Fancy a ride on maltatransport.com?

It all started towards the end of July with a simple customer transaction to renew my car licence. When communicating with government entities, I generally resort to registered mail - as proof of my communication. The licensing directorate of the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) had six clear working days in which to process my request.

On Monday, August 2, I was running the risk of a traffic offence since my licence had expired. At around noon, my elation in contacting the licensing directorate was curtly deflated by a male telephone operator, whom I asked to be directed after explaining my plight. After a terse "huhh" - meaning that I was in a queuing line of similar complainants - his cool response was to put me on hold.

The ADT website flashed to my mind - a controlling factor in subduing my frustration. Clicking into the contact form to report my complaint looked easy. Another two days went by and I had not even received an acknowledgement. So, I called the advertised telephone number on the website. This time the personal assistant to the chairman took my call. She seemed courteous and understanding and continued to assure me that the PR and marketing manager would contact me back after investigating my case. This was alarming since I was suspecting another "huhh" response - only to be assured that the PR and marketing manager was just a desk away from the chairman's assistant.

Within an hour the PR manager called back with her investigation report claiming that my renewed licence was mailed at the end of July. Instinctively I replied that I should have received my renewal. Well, the expected response that "Maltapost is late in its deliveries" dipped my level of confidence in ADT. A thumb rule in public relations is never to blame it on others but take full ownership of its customer commitment.

The day after I called the same person, only to be directed to another female officer in the licensing and testing directorate. She advised me to call at her office in Floriana at 7.30 in the morning to sign an affidavit declaring that I had not received the renewed licence. Rather than seeing red, I followed the route to courteousness by negotiating to call at the mentioned office any time during the day to tie up with my appointments in the area.

My saga with this organisation continued. I called at the licensing offices in Floriana at around 11 a.m. two days later. After doing the round robin from one hall to another, I was directed to a barricaded reception and, as there were no signs, I asked the receptionist to call the officer to inform her of my presence.

The receptionist, whom I suspect was the same one who replied my call with a "huhh", just drew a blank look and two other people started hollering that they have been waiting for the same officer since the early hours of the morning. This meant that I had to wait for this officer in a long queue at the mercy of ADT as the victim of its failure to deliver its service.

Now that I had directly experienced the organisation's incompetence, I decided to act differently. The ADT excuses were unacceptable since I had lost my credibility in its customer service. My option was to send an e-mail to the PR manager and the chairman's assistant demanding to have my renewal sent and that I did not intend to go back to Floriana at the expense of my personal transportation and professional time.

I was now approaching the third week and still no response from ADT with my e-mail being completely ignored. Friday, August 13 was my Waterloo day. I called these two ladies and demanded to have my licence by that morning. A series of phone calls was concluded with the PR and marketing manager calling at my office at about lunchtime to deliver personally my renewed licence. I was not even required to sign the affidavit.

Why was I forced to experience all this aggravation? The delivery executive failed to give me a reasonable answer. I asked her to wait for a printout of an e-mail I was just sending to her office, requesting a meeting with the ADT chairman to review my case study that I intended to present to him. During the course of this saga, these same ladies claimed that they had never received my e-mails. Ironically, this was the only e-mail the PR executive chose to acknowledge.

My level of credibility in this organisation was further compounded with a telephone call I received on my cellular phone from the director of the licensing and testing department. Notwithstanding my explanation that I was not in my office, he persisted to appoint a meeting with him and went into a tirade of his zeal in working after hours while turning into an abrasive tone with expressions like "isn't your case closed - why do you need to speak to me" or "if I am too low for you, continuing on insisting to meet the chairman". Finally, after his reluctance to communicate formally with me via e-mail, he said he would consider my request.

The directorate declares in its website that its procedures are designed to meet the ever-increasing demands of its customers. My objective for meeting the chairman or CEO is to use my case study and analyse their internal failures in the context of getting the basic needs of their customer right in the first place. This is not a demand but a contribution, which ADT continues to ignore.