Sixt claiming for windscreen damage already repaired

[Maursh]

I apologise if this is going to be a bit lengthy: thank you so much for reading this and I appreciate any advice I can have on my situation.

 

I hired a car for a week before Christmas from LHR. I live in the middle east.

Within one hour of collection, a flying stone on the motorway had caused a middle to driver side windscreen chip, about the size of a two pound coin. Upon arriving at my destination, I called teh accident hotline they supplied to ask for the chip to be examined and repaired because i was not sure that the car was roadworthy. They took details and promised to send someone out.

 

Three phone calls and 24 hours later I was still waiting and asked for a new vehicle. At this point I was told to speak to Sixt!!?! (I thought that I was but it turns out I was speaking to Auto Fleet Solutions!). One call to customer services and they agreed that I could organise the repair myself since I had been waiting so long and I confirmed that I would not have to pay again. Within a couple of hours the chip was repaired by Autoglass, with guarantee.

 

When I returned the vehicle I explained all that had occurred, produced a receipt for the repair and it was returned as "no new damage"

 

Roll on two months and I have an invoice for £750++ for a replacement windscreen. I should state that this is not an insured amount for reasons that are not interesting (I thought that it was, but I was mistaken).

 

It seems to me that the invoice and some other correspondence received at the time of hire is all generated from the Auto Fleet Solutions bunch, who despite being by telephone call that I was given permission to make the repair directly don't seem to have registered this in any of their correspondence.

 

Anyhow, I want to know what I should do.

- just pay - no chance of fighting this.

- I live overseas, can i just ignore it? The rental was a debit card transaction not credit card.

- agree a settlement whereby I deduct lost retail time and money already paid for repair.

- refuse to pay on the basis that I already paid for the repair, which was all that was required according to Autoglass.

 

If I take this last route, which I am most inclined to, what should I say or not say. Are there any relevant consumer protections which I should be aware of?

 

Many thanks in anticipation

[Guest roaringmouse]

What make and model of car was it?

[Maursh]

Funny you should ask: Jeep Renegade.

I had ordered a different class and they talked me into the upgrade. Turns out these type of cars with upright windscreens are notorious for getting chips (stones don't roll off like they would on a sedan).

[Guest roaringmouse]

This 'no new damage' you refer to. Did they write that on your paperwork, or did you? If they did then that is the end of the matter. Make sure you notify your bank that if this company attempts to take more money it will be disputed and charged back. Keep your return paperwork.

[Maursh]

"No new damage" was input by them.

[Conniff]

Has this been resolved Maursh or still ongoing ??

[Maursh]

Still ongoing. Emailed them back to state that they had no claim. Need to send it through the post as well, recorded I think.

[Maursh]

I wanted to update you all on this and also see if there is any advice going. Five months on, this is still ongoing.

 

Since I last wrote I had communication from Sixt requesting the receipt for the repair, which I didn't see until they sent a follow up (owing to the amount of junk mail I have going to that particular email address).

The follow up was interesting: I was offered 50% reduction on the basis that I probably no longer had the receipt.

I wrote back asking for confirmation that the issue would be closed on production of receipt and received the following email: "I can confirm if you can provide a receipt to evidence that this glass was repaired the matter will be settled"

I sent the receipt by reply. Six weeks roll by and last week I receive an email as follows: "We received your invoice for the chip repair carried out by Autoglass. Having reviewed the invoice along with the images of the windscreen from when the vehicle returned it is clear that a chip repair should not have been carried out in this instance. Unfortunately the chip repair was insufficient and the glass has still had to be replaced. "

If you recall, the car was returned with "no new damage" on the slip.

In addition, there is no way that Autoglass would have made a repair if this had been inappropriate: knowing nothing about windscreens I was directed by them and would consider Autoglass "expert" at windscreens over some bod at Sixt. Because the Autoglass work was guaranteed, they also took photos of their work although they are not in my possession.

 

Any advice would be appreciated. I feel quite harassed by Sixt who have now reneged on a "no pay" agreement for the second time.

 

Incidentally, contrary to the information I provided in my initial post, I was actually insured for the excess, but the amount of time which had elapsed between the incidence and the initial bill invalidated any claim (30 days)

[Maursh]

A quick question for anyone who know about these things.

 

Obviously my ideal outcome would be for this to just go away. But failing this, if there any way that I can "counter claim" against Autoglass? I have no gripe with them, I think that they turned up promptly and did a terrific job, but I am in no position to prove that a repair was appropriate whereas they are.

[heliosuk]

You can't repair damage bigger than a 5p coin with any guarantee of success. If the damage was as you say the size of a two pound coin then the screen should have been replaced.

[Maursh]

You can't repair damage bigger than a 5p coin with any guarantee of success. If the damage was as you say the size of a two pound coin then the screen should have been replaced.

 

I am not sure what you source is and you might care to provide it, but this is a red herring.

Autoglass undertook and guaranteed the repair. They did not have to do this, they were fully aware of the situation and could have said that a new windscreen was needed if it actually was.

The first time Sixt suggested that the repair was inadequate was 5 months after the incident.

[heliosuk]

I am not sure what you source is and you might care to provide it, but this is a red herring.

Autoglass undertook and guaranteed the repair. They did not have to do this, they were fully aware of the situation and could have said that a new windscreen was needed if it actually was.

The first time Sixt suggested that the repair was inadequate was 5 months after the incident.

 

 

Not sure what you're saying here. You said it was the size of a two pound coin and I don't need a source to say that it can't be repaired with any guarantee of success. What I can say is that I am suitably qualified to make the statement. So the issue to me is between you and Autoglass as they should have replaced the screen.

[Maursh]

Not sure what you're saying here. You said it was the size of a two pound coin and I don't need a source to say that it can't be repaired with any guarantee of success. What I can say is that I am suitably qualified to make the statement. So the issue to me is between you and Autoglass as they should have replaced the screen.

 

I think there is danger here of getting into a technical discussion that has no bearing on the matter (and I know nothing about). At the time both Sixt (who I called about 6 times because I didn't know whether I could drive the vehicle) and Autoglass said they would need to see the chip to see whether it could be repaired, but this was to do with driver view (position) and type of chip. They were both aware that it was about 2cm and neither party said that it had to be smaller. Autoglass use £2 as a reference in their slideshow here: https://www.autoglass.co.uk/glass-repair-and-replacement/windscreen-repair/

In any event, the chip was successfully repaired, almost invisible and was guaranteed. So much so that had I not pointed it out to the guy doing the inspection (to produce the receipt for the repair), I doubt that it would have been spotted.

 

I feel the main issue is that Sixt have twice now promised that I would not bear any additional cost (owing to their negligence in the first instance) and I am now being asked to cough up for a replacement that I don't believe was required after I returned the vehicle.

I believe that the windscreen did require replacing in February, but this was down to other motorists and this particular model being very prone to chips and nothing to do with my time of hire.

I also feel that my level of honesty and integrity handling this matter (ie reporting the chip, pointing out the repair on return and so on) has been my downfall. It is being used against me. This is evidenced by Sixt sending me a pending bill one day BEFORE I had returned the vehicle. I naturally assumed that this would be zero once all the details had worked their way though.

[king12345]

You have the autoglass report stating that the repair was successful and guaranteed.

Most likely they rented out the car to someone else after you and the windscreen got chipped somewhere else.

They now want money from you for a new windscreen.

Send them the report and tell them that the agreement was for a repair, not replacement.

[Conniff]

If you have a written guarantee from Autoglass, send Sixt a copy and tell them to take it up with Autoglass.

[Maursh]

Thanks for your input Conniff and king12345. Sixt already have the repair note from Autoglass: it is since they have received it that they declared the a repair was not good enough. Prior to this they were offering me 50% off on the grounds that I must have lost the receipt after all this time (it was an email receipt, so no I hadn't)

[king12345]

So the windscreen experts at Sixt are saying that Autoglass, an unknown firm in the car hire business have got it wrong...

No hang on, I think I got things mixed up.

Who's the expert on windscreen repair???

[Conniff]

Thanks for your input Conniff and king12345. Sixt already have the repair note from Autoglass: it is since they have received it that they declared the a repair was not good enough. Prior to this they were offering me 50% off on the grounds that I must have lost the receipt after all this time (it was an email receipt, so no I hadn't)

 

Not the repair note, the guarantee. There is always the possibility the repair has failed and if it has, then it is up to Autoglass to either do another repair to MoT and the owners satisfaction or replace the windscreen complete.