[Mart1000]

My missus called earlier and said that Gavin from Autoglass injected his special resin into her crack earlier.

Found that a bit odd, as I have the car....

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by Mart1000

My missus called earlier and said that Gavin from Autoglass injected his special resin into her crack earlier.

Found that a bit odd, as I have the car....

Hope, for her sake, that she thoroughly removed all traces of any residue. Don't think it can be done by dry cleaning - at least, that's what Bill Clinton was told.

[Glassman]

Originally Posted by Jon D

I can only reiterate what I said earlier in this thread:
"I had several phone conversations with various people, including supervisors, at LV and followed up in writing, but I was repeatedly referred to the terms of my insurance, which clearly state that, if I want them to pay for it, I have to use Auto Glass - I don't think I have any choice."
As I said to another poster offering similar advice - if you have any practical (as opposed to theoretical) suggestions, I'd welcome your thoughts.

I currently have quite a lengthy dialogue running with LV on this subject; I thought this might be a good place to update given there is a very good example of the £100.00 capped payout rule.

As soon as I have a final and official statement from their legal team, I'll post it up, but so far, there is clearly some misleading statements causing a lot of confusion.

LV= will steer their policyholders towards their preferred/prevailing supplier. The reason is not entirely clear YET, but there may be some contractual obligations to safeguard that their supplier gets the minimum percentage of their work (which may form part of their agreement). Or it may be that LV CSAs are not fully aware of their policyholders' [legal] options.

If am LV insured party takes the insured vehicle to a company other than LV's preferred supplier (for glass repair/replacement work) that company can do the work and they will not be limited to £100.00. Another misleading deterrent is that the policyholder is made to believe that if they don't do as they're told, they would have to pick up the bill themselves, or anything above the £100 ceiling. This is not true.

There is also an element of anti-competitiveness to apply dissimilar trading conditions. It's a complex subject and I'm hoping that the Competition Commission will shake the industry and break up these collusions between insurer and supplier.

[quattrogmbh]

On the 2 occasions I've had a screen replaced by a main dealer, they've called in Autoglass or National Windscreens anyway. They certainly didnt fit it themselves and nor would I want them to.

Would you prefer someone who fits windscreens all day every day or a grease monkey who fits 2 a year?

You are well within your rights to request your insurer to use OEM glass. There maybe some clauses to exclude this if the car is outside manufacturers warranty, but if its within it, you are entitled to OEM glass and any parts to be OEM.

The insurance ombudsman would be on your side.