Advice on Chipped windscreen

Glassman

IMHO, it's about time some measures were put in place to restrict this kind of steering by insurers/underwriters.

There is something very wrong when an insured party, whose windscreen has been badly damaged, is told by their insurer-recommended repairer that their vehicle cannot be repaired for three weeks. While it is understandable for the repairer to be busy, it is unacceptable that the policyholder cannot use an alternative supplier unless they pay for the damage themselves (without any guarantee of reimbursement from the underwriter).

There are plenty of small, independent windscreen companies with highly skilled technicians offering a quality service. It is unfair that even when a main dealer recommends that company to an insured party, the insurance company will not indemnify that loss (unless of course, their own repairer is used).

Most people take the easy route because they've been programmed that way... or they simply cannot be bothered to speak up.

vikingaero

Glassman wrote: »

IMHO, it's about time some measures were put in place to restrict this kind of steering by insurers/underwriters.

There is something very wrong when an insured party, whose windscreen has been badly damaged, is told by their insurer-recommended repairer that their vehicle cannot be repaired for three weeks. While it is understandable for the repairer to be busy, it is unacceptable that the policyholder cannot use an alternative supplier unless they pay for the damage themselves (without any guarantee of reimbursement from the underwriter).

There are plenty of small, independent windscreen companies with highly skilled technicians offering a quality service. It is unfair that even when a main dealer recommends that company to an insured party, the insurance company will not indemnify that loss (unless of course, their own repairer is used).

Most people take the easy route because they've been programmed that way... or they simply cannot be bothered to speak up.

Actually I would argue it's good business sense for both the Insurer and the Policyholder. The Insurer gets trade or volume rates for the repair or replacement which in turn reduces premiums. The Policyholder benefits from the hassle of paying out upfront as a result of the direct billing.

The Insurer often sets a limit on using a third party repairer because there's no control on costs and they can use their volume muscle to force repairers to remedy any faults.

mikey72

There are more now companies who will only pay for windscreen and accident repair through their own approved companies, or cap the cost of the repair.
In their t&c's so no argueing later.
They are the cheaper ones, so it must be more cost effective. So if you do want to chosse you own garage, you're going to be paying more up front anyway.

cyclonebri1

Glassman wrote: »

IMHO, it's about time some measures were put in place to restrict this kind of steering by insurers/underwriters.

There is something very wrong when an insured party, whose windscreen has been badly damaged, is told by their insurer-recommended repairer that their vehicle cannot be repaired for three weeks. While it is understandable for the repairer to be busy, it is unacceptable that the policyholder cannot use an alternative supplier unless they pay for the damage themselves (without any guarantee of reimbursement from the underwriter).

There are plenty of small, independent windscreen companies with highly skilled technicians offering a quality service. It is unfair that even when a main dealer recommends that company to an insured party, the insurance company will not indemnify that loss (unless of course, their own repairer is used).

Most people take the easy route because they've been programmed that way... or they simply cannot be bothered to speak up.

And I for one agree, they mislead folks into thinking as they have gone for one insurer, that they have to stay with that insurers "pet" company, be it for bodywork, painting, glass or whatever.

Bring on the independants:T

mikey72

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And I for one agree, they mislead folks into thinking as they have gone for one insurer, that they have to stay with that insurers "pet" company, be it for bodywork, painting, glass or whatever.

Bring on the independants:T

If you want independants, check the t&c's.
It's no longer always "misleading", it's contractual.

somech

roddydogs wrote: »

Yes, but a "Repair" dosent make the damage invisible, so it will still fail, wont it?

repair should be alomst invisible. so ok for mot
if it stands out like a flashing beacon its a rubbish job

cyclonebri1

mikey72 wrote: »

If you want independants, check the t&c's.
It's no longer always "misleading", it's contractual.

Something worth checking then Mikey, I for one will not let my car into the hands of such as ADC or similar. Which ensurers actually stipulate who you must use????????????????????

Glassman

mikey72 wrote: »

If you want independants, check the t&c's.
It's no longer always "misleading", it's contractual.

If it's contractual,. it should be pre-disclosed; it isn't and therefore it is not - and there are many contradictions of the rule.

The insurance company own the liability, not the car or the policyholder. It is frustrating for everyone when there are stipulations put in place, but these will only become known when there is a call for the facility to be used.

An insurer may prefer to nominate a repairer (who like to call themselves the 'approved' repairer, but the only thing that is approved per se is the arrangement to invoice). This arrangement exists between the insurer and the repairer, yet the policyholder is railroaded to comply with this.

The insured can, of course, seek an alternative repairer but this is where the T's & C's get interesting and every time the policyholder 'goes astray' those T's & C's get tweaked accordingly to prevent a re-occurrence. It is quite common for these Key Facts to be by way of penalising the insured, or the alternative repairer: double excess for the policyholder and claim limits for the repairer for example.

An insurer that restricts its policyholders from straying by enforcing such limits was recently questioned by their own insured (who also happened to be a lawyer by profession) that his new car - which was still under warranty - needed a new windscreen. To preserve the manufacturer warranty he took the car to a main dealer for a replacement windscreen (to be supplied by the OEM via their parts counter). They referred him to a specialist they regularly use and recommend but the insurer would not agree to indemnify the loss beyond their imposed limit (£100 after deduction of excess; the glass / parts alone were over £400!).

I respect that contracts exist between the larger organisations and I think in the grand scheme of things it is for the benefit and convenience of their clients, but when you have experienced, qualified and skilled specialists being recommended by main dealers and other reputable and respected sources, it is unfair that these service providers should be overlooked to the point of the insuer(s) not even responding to attempts to communicate with them in this regard.

roddydogs

somech wrote: »

repair should be alomst invisible. so ok for mot
if it stands out like a flashing beacon its a rubbish job

When I had a "Repair" there was no difference in the looks.

Glassman

roddydogs wrote: »

When I had a "Repair" there was no difference in the looks.

This would be a failed attempt. If you paid, or signed the job card for your insurer to be billed, this is not far from fraud.