Then if you get the runaround and they tell you something contradictory, or to submit something that's already been submitted, you can avoid being fobbed off, point out the contradiction and get referred to someone a bit further up the chain who can probably cut through the crap a bit easier.
Having said that, they have been pretty good on a fair number of applications in my recent experience.
We're paying them to be "good" to "great" on nearly every application.
It shouldn't be necessary to take notes of the who, the when and the what was said, in order to reduce the risk of getting the "runaround" and being "fobbed off" by personnel in a government agency. In what organisation that claims "integrity" and "accountability" and compliance with a "service charter" is it possible for there to be a culture that permits inquirers to be given "the runaround" and "fobbed off"?
I reckon part of the problem is that anything unusual is always easier to duck rather than resolve. That, and the almost complete absense of any serious, competent management (as opposed to smooth-talking greasy pole climbers) may have allowed the practice to flourish.