the name Scissor & Comb, against which similar complaints were lodged between 2018 and 2022. HairFun Beauty Pte Ltd, HairFun Pte Ltd, and their directors, Roland Teo Jian Hao and Chiong Hong Hioh, have admitted to the unfair practices and committed to ceasing such actions. They also agreed to a five-day cooling-off period for package purchases and have cooperated with CASE to refund nearly all affected consumers, amounting to about S$12,500. CCCS chief executive Mr Alvin Koh stressed the importance of protecting elderly consumers and urged businesses to ensure clarity and consent in all transactions. CASE president Melvin Yong welcomed the outcome and said the organisation will continue working with CCCS to hold unethical businesses accountable.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Care home SLAMS Martha's Vineyard millionaire for 'stopping seniors from enjoying the beach'
A care home on Martha's Vineyard has slammed a millionaire homeowner for allegedly gatekeeping a beach from its elderly and disabled residents. Melinda Loberg, a longtime resident of the famed Massachusetts island, filed a lawsuit against Havenside - a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Island's Episcopal Churches and the Diocese of Boston - on May 12. Havenside is a senior living facility that sits just behind Loberg's $5 million waterfront home - but a fierce legal war was launched after elderly residents were allegedly crossing into the homeowner's land to get to Vineyard Haven Harbor. The care home, however, argues that they have always had a right to use the 13-foot corridor on the north side of her land to gain access to the beach. Now, Lucinda Kirk, the property manager of Havenside Corporation, told that Loberg's lawsuit is just 'a land grab against island seniors.' The majority of Havenside's residents are disabled and elderly - and they deserve to 'enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity,' she said. In the suit, Loberg claimed that when she bought the home in 1992 she was never told about the easement access that the seniors allegedly have - triggering the neighborhood dispute last month. Fighting back, Kirk told 'The lawsuit that our neighbors filed should be seen for what it is: A land grab against Island Seniors. She has lived at her $5 million idyllic home on Crocker Avenue with her husband since July 1992. Havenside has since told Loberg its residents have a right to use a small path on her property to get to the water. (her property is circled in red on the left, and the senior home is circled on the right) 'The Lobergs want to incorporate our easement into their beach-front property, apparently without any care how that will affect Havenside's 36 Residents. 'Our neighbors are attempting to outspend us in legal proceedings to grab our land with bogus legal claims.' Many of Havenside's residents don't just live in the apartments for affordable housing, but also 'have mobility disabilities and/or chronic health conditions,' the spokeswoman added. Kirk added: 'The land of Havenside has an appurtenant easement which provides beach access for our Seniors. It is the safest and easiest way for our Residents to enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity. 'The issue at stake for Havenside is not about money, but preserving safe and equal access to the beach for our senior Residents.' The legal filing went on to state that any access rights were taken away before Havenside took over its property. Loberg also emphasized that she has been using the land for 30 years which voids the corporation's past claims to it. Havenside said that information is false and that it has had an easement there since 1890, the Vineyard Gazette reported. The specific area that the senior center is claiming to control is a space that the Loberg's 'cleared the existing vegetation' from, along with 'removed tires, bottles, car mats, and large chunks of macadam and then planted Parcel 2A with grass,' the documents read. Following the cleanup, the couple decided to install a 170-foot fence along the area in question - cutting off access for more than two decades, the lawsuit stated. Havenside said they planned to gain access to the beach by cutting the grass between the fence and garden beds to construct an entry gate, the filing continued. After informing Loberg of its plans, the corporation sent a tenant by the name of Frank Rapoza over to the property, 'carrying tools,' so he could 'install' the fence, per the lawsuit. Tensions quickly rose when Loberg saw him standing in her driveway ready to get to work, so much so that she threatened to call the police if he attempted to install the gate. With that, Rapoza fled the property, but soon after Loberg received a phone call from him 'threatening to return and install the gate,' the lawsuit detailed. 'In response to this phone call, Plaintiff installed a "No Trespass" sign on the Property line near the Havenside Property,' it added. A manager with Havenside then reached out to Loberg and stated that Rapoza 'was not an agent of Havenside or its Board. Any representation otherwise has never been authorized.' Loberg, a former Tisbury select board member, chose to sit down with Havenside on July 14, 2024 to talk about the issue, but 'representatives were not inclined to discuss alternative solutions and instead insisted upon the existence of the purported access easement,' her lawsuit read. Later that month, the corporation offered to 'remove' the easement in exchange for 'a cash payment,' but Loberg denied the 'extortive offer.' By October of that year, Havenside filed a Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent (NOI) with the local Conservation Commission 'seeking approval to make improvements on Plaintiff's Property within the alleged Access Easement,' the lawsuit said. In that filing, 'Havenside falsely claimed to be the owner of the Property, failing to accurately fill out Section 3 requiring them to list the Property Owner if different from the applicant,' it went on. In February, the Loberg's said they 'discovered a group from Havenside, including Mr. Rapoza, trespassing on Plaintiff's Property and in the process of cutting Plaintiff's Fence in order to install a gate.' Loberg then called the police who asked the group to vacate, but 'declined' to forcibly remove them, noting that it was a 'civil matter.' The lawsuit also included an image of Rapoza, an alleged 'manager of Havenside,' and unknown person 'destroying a section of Plaintiff's Fence and installing the gate.' A police report was also filed in relation to the incident. 'Mr. Rapoza subsequently returned and finished installing the Gate,' the lawsuit said, adding that Havenside has since added signage to the entrance of Loberg's property stating that residents are allowed to use that as an access point to the beach. Loberg 'feels harassed and threatened by the conduct of Havenside's tenants and does not feel safe on her Property as a result of their conduct,' the filing concluded. She has demanded that 'Havenside, its guests, tenants and invitees' are not allowed to access her property and that it does not benefit from any easement over the Plaintiff's Property for the purpose of accessing Vineyard Haven Harbor.' An initial hearing was held on May 20 and the next is set for June 16, according to documents. Kirk said Havenside is working on obtaining a pro bono lawyer to fight for residents to gain access to the waterfront.
Telegraph
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Predatory marriages could be banned after pensioners ‘groomed' for inheritance payouts
Ministers are considering reforming marriage rules to stop elderly people from being preyed on and their families disinherited. So-called 'predatory marriages' – which lawyers claim are on the rise – see the elderly and vulnerable groomed into marriages they may not properly understand. Current rules mean that pre-existing wills are invalidated when a person marries, meaning that spouses, who can inherit without paying any death duties, stand to get everything under intestacy laws. But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries. In a letter to Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, and Fabian Hamilton, a Labour MP, raised the case of Joan Blass, a 91-year-old woman suffering from dementia who married a younger man in a 'secret' wedding. She was widowed in 2008 but towards the end of 2011 struck up a conversation with the man, who was standing at the end of her garden. Within a month, he had moved into her spare bedroom. The marriage – made without the knowledge of Ms Blass's family – meant that when she died in 2016, she was buried in an unmarked grave, against her wishes, and 'stripped of all her assets and money'. Her husband claimed she did have the capacity to marry him and that it was a 'loving and caring' relationship, the i newspaper reported. Mr Hamilton wrote on X: 'The Wills Act hasn't been updated since 1837. Marriage should never revoke a previous will. 'The Law Commission has put forward decisive recommendations. I have written to the justice minister calling on the Government to act on them.' Current rules 'hard to justify' The Labour MP put forward a Private Members' Bill in 2018 proposing a change in the law, which was supported by MPs including Rachel Reeves and Sir Ed Davey. Mr Hamilton said he had been contacted by several families who had experienced 'predatory marriages', demonstrating the scale of the issue. Daniel Edwards, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said many people were unaware of the rule, and that it 'can seem a little hard to justify, given changes in society since the rule came about.' Mr Edwards added: 'It is also one that can be open to abuse; in cases of 'predatory marriage' a will – that perhaps leaves everything to the testator's children – would in all likelihood be revoked by a marriage. 'While Law Commission reports can sometimes take years to be considered and debated in Parliament, the fact we have already seen the Government's response suggests there is motivation and intention to bring forward changes in the not-too-distant future.' Government 'recognises current law is outdated' Ms Sackman said in response to the recommendations: 'Marriage should no longer automatically revoke a will – this recommendation is designed to address the problem of 'predatory marriages' where vulnerable people are befriended, and the effect of the marriage is to disinherit families and others from any will they have made.' The Law Commission began looking into wills in 2016, before pausing the research in 2019 to focus on marriages at the Government's request. It published the results of two public consultations and draft legislation earlier this month. Other recommendations from the review included allowing children to make wills, making electronic wills valid and the recognition of more informal wills. The commission also proposed abolishing rules which stop second spouses, stepchildren and divorced partners from challenging mutual wills under the Inheritance Act 1975. Ms Sackman added: 'The reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide-ranging. They deserve detailed consideration. 'The Government recognises that the current law is outdated, and we must embrace change, but the guiding principle in doing so will be to ensure that reform does not compromise existing freedoms or protecting the elderly and vulnerable in society from undue influence.'
