Advice on car windscreen issue with main dealer needed
Discussion
I was wondering what the good folks of PH thought of the following situation and what I should do next?
I bought an approved used car from a main dealer at the end of December 2017 with no marks / chips on the windscreen.
100 miles later I had two chips / cracks on the windscreen (spider style) that were not big enough or in a critical location to fail an MOT but are very visible and the chip is likely to spread over time.
Tough luck on me to get a chip so quickly I thought and called Autoglass out to do a repair.
Upon examination Autoglass told me that the chips had already been repaired and that they could not do a “repair on a repair”.
So I took the car back to a dealer and they called their windscreen technician out who confirmed that he had repaired the windscreen.
I then suggested that the repair was faulty and although I would have been more than happy with a repair, the reality is that the windscreen needing replacing.
The dealer has suggested that as the chip wouldn’t fail an MOT and they would not be replacing the windscreen. They did offer to pay my insurance excess if I chose to go down that route.
My expectation is that the dealer (or their windscreen technician) needs to return the screen to a standard for an approved used vehicle which I assume is chip free (otherwise it wouldn’t have been repaired on the forecourt prior to me buying it).
As an aside, the chip also falls foul of the standard they’d expect from an equivalent vehicle being returned on a lease (which isn’t 100% relevant to my case but is indicative of the standards expected for a vehicle of that age).
I think the dealer should replace the windscreen on the basis that their forecourt repair was defective and I assume that their repairer should warrant / make good the repair - it is unfortunate that the only remedy now is a new windscreen. I’m loath to live with the chip / crack as a) doesn’t feel like I should and b) if and when the chip / crack gets worse I’ll not get any remedy with the dealer.
Furthermore I actually would have preferred a repair as replacing windscreens isn’t trivial in terms of getting it reattached and cured and all the camera gubbins realigned.
I doubt I’ll get very far with the salesman who sold me the car, I’m thinking of escalating to the dealer principle and / or UK customer services.
What do others think?
I bought an approved used car from a main dealer at the end of December 2017 with no marks / chips on the windscreen.
100 miles later I had two chips / cracks on the windscreen (spider style) that were not big enough or in a critical location to fail an MOT but are very visible and the chip is likely to spread over time.
Tough luck on me to get a chip so quickly I thought and called Autoglass out to do a repair.
Upon examination Autoglass told me that the chips had already been repaired and that they could not do a “repair on a repair”.
So I took the car back to a dealer and they called their windscreen technician out who confirmed that he had repaired the windscreen.
I then suggested that the repair was faulty and although I would have been more than happy with a repair, the reality is that the windscreen needing replacing.
The dealer has suggested that as the chip wouldn’t fail an MOT and they would not be replacing the windscreen. They did offer to pay my insurance excess if I chose to go down that route.
My expectation is that the dealer (or their windscreen technician) needs to return the screen to a standard for an approved used vehicle which I assume is chip free (otherwise it wouldn’t have been repaired on the forecourt prior to me buying it).
As an aside, the chip also falls foul of the standard they’d expect from an equivalent vehicle being returned on a lease (which isn’t 100% relevant to my case but is indicative of the standards expected for a vehicle of that age).
I think the dealer should replace the windscreen on the basis that their forecourt repair was defective and I assume that their repairer should warrant / make good the repair - it is unfortunate that the only remedy now is a new windscreen. I’m loath to live with the chip / crack as a) doesn’t feel like I should and b) if and when the chip / crack gets worse I’ll not get any remedy with the dealer.
Furthermore I actually would have preferred a repair as replacing windscreens isn’t trivial in terms of getting it reattached and cured and all the camera gubbins realigned.
I doubt I’ll get very far with the salesman who sold me the car, I’m thinking of escalating to the dealer principle and / or UK customer services.
What do others think?
sasha320 said:
I bought an approved used car from a main dealer at the end of December 2017 with no marks / chips on the windscreen.
100 miles later I had two chips / cracks on the windscreen (spider style) that were not big enough or in a critical location to fail an MOT but are very visible and the chip is likely to spread over time.
So the spiders developed while you had the car.100 miles later I had two chips / cracks on the windscreen (spider style) that were not big enough or in a critical location to fail an MOT but are very visible and the chip is likely to spread over time.
sasha320 said:
I then suggested that the repair was faulty and although I would have been more than happy with a repair, the reality is that the windscreen needing replacing.
The dealer has suggested that as the chip wouldn’t fail an MOT and they would not be replacing the windscreen. They did offer to pay my insurance excess if I chose to go down that route.
Seems perfectly fair to me.The dealer has suggested that as the chip wouldn’t fail an MOT and they would not be replacing the windscreen. They did offer to pay my insurance excess if I chose to go down that route.
sasha320 said:
My expectation is that the dealer (or their windscreen technician) needs to return the screen to a standard for an approved used vehicle which I assume is chip free (otherwise it wouldn’t have been repaired on the forecourt prior to me buying it).
And they've offered to cover the cost for you to do that. What more do you want? If you organise it, it's a lot more convenient to you. Glass claims don't hit your future premiums or NCB.sasha320 said:
Furthermore I actually would have preferred a repair as replacing windscreens isn’t trivial in terms of getting it reattached and cured and all the camera gubbins realigned.
So you'd have preferred they repaired it prior to sale...? Well, that's what they did! They repaired it. The repair didn't work. Replacement is now the only route. They've offered to cover the cost of that.Osinjak said:
Alucidnation said:
I think a sternly worded letter to the M.D. is in order.
Don't forget to include the demand for compo.
And counselling.Don't forget to include the demand for compo.
OP sounds just like the type.Get it replaced, the garage give you the excess back, you get a screen, the world is right again and life continues, hurrah.
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, keep moaning at them, expect them to replace the screen themselves, get disappointed, stressed and annoyed and end up getting nothing.
Seems reasonable.
TooMany2cvs said:
Saleen836 said:
Some insurance companies a glass claim will affect your future pemium and NCB!
Then those few are best avoided.Even if the dealer pays back the excess, you'll still have "claim" on your poilcy.
Glassman will advise....
Some interesting perspectives.
I guess this issue boils down to whether anybody thinks that the dealer witj their windscreen technician should stand by their original repair as the repair hasn’t worked.
Feels like the prevailing wisdom both on here and at the dealers is that there is no recourse with the dealer on the repair.
The insurance position is second order once liability has been established.
I guess this issue boils down to whether anybody thinks that the dealer witj their windscreen technician should stand by their original repair as the repair hasn’t worked.
Feels like the prevailing wisdom both on here and at the dealers is that there is no recourse with the dealer on the repair.
The insurance position is second order once liability has been established.
sasha320 said:
The dealer has suggested that as the chip wouldn’t fail an MOT
sasha320 said:
the repair hasn’t worked.
Windscreen is still legal, repair has 'worked'If you want to get it replaced that's your choice. Dealer is being more than reasonable offering to cover your insurance excess. They could (if they wished) send you off on your merry way.
This was a defective repair.
It happens to be repaired glass, but what if it was a defective paint repair? Or a defective engine repair? I don't see the difference. A defective repair is a defective repair.
Would the OP have bought the car with a failed glass repair?
Insurance is there to put you back in a position you were before something happens, not to make good substandard fixes performed on a car before the OP bought it. Especially when the OP is being asked to claim on his policy which may or may not harm his insurance record.
The garage have - by offering to pay the excess - admitted responsibility. The not failing an MOT is a weak argument on an approved used car. If it was a 2k used car, fair enough but I assume approved used cars are marketed as a bit more than good enough to pass an MOT.
The garage's solution is to get the OP to make a false claim on his insurance.
I would tell them to make good the repair or tell them I will have it repaired and bill them. Any nonsense and it's the small claims court.
I had something similar with a used car and a defective key fob. The dealer said it was best for me to claim on my lost key insurance. I didn't and he replaced the key eventually.
False insurance claims - no matter what they are for - are dishonest.
,
It happens to be repaired glass, but what if it was a defective paint repair? Or a defective engine repair? I don't see the difference. A defective repair is a defective repair.
Would the OP have bought the car with a failed glass repair?
Insurance is there to put you back in a position you were before something happens, not to make good substandard fixes performed on a car before the OP bought it. Especially when the OP is being asked to claim on his policy which may or may not harm his insurance record.
The garage have - by offering to pay the excess - admitted responsibility. The not failing an MOT is a weak argument on an approved used car. If it was a 2k used car, fair enough but I assume approved used cars are marketed as a bit more than good enough to pass an MOT.
The garage's solution is to get the OP to make a false claim on his insurance.
I would tell them to make good the repair or tell them I will have it repaired and bill them. Any nonsense and it's the small claims court.
I had something similar with a used car and a defective key fob. The dealer said it was best for me to claim on my lost key insurance. I didn't and he replaced the key eventually.
False insurance claims - no matter what they are for - are dishonest.
,
Edited by Torcars on Saturday 20th January 11:11
Torcars said:
False insurance claims - no matter what they are for - are dishonest.
There is nothing false in the claim. The repair did fix the screen, and now it is broken again. The fact that it had already been repaired has no bearing on it. A windscreen repair is never guaranteed never to be a permanent repair, all the major glass companies observe this and mention it in their T&C's.The OP now has a chipped screen, he didn't before. If he wants to claim on his insurance (which he doesn't even have to do as the chips are not enough to fail an MOT so not needed to be replaced at the moment) then he is not claiming anything falsely.
The dealer will (likely) be offering to cover the excess as a GOGW with no liabilty accepted.
I know it's not worth a massive disagreement but...
Does his insurance cover him for a failed repair executed before he owned the vehicle?
Would it for example filler coming out of a bodged dent repair from before he owned it be covered?
Insurance can't be held responsible for the quality of workmanship on something they had nothing to do with.
The OP is quite happy for another repair to be done. That is not possible. The only solution is replacement. Excess of not, NCD or not, this has nothing to do with his insurers.
Lets just say he was to call his insurers, tell them the full story and then ask for a new window. Would the insurer oblige?
Does his insurance cover him for a failed repair executed before he owned the vehicle?
Would it for example filler coming out of a bodged dent repair from before he owned it be covered?
Insurance can't be held responsible for the quality of workmanship on something they had nothing to do with.
The OP is quite happy for another repair to be done. That is not possible. The only solution is replacement. Excess of not, NCD or not, this has nothing to do with his insurers.
Lets just say he was to call his insurers, tell them the full story and then ask for a new window. Would the insurer oblige?
Torcars said:
I know it's not worth a massive disagreement but...
Does his insurance cover him for a failed repair executed before he owned the vehicle?
Would it for example filler coming out of a bodged dent repair from before he owned it be covered?
Insurance can't be held responsible for the quality of workmanship on something they had nothing to do with.
The OP is quite happy for another repair to be done. That is not possible. The only solution is replacement. Excess of not, NCD or not, this has nothing to do with his insurers.
Lets just say he was to call his insurers, tell them the full story and then ask for a new window. Would the insurer oblige?
Spider cracks according to the OP happened post purchase.Does his insurance cover him for a failed repair executed before he owned the vehicle?
Would it for example filler coming out of a bodged dent repair from before he owned it be covered?
Insurance can't be held responsible for the quality of workmanship on something they had nothing to do with.
The OP is quite happy for another repair to be done. That is not possible. The only solution is replacement. Excess of not, NCD or not, this has nothing to do with his insurers.
Lets just say he was to call his insurers, tell them the full story and then ask for a new window. Would the insurer oblige?
Get it repaired, dealer pays excess. You get shiny new screen. Move on.
Torcars you have summed up exactly where I’m at.
The two considerations vexing this thread are
1. Whether the ‘standard’ that the windscreen should meet in this situation is to pass an MOT or whether the standard is for a near perfect screen that you’d reasonably expect from premium main dealer approved used stock.
2. Whether I contractually signed up to a windscreen that is truly a component that is ‘sold as seen’ whether it has pre-existing fault or not.
Point 1 is a red herring as the expectation set through the main dealers’ marketing and pricing is that multi point checks, early servicing, tyre tread depths, brake pad wear etc. strongly suggests that cars will and do exceed minimum legal requirements. Why did they repair the windscreen in the first place?
Hopefully I can establish Point 2 in my favour through the small print because...
I never felt I had a claim with my insurance company; if they read this thread they’d refer me back to the dealer for a defective repair and subject to Point 2 being in my favour recommend my escalation from here would be any one or more of small claims court, motor traders arbitration, dealer’s UK customer services, etc.
I will invest some time in exploring Point 2. and if I have signed up to the risk that has happened then live with the consequences or if the paperwork is silent, then make a decision whether it is worth the bother to pursure further.
Thanks for all the replies and thoughts.
The two considerations vexing this thread are
1. Whether the ‘standard’ that the windscreen should meet in this situation is to pass an MOT or whether the standard is for a near perfect screen that you’d reasonably expect from premium main dealer approved used stock.
2. Whether I contractually signed up to a windscreen that is truly a component that is ‘sold as seen’ whether it has pre-existing fault or not.
Point 1 is a red herring as the expectation set through the main dealers’ marketing and pricing is that multi point checks, early servicing, tyre tread depths, brake pad wear etc. strongly suggests that cars will and do exceed minimum legal requirements. Why did they repair the windscreen in the first place?
Hopefully I can establish Point 2 in my favour through the small print because...
I never felt I had a claim with my insurance company; if they read this thread they’d refer me back to the dealer for a defective repair and subject to Point 2 being in my favour recommend my escalation from here would be any one or more of small claims court, motor traders arbitration, dealer’s UK customer services, etc.
I will invest some time in exploring Point 2. and if I have signed up to the risk that has happened then live with the consequences or if the paperwork is silent, then make a decision whether it is worth the bother to pursure further.
Thanks for all the replies and thoughts.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff