billing frustrations

i have heard and experienced some incidents that do not speak very well of our gahmen's services despite all the pluses and good reputations, particularly so when it comes to billing. take the following two examples for instance:

• my mum went to the polyclinic for her regular check-up, paid for the consultation and left. some four months later, she received a letter telling her that she has not paid and that she needs to go back to pay for the consultation. when i asked her, she said that she did pay up and that she was very clear of it. she could even tell me how she made the payment, how she took the receipt and then threw it away. and knowing my mum, she was the type who would do things `swee swee', all payments made, not owe people/ organisations money and make sure things are completed nicely. and i do take her word for it. so, when faced with such a situation where it was `me word against yours', it was a no-win situation for us. in the end, to avoid further hassle, she quietly paid up (ok, ok this is not gahmen per se, but considering they inherit the whole system from the gahmen, well...).

• last saturday, i received a letter from ava fining me $100 for not paying for my dog license that had expired on 30 apr 08. first thought that came to my mind was that this was a mistake. i had clearly asked bee to pay for me late april and i even remembered sending him to the rochor center post office to do it on my way to work. he even passed me the sam-station receipt at the end of the day. on hindsight, my mistake was that i threw away the receipt a few days later. anyway, bee bee took the letter and called ava to clarify. the officer who answered the call told him that as far as they are concerned, their computer system showed that the dog license was not paid and so, unless we could produce proof of payment, we would be required to pay the fine or risked being fined more. so, for now, bee bee has gone to the posbank to ask for his statement account.

i asked one key question in these incidents - if one cannot produce a receipt, does it necessary mean one have not paid? when we try to clarify, we were told that we need to produce receipts as proof of payment. well, in the first place, there is nothing that suggest that we need to keep the receipt. and for that matter, if we were to keep the receipt, then i do ask, for how long? in the first incident, it was 4 months later, in the second, more than 5 months. also, if the organisation does not have a record, it cannot assume the individual has not paid and issue summons as in the case of ava. if billing is done through a third party (such as the contractor administering the sam-machine), what are the mechanisms in place to ensure that the processes between this contractor and the organisation is water-tight? if the organisation's records showed that a bill has not been paid, shouldn't the organisation address the issue with the contractor/s. why suddenly issue a summons 5 months later? i am sure i am not the only case and that there must be many others who have been caught in similar situations. given such situation, there must have been a lot of money lost in transit. so, naturally, this begs the next question - who bagged all these monies?

all these issues would have been avoided if customers are told specifically the duration where they need to keep the receipt and that this requirement be spelt out clearly on the receipt.

there is certainly a lot of truth when we say `where it comes to (us) paying and (gahmen) collecting, we can trust them to be very prompt and very tight'. for now, this whole episode has been rather frustrating!