Effect of windscreen claim on renewal
Discussion
Typical, had my new (used) Mondeo no time at all and have picked up a bad stone chip which I think will be an MOT fail.
Have rang the insurance broker to ask about a windscreen excess (underwritten by Allianz) and they say that it won't affect my NCB but that I will need to declare it as a claim at renewal
Anyone any idea how much this will load my premium?
I've already checked with Autoglass and they can't fix the chip, it definitely needs a new screen.
Have rang the insurance broker to ask about a windscreen excess (underwritten by Allianz) and they say that it won't affect my NCB but that I will need to declare it as a claim at renewal
Anyone any idea how much this will load my premium?
I've already checked with Autoglass and they can't fix the chip, it definitely needs a new screen.
When my rear windscreen got smashed last year I phoned insurers (I'm with Admiral) and they basically said that although they wouldn't take my NCB away, it would be put on hold for a year. So I would start last year with 4 years NCB and finish the year with 4 years NCB. So my renewal quote would have probably been the same. In the end it was so much faffing I just paid the money myself and didn't take it through insurance. I can't remember admiral telling me I would have to list it as a claim should I have gone through but they may well have done. Hope you get it sorted quickly! Cheers.
CoolC said:
Long and short of it is........it depends on the insurer.
Some add nothing, some will add a bit.
I would agree with this firstly, generally if there is a "free lunch" there will be a cost eventually.Some add nothing, some will add a bit.
Shame you were not able to post a picture of the damage before it was done so we could get a definitive look at it.
Whilst its nice to have a shiny new screen it would have also been nice for you to be given the choice of whether you wanted it done and be told the truth about your options. In 68% of cases Autoglass simply lie to customers to secure their business and in all likelihood you have paid your excess unnecessarily.
I could be wrong (it's been known) - but aren't stone chips only an MOT issue if they're within the vertical band behind the steering wheel (290mm wide, centred on the centre of the wheel, to be precise-ish)?
Mine certainly passed with one on the passenger side of the screen last year.
(Obviously, irrelevant now as screen replaced by the OP)
Mine certainly passed with one on the passenger side of the screen last year.
(Obviously, irrelevant now as screen replaced by the OP)
tigger1 said:
I could be wrong (it's been known) - but aren't stone chips only an MOT issue if they're within the vertical band behind the steering wheel (290mm wide, centred on the centre of the wheel, to be precise-ish)?
Mine certainly passed with one on the passenger side of the screen last year.
(Obviously, irrelevant now as screen replaced by the OP)
10mm inside that area, 40mm outside.Mine certainly passed with one on the passenger side of the screen last year.
(Obviously, irrelevant now as screen replaced by the OP)
zap mc said:
In 68% of cases Autoglass simply lie to customers to secure their business
No they don't zap mc said:
and in all likelihood you have paid your excess unnecessarily.
No he hasn'tI come on PH as a car enthusiast, and not to defend the company I work for, but I see you post this kind of thing over and over about Autoglass.
I've worked for them and their parent company for 20 years now, and can tell you categorically there is no such practice within the company.
OH YES HE WAS!
OH NO HE WASN'T...
I come to PH as a car enthusiast and also to try and add some balance to the misleading propaganda put out by windscreen companies who dominate the market by pretending to act in the customers interest by "repairing" their screens.
We live in difficult times and its simply wrong that people are misled into parting with hard earned cash for no good reason.
I had a customer yesterday with a Fiat 500 who was told by Autoglass that she needed a new screen because it had more than one piece of damage next to one another. She suspected that what she was being told was not true and consulted PH and the internet only to find that it was indeed a con and the screen was sucessfully repaired thus proving she was lied to. I have pictures of the damage and customer testimony to prove it. Ths happens to me all week every week and to many colleagues in the industry and it is about time the public woke up to the fact. I dont have a £10M advertising budget to peddle my spin but I do have the power of reasoned argument which can stop the spin dead in its tracks.
The ASA have ruled against Autoglass for lying to the public in their advertisements about their "offer" to repair stone chips that fail the MOT when in fact to do so as you well know is against their "guidelines" so this is a publically available fact that they have lied. Here is the clue that shows us that we have a chip possibly in the A-Zone "Typical, had my new (used) Mondeo no time at all and have picked up a bad stone chip which I think will be an MOT fail." So a chip over 10mm in front of the driver presumably? Therefore a sitting duck for the old "british standard" scam.
I have dealt with this type of misrepresentation for nearly 25 years now and the statements I have made are based on statistical facts and the jobs that I observe most working days where the large windscreen companies have biasically lied to the policyholder about whether their screen is repairable or not or simply done a bad job that looks no different. The lie is hidden behind so called "british standards" and "technical limitations" so as to blind the customer with pseudo science but it is still basically a lie. Screen companies are cleverly structured so that the staff think they are simply following "company procedure" however at a management level the game is to generate glass sales, surely CoolC you know this and to attepmpt to suggest otherwise is simply disingenious?
Here are the statistics that prove my assertion.
Taking into consideration all different types of damage (star, bullseye, combination, beeswing, crack and pit ) and then combining all the different types of break with all the various different size variants and position variants you are able to construct a matrix of the general possible types of screen damage that can be encountered. It is then possible to put a tick or a cross next to each different type of damage to say whether a company is able to repair the said type of damage.
You then end up with a potential repair % score. The score for a competent repair company is 84% the repair potential score for Autoglass is 16%.
Therefore in 68% of cases the ability to repair a screen is misrepresented hence you can statistically prove that there is an overwhelming propensity that you will be lied to about the damage on your screen. This analysis discounts any scrutiny of the actual repair left behind or any "accidental crackings" that occur which are another story altogether which again lead to more screen sales after the event and reduce the % score even further.
Therfore I think it is true on the balance of probabilities that the initial poster here WAS lied to about the damage to his screen.
Fox-
"If the screen is damaged why wouldnt you want it replaced? Just like if you get a big dent in a panel you'd want that repaired too, even though thats not an MOT issue either. Or do you just drive around with your car covered in dents and chunks?"
When a windscreen chip repair is done properly you would not be any the wiser that it has even been done and it rebuilds the strength, it also retains the originality of the car so that water leaks and wind whistles do not occurr or a fake Chinese screen is fitted. With small parking dents these can also be pressed out by skilled technicians again saving time and cost.
OH NO HE WASN'T...
I come to PH as a car enthusiast and also to try and add some balance to the misleading propaganda put out by windscreen companies who dominate the market by pretending to act in the customers interest by "repairing" their screens.
We live in difficult times and its simply wrong that people are misled into parting with hard earned cash for no good reason.
I had a customer yesterday with a Fiat 500 who was told by Autoglass that she needed a new screen because it had more than one piece of damage next to one another. She suspected that what she was being told was not true and consulted PH and the internet only to find that it was indeed a con and the screen was sucessfully repaired thus proving she was lied to. I have pictures of the damage and customer testimony to prove it. Ths happens to me all week every week and to many colleagues in the industry and it is about time the public woke up to the fact. I dont have a £10M advertising budget to peddle my spin but I do have the power of reasoned argument which can stop the spin dead in its tracks.
The ASA have ruled against Autoglass for lying to the public in their advertisements about their "offer" to repair stone chips that fail the MOT when in fact to do so as you well know is against their "guidelines" so this is a publically available fact that they have lied. Here is the clue that shows us that we have a chip possibly in the A-Zone "Typical, had my new (used) Mondeo no time at all and have picked up a bad stone chip which I think will be an MOT fail." So a chip over 10mm in front of the driver presumably? Therefore a sitting duck for the old "british standard" scam.
I have dealt with this type of misrepresentation for nearly 25 years now and the statements I have made are based on statistical facts and the jobs that I observe most working days where the large windscreen companies have biasically lied to the policyholder about whether their screen is repairable or not or simply done a bad job that looks no different. The lie is hidden behind so called "british standards" and "technical limitations" so as to blind the customer with pseudo science but it is still basically a lie. Screen companies are cleverly structured so that the staff think they are simply following "company procedure" however at a management level the game is to generate glass sales, surely CoolC you know this and to attepmpt to suggest otherwise is simply disingenious?
Here are the statistics that prove my assertion.
Taking into consideration all different types of damage (star, bullseye, combination, beeswing, crack and pit ) and then combining all the different types of break with all the various different size variants and position variants you are able to construct a matrix of the general possible types of screen damage that can be encountered. It is then possible to put a tick or a cross next to each different type of damage to say whether a company is able to repair the said type of damage.
You then end up with a potential repair % score. The score for a competent repair company is 84% the repair potential score for Autoglass is 16%.
Therefore in 68% of cases the ability to repair a screen is misrepresented hence you can statistically prove that there is an overwhelming propensity that you will be lied to about the damage on your screen. This analysis discounts any scrutiny of the actual repair left behind or any "accidental crackings" that occur which are another story altogether which again lead to more screen sales after the event and reduce the % score even further.
Therfore I think it is true on the balance of probabilities that the initial poster here WAS lied to about the damage to his screen.
Fox-
"If the screen is damaged why wouldnt you want it replaced? Just like if you get a big dent in a panel you'd want that repaired too, even though thats not an MOT issue either. Or do you just drive around with your car covered in dents and chunks?"
When a windscreen chip repair is done properly you would not be any the wiser that it has even been done and it rebuilds the strength, it also retains the originality of the car so that water leaks and wind whistles do not occurr or a fake Chinese screen is fitted. With small parking dents these can also be pressed out by skilled technicians again saving time and cost.
Edited by zap mc on Saturday 9th February 10:59
Edited by zap mc on Saturday 9th February 11:07
Zap - you mention 'pit' in your post - my screen got hit today by an errant stone. (Thrown up by a muppet deciding to cut across some hatchings at the last minute in front of me!)
This hasn't chipped the glass but left what I assume you call pits - two very small white pits in the glass that I can feel with my finger nail.
Would I be correct in assuming that as the glass hasnt delaminated, that no further damage will occur i.e it won't get any bigger?
Thanks.
Apologies for the hijack, OP.
This hasn't chipped the glass but left what I assume you call pits - two very small white pits in the glass that I can feel with my finger nail.
Would I be correct in assuming that as the glass hasnt delaminated, that no further damage will occur i.e it won't get any bigger?
Thanks.
Apologies for the hijack, OP.
Fox- said:
If the screen is damaged why wouldnt you want it replaced? Just like if you get a big dent in a panel you'd want that repaired too, even though thats not an MOT issue either. Or do you just drive around with your car covered in dents and chunks?
Yes. 
Both of my cars are 'damaged' in several places. They both have bullet holes in their windscreens, (and have had for years, passing numerous MOTs in that state) rust, dents etc....we don't all ride round in showroom shine cars.
I've even encountered these Autoglass 'salesmen' trawling for business by pointing out the harmless chips on people's screens in a shopping centre car park, I chased him away from my car, but not before asking him if he had a screen for a 30 year old Vauxhall in stock.....
My experience is that your premium DOES go up as a result of a claim for glass, and that if you're conned into getting Autoglass out to 'repair' a stonechip, there's a better than evens chance that "Oh dear, the screen has broken - this sometimes happens because...(b
ks follows) never mind your insurance covers you for a new one, which I just happen to have in the van...." They're every bit as bad as KwikFit in my experience.Local screenfitter hasn't a good word to say about them...
Fox- said:
fat freddie said:
Local screenfitter hasn't a good word to say about them...
Gosh, I wonder why. People are usually so gushing with praise about the biggest source of competition, too.A lot of people on here seem to love the price they pay for insurance through Admiral. Lets see how much they love them when they want to "choose" who repairs their cars or if they want genuine parts used.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff