Close ↓
(File pix) I’m a touch disappointed with Touch ‘n Go’s explanation

I AM puzzled and confused by the explanation given by Touch ‘n Go on “Why charges are imposed on dormant cards?” (NST, April 24)

First, it is superfluous to quote terms and conditions as the reason for the administration fee as the complainant was not asking for the legality of the charge, but rather the need for the charge.

Touch ‘n Go had said that the dormant cards carried loads that prevented the Touch ‘n Go system from operating optimally, thus affecting its service for active users.

How does a dormant card affect the system, because regardless of the status of a card, the number of active, inactive and dormant cards in the system remains the same? I hope Touch ‘n Go can elaborate.

This brings me to my next point.

I have campaigned, but was not successful in getting Touch ‘n Go to remove old, terminated or inactive cards from the system as all of that appears in our individual e-accounts .

It is a hassle when you need to trace a transaction or go through your cards, unless you note down your active cards first and home straight in.

So, if inactive cards are a drag on the system, why is Touch ‘n Go unwilling to get rid of old card details from its system? Would it not be better for Touch ‘n Go as well as users if these are removed?

Instead of charging a fee until all balances are exhausted, why not just remove the cards from the system, especially those with zero balances?

I believe other countries with a similar card system do not charge fees for cards that are inactive. For example, the London Oyster Card could even make refunds directly to my card without the need for me to turn up at a service counter with the card in question. And I can top up online, too.


Kuala Lumpur

Close ↓