It’s a battle of she said, they said in the latest Singapore dating fiasco as a woman has taken to the media to complain about matchmarking service Lunch Actually, and how the service allegedly promised that she would be set up with a man who matched her “ideal looks” but instead got an “old and not good-looking” uncle ten years her senior.
What happened with Lunch Actually and their client?
According to a post on website All Singapore Stuff, a 49-year-old woman who called herself Ms. M wrote to the website to complain about her experience with Singaporean matching service Lunch Actually. The post said that she was enticed by a Lunch Actually employee to sign up for a dating package that cost her $2939.40.
The woman claimed that the agent said that she knew someone who would match her, and that the former was assured she would be set up with someone who would have her desired looks. She allegedly sent the agent photos of celebrities, and even her friend to be able to find the look that she wanted.
The agent then said she had found someone that met the client’s criteria. Upon meeting the “date” however, the client found that her preference for looks did not match the person she was meeting, and that other details of the “date” were allegedly fraudulent.
According to the post, the agent claimed that he doesn’t look his age, is good looking, fit,has no children of studying age, and is staying in the city area. The woman did not want to meet with this person because he was ten years older than her at 59, but the agent insisted that she meet him and she would “not regret.”
Upon meeting the man, however, none of the agent’s claims were true. A separate report from Asia One said that Lunch Actually staff claimed “…He’s a COO of F&B, stayed in central but he actually stayed in Bukit Batok HDB.”
The man was also allegedly too thin and did not fit the description used by the agent. The person who introduced this man was different from the agent who sold her the dating package.
The same report from Asia One said that the agent allegedly offered the higher-priced package to the woman because the latter would be able to pick her preferences based on looks, as opposed to the cheaper packages for matchmaking that cost around $1000 that did not allow her to choose.
The matchmaking service also allegedly marketed a discount to her, as the package for three dates with alleged power to choose the person’s looks usually cost $5000.
The client, who is a divorcee and mother of one, said that she would not want to use the dating service again. “This unpleasant episode has deterred me from looking for another life partner completely.”
The man has been made aware of the comments on his appearance and status in life.
When Ms. M tried to contact the dating service to request a refund, she was denied, and she was also unable to access the terms of service previously-available through email.
What did Lunch Actually say?
The CEO of the company, Violet Lim, issued a statement on how the woman’s post said that they allowed clients to set preferences for looks was false, and that none of their clients could get to dictate who the person they would match would be.
What’s more, the terms of service were hidden from her after the date due to “security reasons” but that she could have gotten a copy if she emailed them.
The company also said that the woman refused to speak to them after her disappointing incident, stopping them from addressing her concerns.
Check out here statement below:
The woman has reportedly filed for an investigation with CASE.