[ad_1]
The dating game can be a minefield, so much so that some prefer to entrust their quest for love to professional matchmakers.
Unfortunately, it turns out that even seasoned professionals can’t conjure up a prince charming.
A 49-year-old woman who said she asked the local Lunch Actually dating agency for an attractive partner who looked like her ideal type, is claiming that she was cheated on and entered into a relationship with an “uncle” 10 years her senior as part of a three-year marriage. date pack.
However, Lunch Actually founder Violet Lim said the woman’s account was riddled with false accusations. Despite the company’s efforts to follow up with the woman and resolve the matter amicably, she has “refused to speak” with them, Lim told AsiaOne today (September 14).
The woman’s allegations first appeared on Friday (September 11) on the All Singapore Stuff website.
Identified as Ms M, the woman claimed that she had paid Lunch Actually $ 2,939.40 for a three-date package with the added benefit of “choosing the type of appearance” of her matches.
She wrote: “[The sales executive] I promised that this package, unlike the ones over $ 1,000, could choose who I want my partner to see. “
M then sent Lunch Actually several photos of her ideal match, which included her friend and other public figures.
She had obtained a discount on the package, allegedly priced at around $ 5,000, and became convinced after a sales rep told her that he had a match in mind for her, she told Lianhe Wanbao.
However, according to the woman, Lunch Actually misrepresented her date’s appearance and financial status.
The date was “old and not attractive”: Mrs. M
“They said he’s COO of F&B, he stayed in the center, but actually he stayed in Bukit Batok HDB. [sic]”Wrote Ms M.
He did not look like the photos she had provided, she claimed, and was “old and not handsome.”
Ms M made several other derogatory comments about her date’s looks, saying he looked “so skinny” even though Lunch Actually reportedly described him as fit.
“This unpleasant episode has deterred me from looking for another life partner altogether,” said the divorcee and mother of one.
A photo of their date with censored eyes was also shared on All Singapore Stuff. (It was taken down after Lunch Actually contacted the site, Lim said.)
Ms M, who said that she filed a complaint with the Singapore Consumers Association after she was denied a refund for her package, also claimed that Lunch Actually staff were “very careful” and contacted her by phone. , without “leaving a written trace”.
He also questioned why his Terms of Service (TOS) agreement with the company was no longer accessible via the online link they had provided.
We are not an unethical company: Lunch Actually founder refutes the woman’s claims
In a public post on Sunday (September 13), Lunch Actually founder Violet Lim addressed Ms M’s allegations, clarifying that it had been “clearly explained” to her that she would not be able to choose the look of her matches.
Lunch Actually also focuses on common values, personality compatibility and life goals rather than reducing its clients to photos, he explained.
The signature package Ms. M purchased includes a personal dating consultant who handles client matches, date arrangements, and date feedback.
This offers more personalized attention compared to some of the other Lunch Actually packages in which a team of matchmakers take care of the client’s needs, however, it does not allow for matching selection based on appearance, Lim said.
He added that Lunch Actually had never claimed the man was handsome or lived in a central area.
Furthermore, the 59-year-old man, identified only as Mr. X, was within Ms. M’s age preference.
Lunch Actually believes that phone conversations allow them to “develop a closer relationship” with customers, but they are not averse to following up with them via email if requested, Lim explained.
Regarding Ms M’s complaint about not being able to access her TOS agreement, Lim clarified that the link to the document is only valid for a limited time for security and privacy reasons.
Ms. M should have been able to keep a copy of the TOS after signing it, and she could have emailed Lunch Actually to request a copy, Lim said.
“What has really distressed me is that in her attempt to pressure us for a refund by going to the media, Ms. M has dragged an innocent party, Mr. X, into this rage.”
Mr. X is aware of the “unnecessary” and “hurtful” comments that Ms. M made about him. However, he has chosen to forgive the woman, Lim told AsiaOne.
Lunch Actually is not unethical, nor does it practice hard selling, he added, citing the company’s “three-day cooldown period” for all its packages and memberships.
All Lunch Actually customers are entitled to terminate their membership within three days from the date of payment and receive a refund less a $ 642 administrative fee.
The fee covers the time and effort invested by the Lunch Actually consultant in a profiling and consultation session that typically lasts between one and a half to three hours, as well as membership processing.
“Honestly, we are very honest with our clients,” Lim said, revealing that she is outspoken about the fact that it often takes multiple dates for clients to find their match.
“That is why our packages have multiple dates.”
