'Our Kia sunroof imploded why does it refuse to pay under its seven year warranty?'

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The only mention of the Sale of Goods act is in the comments. 2 months old and shatters, it's not of merchantable quality. End.
 
'By refusing to fix it under warranty, all the people who have this issue have to attempt to claim under glass insurance. Therefore, there is no traceability to the quantity of issues. I know I am not an isolated case and I’m not sure if these panoramic roofs are fit for purpose.’

I think that's the issue, really.

Kia probably withdrew/shortened the glass warranty because they know that the cost will be picked up free of charge by the insurance company.

What they seem to be doing is getting customers to claim it off their insurance.

In a way, insurance companies have been doing the same themselves for many years, by not paying for medical treatments of people injured in car crashes because the NHS will pick up the bill anyway.

In this case it seems that the owner's issue is not merely financial as such - the cost will be picked up by either Kia or the insurer anyway - but the owner is clearly quite upset that the pano roof shattered in the first place and wants it investigated rather than just repaired. The point appears to be that if the insurer pays for the repair rather then it being done under warranty then Kia will take no notice of this incident.

However, this brings up the question of what happens when the owner's insurance policy does not cover the pano roof....
 
Last edited:
Made of tempered safety glass :fail made by Webasto the article says NOT you notice laminated glass :thumb: --- whot your windscreen is made of. Point being laminated glass has much greater structural strength http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/31200/61398836.pdf?sequence=1..
Frankly making a large panoramic roof of tempered safety glass and then making it one of the torsional elements of a vehicle's structure is an accident waiting to happen.:doh: Another example of style over substance. Shame on you KIA.:(
 
Are the Mercedes ones laminated? I've never heard of them being anything other than toughened.

Some insurance companies don't include them in the windscreen/window cover now so you have to make a full insurance claim. Ironically, if that was the case on wifey's Honda Jazz which has a glass roof it would be cheaper than using the glass cover!
 
In a way, insurance companies have been doing the same themselves for many years, by not paying for medical treatments of people injured in car crashes because the NHS will pick up the bill anyway.

Sorry Mark, that's not correct.

Insurers are liable for the costs of medical treatment, NHS or otherwise resulting form a car accident.

The insurers of the "at fault" person are obliged to contact the CRU (Compensation Recovery Unit for NHS and DSS etc) to establish what Medical costs other treatment fees, DSS Benefits etc have been paid to / for a claimant and repay those costs to the CRU.

In the situation with the sunroofs, If the insurer pays out and is able to prove its a manufacturing defect, they can recover the costs from Kia who will deal with it under their Product liability Insurance.
 
I can't see any insurance company picking up the tab for these, windscreens yes, sunroofs no.
 
Clearly a defect, and Kia should replace free of charge.

My Kia is coning up to two years old, and had the following.

Reverse sensor - replaced FOC - no quibbles
All four alloys replaced FOC - Lacquer gone milky on two of them -no quibbles
Battery replaced FOC (I think they actually flattened it while it was in for the reverse sensor) - no quibbles.

I would have no hesitation in recommending one - my local dealer however is another matter.

And the Mercedes statement on glass?

What does the warranty cover?
We’ll cover you for any defects in material or workmanship that occur as a result of the vehicle manufacturing process. Whilst glass is not normally covered, warranty would apply
in the case of a stress fracture.
 
I can't see any insurance company picking up the tab for these, windscreens yes, sunroofs no.

Direct line would.
My policy does state windscreen and sunroofs are subject to repair, following £80 (or so) excess.
 
Sorry Mark, that's not correct.

Insurers are liable for the costs of medical treatment, NHS or otherwise resulting form a car accident.

The insurers of the "at fault" person are obliged to contact the CRU (Compensation Recovery Unit for NHS and DSS etc) to establish what Medical costs other treatment fees, DSS Benefits etc have been paid to / for a claimant and repay those costs to the CRU....

That is new and has only been implemented a few years ago. Until then insurers had a 'free ride'. I was actually thinking of elaborating on this in my post but did not want to take this too much OT...
 
dl_zps42b5f6b2.jpg
 
panoramic roofs are generally not covered by normal windscreen policies.

You have to make a full insurance claim with normal excess applying and loss of NCD etc etc.
 
panoramic roofs are generally not covered by normal windscreen policies.

You have to make a full insurance claim with normal excess applying and loss of NCD etc etc.

Just rang them, out of cursorily, as never had to make an actual claim.

It was confirmed that pan roof will be replaced under normal 'windscreen policy', with £10 excess for repair and £80 for replacement.
NCB will not be affected.
 
"The vehicle was not struck by a stone on the roof, nor was the roof previously damaged, according to Mr McCulloch."

Well, that's gospel then isn't it??

Why must it always be the manufacturer at fault? The instant response is always "faulty goods", "not fit for purpose"

Isn't it just possible the roof suffered an impact at some point? Could it be remotely possible the owner is not being totally honest?
 
Isn't it just possible the roof suffered an impact at some point? Could it be remotely possible the owner is not being totally honest?

Course it is possible, it is not like the first reaction will be 'yes, my fault your Honour' ;)
 
Just rang them, out of cursorily, as never had to make an actual claim.

It was confirmed that pan roof will be replaced under normal 'windscreen policy', with £10 excess for repair and £80 for replacement.
NCB will not be affected.

I'd presume a claim could be made due to the pan roof being actually struck by something rather than it imploding of it's own accord?
 
My 'sunroof' (part of the convertible roof system on my SLK) is not covered by my windscreen cover of my insurance through Elephant (Admiral Group)
 
"The vehicle was not struck by a stone on the roof, nor was the roof previously damaged, according to Mr McCulloch."

Well, that's gospel then isn't it??

Why must it always be the manufacturer at fault? The instant response is always "faulty goods", "not fit for purpose"

Isn't it just possible the roof suffered an impact at some point? Could it be remotely possible the owner is not being totally honest?

Maybe this is worth taking into consideration too:

''According to a handful of forums on website kiaownersclub.co.uk, others have experienced imploding roofs.''
 
Maybe this is worth taking into consideration too:

''According to a handful of forums on website kiaownersclub.co.uk, others have experienced imploding roofs.''

Always worth remembering too that forums attract those with problems/issues?

Out of all the cars of this model sold, how many have suffered an 'imploding' sunroof and how does that compare with other models/manufacturers and general sunroof breakage?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom