Financial Ombudsman ruling against Insurance company

[ma42]

Financial Ombudsman ruling against Insurance company use of non-OEM replacement windscreens

When my windscreen was hit by a stone and needed replacing, the Insurance company insisted on using third-party glass and fitters. Volvo states that non-OEM glass will potentially compromise the function of about 20 safety systems and warranty claims because of non-OEM glass replacement will be invalidated. My reaction to the insistence on third party suppliers is that it represents unfair contract terms. Despite the small print that no-one reads, my understanding was that my car insurance policy contract should put me in the same position as I was prior to the damage and not compromise my or passengers' safety or invalidate parts of the manufacturer's warranty.

The insurance company has now agreed to pay my claim for an OEM replacement windscreen. You do not have accept their high-handed dismissive response on safety concerns and they can be challenged successfully via the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Recommendations for making a claim
1. Check with the car manufacturer/dealer for their view on the safety of third-party glass & fitters. Ask them to supply any supporting documentation or publications.

2. Ask the car manufacturer/dealer if the fitting of non-OEM glass will invalidate any part of the vehicle warranty.

3. Tell your insurance company that you want an OEM replacement windscreen fitted by a manufacturer approved fitter. The reasons are:
a. 3rd party glass has not been tested in the same way as OEM glass and therefore cannot be proven to be as safe or to allow the car’s safety systems to operate as designed.
b. The use of 3rd party glass will invalidate the warranty.
c. Your insurance company will no doubt point you in the direction of small print in the insurance document that forces you to use their ‘approved supplier’ and any replacement glass that they want to supply. I would maintain that using components and unapproved fitters represents unfair contract terms and contradicts the expectation of an insurance policy to restore the insured to the position they were in before the claim; especially where the insurer’s preferred resolution of a claim reduces the car's safety features and invalidates the car manufacturer’s warranty.

4. If the insurance company rejects your argument, then raise an official complaint so that they are forced to issue a final refusal letter.

5. Contact the Financial Ombudsman Service at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ or call their helpline at 0800 023 4567.

6. I would suggest referencing this ruling on the use of third-party glass. It is very likely that similar complaints against other car insurance companies will have a similar outcome.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by ma42

Financial Ombudsman ruling against Insurance company use of non-OEM replacement windscreens

When my windscreen was hit by a stone and needed replacing, the Insurance company insisted on using third-party glass and fitters. Volvo states that non-OEM glass will potentially compromise the function of about 20 safety systems and warranty claims because of non-OEM glass replacement will be invalidated. My reaction to the insistence on third party suppliers is that it represents unfair contract terms. Despite the small print that no-one reads, my understanding was that my car insurance policy contract should put me in the same position as I was prior to the damage and not compromise my or passengers' safety or invalidate parts of the manufacturer's warranty.

The insurance company has now agreed to pay my claim for an OEM replacement windscreen. You do not have accept their high-handed dismissive response on safety concerns and they can be challenged successfully via the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Recommendations for making a claim
1. Check with the car manufacturer/dealer for their view on the safety of third-party glass & fitters. Ask them to supply any supporting documentation or publications.

2. Ask the car manufacturer/dealer if the fitting of non-OEM glass will invalidate any part of the vehicle warranty.

3. Tell your insurance company that you want an OEM replacement windscreen fitted by a manufacturer approved fitter. The reasons are:
a. 3rd party glass has not been tested in the same way as OEM glass and therefore cannot be proven to be as safe or to allow the car’s safety systems to operate as designed.
b. The use of 3rd party glass will invalidate the warranty.
c. Your insurance company will no doubt point you in the direction of small print in the insurance document that forces you to use their ‘approved supplier’ and any replacement glass that they want to supply. I would maintain that using components and unapproved fitters represents unfair contract terms and contradicts the expectation of an insurance policy to restore the insured to the position they were in before the claim; especially where the insurer’s preferred resolution of a claim reduces the car's safety features and invalidates the car manufacturer’s warranty.

4. If the insurance company rejects your argument, then raise an official complaint so that they are forced to issue a final refusal letter.

5. Contact the Financial Ombudsman Service at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ or call their helpline at 0800 023 4567.

6. I would suggest referencing this ruling on the use of third-party glass. It is very likely that similar complaints against other car insurance companies will have a similar outcome.

I can Vouch for the help and effectiveness of the Insurance Ombudsman.

[john.wigley]

While I agree entirely, I would be surprised if they did not use that as yet another excuse (sorry, reason) for further increasing premiums.

Regards, John.

[andy_d]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

While I agree entirely, I would be surprised if they did not use that as yet another excuse (sorry, reason) for further increasing premiums.

Regards, John.

Total agreement with the OP, his stance And yours John,
tho its fair to say the colour of the posties left sock a week last wednesday is also used to "explain" the increase in premium...

[morsing]

My wife's V70 has twice had the front windscreen replaced with a sub-standard screen by the insurer/AutoGlass and both times I complained to both the insurer and the Competition Authority about insurers forcing people to use AutoGlass.

Actually, AutoGlass did such a poor job the first time, and the wait the second time was ten days, so we had a local company replace it the second time. The insurer refused to cover more than half the cost.

The problem is that I have so many battles that I have to choose them carefully to avoid too much stress. Maybe next time I will fight it more.

Regards,
Henrik Morsing

[Tannaton]

I had a Passat company car once and the screen was replaced by Autoglass with a "mickey mouse" one. it was very poor quality, you could actually see the uneven thickness of the glass as it distorted slightly your view. I complained, they also got the black glue on the fabric on the pillars. However before the came to inspect it - it was cracked and replaced again. I'm certain the pattern parts in some cases are significantly weaker and more prone to cracks and chips than the genuine item.

[ITSv40]

I have seen Autoglass replacing windscreens at my local Volvo dealer - many years ago. I had screens replaced by Autoglass in a 360 and my previous V40. In both cases genuine Volvo screens were fitted without me specifying.

[Andmurph]

I acquired my V70 in July and within weeks the windscreen was cracked after being hit by a stone. My insurance company insisted I used Autoglass and my experience was appalling.
In late August a mobile fitter came to my home on a Friday afternoon to fit a new screen. The screen supplied was a pattern part, not genuine Volvo. 40 minutes later the guy told me it was all done and scarpered. I found not only was the replacement screen smashed in the top drivers side corner but the side window trims were destroyed as was the drivers side interior A-pillar trim.
I called the fitter immediately but he didn’t answer. I called Autoglass and was asked to take my car to their Exeter premises for assessment. Their warranty team assessed the damage and ageeed to replace the trim parts and the screw with another pattern part. The trim parts were on back order from Sweden.
Days later in the summer rains I had water running down the inside of the screen whilst driving on M4 and M5. Autoglass asked me to return to Exeter. The team there were not expecting me so didn’t have replacement glass available. They were as helpful as they could be and tried to identify the source or the leak and added more sealant to the inside edge of the glass. On my drive home it was still leaking so a few days later a reply was fitted as a temporary measure as the trims hadn’t arrived.
In late October the trims arrived and the screen was replaced again.
In December that replaced screen cracked whilst parked in my garage overnight. I could se no chips, just a crack from the passenger edge of the screen 8 inches in length. Autoglass warranty team said there was a tiny chip and that was all it took to start a crack, therefore it was not a warranty claim.
I do believe that the pattern parts are of inferior quality to the original and far more prone to chips and cracks. The pattern parts used to surround the rain sensor also looks like something produced in a junior school.
Autoglass warranty team eventually refunded my insurance excess for the first replacement screen and apologised for my experience of their mobile fitter. I did have to pay the excess for my current screen though.
My car has had 4 windscreens in 6 months and 8000 miles. I put this down to poor quality screens and the terrible state of the roads and motorways in the south of UK.