Avoid Autoglass Letterkenny-Damaged my car

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.

mickdw

Great outcome.
Maybe think about revising the thread title.

Hachiko

lol