Here's the latest update in this running commentary . . .

So, this morning I received a letter (attached to an email) from the AA. It informed me that AA Road Service and AA Insurance aren't related, and that I'd been apparently only putting my complaint to the Road Service entity (with which, in my view, I still have a complaint . . . but it pales in comparison with my complaint of AA Insurance).

"We're sorry you're confused," the AA Road Service customer complaints person wrote (by way of the quintessential apology you have when you're not having an apology).

'Two Separate Entities' . . . But They Share the Same CEO, Executive Leadership, Website & Phone Number? OK, I'm sure I'm the only one that's ever been confused by that . . .

The first observation I'd make is that - if the two are separate entities - why do they have the same website and phone number?

And who's at the top of the totem pole? Anyone - including you, AA - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong . . . but aren't your Chief Executive and Executive Leadership common to both arms of the one body? That's what your own website and governance directories appear to clearly indicate. No?

Whatever. I'll leave that to someone with the appetite to untangle . . . to untangle. (Someone, please let me know if you figure it out.)

The second observation is that, according to my understanding of the normal processes of any consumer product or service-related organisation, a customer ringing with a complaint and asking for a supervisor (especially when a previous articulation of that complaint had proven insufficient in outcome) should always be put through to a supervisor or a manager.

Certainly, when I spoke to the main reception or call centre operator this morning, that is exactly what I was told: "I'm going to put you through to (wherever), and you can ask for a senior when they answer."

What? I Can't Speak to the Complaints Department without A Legal Agreement in Place First? Has the AA Just Set Some Sort of Weird Complaints Process Precedent Here?

But when I was put through to wherever I was put through to, that wasn't the situation at all. I had to insist on being put through to a supervisor. Then, after being kept on the phone for some minutes, I was told (by the same operator), that "Christie will email you later".

Now, this made no sense to me, because what is "Christie" going to say in her email? I am the one that has the complaint . . . and thus I am the one that has the talking to do . . . surely?

So I articulated this illogical situation and pressed for a more logical one.

I was told that "Christie" needed to "send me a legal document" to "manage my expectations" about the outcome of the phone call.

So that's ODD. I expressed my distinct lack of desire for being emailed some legal document that I might have to pay some lawyer to decipher for me before I can get to verbally articulate my complaint to someone.

Escalation Process Contacts Are 'Not Available' to be Given to Customers

I asked for the process of escalation past "Christie". I was told it would be the "Customer Resolutions Service" (still in-house). I asked for the contact details of this department. Several times. I was told they were not available.

I then asked what the next level up the line was and was told it was the Independent Review Committee (an external body). I asked for the contact details of this body. I was told they were not available.

Why Was I Not Given A Hire Car, Since It's A Clear Entitlement of My Policy & My Situation More than Obviously Called For One?

I then posed the following important question (which forms a part of my complaint): Does my policy entitle me to a hire car if my own car is unsafe to drive?

The call centre operator answered in the affirmative. Yes, it is an entitlement of my policy.

I then asked:    Why was I not offered one, when I was calling late at night after my car had just been broken into by way of a completely smashed and now non-existent driver's window which was now in dangerous shards all throughout my vehicle (see the photo on this review), on a rainy night with galing winds, and I was alone, calling on a borrowed phone, in a high degree of distress, and needing to head home from Petone to Masterton, across the (on that night, at that time) particularly treacherous Rimutaka Ranges?

She couldn't answer, she says, "because she wasn't the one that took the call".

Duh. Yeah, probably not. It was like, 9pm one night approximately three weeks ago. Assumedly, there are other operators that also staff the AA insurance call centre.

I pointed this out, reasonably politely.

"Well, did you ask for a hire car?" the operator says.

My incredulous response was that the operator who did take the call that night, was not only fully appraised of the perilous situation I was in (and thus it should have been a no-brainer), she was also fully aware of the understandably highly distressed and vulnerable position I was in.

I also explained that she also never completed the claim. That earlier, petulant and authoritarian young operator's "handling" of the claim (that someone at AA must have listened to retrospectively and had someone else call in damage control mode later that week) is recounted here.

Where It's At Now . . . Waiting . . .

Where it's been left is that - if they won't listen to my complaint and address its components, starting with the not-small matter of not honoring the provisions of my policy (and wilfully leaving me both distressed and in a heinously dangerous situation) - then I have no intention of even opening, let alone reading or having some legal professional translate, some email containing some legal somethings that I must supposedly agree to, before I can verbalise my complaint to someone who cares.

In the meantime, and in the interests of having an accurate record of this whole shameful debacle - I've advised that I'm writing this running review of the proceedings here on The Customer & The Constituent.

And so, there you have it:  My latest instalment in a really shabby "customer experience" with the AA.

And to 'Christie' / 'Christy':  If you're reading this review (which some responsible manager at AA's insurance operation should surely be doing) - again, I have nil interest in your legal-agreement-before-speaking-to-someone-about-anything that you apparently intend to email me.

So please save yourself the bother of sending me some insulting email that will be summarily deleted at my end without being read - and instead, provide me with the two sets of contact details that I have herein requested, regarding the further escalation of this matter.