Faulty Windscreen

shaun_from_Africa

Glassman wrote: »

It's six months down the road, and clearly broken glass, consistent with an impact.

It might be "consistent with an impact" but this doesn't detract from the fact that the retailer is under a legal obligation to prove it.

After all, this is the consumer rights board and the OP has the legal right to get the retailer to provide a remedy unless they can prove the damage was caused by something other than a manufacturing or installation defect.

Glassman wrote: »

It's six months down the road.

Just over 3 months actually.

Glassman

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It might be "consistent with an impact" but this doesn't detract from the fact that the retailer is under a legal obligation to prove it.

After all, this is the consumer rights board and the OP has the legal right to get the retailer to provide a remedy unless they can prove the damage was caused by something other than a manufacturing or installation defect.


Just over 3 months actually.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake in how long ago.

I'm a consumer, as well as a time served industry specialist. I'm trying to help. Whilst I understand the whole consumer has a right etc, this is clearly damage; impact damage. Why waste time over it?

real1314

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

It might be "consistent with an impact" but this doesn't detract from the fact that the retailer is under a legal obligation to prove it.

After all, this is the consumer rights board and the OP has the legal right to get the retailer to provide a remedy unless they can prove the damage was caused by something other than a manufacturing or installation defect.


Just over 3 months actually.

And what happens if the retailer does "prove" that it wasn't glass failure?

Bear in mind that the degree of proof will be "balance of probability" - i.e. that if they can show that it is 51% likely to have been not glass filaure, they win and the OP is back to Sq1.

shaun_from_Africa

real1314 wrote: »

Bear in mind that the degree of proof will be "balance of probability" - i.e. that if they can show that it is 51% likely to have been not glass filaure, they win and the OP is back to Sq1.

Where did you get the idea that it comes down to balance of probability?

The SOGA is very specific and it clearly states that within the first 6 months following purchase, and fault is due to a manufacturing defect and it is up to the retailer to prove otherwise.
Simply stating that something is likely is not proof, just a personal opinion not backed up by any factual evidence.

This is backed up by many Trading standards websites who all state the same thing.

any faults occurring within the first 6 months are assumed to be present at the time of sale.

This means you are entitled to a repair or replacement unless the trader can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale.

This is why a consumer who wants to claim for a manufacturing defect can be asked to provide an independent report and they can't just state that it's 51% likely to have been a manufacturing fault.

As it stands, the windscreen installers are acting illegally as they have not even examined the windscreen or asked anyone else to examine it, instead of which they have simply refused to do anything at all.

real1314 wrote: »

And what happens if the retailer does "prove" that it wasn't glass failure?

Then the OP either pays for a replacement or gets their own independent examination carried out on the glass.

Glassman

Good luck, OP. I think you'll need lots of it.

neilmcl

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that it comes down to balance of probability?

Of course it all comes to down this standard of proof. The window installer's "experts" will say that it was damage, the OP's expert will insist on it being a faulty windscreen and if it goes to court a judge will decide on the balance of probabilities who is correct.

Glassman

My windscreen was hit by a pigeon on the M25 this morning. I too will insist that the spiders web-shaped cracks I'm now looking at is as a result of a faulty windscreen and will expect the manufacturer/installer to prove otherwise.

Jakg

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Providing that you paid with a credit card then you also have the option of attempting a Section 75 claim.
If you can try this, it would be worth stating that as the windscreen company is attempting to ignore their SOGA obligations, you have decided to pursue the credit supplier instead and this may prompt them to arrange for an independent inspection to be carried out.

Thanks for pointing this out - I paid my American Express card and (as usual) they've been fantastic.

They exchanged some letters and the upshot is that American Express have refunded me and taken it back off the retailer.

Now to decide whether I replace the windscreen or just try gluing it back (the cars at the end of it's life anyway)

Glassman

Jakg wrote: »

Thanks for pointing this out - I paid my American Express card and (as usual) they've been fantastic.

They exchanged some letters and the upshot is that American Express have refunded me and taken it back off the retailer.

Now to decide whether I replace the windscreen or just try gluing it back (the cars at the end of it's life anyway)

Having your cake and eating it, eh.

You've got your money back and now you've suddenly - and very conveniently - remembered that the car isn't worth a having any money spent on it, and well, the bit can be glued back on?!

Good work, soldier.

shaun_from_Africa

Glassman wrote: »

Having your cake and eating it, eh.

And what is wrong with that? After all, this is a money saving site and if the windscreen can be repaired, why not.
Don't forget that if the OP can carry out a satisfactory repair at little or no cost, the windscreen installers should also have been able to do the same, something that you mentioned earlier:

Glassman wrote: »

The screen is not a total loss. It can be repaired.

Personally I think that the OP is extremely lucky that they chose not to follow any of the advice given by yourself, advice which appears to be based on you being in the trade and not advice based on being a consumer.

Glassman wrote: »

IMHO, you're wasting energy, time and resources pursuing a legal angle on this...
&
Draw a line under it and move on.
&
Why waste time over it?
&
Good luck, OP. I think you'll need lots of it.