How the AA can take money you don't want them to take

Like many concerned parents, when my daughter started driving, I took out breakdown cover with the UK's biggest, and usually trusted provider the AA. I did so with my credit card. As renewal comes close, I decided to go with a different supplier (at 1/3 the cost).

About a month before the start of the new cover, I got a letter from the AA telling me that 'relax, you don't have to do anything' and 'as you pay by continuous annual payment, all you have to do is check your details.' Now I wasn't happy with this - I didn't set up a continuous payment and had no documentation to say that I had. But what really shocked me is that nowhere on the letter - and I have examined it very closely - does it say how to cancel that payment.

I complained to the AA and after over two weeks they finally deigned to explain themselves. They pointed out that the letter says 'If there's any aspect of your Membership you would like to discuss, please call us on xxxx xxx xxx.' And, indeed it does. But that's not what I was looking for. I didn't want to discuss an aspect of my membership, I wanted to cancel a payment.

Personally I think that the company is using weasel words to say that this is their get out clause. Any letter saying that payment will be taken from a credit card using a continuous annual payment mechanism should have in large clear letters THIS IS HOW TO CANCEL THE PAYMENT. Anything less bears a distinct resemblance to the planning documents relating to the demolition of Arthur's house in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that were 'on display' in a locked filing cabinet in a cellar etc. etc.

This isn't the sort of behaviour we expect from a company like the AA.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog