Is the customer ALWAYS right?
Discussion
This van is one of a small fleet. He called in a local firm to replace the windscreen. When the windscreen was removed:
It tells its own story.
IMO, that panel needs replacing. You might have a chance by grinding/blasting etc but it's just too far into the pinchweld. The pre-2006 MB Sprinter vans are known for this (the new model isn't much better) but they don't get this bad unless - and usually - there's been a windscreen replacement (by a shoddy fitter/company).
In this case, the guy removed the windscreen and refused to fit a new one, and as much as the customer insisted/was willing to accept responsibility, the installer stood firm. IMO, the correct stance (and I have done and would do the same). They parted company, ie, no new screen fitted.
As it turns out, the vehicle owner/operator called in a firm (a known nationally operated brand) and they fitted a new screen. No amount of Jenolite/Kurust or whatever was going to neutralise that rust and without hitting it with a grinder/shot-blasting/renewing the panel, directly glazing in a screen would mean less than 75% of the screen is bonded. The safety issues aside, the wind noise / water leaks and even passive safety of anyone near the vehicle would all be genuine and realistic risks.
Currently, there is no legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. There isn't really any recourse either (other than internally/negligence etc). IOW, the fitter or fitting company has no authority to condemn the vehicle or deem it a VOR (and act accordingly). No regulatory bodies exist and even the pretenders who present themselves under this guise are in it purely to profit by offering meaningless certificates.
So a professional refuses to install a windscreen; the owner throws a hissy fit and gets someone else to do it. Original guy loses out, but the owner gets what he wants and A.N. Other Windscreens cashes in.
Views?
It tells its own story.
IMO, that panel needs replacing. You might have a chance by grinding/blasting etc but it's just too far into the pinchweld. The pre-2006 MB Sprinter vans are known for this (the new model isn't much better) but they don't get this bad unless - and usually - there's been a windscreen replacement (by a shoddy fitter/company).
In this case, the guy removed the windscreen and refused to fit a new one, and as much as the customer insisted/was willing to accept responsibility, the installer stood firm. IMO, the correct stance (and I have done and would do the same). They parted company, ie, no new screen fitted.
As it turns out, the vehicle owner/operator called in a firm (a known nationally operated brand) and they fitted a new screen. No amount of Jenolite/Kurust or whatever was going to neutralise that rust and without hitting it with a grinder/shot-blasting/renewing the panel, directly glazing in a screen would mean less than 75% of the screen is bonded. The safety issues aside, the wind noise / water leaks and even passive safety of anyone near the vehicle would all be genuine and realistic risks.
Currently, there is no legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. There isn't really any recourse either (other than internally/negligence etc). IOW, the fitter or fitting company has no authority to condemn the vehicle or deem it a VOR (and act accordingly). No regulatory bodies exist and even the pretenders who present themselves under this guise are in it purely to profit by offering meaningless certificates.
So a professional refuses to install a windscreen; the owner throws a hissy fit and gets someone else to do it. Original guy loses out, but the owner gets what he wants and A.N. Other Windscreens cashes in.
Views?
Common sense would surely dictate to the fitter that (rightly) the van needs welding. The owner should also realise that with that much rust, it's simply too dangerous to replace the screen alone.
However, I suspect that there is never going to be any easy answer to this. Someone somewhere is always going to take the easy option and fit a screen, if only to knock the van out at auction. It's akin to a 'cut and shut' in my book.
However, I suspect that there is never going to be any easy answer to this. Someone somewhere is always going to take the easy option and fit a screen, if only to knock the van out at auction. It's akin to a 'cut and shut' in my book.
No, the customer is not always right but he can have (within the law and reason) whatever he wishes to pay for.
We had a Q7 in a couple of years ago that had very clearly been in a serious accident at some point involving a canal and the shell visibly twisting. The gentleman presenting said vehicle had 'repaired it' himself (bought as unrecorded salvage). It did not run, it was several different colours, each rear wheel contacted the wheel arch at a different point, doors needed an almighty slam to close.... you get the picture.
Despite numerous explanations written and verbal he refused to accept that the car had ever been damaged and that getting it running and MOT tested would be ruinously expensive.
It eventually left on the back of a low loader.
We had a Q7 in a couple of years ago that had very clearly been in a serious accident at some point involving a canal and the shell visibly twisting. The gentleman presenting said vehicle had 'repaired it' himself (bought as unrecorded salvage). It did not run, it was several different colours, each rear wheel contacted the wheel arch at a different point, doors needed an almighty slam to close.... you get the picture.
Despite numerous explanations written and verbal he refused to accept that the car had ever been damaged and that getting it running and MOT tested would be ruinously expensive.
It eventually left on the back of a low loader.
Fatboy said:
Aside, but are the vans not also covered by Merc's 10 year anti corrosion garuantee?
I've seen corrosion setting in on a 2011 Sprinter. It was on the bond line; there preparation processes to take care of this. What's unforgivable (and more of a common problem) is how these vans (and many other vehicles) will rust as a direct result of someone's incompetence, eg a dodgy windscreen fitter.
In answer to the thread title. No. They are f
king not. Ever. Whoever came up with that phrase is an idiot.
In responce to the thread. Shocking that any fitter would even consider that sound enough to fit a new screen to.
I was shocked when I found bubbling around the drainage hole one on of my old cars when having a screen replaced.. I think I would have topped myself if I saw that on my own car!
king not. Ever. Whoever came up with that phrase is an idiot.In responce to the thread. Shocking that any fitter would even consider that sound enough to fit a new screen to.
I was shocked when I found bubbling around the drainage hole one on of my old cars when having a screen replaced.. I think I would have topped myself if I saw that on my own car!
Although I personally would have that repaired before fitting a new screen, I would be pretty irritated if someone removed my windscreen and then refused to complete the job - leaving me with an unusable work vehicle.
Service providers are always very quick to transfer liability, but the inference of a refusal is that the fitter as accepting some level of retained responsibility. If the customer wanted a new screen I would think it acceptable to do as requested but to provide a written statement on the receipt claiming that the replacement was considered a temporary/emergency measure and the bodywork/frame should be repaired on safety grounds as a longer term solution.
Service providers are always very quick to transfer liability, but the inference of a refusal is that the fitter as accepting some level of retained responsibility. If the customer wanted a new screen I would think it acceptable to do as requested but to provide a written statement on the receipt claiming that the replacement was considered a temporary/emergency measure and the bodywork/frame should be repaired on safety grounds as a longer term solution.
johnnyBv8 said:
Although I personally would have that repaired before fitting a new screen, I would be pretty irritated if someone removed my windscreen and then refused to complete the job - leaving me with an unusable work vehicle.
Service providers are always very quick to transfer liability, but the inference of a refusal is that the fitter as accepting some level of retained responsibility. If the customer wanted a new screen I would think it acceptable to do as requested but to provide a written statement on the receipt claiming that the replacement was considered a temporary/emergency measure and the bodywork/frame should be repaired on safety grounds as a longer term solution.
An interesting point, in particular, the 'transfer of liability'. Service providers are always very quick to transfer liability, but the inference of a refusal is that the fitter as accepting some level of retained responsibility. If the customer wanted a new screen I would think it acceptable to do as requested but to provide a written statement on the receipt claiming that the replacement was considered a temporary/emergency measure and the bodywork/frame should be repaired on safety grounds as a longer term solution.
In the few instances that it has happened to me, my decision has been based purely getting the job done correctly: if it cannot be done to an acceptable standard, it's not getting done. Acceptable insofar as bonded in correctly and to a standard that can be supported by a guarantee.
When there is a serious problem like we have in the image, I will not put my name to that job. In most cases, you can see what you might expect to find under the windscreen before you take it out by what you see around it. A discussion will then ensue about what would happen in the event of all the possible scenarios. If the owner agrees, you can go ahead and go as far as your pride/professionalism/remit allows you. I don't personally like to charge for the removal of a screen, but if I feel that the customer will simply instruct someone else to fit a new screen, then I have to look at it as a business. But I will not fit a screen into a vehicle in that condition.
As long as this is discussed from the outset, I can't see how the owner can be irritated; inconvenienced yes, but as long as he is aware where he could end up I don't see how the pressure should be on us to carry out the customer's request.
Glassman said:
When there is a serious problem like we have in the image, I will not put my name to that job. In most cases, you can see what you might expect to find under the windscreen before you take it out by what you see around it. A discussion will then ensue about what would happen in the event of all the possible scenarios. If the owner agrees, you can go ahead and go as far as your pride/professionalism/remit allows you. I don't personally like to charge for the removal of a screen, but if I feel that the customer will simply instruct someone else to fit a new screen, then I have to look at it as a business. But I will not fit a screen into a vehicle in that condition.
As long as you're in the habit of explaining to the customer before starting any work that if you subsequently consider there to be a valid reason for not putting in the replacement screen after you've removed the current one and in that situation will leave him/her with an useable vehicle, then I completely agree that your position is correct. It's about managing expectations. Are you certain that the fitter specifically explained this to this particular customer before starting? Glassman said:
As long as this is discussed from the outset, I can't see how the owner can be irritated; inconvenienced yes, but as long as he is aware where he could end up I don't see how the pressure should be on us to carry out the customer's request.
Inconvenience nevertheless often causes irritation, particularly when there's a difference of opinion!Edited by johnnyBv8 on Wednesday 18th July 13:31
Edited by johnnyBv8 on Wednesday 18th July 13:35
I wasn't involved in this job. The most notable situation I had like this was on a Nissan Pulsar. The crack was in the middle of the screen and I noticed that it didn't show the characteristics of a regular crack (from an impact). To me, it looked like a stress fracture as there were signs of de-lam which came as a result of the crack being forced open from under the glass. My reckoning: corrosion.
I suggested this before starting and offered to take off the wiper cowl to get a better look. TBF, it looked rusty but you can't always tell how bad it is, especially if the tin worm is further back. In the circumstances I always explain the options. If it is on the surface, I carry enough materials to take care of most surface corrosion (I also explain that it is not a permanent solution, dependent on the degree of corrosion). But if it is to excess, it may need welding or proper attention from a body specialist and if so, it may mean the screen can't be fitted.
The Pulsar was rotten. An eight inch section of the scuttle (to which the screen would be bonded to) was gone. Disintegrated. This guy suggested that I do my best but with a large section of the frame missing... no way. My advice was to get tin worm dealt with / cut out and welded etc etc.
Two days later I was passing by and noticed the car was still there. It was still there, not with the old screen which I had laid back in and covered up, but it was there with a new windscreen in it. He didn't answer the door.
If he sold the car, I wonder how the new owner felt once he found the issue. I wonder how effective the airbag would have been if it was deployed... etc etc.
I suggested this before starting and offered to take off the wiper cowl to get a better look. TBF, it looked rusty but you can't always tell how bad it is, especially if the tin worm is further back. In the circumstances I always explain the options. If it is on the surface, I carry enough materials to take care of most surface corrosion (I also explain that it is not a permanent solution, dependent on the degree of corrosion). But if it is to excess, it may need welding or proper attention from a body specialist and if so, it may mean the screen can't be fitted.
The Pulsar was rotten. An eight inch section of the scuttle (to which the screen would be bonded to) was gone. Disintegrated. This guy suggested that I do my best but with a large section of the frame missing... no way. My advice was to get tin worm dealt with / cut out and welded etc etc.
Two days later I was passing by and noticed the car was still there. It was still there, not with the old screen which I had laid back in and covered up, but it was there with a new windscreen in it. He didn't answer the door.
If he sold the car, I wonder how the new owner felt once he found the issue. I wonder how effective the airbag would have been if it was deployed... etc etc.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff