[Your name] [Your address]

[Date]

Dear Sir/Mdm, I am writing to request for your help in the following issue: On [date], I purchased [number of vouchers] vouchers for $[voucher value] from a company called Streetdeal Singapore Pte Ltd (Streetdeal) for [voucher deal]. [ Continue with your story ] On [date], I filed my case against Streetdeal in Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) and went for my first consultation session on [date]. Unfortunately, SCT was unable to help and had to discontinue my case as it is out of SCTs jurisdiction because of Streetdeals clause under their Terms of Service in their site (but not in my vouchers) which states that any claim, dispute, or controversy shall be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Kindly refer to Appendix A for background information on SCTs jurisdiction and Appendix B for Streetdeals entire arbitration clause with relevant sections highlighted. The only recourse now is for me to seek arbitration at SIAC on individual basis. However, this approach is not practical as SIAC arbitration fees can cost more than $10,000 and the refund value is only $[voucher value]. By this arbitration clause, it is clear that Streetdeal has violated the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act (CPFTA) by practising a specific Unfair Practice: Taking advantage of a consumer by including in a consumer agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable. In normal circumstances, I would not have needed to take up your time in this issue, as the CPFTA would have provided me a strong avenue to seek a fair and hopefully win-win resolution to this problem. However, as Streetdeal has unscrupulously exploited a legal loophole and ruthlessly left the consumer with no practical avenue to seek redress, I appeal to you to (1) help me by providing a practical solution for me to get a fair hearing or better, to get a refund, (2) take action against Streetdeal for violating the laws of Singapore, and (3) close this legal loophole.

I would like end by highlighting this point: If the Government allows Streetdeal to get away with this unscrupulous act, other businesses will follow their practice. This will render the CPFTA ineffective. In future, there will be more victims who, like me, will have no way of seeking redress and end up losing their hard-earned money to swindlers.

Best regards

[Your name] [NRIC/FIN No.]

Appendix A Background Information of Small Claims Tribunal Jurisdiction The Small Claims Tribunal is bound by two Actsthe Small Claims Tribunal Act (Chapter 308) and the Subordinate Courts Act (Chapter 321) The Small Claims Tribunal Act Part II 5(2)(b) states that The jurisdiction of a tribunal shall not extend to a claim which the subordinate courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine. The Subordinate Courts Act Part IV 19(3)(c) states that Subject to section 28A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) and any order under subsection (1) thereof, a District Courts jurisdiction under subsection (2) shall not include any jurisdiction vested exclusively in the High Court, in any other subordinate court, or in any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative tribunal, by written law.

Appendix B Streetdeals Terms of Service: http://www.streetdeal.sg/home/info/terms 17. Arbitration. By using this Site, End User agrees that: (1) any claim, dispute, or controversy End User may have against streetdeal arising out of, relating to, or connected in any way with this Agreement, this Site, or any Microsite, or the purchase or sale of any Voucher(s), shall be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") and conducted before a single arbitrator pursuant to the applicable Rules and Procedures established by SIAC ("Rules and Procedures"); (2) the arbitration shall be held at a location determined by SIAC pursuant to the Rules and Procedures (provided that such location is reasonably convenient for End User), or at such other location as may be mutually agreed upon by End User and streetdeal; (3) the arbitrator shall apply Singapore law consistent with the Singapore Arbitration Act and applicable statutes of limitations, and shall honor claims of privilege recognized at law; (4) there shall be no authority for any claims to be arbitrated on a class or representative basis; arbitration can decide only the End User's and/or streetdeal's individual claims; and the arbitrator may not consolidate or join the claims of other persons or parties who may be similarly situated; (5) in the event that the End User is able to demonstrate that the costs of arbitration will be prohibitive as compared to the costs of litigation, streetdeal will pay as much of the End User's filing and hearing fees in connection with the arbitration as the arbitrator deems necessary to prevent the arbitration from being cost-prohibitive; and (6) with the exception of subpart (4) above, if any part of this arbitration provision is deemed to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal, or otherwise conflicts with the Rules and Procedures established by SIAC, then the balance of this arbitration provision shall remain in effect and shall be construed in accordance with its terms as if the invalid, unenforceable, illegal or conflicting provision were not contained herein. If, however, subpart (4) is found to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then the entirety of this Arbitration Provision shall be null and void, and neither End User nor streetdeal shall be entitled to arbitrate their dispute. For more information on SIAC and its Rules and Procedures, End Users may visit the SIAC website at http://www.siac.org.sg.