Direct Line Intrangidence over windscreen.

illuminate

My Renault needs a replacement windscreen for its MOT after some loon tried to brick the windscreen. They left a large scratch rather than a crack, but its within the line of site and not capable of being repaired.

3 weeks after informing Autoglass of this they are still unable to provide me with a date for completion of the job. I tried a second of Direct Lines "approved repairers" and they too were unable to give me a date.

I double checked with the Renault dealership and a replacement would be available from them within 48 hours.

Direct Line are refusing to authorise Renault to do the job due to cost considerations, and unwilling to "push" their "approved repairers" as they view it as a parts availabilty issue which they refuse to deal with.

I have explained that the parts are available but they refuse to budge. I am now stuck with a car that I am unable to use (can't tax it without an MOT) and nobody is able to tell me when I can get it fixed despite the parts being readily available.

As an aside, I spoke to the Renault Dealership about this and they recall receiving a call from Autoglass and the reaction of the caller when informed of the price for the windscreen. As I see it both windscreeen repairers are sourcing the screen from elsewhere due to cost considerations, irrelevant of any inconvenince to me. Direct Line are refusing to help despite several forceful but polite telephone calls from myself.

Has anybody any idea how the relationship works between Direct Line and their approved repairers works as this is becoming very frustrating and I need to find a different approach ?

Astaroth

Almost all insurers have given Autoglass fully delegated authority in dealing with glass claims - in most cases even though you phone X insurers Glass Claim Line and the person at the other end answers X Insurance speaking in reality it is actually Autoglass you are speaking to.

Your glass cover does allow you to use a non-authorised repairer as standard but there is a cap to the amount they will pay out - may be worth checking what the Renault price is and after deducting the glass excess if this above or below the cap.

The "stock" problem is a little more complicated than you say.... in reality there is only about 4 companies in the UK that makes windshields for all the car manufactures in the UK. All of these screens come out of the factory in nice white boxes and are bought by companies like Renault, Ford and Autoglass. The likes of Renault and Ford then take the windshield out of the white box and put it in a nice branded box and then double the price of it.

Whilst Renault have stock of windscreens this doesnt mean that autoglass does - would be the same as saying because Tesco's has loads of cans of Heinz Baked Beans that Sainsburies automatically does too.

Obviously you have an issue that the vehicle is neither safe nor legal to currently drive - I would suggest that you speak to Direct Line (and make sure it is direct line and not autoglass pretending to be direct line) and be reasonable about the matter, you dont have any objects to any company doing it/ replacing it but you dont think it is reasonable to be forced to be without a vehicle for X weeks whilst new stock is obtained when there is existing stock available from different companies (the key is about being reasonable as every claims advisor will have had hundreds of people getting snotty with them as they want their windscreen to come in a box with a BMW sticker on it even though it is identical to the one in the plain white box etc)

illuminate

I have been pleasant so far. I'm in a similar line of work so I appreciate more than most the consequences of getting snotty with any call handler.

Whats narking me is that Autoglass have contacted Renault (the very branch that I deal with) and have simply made the commercial choice to buy elsewhere, irrelevant of any consideration for me, in order to maximaise their profits.

Getting it done myself and charging Direct Line is an option under my policy. However Direct Line will then only pay the first £125, the screen itself costs upwards of £600. So thats not really an option is it. I believe that that figure is set delibarately low to force policy holders through Direct Lines prefered repairers and enable Autoglass or whoever to win the tender at a relatively low cost.

Its a very messy commercial set-up aimed at reducing Direct Lines costs, maximising Autoglass's profits and stitching the customer up in the process. I am currently without a car, through no fault of my own and despite taking all responsible actions. I am also unable to get an answer as to when this situation might get rectified and the company, Direct Line, who have happily taken money off me on a monthly basis, are refusing to deal with the matter any further by blaming another company with whom I have signed no direct contract.

Its commercial filth. And I want people to know about it.

Astaroth

Ultimately it is Direct Line that will be paying the bill and therefore it is Direct Lines call on if they pay anything additional to the Autoglass standard price.

The key to these types of complaints is to ensure that you speak to someone actually at Direct Line and if needs be either a supervisor or someone in their customer relations department. Many many moons ago I did work for DL on their customer claims department (admitidally for only 3 weeks or so) and I know I did (via my team leader) authorise someone to use another company other than our prefered suppliers with us paying the full bill because of the delays in getting stock.... though the customer then became an !!!! and refused to accept it because it was a white box version and not in the manufactures box (even though he had suggested the company) and then complained that his chosen company said it would be 6 weeks for a branded one (2 weeks longer than autoglass had said it would take but they had cancelled their order so he couldnt go back to them)

Of cause, things may have changed since my day.... plus I was always very good at deciding on a course of action and simply getting rubber stamps from supervisors in all my call centre jobs so my authorisation may have been exceptional at the time too

gyzmo

If there are undue delays, then DL will pay the full cost of the glass (at least they used to when I was a slave, sorry, employee there).

You need to speak to a supervisor and tell them of the problem. I would then complain formally if they don't budge. Many a time I have (improperly) authorised full payment to save further problems at a later date. It will depend on the staff member you get (unfortunately).

This situation happens all to often with insurance companies and it need not do. By people just accepting the situation, nothing will change and these companies will continue to spit at their customers. Make it costly to them and they just might start getting their act together.

Ivrytwr3

If you've gone through all the authorised channels either:

1. Put a brick through the window yourself and say it happened whilst you were driving and sue.

2. Put a brick through the window and say you woke up and came out and saw this had happened to your car.

They don't see your car as a priority as in their eyes it is still driveable. If is is not driveable ie big gaping hole then they will authorise an immediate replacement.

I hate direct line, i was insured with them and they tried to blame me when i pulled out a junction at 3am and was hit by a car that had no lights on, i couldn't see the tw*t!!!!! Had to take that one to court!!

Astaroth

Not really sure that suggesting fraud is really an appropriate post.

From the OPs comments they have authorised an immediate replacement but a replacement simply isnt available through the normal channels. This simply needs to be passed onto DL and the OP be insistant that the vehicle is undrivable and therefore requires the extraordinary process to be envoked

Ivrytwr3

He's paid for a service which they are failing to deliver. My autoglass says they will be here within the hour with the glass.

I'd put a brick through it, make the claim and then join elsewhere.

PS Yes it is fraud, take my comments with a pinch of salt or go ahead and take the advice. Completely at your own risk of course

bonsoirbonsoir

I can't quote the specific details, but when I had problems with an insurer I quoted the insurance ombudsmans statement of terms for insurers, notably that they would deal with claims and repairs quickly. I also mentioned that as they had broken these terms I would be complaining to the ombudsman. This had the effect of a metaphorical rocket up their ar*e and things got sorted quickly.

I would say - but I may be wrong - that the problems of the insurer of getting a replacement windscreen are irrelivant to you, if you know that they do have an option but are choosing not to take it, then they are causing unnecessary delays. What the costs involved are really nothing to do with you! (I mean that in a nice way), you are only concerned with having a new windscreen.

So, you might have a case for claiming compensation for longer than expected delays in getting your car fixed - see below.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumer/02_HOW/Complain/mn_complaint.html

gyzmo

Not that I'm defending an insurance company, but...

The (extremely brief) details of that last link refer to something that is probably within the insurer's control. Glass and most other repairs are not, except in the very wide sense that they chose which companies that carry out repairs that they will pay for. But that will not change because a few customers don't like it.

Similar problems happen when a part needs to be ordered. It's not the insurers fault if there are no parts available, it's not the repairer's fault (usually), and it may not be the suppliers or manufacturers fault if, say, there was a problem with the delivery company. Neither one has a contract with the rest as a whole, so it becomes everyones problem but nobody's responsibility.

The problem is that the whole system stinks, mainly because the first goal of a company is to make profit. anything else is secondary unless it conflcts with the first goal.

Like I said before, DL is supposed to agree to the full cost of a new windscreen if the part isn't available or if there would be undue delays. Unfortunately, their "Best Practice Team" (i.e, idiots who cannot distinguish between elbows and !!!!!!) tell the team leaders to tell managers to put staff off doing this because it costs the company too much money. Oops, there's my confidentiality clause gone out the window!

bonsoirbonsoir

I'm not disagreeing with you because you are more than likely to be right.

My point is that if you pay an insurance company to provide a service, and for various reasons that service cannot be provided, then the insurance company is at fault. Windscreen insurance is to provide a new windscreen within a fair amount of time - thats all.

If I say to you, phone me any time and I will bring you a hot dinner, just give me 30 minutes or so to get to your house (and cook the food). You then phone me and I say, sorry you'll have to starve I dont have the food, my supermarket has burnt down and Sainsburys is too expensive, well that is a failure on my part, I cannot provide the service.

This is probably a moral thing anyway, and I'm sure you know more than me about this so I won't go on! What I am really saying is that I agree with you in that sometimes insurance companies can be really annoying!