An Update on the Ongoing AA Insurance Debacle . . . & It's Really NOT Good
Jordan Kelly • 27 September 2024

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.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
Show More