A very kind invitation from Claudia Lesley, who had scored a clutch of excellent seats for this production early in the run and thought of us. It was a great opportunity for Janie to met up with her old school pals, Claudia and Anthea. Plus what looked to be a very promising production of Equus, a play that I had studied at school but, apart from the movie version, had never seen.
Janie and I are both partial to a bit of Shaffer too. I had read or seen (or both) most of his oeuvre. Actually one of Janie’s and my early dates was a Shaffer:
Janie even (perhaps inadvertently) forgave Shaffer for his proclivity for theatrical dames who are not Janie’s favourites. Judy (e.g. Gift Of the Gorgon) and Maggie (in several Shaffers throughout my life, starting with The Public Eye and more recently Lettice and Lovage, which I saw back in the day).
Lindsay Posner is a superb director who possibly wanted to continue the family (if not stage dame) tradition for Shaffer plays, by choosing Toby Stephens (Dame Maggie’s son) to play Martin Dysart, the psychiatrist. Great choice. Toby Stephens absolutely smashed it in that role.
Noah Valentine was excellent as the troubled boy. Indeed the whole cast was excellent.
Equus is a long play and the Menier has a bum-numbing seating, but somehow this didn’t seem to matter, as the production was so good, the time seemed to fly by without physical discomfort for us. For the actors, possibly more discomfort, as it was a very well-choreographed production that surely required great feats of strength and dexterity at times, especially from the ensemble “horses”.
Before the show, Janie and I had a hair-raising drive across London with multiple demonstrations and road-blockages in place. I had strategically worked out a route, which worked well, but hadn’t counted on unscheduled (and unconnected) road closures nearer to the theatre blocking off my chosen parking places.
Still, we got to Borough Market on time for a pre-theatre supper of fish at Fish!, with Claudia and Anthea, which was a very pleasant way to start the evening. Not our usual way round for theatre (eating before rather than after) but the only sensible way to have done this one.
I suppose this piece “does what it says on the tin” by not being funny. For us, I’m afraid, this play, which we saw in preview, is not entertaining or enlightening either.
We’re huge fans of The Bush and are rarely disappointed when we visit either the main house or the studio, but this one missed the mark for us.
Which could easily be a line from this play…indeed it could be many lines from the 90 minutes of achingly mawkish conversation and attempts at comedic patter, as the tragedy-struck couple in this two-hander try to use performing stand-up comedy together in an open mic session as therapy.
We thought that both performers, Tia Bannon & Jerome Yates, dragged as much as could be dragged out of the script. For us, it was the conceit of the play and the predictable story that emerged through their attempts at making comedy out of tragedy, that didn’t work for us.
Here’s the trailer.
The run has been extended even prior to the show opening, so the idea of it has clearly sold well. Running until 13 June if you want to take other people’s word for it rather than ours.
…in which I pointed out that, more than six months after a legally binding, final decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service, the matter was still being delayed and ignored by Allianz. I can confirm that, within a few working days of my public outburst, the outstanding financial settlements flowed in my direction, as did the long overdue warranties and certificates, such that the matter is now resolved.
Janie, my wife, wondered whether I was relieved and satisfied now that the claim is over. As the days have gone on, I realise that I am much relieved but not much satisfied. I still don’t understand why my claim and complaint were such an omnishambles over a period of nearly seven years, yet finally resolved so quickly once I barked in public. I am also convinced that most Allianz clients, when faced with such sustained obstruction, would have given up and not achieved a fair outcome.
In my 6 April letter, I requested comments and proposed actions from you. I still await those. Let me set out in a little more detail the areas that I think need your attention:
In the matter of six months of silence after the ombudsman’s decision:
Who in Allianz is responsible for following up with clients following an ombudsman’s decision and why did they go silent on me for so long?,
Does Allianz not investigate internally adverse ombudsman decisions to ensure that the matter is properly resolved in the aftermath of the decision? Also to learn lessons to prevent recurrance of such adverse cases? It should – using staff independent of those who were previously involved with the case.
In the matter of the ombudsman process itself, the matter took more than a year, which the ombudsman investigator explained was due to consistent requests for extensions by Allianz and the furnishing, by Allianz, of 12,000 pages of defence documentation. That is clearly disproportionate. I provided some 100 pages to support my original sumbission plus a further 20 to meet the investigator’s requests:
Shouldn’t Allianz be working in good faith and co-operation with the ombudsman? It is impossible for me to believe that such a drawn out process, manifestly swamping the process with an excess of detail, might have been conducted by Allianz in good faith. The only other conclusion I can draw is that the Allianz people assigned to the case were vastly under-skilled and under-trained in handling ombudsman cases,
I believe that the ombudsman should have powers to penalise financial institutions (as well as award compensation to and specify actions for clients) when cases are met with delays and obfuscation to the detriment of the ombudsman service as well as to the detriment of the client. Do you agree?
With regard to the entirety of my claim, between 2019 and its conclusion last month, there were extended periods of delay and also dishonest conduct by Allianz and/or its agents. The worst example being the false claim that there was separate storm damage at the house in January 2021, whereas the truth was that the agents had done no work on the house for many weeks, even after being notified of water ingress arising from the subsidence damage:
Did any internal investigation/intra agency complaints/sanctions occur in the light of that dismal and dishonest performance. If not, why not? My claim handler at Allianz promised me that it would, as part of his entreaty to me not to take legal action at that juncture,
Is part of the problem the lack of clarity in a system that has so many agents from different organisations working on such a case, (seemingly) not communicating well with each other? The Allianz claim handler, the Crawford loss adjuster, the agents of the loss adjuster doing the remedial work, the Allianz complaints people… Not only was it sometimes unclear to me who was responsible for delays or problems, it was seemingly unclear to the very people who were supposed to be resolving the problems. But matters are especially opaque here to the client, as the information asymmetries add to the agency problems that abound in such a set up. My sense is that the several agents are motivated to look after their own corporate corner, e.g. keep the claim within budget or mark some element of a complaint “resolved”, to a far greater extent than they are motivated actually to resolve the claim and settle matters satisfactorily with the client,
Without wishing to sound rude or disparaging of the whole insurance sector, my sense is that this byzantine set up is designed to obfuscate, and pass the blame for delays and bad practice back and forth, with no-one taking responsibility. That is shameful.
In short, I sense a massive ethical gap between the claims of the insurance sector – that it acts with professionalism, in the utmost good faith, striving to support its clients at a time of vulnerablility – with the reality of the sector’s practices. Allianz at the moment seems to be an especially bad example, in which case you, Colm, have a massive job on your hands to make good in your company. But I also sense that the whole insurance sector/profession need to take a long look at itself and seek to improve, through self-regulation and/or through substantial strengthening of the ombudsman’s powers.
I have heard from your new complaints manager, Michael Torres, who would like to discuss matters with me. I am happy to do so with him, but the complaints department shortcomings are only part of the problem; more symptom than cause. The essence of these shortcomings arise from the causes of complaints. I am willing to speak with relevant senior people at Allianz to help you understand and improve, but not to be fobbed off or to take up yet more of my time to no purpose. If you show serious intent on Allianz’s part to address the root causes of these issues, then I’ll gladly engage with Allianz, purposefully. I still await your comments and proposed actions with great interest.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Harris
SOLE DIRECTOR & SHAREHOLDER
cc: The Financial Ombudsman Service, BBC Radio 4 ‘You and Yours’ (Investigation Desk), BBC ‘Money Box’ (Consumer Redress Team), Crawford & Company, Michael Torres (Allianz)
1978 in Woodfield Avenue: Back When I Thought I Could Always Pick Up The Phone, Speak With Someone Sensibly & Resolve Issues Promptly.
