Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
    • Only that I will be updated this week.    So what your saying then is I should recieve a letter inviting me for a disciplinary hearing and attend a disciplinary. I thought the disciplinary was to give you the outcome of the investigation.     It seems a little odd that I have an investigation meeting I am asked question and given the chance to reply to the questions. It seemed odd that in this meeting I was shown evidence against me that I had not previously seen. Surely I should have been given the evidence first before being asked questions about it. It feels like they are building a case against me at the investigation meeting......
  • Our picks

lmk87

Faulty windscreen, leak and major electrical problems

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1913 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Will try to be brief -

 

I have a 3 year old Mini One which was brought brand new in 2009 and is just out of finance. I brought the car out right at the end of the deal.

 

- In May last year the car was fitted with a new windscreen after a crack appeared. The windscreen company were one which I had to use due to my insurance with Hastings. They are a National windscreen company.

 

- 4 weeks ago, in the heavy rain, there was a huge leak in the car which caused the car to be soaked inside and not to start. many of the electrics went out. Mini garage (who I have used for all car issues for the last 3 years) identified that the leak was from a faulty windscreen fitting.

 

- I contacted the company who fitted the windscreen who agreed to have it replaced and carpets dried and foot all bills. They supplied us with a courtesy car and had had the car for the last 3 weeks now. I asked that the car stay with Mini but they obviously wanted to get the work done more cheaply elsewhere so I agreed to this as long as it was returned in perfect condition.

 

- Since then, the car has continued to fail to start and Mini have identified that the problem is with the fuse box, which needs replacing which is going to cost nigh on £4000.

 

- So far, the windscreen company have communicated with me fairly poorly (said they will call and have not done so, passed the buck etc) and have not yet paid their invoice for work undertaken so far to Mini. I don't feel reassured that they are giving me 100% correct information as I have had conflicting messages from them so far.

 

- I am now concerned that they will refuse to pay for the work that needs to be done, which Mini explain could only be caused by the leak, which was caused by them fitting a faulty screen on my car. The windscreen company seem to be somewhat disputing that this could be caused by a leak.

 

Does anyone know where I stand in terms of what my rights are here? I presume that the windscreen company are liable to pay for any damages that the leak caused - but is it within my power to say where I want the car to be fixed ( I would like it to stay with Mini, who I trust ) rather than it be shipped to another place to get it fixed more cheaply?

 

I know that the windscreen company are going to start being difficult as the cost rises and am very concerned by this - but this is not my fault and we have never had a problem with the car until now - I mean it is just 3 years old! I have called my Solicitor and Citizens Advice and await responses from both - but if anyone one here has any advice for me I would really appreciate it.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm the cost of replacing the fusebox is 'four thousand' pounds ?

 

You could have a new engine, gearbox and set of tyres for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it is in the region of £4000 yes - thousand. I was surprised too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't you be talking to your insurers if they arranged the windscreen replacement?


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

 

Will try to be brief -

 

I have a 3 year old Mini One which was brought brand new in 2009 and is just out of finance. I brought the car out right at the end of the deal.

 

- In May last year the car was fitted with a new windscreen after a crack appeared. The windscreen company were one which I had to use due to my insurance with Hastings. They are a National windscreen company.

 

- 4 weeks ago, in the heavy rain, there was a huge leak in the car which caused the car to be soaked inside and not to start. many of the electrics went out. Mini garage (who I have used for all car issues for the last 3 years) identified that the leak was from a faulty windscreen fitting.

 

- I contacted the company who fitted the windscreen who agreed to have it replaced and carpets dried and foot all bills. They supplied us with a courtesy car and had had the car for the last 3 weeks now. I asked that the car stay with Mini but they obviously wanted to get the work done more cheaply elsewhere so I agreed to this as long as it was returned in perfect condition.

 

- Since then, the car has continued to fail to start and Mini have identified that the problem is with the fuse box, which needs replacing which is going to cost nigh on £4000.

 

- So far, the windscreen company have communicated with me fairly poorly (said they will call and have not done so, passed the buck etc) and have not yet paid their invoice for work undertaken so far to Mini. I don't feel reassured that they are giving me 100% correct information as I have had conflicting messages from them so far.

 

- I am now concerned that they will refuse to pay for the work that needs to be done, which Mini explain could only be caused by the leak, which was caused by them fitting a faulty screen on my car. The windscreen company seem to be somewhat disputing that this could be caused by a leak.

 

Does anyone know where I stand in terms of what my rights are here? I presume that the windscreen company are liable to pay for any damages that the leak caused - but is it within my power to say where I want the car to be fixed ( I would like it to stay with Mini, who I trust ) rather than it be shipped to another place to get it fixed more cheaply?

 

I know that the windscreen company are going to start being difficult as the cost rises and am very concerned by this - but this is not my fault and we have never had a problem with the car until now - I mean it is just 3 years old! I have called my Solicitor and Citizens Advice and await responses from both - but if anyone one here has any advice for me I would really appreciate it.

 

Thank you.

 

Hi,

 

I would be interested to hear how you got this issue resolved in the end, as I am in exactly the same boat :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I certainly wouldn't pay four thousand for a fusebox, you can get a new car for that. Someone is being ripped off.

Edited by Conniff
typo correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

I would be interested to hear how you got this issue resolved in the end, as I am in exactly the same boat :(

 

You may be better off starting your own thread as this one is quite old.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I certainly would pay four thousand for a fusebox, you can get a new car for that. Someone is being ripped off.

 

Think you mean wouldn't Conniff.

 

However the charges could be reasonable . The box probably comes attached to the main loom which will require a total strip out of the cars interior, replacement of one use only clipping and then a rebuild. Depending on area the poster lives in, labour charges can be as high as £180.00 per hour.

 

What will be interesting is the response to this post and the £180.00 an hour figure but I can easily see £ 4K here for what's involved.

 

Issue needs to be taken up with Insurance co who instructed the screen replacement in the first place using mickey mouse to fit a replacement screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thank H, I've changed it now.

 

Is this an electically bonded screen and did they bond it as the manufacturers original or did they use mastic, sounds like the latter to me.

 

I've not know on a modern car an integral fuse box. They usually come pre wired with a plug on the end. If BMW have a loom with integrated components, then it's just another bit of proof to dispel this myth about German engineering.

I wonder if the 4,000 includes fuses :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

I would be interested to hear how you got this issue resolved in the end, as I am in exactly the same boat :(

 

A boat would surely have the water on the outside.

 

Is yours a Bini as well ?

 

Jaguars appear to be very picky on damp getting in under the seal, causing warnings to appear on the dashboard and preventing moving out of park on the auto gearboxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuse box take 45 mins to change, so where is the other £3,900 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=Kiki1;4453608

Jaguars appear to be very picky on damp getting in under the seal, causing warnings to appear on the dashboard and preventing moving out of park on the auto gearboxes.

 

Is that the XF Rotary Transmission Shifter or the X type J shift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fuse box take 45 mins to change, so where is the other £3,900 ?

 

Will probably be in the loom Conniff and the strip out and re-fit. I've come across water ingress in looms some 1 metre away from it's entry point. Where did you get the 45 mins from? The notoriously unreliable ICSME manual or an official BMW SRO manual? From the BMW's I've owned to change a fuse box in 45 mins would be nigh on impossible and don't forget that the official time will include 10 mins for getting the car in and 10 mins for getting the car out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't you be talking to your insurers if they arranged the windscreen replacement?

 

This. All day long.

 

And the car should have had a full inspection by BMW, all billable to either the insco (for telling you to use that windscreen co) or by the windscreen company because they SHOULD be owning the problem and not trying to wriggle out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...