AA debacle - part 2
And so the gaslighting and/or incompetence of the AA continues. Fourteen months after our accident. As I explained in my last post on the blog, I was given incontrovertible proof that the other driver had been convicted of driving without due care and attention thereby -you’d think- completely quashing the AA’s position that I was liable.
I explained this and expressed my dismay to the AA. They demanded that they have two months to investigate, despite the accident being over a year ago at that stage. Below is what I received last week:
Dear Mr Alex Gwinnett,
(…)
Following your dissatisfaction with regards to the service received following your recent claim, your file has been passed to myself to review. I am now able to respond to you with our final decision. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologise that you have felt it necessary to escalate your concerns[1] and can assure you that we always undertake a thorough review when any complaint is received and assess each case objectively.
Your Complaint
I understand that you are unhappy because;
o Part 1 Of the liability stance set on your claim.
o Part 2 Of the delay in investigating your complaint.
Thank you for sharing your personal circumstances, it is never our intention to add to what may be an already stressful situation. We value your open and honest dialogue; it helps me review your complaint more personally.
My Investigation
Part 1
I have reviewed your claim in full, I can evidence our liability team have reviewed this thoroughly and I am unable to justify any change to their decision[2].
In relation to the driver being charged, we have reviewed the court result you provided on 16 October 2025 and can see he was not convicted of driving without due care and attention, therefore we could not dispute liability on that basis.
In relation to the third party’s insurance, this does not impact the liability of an incident.
Part 2
I can evidence your complaint was raised on 15 October 2025, as per the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) we have 56 days to issue a final response to your complaint. As today is day 45, I can evidence the timescale set by FOS has been adhered to.
In Summary
Due to my findings, I am unable to uphold either part of your complaint.
You can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service
If you are unhappy with my decision you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter. Please record the business name as AA Underwriting Insurance Company on your complaint form.
If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances. (…)
I would like to thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. We welcome comments from people who use our services and aim to use these to improve our services. (…)
Yours sincerely,
(AAUICL Motor Claims Department)
This was my response:
Dear (AAUICL Motor Claims Department),
I am at a loss to understand your position in your letter of 27/11/25.
I expected to engage with you on a factual basis, however you say that, the driver was “not convicted of driving without due care and attention, therefore we could not dispute liability on that basis.” Stating that the driver was not convicted is wrong. Both the Metropolitan Police and Bexley Magistrates’ Court are clear that a conviction was upheld. The document, which incidentally the AA has had access to for some months now, clearly states that:
Offence: Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention. Result: Driving record endorsed (no points) No separate penalty
We reached out to the Metropolitan Police for confirmation of this conviction. They told us:
“The court letter shows that (the other driver) was summonsed for the offence of driving without due care and attention and no insurance. The courts recommended that overall (the other driver) was fined and points awarded along with court costs and surcharge. The driving licence has been endorsed which confirms that the offence has been reviewed.” If a driver is summonsed for multiple offences it is standard practice that the higher offence is prioritised “but this does not mean that the offence of Driving Without due Care and Attention was dismissed. If the without due care offence had been dismissed it would show on the result letter.”
The Metropolitan Police has also said it used the footage of the collision – which the AA was somehow uniquely unable to obtain – as evidence to convict the driver of both offences.
How is it that you dispute this conviction when you have held clear evidence of it for some months – which you did not, incidentally, share with us, your clients (at the time)?
Since we first reported the collision to you, the AA has been eager to proceed on the basis that we were at fault. You have not revised this position, despite the other party’s conviction for driving without due care and attention strongly suggesting the circumstances of the collision were not as the AA has been keen to view them. The collision could have been avoided. I feel it is also reasonable to speculate that even if the other party had not been found guilty of the serious insurance-related offence, the circumstances of the collision suggest he would still have been convicted of driving without due care and attention, with consequences regarding points, fines and costs.
You also mention that the second part of my complaint was “the delay in investigating it.” Just to reiterate: it has been more than a year since the collision. Swift resolution could have been possible if the AA had been more proactive (such as obtaining the footage) and transparent about the documents it held to consider the case (such as the court document). I feel the period the AA allows for its investigations is highly convenient for the AA and very much not so for the client, so my complaint is larger than simply objecting to a ‘delay’: I am furious about the fact that it has taken nearly fourteen months to even reach the point of communicating with you.
As for what you include in your letter as an apology, this is an apology that I “have felt it necessary to escalate (my) concerns and (you) can assure (me) that (you) always undertake a thorough review when any complaint is received and assess each case objectively.” You should surely be aware that this is formulaic wording and not an apology, as you are not apologising for any action the AA has taken. Your letter is at least consistent with the AA’s response to date. Engaging with the AA seems to me to be a process designed to obfuscate and frustrate the client at every point.
I have contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service as you have suggested. I expect, however, to hear from you at your earliest convenience to elaborate on your position on why liability cannot be disputed. I would also like to understand how it is that the AA can decide that an offence has not been committed if the police and courts have already decided that it has. My lifelong understanding has been that these agencies are the higher authority in points of law.
Regards,
Alex Gwinnett
Comments
Post a Comment