Car Glitching Since Windscreen Replaced

[Glassman]

I was contacted by a used car seller (quite well known due to the volume of cars they sell as well as how much finance they broker for those buyers). They called me in to assist them over a car they sold last year. I can't reveal names/brands etc as the matter isn't resolved and could potentially escalate.

- The car was sold in May;

- about a week/fortnight later, the customer reported some dash warning lights;

- it's not clear if these warning lights were identified but they were cleared (by the seller) and everything appeared to be okay;

- a few days later the warning lights returned indicating a pre-collision and front camera fault;

- the seller then cited the battery as the problem and replaced it, they also suggested taking it to a main dealer for a full diagnostic report;

- car owner took it to the main dealer who stated that other than a 'non approved' battery fitted, there was nothing wrong;

- life went on but the faults returned about a week later but intermittently, which the customer referred as the car 'glitching'

- a second visit to the main dealer was arranged and this time they cited a non-genuine windscreen as the problem;

- further diagnostic investigation also suggested that one or more modules, including the light/rain sensor were faulty or damaged. When asked how much it would cost to rectify (thinking if not too expensive then just get it done) and was given an estimate of around £3k.

The car owner then returned to the seller obviously seeking their input on the estimated cost to fix the problem. This is where I came in. There was very little I could do other than confirm most of what was already known and that was a non-genuine windscreen was fitted to the car and that there were a few lights on indicating the ADAS devices were showing faults. My recommendation was to strip everything out with a view to replacing the windscreen with a genuine part, and also check all the components too for obvious damage. The seller wanted to check their own position in terms of liability and also wanted to check any history they had - or could get - about what work the car had had done in its short life (2020 car). For avoidance of doubt, the [car] manufacturer warranty didn't even entertain it as the part fitted ( "the windscreen" ) was not genuine and was cited as a significant factor in the faults. I couldn't assist any further until someone made a decision and instructed me to replace the windscreen for example.

As it transpired, the car had a windscreen fitted before the seller took it into stock (an ex lease car). So not really their fault as such. But it's not the new owner's issue to fix either, or is it? Can the seller put their hands up and say, 'hey, nothing to do with us - we just flipped the car' ?

It's now at a point that a damaged or faulty module (the suspicion is it was damaged when the windscreen was replaced) is the problem. This may or may not solve the issue. It could be the gateway to a sequence of problems. In one sense, if replacing the damaged/faulty module fixes the problem, happy days. But if it doesn't, what's next, the windscreen? In any case, the devices may still not work due to the non-genuine windscreen and the camera too may not calibrate. In any case, the main dealer will no doubt kick it out due to the replacement windscreen being aftermarket if the car ends up on their doorstep.

There also was an element of doubt in that for all the seller knew, the owner may have had the windscreen replaced by an insurance company's nominated repairer at some point. There's nothing on a windscreen to tell who fitted it, ie, there is no evidence to suggest that the windscreen in the car currently is the one it left the forecourt with. We can only say conclusively that the windscreen in the car is not the factory fitted one. It can only be taken on faith that the new car owner isn't trying to pull a fast one. After speaking to the car owner as part of my fact finding, I feel it's a totally genuine case, but again, there's no way of proving it. My gut feeling is that it's all legit.

There is a car with a fault which needs to be beaten with a bag of money. Who pays?

[LandieMark]

If I were the dealer, I would be giving the customer his money back and kicking it down the road to auction. That sounds like a nightmare and it is the selling dealer's responsibility regardless of the car's history.

[blank]

I would say the seller is on the hook. They sold the vehicle with the defect, and it's clear it was present when sold.

If new owner has had the windscreen replaced they would have a much easier task getting Autoglass (or whoever) to pay.


It does highlight a very expensive potential problem on modern cars. My wife's car had a fault with the front camera and it was replaced under warranty. If we'd have paid for the replacement it would have been £3k+. The only systems that didn't work while it was faulty were lane assist and speed limit assist. So the car was perfectly drivable and actually better without the systems in many ways.

If those warning lights are enough to fail an MOT (I'm not sure if they are or not) then it could lead to some perfectly usable cars being scrapped!

[mmm-five]

If it was from a main dealer, did they not do their million point checks to ensure everything was OEM before retailing it?

I've just part-exed a car, which had a non-OEM replacement windscreen fitted via my insurance, and it got full-marks on their handover checks. The technician who did the checks didn't even notice (but I'd already mentioned it to the salesman) that the car had a non-OEM detachable tow-bar, and it had modified interior trim - which I'd asked to be swapped over so I could sell on or swap over if it fits the new(er) car.

So so much for their multi-point checks to afford a buyer with a quality used car!

[Glassman]

blank said:

If new owner has had the windscreen replaced they would have a much easier task getting Autoglass (or whoever) to pay.

This was a big part of the earlier discussion. I've seen it before; customer has windscreen replaced by insurer's favourite people and had to accept a non-genuine. 'Ah! we only bough the car recently, so bat it back to the dealer and say they sold a car with a moody windscreen in it'.

It's happened and on one occasion, the glue was still wet!

[Glassman]

mmm-five said:

If it was from a main dealer, did they not do their million point checks to ensure everything was OEM before retailing it?

I've just part-exed a car, which had a non-OEM replacement windscreen fitted via my insurance, and it got full-marks on their handover checks. The technician who did the checks didn't even notice (but I'd already mentioned it to the salesman) that the car had a non-OEM detachable tow-bar, and it had modified interior trim - which I'd asked to be swapped over so I could sell on or swap over if it fits the new(er) car.

So so much for their multi-point checks to afford a buyer with a quality used car!

Not a main dealer.

[paul_c123]

Strictly speaking, unless the warning lamp(s) is/are one of these:

Engine Management Light
ABS warning lamp
Electronic Braking System warning lamp
Electronic Stability Control warning lamp
Electronic Power Steering Malfunction Indicator Lamp
Supplementary Restraint System Malfunction Indicator Lamp (ie, airbag warning light)

Its not an MoT failure item. So I'd say in this case, the dealer is off the hook. They may still choose to take on the repair and/or refund though, out of goodwill (fair enough for clearing codes, swapping a battery, etc, but maybe that goodwill will dry up facing a £3k bill).

[miniman]

It’s the seller’s issue in my opinion. They are the expert in sourcing stock, and they have an obligation to the person they sell to that what they are selling is fit for purpose. In this case it’s not. Doesn’t really matter how many hops down the chain the root cause lies, the buyer has the reasonable right to expect that a 4 year old car will have all its electronics functioning. IMO.

[spikeyhead]

LandieMark said:

If I were the dealer, I would be giving the customer his money back and kicking it down the road to auction. That sounds like a nightmare and it is the selling dealer's responsibility regardless of the car's history.

Two thirds of the way through reading the OP and I thought exactly what was in the first reply.

[Greendubber]

Sounds like a right pickle.

My last lease car had the screen changed when it got damaged thanks to a scaffold bracket coming off a truck on the motorway. I just did it via my insurance and took it to Auto Glass as requested. No idea if it had an OEM screen or not, probably not!

It's not a Hyundai is it?!

[Quattr04.]

Funny enough, on instagram the other day I saw a truck in America that was glitching out and electrics going mad and wouldn’t start, the man said it had a new windscreen, he took apart the camera assembly and found the plug for the camera etc wasn’t pushed all the way in

Pushed it in and it was ok


Another one, they had replaced the widescreen and in the the process pinched 2 cables together in the headlining around the screen, separated and repaired and issues stopped.

Could be something simple like that, was the camera etc re calibrated when the screen was replaced?

Is it worth smashing the windscreen and claiming for a new one though insurance and insisting a genuine one is fitted?

[miniman]

Quattr04. said:

Is it worth smashing the windscreen and claiming for a new one though insurance and insisting a genuine one is fitted?

I rather think the word you’re looking for is fraud

[rscott]

paul_c123 said:

Strictly speaking, unless the warning lamp(s) is/are one of these:

Engine Management Light
ABS warning lamp
Electronic Braking System warning lamp
Electronic Stability Control warning lamp
Electronic Power Steering Malfunction Indicator Lamp
Supplementary Restraint System Malfunction Indicator Lamp (ie, airbag warning light)

Its not an MoT failure item. So I'd say in this case, the dealer is off the hook. They may still choose to take on the repair and/or refund though, out of goodwill (fair enough for clearing codes, swapping a battery, etc, but maybe that goodwill will dry up facing a £3k bill).

If the vehicle is throwing error codes and not working properly (and has been since it was sold), then it's the dealer's problem to fix - he sold a faulty vehicle.
Whether it meets the MOT or not is irrelevant.

[Glassman]

miniman said:

Quattr04. said:

Is it worth smashing the windscreen and claiming for a new one though insurance and insisting a genuine one is fitted?

I rather think the word you’re looking for is fraud

This kind of advice/suggestion/attitude is never far away. Plus, it's all very well insisting on a genuine part, if you've agreed to a set of terms and conditions that will not allow it, you can insist all you like.

[BertBert]

I don't see any dilemma in the OP. Person buys this car from trader, the trader is responsible to that person.

If the trader has recourse to the project they bought from, that's an entirely different matter governed by their contract with them (plus applicable statute).

[MustangGT]

paul_c123 said:

Strictly speaking, unless the warning lamp(s) is/are one of these:

Engine Management Light
ABS warning lamp
Electronic Braking System warning lamp
Electronic Stability Control warning lamp
Electronic Power Steering Malfunction Indicator Lamp
Supplementary Restraint System Malfunction Indicator Lamp (ie, airbag warning light)

Its not an MoT failure item. So I'd say in this case, the dealer is off the hook. They may still choose to take on the repair and/or refund though, out of goodwill (fair enough for clearing codes, swapping a battery, etc, but maybe that goodwill will dry up facing a £3k bill).

It is nothing to do with passing an MoT or not. Everything to do with selling vehicle with a fault.

[paul_c123]

MustangGT said:

It is nothing to do with passing an MoT or not. Everything to do with selling vehicle with a fault.

With respect, no its not if its a sufficiently minor fault. There is a sliding scale of expectation of how fault-free a car is when purchased secondhand, so it is arguable if this fault is serious enough to be deemed the seller's responsibility to correct it (or refund etc). Its a grey area, and depends on age/mileage/price of car.

[BertBert]

paul_c123 said:

With respect, no its not if its a sufficiently minor fault. There is a sliding scale of expectation of how fault-free a car is when purchased secondhand, so it is arguable if this fault is serious enough to be deemed the seller's responsibility to correct it (or refund etc). Its a grey area, and depends on age/mileage/price of car.

But your test of using the MoT to determine where on a sliding scale an item falls is imperfect. An engine blowing up is not a specific MoT failure for example. ADAS not working ditto.

[mr momo]

Was the original camera/sensor refitted to the windscreen after the screen was replaced. My recent experience is that the screen is glass, a sensor "holder" and any antenna wires as per original.

Sounds like faulty original camera sensor module or (as mentioned) a cable/connector issue.

[paul_c123]

BertBert said:

But your test of using the MoT to determine where on a sliding scale an item falls is imperfect. An engine blowing up is not a specific MoT failure for example. ADAS not working ditto.

True, but it is not well defined for secondhand cars, it is subject to a reasonableness test. In other words, it is a grey area. Imperfect as it is, the dealer may very well lean on the fact that the car would pass an MoT, and does other car stuff like going forwards and backwards okay (for which a working engine is needed). Given there's £3000+ at stake here, he may very well dig his heels in and not pay the bill (or authorise/take on the work, or refund the customer etc).