Bottom-line: I need you to check and post a photo of the top edge of your cars windscreen, where rubber trim meets metal roof, showing any damage (if any) that the rubber trim might have caused to the painted surface of the roof, as shown below. (you will need to look under the rubber as in the pic below the glass if fitted too low)
Long read:
I had to replace the windscreen last month due to a large stoneschip only for it to be hit by another stone a week later, cracking it and dictating the need for a second replacement just after a week. Both jobs done by Autoglass at my workplace.
I witnessed the first replacement from start to finish and although I requested an OEM rubber trim to be fitted the technician showed up with an aftermarket part. The rubber didn't sit very well initially and I noticed that the tech applied some dinitrol adhesive glue (black) between the trim and the roof to make it sit better. After a couple of days (and the sunny weather) the rubber molded itself to the shape of the roof. All was good, but then...
Then the problems started, the new windscreen gets damaged and I have to get another replacement. This time I wasn't able to witness the works due to work meetings etc and upon completion I noticed that the roof was marked all along the top edge of the windscreen.
CCTV shows the technicians motion as if they were scraping the old dinitrol glue from this area but distance from the camera and low video definition means it's not enough to prove damage by mechanical action (scraping). The windscreen was also fitted too low so the marks/scratches are showing, otherwise they *might* have been covered by the trim.
I complained and AG sent two inspectors in, they both agreed that the roof had been damaged and prepared a report highlighting the area of the damage and assured me this would be solved, plus a new windscreen fitted correctly. BUT, the operations manager is now saying that "from the pictures the inspectors took, it looks like a dust mark to me" and that "the marks were done by the rubbing action of the old rubber in contact with the roof, over time. I have seen it lots of times".
But I know these marks were not there during the first windscreen replacement! I took some pictures when the glass was out but unfortunately none show the top edge of the windscreen so it's my word versus the Ops manager's (since they decided to ignore their inspectors opinion).
I took the car to BMW today to get a third party opinion and an estimation to make it right.
BMW said that the mark could have been caused by Autoglass but they cannot tell for sure because they "were not there when the work was done" and, "sometimes rubber trims leave a light mark on the paintwork". Unfortunetely they did not have any Z4 Coupe in there to compare! And that is where you all can be of help!
So, if you can, help a fellow forum member prove that his car got damaged by the "UK’s leading glass repair and replacement company".
Photos:
View attachment 6
P.S.- The pictures below show how my car was left after the second glass replacement, a testament to their "Workmanship"....
Long read:
I had to replace the windscreen last month due to a large stoneschip only for it to be hit by another stone a week later, cracking it and dictating the need for a second replacement just after a week. Both jobs done by Autoglass at my workplace.
I witnessed the first replacement from start to finish and although I requested an OEM rubber trim to be fitted the technician showed up with an aftermarket part. The rubber didn't sit very well initially and I noticed that the tech applied some dinitrol adhesive glue (black) between the trim and the roof to make it sit better. After a couple of days (and the sunny weather) the rubber molded itself to the shape of the roof. All was good, but then...
Then the problems started, the new windscreen gets damaged and I have to get another replacement. This time I wasn't able to witness the works due to work meetings etc and upon completion I noticed that the roof was marked all along the top edge of the windscreen.
CCTV shows the technicians motion as if they were scraping the old dinitrol glue from this area but distance from the camera and low video definition means it's not enough to prove damage by mechanical action (scraping). The windscreen was also fitted too low so the marks/scratches are showing, otherwise they *might* have been covered by the trim.
I complained and AG sent two inspectors in, they both agreed that the roof had been damaged and prepared a report highlighting the area of the damage and assured me this would be solved, plus a new windscreen fitted correctly. BUT, the operations manager is now saying that "from the pictures the inspectors took, it looks like a dust mark to me" and that "the marks were done by the rubbing action of the old rubber in contact with the roof, over time. I have seen it lots of times".
But I know these marks were not there during the first windscreen replacement! I took some pictures when the glass was out but unfortunately none show the top edge of the windscreen so it's my word versus the Ops manager's (since they decided to ignore their inspectors opinion).
I took the car to BMW today to get a third party opinion and an estimation to make it right.
BMW said that the mark could have been caused by Autoglass but they cannot tell for sure because they "were not there when the work was done" and, "sometimes rubber trims leave a light mark on the paintwork". Unfortunetely they did not have any Z4 Coupe in there to compare! And that is where you all can be of help!
So, if you can, help a fellow forum member prove that his car got damaged by the "UK’s leading glass repair and replacement company".
Photos:
View attachment 6P.S.- The pictures below show how my car was left after the second glass replacement, a testament to their "Workmanship"....
