problem with a replaced car windscreen

mammothd

had my windscreen replaced by Autoglass when it got damaged by a stone chip.
3 months later I am driving my car over a "sleeping policeman" hump in the road, and a crack appears in the middle of the screen.

There is no stone chip damage- the hump has caused the fault.
Surely this can only be caused by a badly fitted screen?

Autoglass has a lifetime guarantee on its screens, but I'm worried they'll inspect it (they're coming in 3 days time) and try to claim it wasn't due to any fault on their part.
I paid £95 excess to have it fitted 3 months ago- what do I do if they ask me to pay the same amount again to fit another one, when I believe the fault is theirs?

mije1983

mammothd wrote: »

but I'm worried they'll inspect it (they're coming in 3 days time) and try to claim it wasn't due to any fault on their part.
I paid £95 excess to have it fitted 3 months ago- what do I do if they ask me to pay the same amount again to fit another one, when I believe the fault is theirs?

You would need to prove that it was the fitting that was faulty.

Fosterdog

mije1983 wrote: »

You would need to prove that it was the fitting that was faulty.

As it's less than six month it's actually for auto glass to prove that it wasn't the fitting or a faulty screen that caused the crack

Svein_Forkbeard

Fosterdog wrote: »

As it's less than six month it's actually for auto glass to prove that it wasn't the fitting or a faulty screen that caused the crack

I'm not wholly convinced of that argument in this case possibly external forces at play here.

Fosterdog

Svein_Forkbeard wrote: »

I'm not wholly convinced of that argument in this case possibly external forces at play here.

You could say there are external forces at play in all cases, it's not unique to this scenario. The burden of proof is still on the supplier as it is less than six months, they law doesn't give them preferential treatment just because of the nature of the product. However as the windscreen is still in place, albeit cracked, they can easily check their fitting and check for any flaws in the glass, if they find no problem with either they can then look into external factors.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I had the same problem. Apparently the 1st replacement was fitted with to much "packing" or whatever its called around the edge.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The 2nd replacement was fitted without charge.[/FONT]

shaun_from_Africa

Fosterdog wrote: »

they law doesn't give them preferential treatment just because of the nature of the product

But that's exactly the opposite to what the actual law (Consumer rights act) does do.

(14) For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

(15) Subsection (14) does not apply if—
(a) it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or
(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract

Glassman

Stress fractures are a bit of a myth; mysterious cracks are usually attributed to impact or error in the fitting process.


IME the most common cause for this kind of 'unexplained' damage is impact damage; usually a stone strike especially if it lands on the silkprinted (black border) area of the windscreen. It often goes unnoticed.



Run a thin metal tip or sharp pencil (a ball point pen also works well) along the crack. If there's a slight 'dink' along that movement that'll be the impact (if it is).

mije1983

Fosterdog wrote: »

As it's less than six month it's actually for auto glass to prove that it wasn't the fitting or a faulty screen that caused the crack

As the question asked was...

mammothd wrote: »

what do I do if they ask me to pay the same amount again to fit another one, when I believe the fault is theirs?

That would indicate the Autoglass have (at the point they say that) denied liability and that in their opinion, rightly or wrongly, their fitting was not at fault and that they had 'proved' it wasn't to blame.

Money_Grabber13579

mije1983 wrote: »

As the question asked was...



That would indicate the Autoglass have (at the point they say that) denied liability and that in their opinion, rightly or wrongly, their fitting was not at fault and that they had 'proved' it wasn't to blame.

Given that Autoglass are not going to inspect it until tomorrow, I would say it is unlikely that they have already denied liability and the OP is purely going through, what if, scenario analysis.

mije1983

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Given that Autoglass are not going to inspect it until tomorrow, I would say it is unlikely that they have already denied liability and the OP is purely going through, what if, scenario analysis.

Well, yes. That was the queston asked. A 'what if' scenario.

Which is what my post relates to. Not sure where anyone has said Autoglass have already denied liability?

I can only asssume you have misunderstood as the post you quoted was not in reply to the OP, but to another poster who said Autoglass have to prove their fitting, and/or windscreen, weren't at fault. My reply, which you quoted standalone rather than in the context it was posted, was that in the 'what if' scenario, Autoglass would already have done that. If Autoglass don't do that (in the future to be clear ) then the OP's scenario will not come to pass anyway.