Sign con­fuses

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -


The sig­nage at Porirua rail­way sta­tion as you en­ter the un­der­ground tun­nel tells peo­ple that bus re­place­ments are in ef­fect and nort­hand south-bound trains are be­ing re­placed by buses.

This is 90 per cent of the time in­cor­rect as it is mainly the north­bound trains be­ing re­placed.

The sign is locked when no re­place­ments are in ef­fect but when they are, they re­move the pad­lock which opens up with this mes­sage.

The prob­lem is in­stead of hav­ing one sign for north­bound re­place­ments and one for the south­bound they only have one sign for both.

This has been like this ever since the coun­cil spent $1.3 mil­lion dol­lars on mu­rals. What good is that? An af­ter-hours public toi­let would have been a bet­ter in­vest­ment.

If they can jus­tify spend­ing money on se­cu­rity to pro­tect a bunch of pic­tures surely the ex­tra cost of clean­ing and main­tain­ing these wouldn’t be an is­sue.

This has lead to a lot of con­fu­sion for the com­muters as they don’t want to be wait­ing for a bus only to miss the train.

The se­cu­rity of­fi­cers are help­ful but they can only pass on what they have been told which seems to be very lit­tle.

There seems to be a very se­ri­ous break­down in com­mu­ni­ca­tion with Ki­wirail.

On April 20 I re­ceived a let­ter from Claire Mcken­zie from Ki­wirail in re­sponse to my com­plaint about mis­lead­ing sig­nage.

She sim­ply stated the Tranz Metro com­mu­ni­ca­tion team were look­ing into it but noth­ing has hap­pened. How hard is it to re­place the one sign they have with two?

It amazes me that a few years ago I paid $108 a month for my ticket and it jumped to $136 (be­fore the new trains).

When I men­tioned that was a big jump in price to the ticket seller he got up­set and told me I have to re­mem­ber that the price hasn’t in­creased for years now but nei­ther has the qual­ity of ser­vice. And now it costs $141.60 yet still no im­prove­ments in ser­vice. MARK BURGESS, Ti­tahi Bay.

(Let­ter abridged) Ki­wirail has ad­vised us the cor­re­spon­dent’s sug­ges­tions have been taken on board and new signs have been de­signed and are await­ing in­stal­la­tion. – Ed­i­tor.

Although we are not able to talk about the specifics of this case, we can pro­vide gen­eral in­for­ma­tion and high­light how un­usual it is to have a claim where nei­ther party is at fault.

In nor­mal cir­cum­stances, if some­one has com­pre­hen­sive car in­sur­ance with us and causes an ac­ci­dent, AA In­sur­ance would cover the costs to re­pair or re­place both ve­hi­cles in­volved.

There are very rare sit­u­a­tions where nei­ther party is at fault and there is no le­gal li­a­bil­ity.

In these cir­cum­stances, the in­surer’s re­spon­si­bil­ity is solely to their cus­tomer.

As the third party in your story did not have in­sur­ance, the ac­ci­dent leaves them in a very dif­fi­cult po­si­tion.

We sym­pa­thise with this, how­ever our re­spon­si­bil­ity is to our cus­tomer who has paid us a pre­mium ev­ery year to pro­tect them from sit­u­a­tions like this.

We are well un­der way with this claim for our cus­tomer.

It is an un­usual sit­u­a­tion and we need to be ex­tremely thor­ough in our in­ves­ti­ga­tions to reach the right con­clu­sion.

This is cer­tainly not a mat­ter of try­ing to avoid re­spon­si­bil­ity; we are ded­i­cated to our cus­tomers and al­ways seek to do the best by them.

An un­for­tu­nate in­ci­dent like this does high­light the im­por­tance of hav­ing your own in­sur­ance.

Hav­ing no in­sur­ance is a risk be­cause you can’t as­sume that some­one else’s in­sur­ance will cover you, even in some cases where you’re not at fault. SUZANNE WOLTON, head of cor­po­rate

af­fairs, AA In­sur­ance. the peo­ple from cut­ting down the trees in the for­est. This is where all the birds fly. Where will all the chil­dren go who want to have ad­ven­tures?

JAMIE RED­SHAW (age 8), Aotea.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.