Avoid Autoglass Letterkenny-Damaged my car

SilverCoin2100

Last November I'd my car bonnet and a couple of other body panels resprayed due to a small dent and stone chips.

In December, I needed to get the windscreen replaced due to a growing crack. Autoglass in Letterkenny did the job and I signed off on it when I collected the car. When I collected the car from their depot, the guy who did the job guided me straight into the office to sign the paperwork off, he never once suggested that I check the job before signing it off. (I'm not sure I'd have noticed the damage right after the job was done anyway as I'd have been concentrating on the windscreen & not the bodywork).

About 10 days later, just after Xmas, when I was getting the car ready for a long trip down the country (readjusting windscreen water nozzles and filling the wash tank with washer fluid), I noticed that there was a long scratch on the top edge of the bonnet on the drivers side which had started to rust badly. I looked at the passenger side too and could see the tell-tale signs of the paint being scratched too (it didn't start to rust on the passenger side as the scratch didn't go through to the metal). I only noticed it when the rust appeared which takes a few days of the metal being exposed to the elements.

As soon as offices opened after the Xmas holidays on 5th January, I called the Letterkenny branch. They promised to call me back. They didn't.

When I called them again later in the day on the 5th Jan, the guy who'd done the job told me that as I'd signed off on it there was nothing he could do.

I told him that it was obvious he'd done the damage as I'd a) had the bonnet resprayed a month beforehand and b) the damage is at the top edge of the bonnet (ie closest part to the windscreen) and c) they are obvious scratch marks.

He still said there was nothing that could be done as I'd signed off on the job. I asked if I could escalate the issue and he said that he was as far as it could go. I resolved to contact Autoglass head office.

I tweeted their customer service and the UK representative directed me to the Irish twitter handle, to which I received no reply. I called their head office twice and was promised a senior person would call me back. I haven't heard back since.

If you've had a similar experience could you let me know how you dealt with it? Thanks.

whomitconcerns

SilverCoin2100 wrote: »

Last November I'd my car bonnet and a couple of other body panels resprayed due to a small dent and stone chips.

In December, I needed to get the windscreen replaced due to a growing crack. Autoglass in Letterkenny did the job and I signed off on it when I collected the car. When I collected the car from their depot, the guy who did the job guided me straight into the office to sign the paperwork off, he never once suggested that I check the job before signing it off. (I'm not sure I'd have noticed the damage right after the job was done anyway as I'd have been concentrating on the windscreen & not the bodywork).

About 10 days later, just after Xmas, when I was getting the car ready for a long trip down the country (readjusting windscreen water nozzles and filling the wash tank with washer fluid), I noticed that there was a long scratch on the top edge of the bonnet on the drivers side which had started to rust badly. I looked at the passenger side too and could see the tell-tale signs of the paint being scratched too (it didn't start to rust on the passenger side as the scratch didn't go through to the metal). I only noticed it when the rust appeared which takes a few days of the metal being exposed to the elements.

As soon as offices opened after the Xmas holidays on 5th January, I called the Letterkenny branch. They promised to call me back. They didn't.

When I called them again later in the day on the 5th Jan, the guy who'd done the job told me that as I'd signed off on it there was nothing he could do.

I told him that it was obvious he'd done the damage as I'd a) had the bonnet resprayed a month beforehand and b) the damage is at the top edge of the bonnet (ie closest part to the windscreen) and c) they are obvious scratch marks.

He still said there was nothing that could be done as I'd signed off on the job. I asked if I could escalate the issue and he said that he was as far as it could go. I resolved to contact Autoglass head office.

I tweeted their customer service and the UK representative directed me to the Irish twitter handle, to which I received no reply. I called their head office twice and was promised a senior person would call me back. I haven't heard back since.

If you've had a similar experience could you let me know how you dealt with it? Thanks.

Is it not possible in the 10 days after the job they did..that someone else did the scracthes?

Ive found autoglass very good on the occasions I have had to use them.

ironclaw

10 days later? Could have been anything or anyone. You are at fault for not checking the work and by signing you actually stated legally that you were happy. I have no connection to AutoGlass but this is nonsense to brand them in a bad light for a fault so easily spotted had you taken the time to check. Can we stop being such a nanny state?

SilverCoin2100

Hi whomitconcerns

No, it's not possible that someone else did the damage. I live in a rural place with private parking. I didn't use the car much over the Xmas period after they did the job. It's very obvious from the location, shape and nature of the scratches that the damage was done when the windscreen was being replaced. It's either that or the fairies did it!

I'm disappointed that they haven't accepted responsibility for it and haven't followed up with me after promising to do so.

Stheno

Agreed ten days later is too late

mickdw

I've had the same issue. Scratch along the top edge of the bonnet where some clumsy idiot caught the bonnet with his removal tool.
I didn't see it as they had dabbed some black paint along the damage and I only noticed it about a week later when hand washing the car.
I didn't go back as I figured they would just claim to know nothing about the damage at that stage.
There is no doubt in my mind that they caused your damage though.

SilverCoin2100

Perhaps on the surface of it 10 days later does sound too late. I hadn't used the car much in the intervening period and wasn't outside around the car much given that it's wintertime. I brought it my mechanic who said it was obvious that the damage had been done when the windscreen was being replaced and he said that he wouldn't have noticed it either had it not started to rust. So it wasn't that easy to spot at the time I signed off on the job.

Ironclaw--it's nothing to do with being a nanny state. If you spent money having panels on your car repainted and a month later it gets damaged to the point of where those panels start to rust, wouldn't you complain too?

It's as clear as day due to the nature, location and appearance of the scratches who did the damage and what caused it. It certainly wasn't 'anything' or 'anyone' as you suggest.

SilverCoin2100

Thanks Mick. Sorry to hear you'd the same experience. My car is light blue metallic, so the exposed metal from the scratch wouldn't have contrasted greatly with the paintwork--until the rust appeared that it!

After dropping off my car at their depot the mobile repairman (not the guy who did the job) gave me a lift back to my office in his Transit. On the dashboard were the moulded plastic panels that fit around some car wiper arms, along the bottom of the windscreen. I asked what they were for and if they did other car repairs other than glass repairs and he told me the other guy (the guy who did the job on my car) had damaged the panels on a lady's car and he was going out to her house with the new parts to replace them. So I know this guy has damaged other cars.

Henry Ford III

Why did you sign to say you were satsfied with the work done without looking at the job thoroughly?

I think doing that ruined any hope you have of compensation for any damage done - you essentially certified that there was none.

SilverCoin2100

Yes, that was my mistake. Hindsight is a great clairvoyant.

However, I do think it's worth making other people aware so they don't make the same mistake, and as the damage was so obviously caused by Autoglass I'll continue to follow up with them. Surely reasonable doubt comes into play when it's so obvious due to the nature of the damage that it happened when the windscreen was being replaced.

ironclaw

SilverCoin2100 wrote: »

Ironclaw--it's nothing to do with being a nanny state. If you spent money having panels on your car repainted and a month later it gets damaged to the point of where those panels start to rust, wouldn't you complain too?

Apologises if it was offensive but having worked in retail, and I suggest everyone does so in their life, we get this all the time. Complaints and issues that are very clearly not our fault or extremely unlikely to be our fault. Repairs returned 6 months later on mechanical parts that are normally replaced or at the very least maintained every 6 to 9 months. And yet, we had to just bow our heads and repair them, at our costs. As unfortunately in this country, the customer is always right. It just gets tiring. Please, be realistic. A business is a business. 99% of them are out to do a good job and offer a decent service. And out of that 99%, 99% of them will be happy to go beyond the call of duty to put things right.

But presenting a car, 10 days after a glass repair and claiming it was them without any doubt is nonsense. Could be caused by anything or anyone, both vandalism or pure accident. Its a car. Its exposed to the elements, dirt, grit and the general public. All of which cause damage.

Had I dropped off my car for a windscreen repair, I'd make sure I inspect the entire repair. Why? Because that is the reason it was there. The seal, both inside and out and the entire front panel section. A cursory look over and then I'd sign some paper work. As a retailer, we always did this and explained the entire process and what was done. And yet, we still had people coming into us i.e. You touched it last, it must be your fault.

I despair sometimes.

bucketybuck

SilverCoin2100 wrote: »

Perhaps on the surface of it 10 days later does sound too late.

It definitely is too late, especially after signing for the repair.

Any business would have to be completely stupid to accept a customers word weeks later that a scratch or dent was their fault and that they have to pay for it, its just unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Unfortunately you live in a country of chancers who would happily blame the windscreen guy for every little scratch if they thought they could get away with it. Companies are going to protect themselves against these chancers with policies like making you sign off on the work and not accepting any liability after that point, they just have to.

SilverCoin2100

ironclaw wrote: »

Apologises if it was offensive but having worked in retail, and I suggest everyone does so in their life, we get this all the time. Complaints and issues that are very clearly not our fault or extremely unlikely to be our fault. Repairs returned 6 months later on mechanical parts that are normally replaced or at the very least maintained every 6 to 9 months. And yet, we had to just bow our heads and repair them, at our costs. As unfortunately in this country, the customer is always right. It just gets tiring. Please, be realistic. A business is a business. 99% of them are out to do a good job and offer a decent service. And out of that 99%, 99% of them will be happy to go beyond the call of duty to put things right.

But presenting a car, 10 days after a glass repair and claiming it was them without any doubt is nonsense. Could be caused by anything or anyone, both vandalism or pure accident. Its a car. Its exposed to the elements, dirt, grit and the general public. All of which cause damage.

Had I dropped off my car for a windscreen repair, I'd make sure I inspect the entire repair. Why? Because that is the reason it was there. The seal, both inside and out and the entire front panel section. A cursory look over and then I'd sign some paper work. As a retailer, we always did this and explained the entire process and what was done. And yet, we still had people coming into us i.e. You touched it last, it must be your fault.

I despair sometimes.

Ironclaw, you're not alone- Don't despair. You have tried to move the nature of this thread to a broadside on general customer complaint behaviour. My issue is very specific. I too am familiar with the retail industry and have dealt with customer complaints, returns etc--some genuine, others less so.

You sound aggrieved with customers for coming back with issues after 6 months, and suggesting it's unfortunate that the customer is always right in this country and the fact you find the issue tiring and it makes you despair sometimes.

Perhaps your feelings are justified. I don't know.

What I do know is that the damage to my car was done from the windscreen being replaced. No 'ifs' no 'buts, no 'anyones' or 'anythings' or 'vandalism' or 'pure accident' or 'elements or 'grit' or 'general public'. The evidence is there on the car. It's literally as simple as that. Were you to see the scratches I don't think you'd claim my issue is 'nonsense'.

It's my fault that I didn't inspect the whole windscreen repair & surrounding bodywork. I assumed that having taken my car to a well known, professional outfit that they'd do a proper job and not cause any damage and therefore I wouldn't need to inspect the car in detail. Sadly, I was wrong. The only thing I noticed on collecting the car was how nice and clear the new glass was. When I arrived at the Autoglass premises I was ushered straight into the office to sign off that the work had been done. There was no encouragement to take a 'cursory look over' and nothing about the process was explained to me. In hindsight I can understand why these things didn't happen/ weren't encouraged--simply because the individual knew he'd done damage to the car and wanted to ensure I signed off on it before I noticed it. Had he been honest he'd have put his hand up and said that he'd scraped the bonnet edge.

It's unfortunate that it took 10 days before I noticed it. I didn't use the car much, it was December-the weather is bad outside-it was only when adjusting the washer spray nozzles that I noticed the damage. Had it been anything else that had caused the damage, I'd have been annoyed (having just had the bonnet resprayed) but would have had to bite the bullet on it and wouldn't have spent time posting to boards.ie.

SilverCoin2100

bucketybuck wrote: »

It definitely is too late, especially after signing for the repair.

Any business would have to be completely stupid to accept a customers word weeks later that a scratch or dent was their fault and that they have to pay for it, its just unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Unfortunately you live in a country of chancers who would happily blame the windscreen guy for every little scratch if they thought they could get away with it. Companies are going to protect themselves against these chancers with policies like making you sign off on the work and not accepting any liability after that point, they just have to.

bucketybuck--I've covered the 10 day issue so won't repeat myself.
Unrealistic? Perhaps. However, I'm talking about very specific type of scratches in very specific places which is like fingerprints on a crime scene. I'm not talking about a general dent/scratch that could have been caused by a branch etc. The only way those scratches could have got there is when removing/replacing a windscreen.

Lastly, I'm not in the 'chancer' business. Unfortunately some individuals within companies are. As you suggest companies need to protect themselves against chancers, however, we as consumers also have to protect ourselves against those in companies who would try to pull a fast one on us. That is why I wrote my original post and at least one person on the thread had a similar experience to mine and I know they guy who did the job on my car damaged another customers car, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he also damaged mine.

iano.p

I had hassle with the one here. He closed down the bonnet with tools in it and the latch was stuck and the bonnet wouldn't open. Never said anything. Two days later I couldn't open the bonnet so long story short. Rang auto glass said they didn't do it. But when I got it open I found a screw driver and a cheese cutter type tool in there with a lads name on the handle. Had to go small claims in the end.

Miaireland

Sometimes you get a better response if you write to the head of the company rather than just talking to someone there. When I say writing I mean a letter sent by registered post.

Detail your complaint.

Explain that you were not given the opportunity to inspect the car but was instead was lead into the office and asked to sign the form.

Included pictures of the marks.

I know some companies will dismiss complaints over the phone or in person and only take them seriously when they come in writing . Their attitude is that most people give up rather than putting their complaint in writing.

SilverCoin2100

Thanks for sharing your experience. How long did the small claims process take?

Signing a sheet doesn't make it law-proof.

If you sign a child over to me, it's not then automatically my child. Or for a more realistic one, if a delivery man delivers, for argument sake, a sofa, to your house, and you sign for it, saying it arrived in good nick, that doesn't mean it actually arrived in good nick.


A judge won't tell you off for having signed the form. It will have no legal standing whatsoever (especially in the case of you not having been able to inspect the work).


If it's so obvious that they did the damage, then I'd take photographs of the damage and contact their head office. In the letter explain that you're giving them X amount of time to rectify it, or you're going to the small claims court. Sent it by registered post.

On the due date, if they haven't sorted it, bring them to the small claims court. If it's 'obvious' that it was their fault, as you say, then a judge will rule in your favour. Their insurance will cover it anyway, so at that point you most likely wouldn't have any more hassle or issues.


The threat of the Small Claims Court alone may get them to acknowledge you. But I think it's less than €20 to attend the court so it's well worth doing. Re-sprays would be quite pricy.

SilverCoin2100

Thanks KKV. I'll follow up with a letter with photos and mention the small claims court route. Re-sprays are pricey. I spend €550 on bodywork in November. The car was in good nick beforehand, unfortunately it just had a few small chips on several body panels--which made it expensive & which is why I want this to be resolved by those responsible for doing the damage.

iano.p

It cost 25 euro for the small claims. It took about 3 months from what I can remember was a few years ago now. Take loads of pictures and don't back down they offered me 100 euro and wiper blades. I almost chocked with laughing when he said that in the end I got just over a grand for the damage. I had 3 quotes. The judge done the rest.

bucketybuck

If you are going to go to court, can you tell us how you intend to prove that they did the damage?

And I mean the word "prove". What is the proof, beyond "it must have been them"?

Well if he can get a professional in the industry (panel beater, mechanic, etc) to look at it and give a written statement saying that in their professional opinion, the damage could very likely be caused by carelessly replacing a windscreen, then a judge may look more favourably on his case..

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if he can get a professional in the industry (panel beater, mechanic, etc) to look at it and give a written statement saying that in their professional opinion, the damage could very likely be caused by carelessly replacing a windscreen, then a judge may look more favourably on his case..

But that isn't proof, its just another opinion?

I'm a professional in the industry, have been all my life, I could look at some scratches on a car and take a damn good stab at the cause, no problem at all. But its still just my opinion, worth not very much.

You go to court, the garage will simply say that they did not damage the car. The OP will say that they did. One word against the another, except that the garage has a signed statement from the OP saying they are happy with the work done.

I would genuinely like to know how that court case doesn't end in only one way?

Drummerboy08

Was the car parked in a public area un supervised after the screen was fitted for any amount of time?

colm_mcm

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Was the car parked in a public area un supervised after the screen was fitted for any amount of time?

SilverCoin2100

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Was the car parked in a public area un supervised after the screen was fitted for any amount of time?

Good question. No it wasn't. Apart from being at my private house in the countryside, the only car parks it was in after the windscreen was replaced was outside my office and at Tesco, both of which are patrolled by security guards and with CCTV cameras.

Even if that wasn't the case they'd have to be very clever, specialised vandals to damage the car where the scratches are etc and make it look like it a coincidence that it was after the windscreen was replaced. There are plenty more visible places on the car for vandals to damage--and besides, it's a 2002 family estate with roof rack bars. Hardly a glamorous vandal magnet.

SilverCoin2100

Pippy Baby wrote: »

I don't think it's realistic trying to fingerprints. No one is obliged anyway to allow you compare what you get from the car with their prints.

Read what I said again: 'I'm talking about very specific type of scratches in very specific places which is like fingerprints on a crime scene.'

i.e. the damage done is clearly scrapes from installing a windscreen....they are clues to what happened....similarly as fingerprints at a crime scene are clues to who committed the crime.
I'm not asking anyone for their actual fingerprints....

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

But that isn't proof, its just another opinion?

But it adds weight to the OP's case. If a panel beater can say that "judging by the shape and curvature of the scraping/damage, as a panel beater with X amount of experience in the trade, i would believe it is entirely possible that this damage could likely be caused by inserting a new windscreen without due care.

The level and formation of rust leads me to believe this damage may have occurred in the past X amount of days/weeks."


It might be completely dismissed by a judge, but it might be the anecdotal evidence that swings things in his favour, either.


If it were me, I'd be going mad if i just resprayed a car panel and then someone damaged it straight away again.

ba_barabus

bucketybuck wrote: »

If you are going to go to court, can you tell us how you intend to prove that they did the damage?

And I mean the word "prove". What is the proof, beyond "it must have been them"?

If I'm not mistaken in the small claims court it's up to the business to prove their innocents. Its weighted in favour of the consumer to encourage small claims to be brought forward. The consumer makes the claim and the business has to go to the trouble of putting a defence which proves their innocence forward.

My interpretation could be wrong but this is what I'm lead to believe.

Henry Ford III

You signed a discharge/disclaimer saying you were happy with the repair OP. I reckon that absolutely skittles any hope you might have had of compensation.

The only evidence in a potential legal case is the signed disclaimer, and a car that could have been damaged by almost anyone within the 10 days after the repair and before the damage was actually discovered.

ba_barabus

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You signed a discharge/disclaimer saying you were happy with the repair OP. I reckon that absolutely skittles any hope you might have had of compensation.

The only evidence in a potential legal case is the signed disclaimer, and a car that could have been damaged by almost anyone within the 10 days after the repair and before the damage was actually discovered.

But if the work wasn't carried out correctly in the first instance it will have broken the sale and supply of services act which would mean the disclaimer the OP signed after the damage was done was void. Don't forget, any disclaimer won't carry any legal weight if the consumer acts themselves were broken by the company in the first place.

OP, I'm not a legal expert however, maybe the legal forum might be more suited to this?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

Drummerboy08

I don't know.

A bonnet is what, €300 to paint correctly? As the owner of the windscreen depot, I wouldn't be making life hard on myself over that amount of money, and I'd just get it repaired.

ba_barabus

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I don't know.

A bonnet is what, €300 to paint correctly? As the owner of the windscreen depot, I wouldn't be making life hard on myself over that amount of money, and I'd just get it repaired.

I'd think along the same lines. I reckon €25 spent on the small claims court application would be money well spent.

bucketybuck

ba_barabus wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken in the small claims court it's up to the business to prove their innocents. Its weighted in favour of the consumer to encourage small claims to be brought forward. The consumer makes the claim and the business has to go to the trouble of putting a defence which proves their innocence forward.

My interpretation could be wrong but this is what I'm lead to believe.

And in this case, the business will immediately produce the signed disclaimer.

"Right Autoglass, Prove your innocence!"

"Yes your honour, here is a form signed by the customer when he collected the vehicle stating that he was satisfied with everything. We received no complaints then or in the following days. We have no idea why nearly two weeks later the customer has now claimed we damaged the car, anything could have happened to it in that time. For all we know the windscreen got a stonechip after leaving us, and was then replaced by another company who subsequently caused the alleged damage. Its also very possible that the scratches were there before we fitted the windscreen, as we do not have to check the paintwork of every vehicle beforehand."

"Sounds reasonable".

I'm not saying any of this will happen, but if people are going to advise going to court I am interested to know how the OP is going to counter the very obvious defense from the company?

Drummerboy08

I wonder was the OP invited to check the work before signing the disclaimer?

I think that any court could side with the OP in this case. Courts don't like big businesses screwing the small guy, even if there's very little evidence to prove it.

The fact that the OP had that particular area of the car repaired very recently already, and that the area that is now damaged is out of the firing line of other cars/trolleys/bikes etc, it does point to the fitter damaging it.

I think that the fitting company would have a hard time coming out of court without having to repair it, so why bother going that far over a few hundred quid?

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

but it might be the anecdotal evidence that swings things in his favour, either.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Courts don't like big businesses screwing the small guy, even if there's very little evidence to prove it.

What sort of bloody court system is in this country?

ba_barabus

bucketybuck wrote: »

And in this case, the business will immediately produce the signed disclaimer.

The disclaimer isn't above the law

As pointed out below also the customer should have been invited to view the work. I'd also like to know if it was explained to the customer what they were signing and if they were given a chance to read it or just told to sign it. It would have a major impact if the customer was not given a chance to view the work or a chance to read the contract.

Finally as DB says, Small claims courts take a dim view of larger businesses screwing the customer. Most likely after some mediation by the registrar the case would be settled prior to any case.

Of course you also need to inform the business what you are doing in writing and give them a chance to solve the dispute before going the court route.

ba_barabus

bucketybuck wrote: »

What sort of bloody court system is in this country?

It's a consumer court not a court of criminal court and it is there to protect the individual from businesses. It's actually a very good system. It's more of a mediation service. Most cases don't actually go to court.

bucketybuck

ba_barabus wrote: »

The disclaimer isn't above the law

I never said it was, but it is evidence to back up the companies claim that they did nothing wrong, whereas the OP has no evidence whatsoever beyond some scratches that may already have been there, or may easily have occurred after leaving the garage.

Its not law, but it is a significant factor in a case with zero other proof.

Cerco

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The fact that the OP had that particular area of the car repaired very recently already, and that the area that is now damaged is out of the firing line of other cars/trolleys/bikes etc, it does point to the fitter damaging it.

Since the Op had a repair done in the area, one could reasonably ask what caused the initial damage? Following on from this you would then consider the possibility of a recurrence of the damage as being caused by a similar event.

There is also the possibility that the initially repaired damage was different in nature to the new damage.

ba_barabus

bucketybuck wrote: »

I never said it was, but it is evidence to back up the companies claim that they did nothing wrong, whereas the OP has no evidence whatsoever beyond some scratches that may already have been there, or may easily have occurred after leaving the garage.

Its not law, but it is a significant factor in a case with zero other proof.

For the sake of the tiny fee I'd take my chance.

bucketybuck

ba_barabus wrote: »

It's a consumer court not a court of criminal court and it is there to protect the individual from businesses. It's actually a very good system. It's more of a mediation service. Most cases don't actually go to court.

Its not a good system if the default is to rule against the business regardless of the facts or the evidence.

I had some diesel filled last week, and I have some scratches on the rear quarter panel of the car, think I'll put a claim in against that garage because they clearly must have damaged that paintwork. I should win because they are a business and I am not.

If you think thats a reach, well there is just as much proof of the filling station scratching my car as there is that Autoglass scratched the OP's.

And once again, Autoglass may indeed have damaged the OP's car, I am interested in how you could possibly prove it.

Henry Ford III

ba_barabus wrote: »

But if the work wasn't carried out correctly in the first instance it will have broken the sale and supply of services act which would mean the disclaimer the OP signed after the damage was done was void. Don't forget, any disclaimer won't carry any legal weight if the consumer acts themselves were broken by the company in the first place.

OP, I'm not a legal expert however, maybe the legal forum might be more suited to this?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

The work was to change the windscreen, which was done, and from what I've read here seems to have been done in a satisfactory manner.

He signed the release/disclaimer to say he was happy with the work.

The issue only arose 10 days later when some paint damage was noticed.

Limbo123

My car was badly damaged by another Autoglass crowd. He came out when it was peeing down to replace windscreen. Had to put roof down to do.it. Car was soaked. Failed to seal windscreen. A week later, 2.5 inches of water in footwell. Started getting mould everywhere.
If it was an 'free' insurance jobbie, get on to Insurance company and let them chase it up.
I have the mobile number for the Autoglass Customer Services Manager. Pm if you need it. Mentioned taking legal action but In fairness, she was fantastic and resolved all issues. Windscreen fixed, 2 full professional valets and a decent hire car while car drying out.

goz83

I too had issues with a company who replace windscreens. Job was last April. Had recently got respray work on bonnet. The lads forgot to insert the plastic strip seal at the bottom of the windscreen and they caused a pretty surgical scrape, about 5 inches long, near the top of the bonnet. It wasn't deep and could have been buffed out. The strip was replaced at no cost from a donor car. I didn't complain for these reasons.

I believe the OP, but he should have checked the work. Unfortunately, it's all too easy to assume the job will be done properly, but accidents happen and often there is nobody with the honesty to own up. I have had thousands of euros of damage caused to my cars by careless people, who have never owned up. Disgusting attitude people have in most cases.

SilverCoin2100

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I wonder was the OP invited to check the work before signing the disclaimer?

I think that any court could side with the OP in this case. Courts don't like big businesses screwing the small guy, even if there's very little evidence to prove it.

The fact that the OP had that particular area of the car repaired very recently already, and that the area that is now damaged is out of the firing line of other cars/trolleys/bikes etc, it does point to the fitter damaging it.

I think that the fitting company would have a hard time coming out of court without having to repair it, so why bother going that far over a few hundred quid?

Hi. No, I wasn't invited to check over the work before signing the form. I was ushered into the office and asked to sign the document to 'confirm the job had been done'. There was no encouragement to inspect the work itself. As I've said before I mistakenly assumed a supposedly professional outfit like them would have done the job without causing damage.

As you say, the damage is well out of the firing line of cars, trolleys, bikes, branches, rocks, pillars, donkeys etc.....unless they jumped up on the bonnet and carefully scraped the top edge of it....

SilverCoin2100

Cerco wrote: »

Since the Op had a repair done in the area, one could reasonably ask what caused the initial damage? Following on from this you would then consider the possibility of a recurrence of the damage as being caused by a similar event.

There is also the possibility that the initially repaired damage was different in nature to the new damage.

The previous damage was a small dent at the front edge of the bonnet where the previous owner had bumped into something. It wasn't a major cosmetic issue but as the paint surface had split along the dent I was afraid that it would eventually start to rust. Other than that there were the usual small stone chips you'd expect to find on a 12 year old car.The damage caused by Autoglass is in a completely different place and is completely different in nature.

SilverCoin2100

Limbo123 wrote: »

My car was badly damaged by another Autoglass crowd. He came out when it was peeing down to replace windscreen. Had to put roof down to do.it. Car was soaked. Failed to seal windscreen. A week later, 2.5 inches of water in footwell. Started getting mould everywhere.
If it was an 'free' insurance jobbie, get on to Insurance company and let them chase it up.
I have the mobile number for the Autoglass Customer Services Manager. Pm if you need it. Mentioned taking legal action but In fairness, she was fantastic and resolved all issues. Windscreen fixed, 2 full professional valets and a decent hire car while car drying out.

Thanks Limbo123. I just received a VM from a Customer Services Manager. I called back and left him a VM. I'll see what he has to say. I've spoken to the body shop in Letterkenny who did the initial repairs to my car and they're happy to vouch for me that they did the work and will provide any paperwork I may need to support my case.

SilverCoin2100

Update: I spoke to an Autoglass Operational Support Manager and put my case to him. He requested photos of the damage, which I've emailed to him. I'll update this post when I have more info on how things are progressing. Thanks to everyone who has contributed with helpful posts/suggestions thus far.

SilverCoin2100

Update 2: Having seen the photos of the damage, Autoglass have accepted full responsibility for it and have agreed to pay for the repairs and for a replacement car while my car is being fixed.

I'm delighted that justice has won out in this case.

Thanks again to all who contributed with constructive posts.

Henry Ford III

Great result. Well done.