The first replacement seemed OK but the windscreen trim was always a bit loose, which causes wind noise.
The second replacement by Autoglass involved a catalogue of mistakes and excuses. I thought it necessary to send a detailed account to Autoglass. In case you experience the same mistakes and excuses, I repeat it below.
My windscreen was cracked along the bottom and needed replacement. I was told that no mobile unit was available and that I would have to take it to Croydon nearly two weeks later.
When I delivered the car, the technician pointed out on his form, amongst other unrelated scratches, etc., that one of the side windscreen trims was loose. In retrospect it is clear that this was because the broken windscreen had been poorly fitted preventing one or two of the clips from clipping properly.
When I collected the car I pointed out that both trims were loose but I was told that that was normal and that if it they were too tight they would break the windscreen. This was obvious nonsense, and a deliberate misrepresentation, but having hung around in Croydon for three hours, I wanted to go home and did not think that argument would help. The windscreen made a crackling noise all the way home and for several weeks afterwards.
I called Autoglass to complain mainly about the crackling and a helpful man explained the mechanics involved and told me that the windscreen would have to be refitted because the adhesive had not set properly. I also mentioned the trims and he explained that the problem was that too much adhesive had been used, or the screen had been poorly positioned, raising the windscreen too high, preventing the clips from clipping. In fact only two of the eight clips were able to clip.
I was told to take the car back to the branch for an inspection. Rather than take it to Croydon, which had already tried to fob me off with a misrepresentation, I took it to the Wandsworth branch, where a polite technician honestly acknowledged that the windscreen needed to be refitted and made a note to that effect on the computer system. He told me that I would be contacted.
I wasn’t contacted so I contacted Autoglass head office again who put me through to the Croydon branch. They agreed to refit the windscreen and to order parts. However, the call was too late for a parts order to be made and I was asked to call again the next day to speak to someone else. I did so and I was told that the parts would be ordered.
A month later I called again and I was told that there was a delay getting the parts. Having called Subaru today, I know that these parts are and were available from stock for next day delivery. I was told that they would be ordered again. Meanwhile the windscreen trims had both blown off on the motorway and one was lost.
Another month later, I was contacted again by Autoglass and a refitting appointment was made.
I know one other person with the same car. I mentioned the trim to him and he said the same had happened, that after fitting of a new windscreen, the trim had blown off on the motorway, and thatAutoglass had told him that, once a windscreen was replaced, the trim needed to be glued on, and that that is what they did
When the technician arrived, I tried to explain the problem to him. I was not impolite in any way. I asked him to give me one of the new clips so that I could show him the clipping problem. He refused, told me that what I was saying was wrong, and that he did not need to be told how to do his job. He insisted that the higher the windscreen the better the fit, which is plainly nonsense. I got one of the old clips from the salvaged trim in the boot of the car and demonstrated anyway. The clip clipped successfully to the bottom notch on the left hand side of the screen but clearly could not clip to the top notch. He looked at the clip and told me that it looked like an Imprezza clip which is slightly different from a Forester clip. This claim was ludicrously implausible because it is inconceivable that Subaru would waste money making and stocking two different but almost identical clips, and that he would be able to tell the difference from memory when Subarus are so uncommon. He made no reference to the need to glue the clips. I concluded that that I could not rely on his professionalism or integrity.
I left him to his work and called Autoglass head office to warn them of my concerns, in particular that he would fit the windscreen wrongly and resort to gluing the trims to the car, and that the technician was unreceptive to information and bolshy. The lady I spoke to was polite, helpful and concerned and referred the matter to Customer Services and to the Croydon branch. I suggested that the Croydon branch should not call the technician and say that the customer had complained about him because I was concerned that his reaction would be counterproductive.
Someone from the Croydon branch called me, bluntly dismissed everything I said and told me that no technician would ever do what had happened or what I was worried about. He then brought up the fact that one of the trims had not fitted properly when I had brought the car in. I pointed out that the fact that a previous windscreen had been poorly fitted was not an excuse for poorly fitting another one. I repeated my concerns about provoking the technician by calling him and telling him that I had complained. He told me rudely that he wasn’t going to call the technician anyway and that the technician was a special A team technician who knew exactly what he was doing. I told him that his attitude was unhelpful.
The technician completed his work. The trims appear to fit but he then informed me that I should not test them to see if they would come off because, as I had feared, he had glued the clips on and the glue needed to set. He said that he had used the windscreen adhesive to glue the clips, which, if glue is necessary, seems most unlikely to work because: you cannot glue something into position under stress (the trim is slightly springy) unless it is independently stressed whilst the glue sets; the adhesive is a slightly flexible material unsuitable for locking a clip into place; and the adhesive has a low pull to surface area ratio compared with most glues, not much use on a part with a small surface area like the trim clips. If the glue is not necessary, then it will probably do no harm and will be relatively easy to remove when necessary, but I am concerned now that he thought it necessary to glue the clips at all. Has he used a much stronger glue which will prove very difficult to remove later? Did he find it necessary to break bits off the clips to make them fit?
I called Autoglass head office to voice my concerns again. I was told that customer service would contact me. I was instead contacted by the Croydon branch, more polite this time, who offered to send a trainer to “allay my concerns”. I said that to see what had been done he would have to pull the trims off and that, in the first instance, he might as well telephone me.
The "trainer" telephoned me and was unhelpfully defensive from the outset. He was initially interested in the argument that the fact that the previous windscreen had been poorly fitted was an excuse for the new windscreen not fitting properly. He dropped this line of argument when I pointed out that the fitting of the previous windscreen was not so bad that it had caused the trims to blow off on the first motorway trip. He tried to pick holes in almost everything that I said, for example, ridiculing my description of windscreen glue as silicone, although I believe that many windscreen glues, if not all of them, are silicones. He then spoke to the technician. He called me back and told me that he was satisfied that the windscreen had been properly fitted because the technician said so – not the most rigorous investigation procedure. He said that the clips are supposed to be glued with the windscreen adhesive describing a process involving the clips being pushed into the excess adhesive that squeezes out into the clips’ space. I suspect that the method used may be an effective assembly procedure but that the purpose is not to glue, but to push any excess adhesive out of the way of the clips before it cures. If the purpose were to glue, there would be traces of adhesive on the original factory installed clips. There were not and the shape of the clips does not lend itself to gluing. There is no reference to gluing the clips in Subaru’s service manual.
If this is what the technician has done, and he is simply under the misapprehension that the adhesive acts a glue for the clips, there is probably no problem. If, however, he is relying on the adhesive as a clip adhesive because the clips do not fit or if the clips are now irremovably glued, there is a problem. This will only be determined by removing the trim which I hope will not be necessary for some time. If there is a problem please be prepared for a complaint when it become apparent, but, in the meantime I think you would be wise to investigate further and to improve both the knowledge and the interpersonal skills of both your technicians and your trainers.
Whilst it may be annoying for a technician to have a client question his work, it is also very annoying for a highly educated client to have his concerns dismissed so crudely and inconsistently.The trims currently remain in place although they are a tiny bit loose.
