Windscreen scratched

[beefbeefbeef]

You can try if you wish but assuming the perspective from your question, you will fail.

I had had the car for about 24 hours. I am not referring to the light scratches you expect to see, the path of the wipers, the expected tiny twinkles in sunlight - this was the worst I have ever seen and was quite literally semi-opaque as some lunatic had clearly tried to "treat" it with who only knows what (like wet & dry)

First sentence - agreed.

I have been going forward on the assumption it was a gritty sponge which did the damage (not under my ownership!) but, as you say, perhaps it was some inappropriate polish because there are so many scratches. Last weekend I was having some difficulty seeing the road at one point so , whether it's via insurance or not, it needs to be sorted.

 

[Glassman]

You can try if you wish but assuming the perspective from your question, you will fail.

I had had the car for about 24 hours. I am not referring to the light scratches you expect to see, the path of the wipers, the expected tiny twinkles in sunlight - this was the worst I have ever seen and was quite literally semi-opaque as some lunatic had clearly tried to "treat" it with who only knows what (like wet & dry)

You're saying the 'damage' was done before the car was insured?

 

[lxi]

You're saying the 'damage' was done before the car was insured?

I'll try to make this easy to understand.

Windscreen clauses from a couple of insurers chosen at random:

Pay all costs after the first £75 for replacing a windscreen or other fixed glass panels that are damaged beyond repair.

Your existing windscreen needs to be replaced Damage to the windscreen, which would be sufficient to cause the vehicle to fail a Department of Transport M.O.T. test

Transport mot rules: A car will fail if it exhibits "a combination of minor damage areas which seriously restricts the driver's view".

Obviously the damage was present, although not evident, before "my" insurance cover commenced. The damage obviously happened when the car was registered with the previous owner.

The previous owner had insurance cover but didn't claim although he should have done so. Consequently the previous owner's insurance company benefited by not having to make a payment for replacement although it would have done so had a claim been submitted.

My insurance company did not benefit in the same way, but regardless, one of the insurance companies should be liable for the cost of replacement.

Whichever company it was is entirely academic in relation to your implied point about pushing up premiums via "fraudulent" claims - my claim was not fraudulent and was made after it became apparent that the car was unsafe to drive and indeed should have failed an MOT.

That's my last post on this subject as I don't find the subject of car glass very interesting. I was merely making a point by example for the potential benefit of the OP

 

[markjay]

...Obviously the damage was present, although not evident, before "my" insurance cover commenced. The damage obviously happened when the car was registered with the previous owner.

The previous owner had insurance cover but didn't claim although he should have done so. Consequently the previous owner's insurance company benefited by not having to make a payment for replacement although it would have done so had a claim been submitted...

I don't understand your point about why you should be able to claim off the car's current insurer for damage that should have been covered by the car's previous insurer.

Surely you can appreciate that insurace companies are separate businesses and can not be expected to cover for each other, even if both are in the same industry?

Just as you would not take your Mercedes to a BMW dealer for a warranty issue insisting on free repair because their 'colleagues' Mercedes Benz would have incurred the cost anyway...

...My insurance company did not benefit in the same way, but regardless, one of the insurance companies should be liable for the cost of replacement...

Yes, one of the two insurance companies should indeed be liable, the only 'slight' issue is that it is not the one you claimed off.

This is t5be fallacy of pseudo - logic reasoning... on the face of it sound correct. Only it isn't...

If I lend money to your neighbour, then ask you to pay me back because 'one of you two owes me money', my statement would be correct, but would you think it fair or reasonable that you should pay up?

 

[markjay]

...Whichever company it was is entirely academic in relation to your implied point about pushing up premiums via "fraudulent" claims - my claim was not fraudulent...

Did the insurer ask for the date the damage occured? If so what did you say?

If the insurer did not ask about the date, then did you volunteer this information? By your own admission you say you are aware that the damage occured before the current policy started, which makes the date material information that should be disclosed and not witheld, even if not asked about.

In light of the above, I find your being apprehensive about accusation of frudlent behaviour disingenuous.

...
That's my last post on this subject...

To be honest, I am surprised that you chose to post this on a public forum in the first instance... you mentioned having an 'imaginary' crack, and then accepted that you claimed off an insurer that was not supposed to incur the cost of the damage... potentially while witholding crucial information.

The Halo is not the issue here, the point is that even if some of our members did or would have done the same as you, I expect they would have more sense than boasting about it on a public forum.

 

[Glassman]

I'll try to make this easy to understand

(blah, blah, blah...)

Obviously the damage was present, although not evident, before "my" insurance cover commenced.

You are not insured for damage which occurred before you insured the car. Even if you switched insurer, but did not previously claim, the damage is not covered by the new insurer.

I hope this helps; you can't talk a load of poppycock, and then try to slam the door shut on the matter. Your understanding of how insurance works is wrong.

It seems you have what could be classed as an unreported, or unclaimed loss. It occurred before you owned the car, and therefore is not a loss which your current insurer can indemnify you for. You inherited the damage with the car, ergo: your responsibility. However, don't let these facts get in the way of you driving into a hammer as it has already been suggested.

 

[optimusprime]

info

Watch makers rouge will do it on a mop .

 

[Glassman]

Watch makers rouge will do it on a mop .

 

[geraldrobins]

perfect answer!!! & does not affect your NO CLAIMS BONUS!!!

I suspect to break it deliberately and claim on the insurance, then the claim would be rejected.
To say a stone broke it and clam would be fraud. Depends on your integrity!!

 

[markjay]

I suspect to break it deliberately and claim on the insurance, then the claim would be rejected.
To say a stone broke it and clam would be fraud. Depends on your integrity!!

And to claim it was broken when in fact it wasn't....

 

[beefbeefbeef]

I thought it might be worth bringing this thread to a close by letting you know what happened. I phoned the insurers who put me through to Autoglass. I explained that the windscreen had been scratched many times and that I suspected this was not one single incident but an accumulation of incidents which may or may not have happened during my ownership (in fact I suspect it was the previous owner). Without any argument, Autoglass were very quick to offer me a new windscreen, saying the existing could not be repaired. About 5 days later I had a new windscreen fitted at work.

£75 excess and has not affected my NCB.

Job done.

 

[Glassman]

I thought it might be worth bringing this thread to a close by letting you know what happened. I phoned the insurers who put me through to Autoglass. I explained that the windscreen had been scratched many times and that I suspected this was not one single incident but an accumulation of incidents which may or may not have happened during my ownership (in fact I suspect it was the previous owner). Without any argument, Autoglass were very quick to offer me a new windscreen, saying the existing could not be repaired. About 5 days later I had a new windscreen fitted at work.

£75 excess and has not affected my NCB.

Job done.

Wow. They still did it despite being told that the glass may have been damaged before the policy was taken out!

Incredible.