AA Insurance Wrap-Up: I Gave Up.
Jordan Kelly • 3 November 2024

Lies, Bullshit & Total Disorganisation - AA Insurance & AA Road Service Are the Pits

To anyone considering taking out a policy with AA Insurance, or moving your business to this outfit, I strongly recommend you read this string of debacles I endured with the insurer, and its related (although they seem to claim not to be) entity, AA Road Service.


Here they are. Read them and weep. In reverse chronological order:  This one. And this one. And this one. And . . . yes, wait, there's more . . . this one.


And as if that's not enough to put off even the hardiest of policy holders, there's the string of unrelated unhappy experiences prior to that . . . read about them here and here.


It's not often that my tenacity is exhausted, but - in the case of the AA - they've managed it.


A concluding email from them (they stopped becoming a priority in my world and my coverage some weeks ago; it amounted to throwing good time after bad), didn't specifically say so, but seemed to indicate that:


  • They no longer required me to sign a legal agreement "limiting my expectations" before I could have a direct conversation with a customer complaints person;


  • Their acknowledgement of the fact that my claim didn't "go smoothly" was limited to the glass replacement guy leaving my gate open and that they'd dealt with him (actually I dealt with him, and that issue was utterly dwarfed by the debacle that was directly administered upon me by the AA itself, not the frigging glass guy;


  • They have an internal menu of readily available, template lies to pull out when handling a claim. In this instance, they obviously didn't even read the notes or my previous correspondence or accounts of my phone calls, since the one they pulled out the bag didn't actually make any sense at all:


       "We cannot provide cover for the window regulator (as this failed due to wear and tear),"  they wrote.


If they weren't such scoundrels - giving the insurance industry at large the bad name that some insurers have tried for decades to shake off - it would be funny.


Why? Because the window regulator didn't fail. The window regulator was never part of my claim. Maybe they meant to tick the option above or below from their standard "pull a reason out of our ass" list of claim refusal "reasons".


Gives you a window (pardon the pun) into their standard modus operandi at the AA, doesn't it?


Another Furious AA Customer Asks The Customer to Take Up Their Case


Meantime, a couple of weeks back, I received a submission through the Contact form on The Customer.


A widow from Upper Hutt had been left vehicle-less (for several weeks at the point of reaching out to me) by AA Road Service.


My understanding of the matter is that two years prior to her recently experiencing a flat battery, an AA Road Service mechanic had installed an incorrect battery - which should have lasted a lot longer than it did, and was still under warranty with the AA when it failed.


For reasons that I'll leave between the AA and their stranded-without-a-vehicle policyholder widow, the AA - she says - had ignored her numerous calls regarding the matter and her vehicle lay undrivable at her property.


I do hope she manages to get them to take the appropriate action and get her back on the road. After all, she'd been an AA Road Service member since the 1990s. I was going to give it a crack on her behalf, but some way into the call with her, I realised that I just didn't have the appetite to suddenly become an unpaid advocate for what might be a whole lot more disgruntled AA policy holders out there around New Zealand. For sure, it almost became a full-time job trying to deal with the various disjointed entities of the Automobile Association, on my own behalf. 


Bloody hell. What a joke. Except it's not. Because if you're the one trying to deal with this lot, it's far from funny.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More