I can see the AA's point in some respects. I once hired a minibus from a well known local firm. Picked it up in the evening but next morning it wouldn't start. Called the AA and when the boke arrived he said "Ah, so and so Self Drive - we service their vans for them" I asked him how he had time and he said they got so many call outs to them that he reckoned the firm never touched their vans and left all servicing to the AA when they were called out by customers who had broken down.
|
Well, the AA have a point, 4 times a year is a lot, and they are only warning you that the limit is 6) The fact that when you lubricated the headlamp it was OK, shows it wasn't lubricated properly beforehand which is poor maintenance.
The fact the letter was patronising...well, that seems to be the fad at the moment for corporate letters!
|
Now if they are going to charge for overuse surely they must reimburse for under use....opinions please.
Very sorry, but probably not.
The fee allows the AA to provide the service in the first place (employ staff, purchase or lease equipment, etc), and for this service to be used a reasonable amount. If the service is used more than this reasonable amount, then more staff and equipment are required, thus incerasing the overhead of running the business. This needs to be paid for, so a premium is charged.
At the other end of the equation, if a rebate for under use were to be allowed, then for the AA to make a profit - which it needs to do if you want it to be there tomorrow - it would almost certainly be necessary to raise the basic premium to a higher level.
|
I think they call it 'fair use'.
ISTR that the RAC do give a discount for no claims in a year.
|
|
GEM Memberships costs £35 from the telegraph web site, why pay more for AA or RAC.
|
GEM Memberships costs £35 from the telegraph web site, why pay more for AA or RAC.
Why indeed!
I have found GEM to be extremely efficient and I don't think they have a limit on call-outs.
|
Simple solution, let them come out to two more breakdowns then cancel your membership and join another breakdown company.
Or am I missing something?????
|
Goodness me, next thing you'll know is that someone will decide that the AA is not a charity but rather a commercial operation and provide a service for which they are able to charge what they will as you are able to decide nto to pay it or not.
They have a limit, they warn you of it, they offer you options and warn you of the penalties; And the problem is what exactly ?
|
To be fair
The call out for the lights shouldn't count. If the AA chap couldn't fix them and Barney managed to sort it out with the trusty WD40, then I don't think he got value for money on that particular call out.
I would contact them and advise them of this.
The keys in the boot is just unfortunate - call out due to mistake on behalf of driver - that counts.
Patronising letter - a clever combination of warning and sales ploy - yes that sort of thing gets my goat as well.
I would contact the AA and advise them of the pop up lights situation and suggest they reduce your tally to three.
On the basis of one being the keys, you used them for two other faults. Think, what are they and are they the sort of problems that could be managed with more maintenance. If so - deploy, if not - well....
Mark, what you say in jest is actually correct! the AA were bought from their 'members' a few years ago and is now run as a commercial organisation, rather than as a motoring "club". The limit of 6 call outs a year is reasonable, but this sort of rule tightening is typical of organisations going through the change.
Hugo
|
>>The limit of 6 call outs a year is reasonable, but this sort of rule tightening is typical of organisations going through the change.
Its a mot requirement that headlights work.the fact that they didnt wasnt the AA`s prob.still comes down to servicing.or person that owns the car. should keep car in condition that renders the car capable of staying on the road.I thought untill recently AA were for emergency call outs only. not for molly codling those that cannot be bothered to service as and when told/required
--
Was mech1
|
Mark, what you say in jest is actually correct! the AA were bought from their 'members' a few years ago and is now run as a commercial organisation, rather than as a motoring "club".
I thought that AA members got a vote on the demutualisation. Anyone who voted to sell shouldn't be complaining if the new owners do things differently.
Unfortunately tho (like building socs), it leaves those who could forsee the inevitable changes faced with the prospect of moving services
|
|
Which was more hassle, going to your garage/shed/tool box and fetching the WD40 or going to your phone and then waiting around for an hour for the AA man to arrive? I'm with the AA. It's insurance, if you're a risk, then what you pay reflects that.
|
I thought that AA members got a vote on the demutualisation. Anyone who voted to sell shouldn't be complaining if the new owners do things differently.
No vote, just a cheque in the post. No complaint, though....
Unfortunately tho (like building socs), it leaves those who could forsee the inevitable changes faced with the prospect of moving services
So? If a shop goes downhill I go elsewhere. If the AA upsets me I join the RAC/Green Flag/whoever. It's up to the AA whether they want to please me or not. And if I get them out every other day because I don't maintain my car then I rather suspect that I'm not high on their list of people to please.
I really can't see the problem here. If the AA or any commercial organisation irritate you, go elsewhere!
|
I think the point here is: how irritating is it to receive a letter worded like this after you've paid them goodness knows how much over the last few years.
It's probably got very little to do with the number of call outs, anything about headlights or where keys get dropped.
However many customers the AA loose over letters like this, I'm sure they could cut it dramatically by employing someone to write a letter in a less patronising tone!
|
|
Like the freudian typo. Patronosing a form of writing combining patronising and brown nosing; used by commercial enterprises to deliver an unwelcome message.
|
|
We had one of these letters year, and it was a fairly threatening and unpleasant missive.Two callouts were down to SWMBO leaving the radio on, but what annoyed me was that one incident was a second call following a misdiagnosed coolant leak by the first AA unit. It took numerous emails to finally get one call removed from our record. Not impressed.
|
|
|
