Faulty Windscreen

Glassman

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

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:



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.

I am a consumer too. I'm a consumer that also likes to save money where it can be saved, and not scammed out of a chargeback scheme.

Besides, the advice I gave (as well as an unconditional offer to refix the mirror FOC) was not to pursue a legal angle on this. Seems he took the easiest option to get his money back.

glentoran99

Glassman wrote: »

I am a consumer too. I'm a consumer that also likes to save money where it can be saved, and not scammed out of a chargeback scheme.

Besides, the advice I gave (as well as an unconditional offer to refix the mirror FOC) was not to pursue a legal angle on this. Seems he took the easiest option to get his money back.

Surely the best way?

Glassman

glentoran99 wrote: »

Surely the best way?

He claimed it was a faulty windscreen. Over 25 independent (and unconnected) windscreen firms voted unanimously (based from the OP's images) that the shelled glass is consistent with some form of impact.

It's ironic as it is laughable that the legal route was aborted when there was a much quicker - and easier - option; the path of least resistance; the option which does not consider facts.

The biggest irony is that now he has his money back, the car's not worth spending on.

I'm all for consumer rights, but in the right circumstances.

Geodark

Just out of curiosity, if they have refunded the money back to him and taken it from the windscreen firm - does that make the windscreen the property of the windscreen company?

Glassman I have to say I worked for a glass and glazing firm near on 20 years ago and the shelling does sound like impact. If glass was going to go we used to find that it went fairly quickly after processing and not wait 3 months for it to happen.

On another note you were talking about glueing the shell back in - is this still done using a UV bonding process or is there a quicker way of doing it now?

Glassman

Geodark wrote: »

On another note you were talking about glueing the shell back in - is this still done using a UV bonding process or is there a quicker way of doing it now?

Not gluing the shell back in as such, but inking the indent, and then smooth the surface back over to provide a flat substrate to bond to.

Glassman

It's also patently clear that the OP did not take up the offer to repair the damage - for free - because he knew there was only one outcome he wanted.

He didn't have to accept, but didn't even show any appreciation for the offer.

shaun_from_Africa

Glassman wrote: »

He claimed it was a faulty windscreen. Over 25 independent (and unconnected) windscreen firms voted unanimously (based from the OP's images) that the shelled glass is consistent with some form of impact.

Well, if the windscreen installer in question had provided some form of proof (such as a report from one of the "over 25 independent firms") that the damage was caused by the OP then in all probability they would have been able to successfully dispute the chargeback.

However, as they didn't do this, they were not abiding by their legal SOGA obligations, hence the credit card company had no reason to do anything other than a chargeback.

Glassman

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Well, if the windscreen installer in question had provided some form of proof (such as a report from one of the "over 25 independent firms") that the damage was caused by the OP then in all probability they would have been able to successfully dispute the chargeback.

However, as they didn't do this, they were not abiding by their legal SOGA obligations, hence the credit card company had no reason to do anything other than a chargeback.

I have no idea who the installer is, else I would like to hear his/their version of events. It seems to me he/they didn't stand a chance whatsoever. IMO, I can't see how any law would require a glass installer to prove that a broken piece of glass is not faulty. Given the nature of the material, I'd say it would need the consumer to prove that it was (I don't care what any act or law says about whose responsibility or care it is to do so; it's broken glass and if the installer was better informed, he/they may have offered the shared opinion of experts in the industry). But he/they has/have lost out to a consumer who has used, of all things, a chargeback to line his own pocket. These kinds of consumer 'acts' and actions are rife on the bay of fleas and Paypal favours the buyer, often unjustly [IMO].

Despite what you have previously inferred, I'm looking at this from a consumer point of view. The only business interest (if you can call it that) I have offered is to repair the damage at no cost to the OP.

shaun_from_Africa

Glassman wrote: »

Given the nature of the material, I'd say it would need the consumer to prove that it was (I don't care what any act or law says about whose responsibility or care it is to do so

Luckily the law doesn't agree with you, and if the original windscreen installer had the same the same "couldn't care less" attitude about their legal responsibilities, I'm not in the least bit surprised that the chargeback was successful.

Credit card companies don't just do chargebacks for no reason. The business is given an opportunity to defend it, and if they installer has provided a report from an independent company stating that they thought it was user damage, they may well have won.

Glassman

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Luckily the law doesn't agree with you, and if the original windscreen installer had the same the same "couldn't care less" attitude about their legal responsibilities, I'm not in the least bit surprised that the chargeback was successful.

And if the law can see that there is expert opinion on what the damage is and how it has been caused?