2 Apr 2025

The High Cost of Hiring Unlicensed Handyman “我不是奸商”

The High Cost of Hiring Unlicensed Handyman "我不是奸商"

Introduction

The case of Kwoi Heng Plumbing Services—which charged SGD 3,350 for a water heater retailed at SGD 250—has thrust Singapore’s consumer protection and utilities regulations into the spotlight. While the firm refunded SGD 2,700 after public outcry, its proprietor’s insistence of innocence raises a critical question: Can contractors legally distance themselves from accusations of dishonesty, even when flouting licensing rules?

The Legal Threshold for "Dishonesty" in Singapore

Under Singaporean law, the term “dishonest merchant” is not explicitly defined. However, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) criminalises “unfair practices,” including:

Misleading statements (e.g., inflating product costs without justification).
Omission of material facts (e.g., failing to disclose use of unlicensed workers).

In this case, Kwoi Heng’s defence hinges on the homeowner’s “agreement” to the charges. Yet, legal experts argue that consent obtained through incomplete information—such as omitting the heater’s market price or the worker’s unlicensed status—may still constitute unfair practice. A 2020 High Court ruling (Lim v. HomeFix) established that “agreement under duress or misinformation voids transactional legitimacy.”

Regulatory Breaches: Beyond Pricing

PUB Violations:
The Public Utilities Act 2001 mandates licensed oversight for water supply work. Kwoi Heng’s use of an unlicensed plumber—confirmed by PUB—breaches Clause 40G, punishable by fines up to SGD 10,000. Notably, PUB’s violation notice did not address the inflated pricing, highlighting a regulatory blind spot.
EMA Non-Compliance:
Replacing a circuit breaker qualifies as electrical work under the Electricity (Electrical Installations) Regulations, requiring a Licensed Electrical Worker (LEW). EMA has remained silent on whether Kwoi Heng breached this, despite clear safety risks.
Contractual Misrepresentation:
The Contracts Act deems agreements voidable if entered under “fraudulent misrepresentation.” By marketing itself as a plumbing “services company” (implying compliance), Kwoi Heng may have misled the homeowner about its adherence to PUB/EMA rules.

Case Precedents: How Courts Have Ruled

2019: PUB v. AquaFlow Pte Ltd
A contractor fined SGD 8,000 for using unlicensed plumbers and overcharging vulnerable homeowners. The court noted “systemic exploitation undermines public trust in regulated professions.”
2021: EMA v. PowerPro Solutions
An unlicensed electrician caused a fire; the firm was fined SGD 15,000 and its director jailed six weeks.

The Contractor’s Defence: Legally Viable?

Kwoi Heng’s proprietor argued the SGD 3,350 fee covered “emergency services.” However, legal analysts highlight flaws:

Disproportionate Markup: Labour costs rarely justify a 1,200% product markup unless explicitly agreed.
Licensing Deception: Failing to disclose the worker’s unlicensed status invalidates “informed consent.”
Safety Negligence: Missing safety components (e.g., double check valve) breached PUB’s Waterborne Sanitary Code, exposing the homeowner to contamination risks.

Under the CPFTA, such omissions could classify Kwoi Heng’s conduct as “unconscionable,” even absent malicious intent.

Penalties vs. Deterrence: A Systemic Failure?

PUB’s maximum SGD 10,000 fine for licensing breaches pales against potential profits from overcharging. For instance, Kwoi Heng’s SGD 3,350 charge—minus the SGD 250 heater—yielded SGD 3,100 in labour fees. A one-time fine would barely dent such gains, incentivising non-compliance.

EMA’s silence on electrical violations further weakens deterrence. Unlike PUB, EMA can impose jail terms for safety breaches—yet its inaction here sends mixed signals.

Homeowner Liability: A Grey Area

While the homeowner, Jamie Lim, acted in good faith, the case underscores a legal grey zone: Can homeowners be liable for a contractor’s unlicensed work?

PUB Guidelines: Homeowners must “take reasonable steps” to verify licenses. Ms. Lim’s failure to check PUB’s online registry could imply negligence, though precedent (Tan v. PUB, 2018) absolved homeowners unless “wilful ignorance” is proven.
Insurance Implications: Unlicensed work voids most home insurance policies. Had contamination or fire occurred, Ms. Lim might have faced uninsured losses.

Industry and Regulatory Reforms Proposed

Mandatory Price Transparency:
The Singapore Plumbing Society advocates for itemised billing, separating labour and material costs.
Stiffer Penalties:
MPs like Louis Ng have called for fines proportional to overcharged amounts (e.g., 200% of illicit profits).
Inter-Agency Enforcement:
A joint PUB-EMA task force could close gaps in plumbing-electrical crossover jobs.

Conclusion: A Dishonest Merchant or a Flawed System?

Kwoi Heng’s actions—exploiting regulatory ambiguities and consumer trust—align with traits of dishonesty, even if not criminally defined. However, Singapore’s fragmented enforcement and lenient penalties enable such practices.

Until reforms address:

Weak deterrence mechanisms,
Consumer education gaps, and
Inter-agency coordination,

the defence “I am not a dishonest merchant” will remain a convenient shield for unethical contractors. For homeowners, the lesson is clear: Vigilance is not optional—it’s a legal safeguard.