Leaky Windscreen problem 2010-2012 (lack of recall)

Hilary

THE GREAT VOLVO WINDSCREEN COVER UP. These cars are dangerous, Air bags rely on a stable windscreen and if an air bag is deployed in a crash, the leaking windscreen isn't going to support it, putting lives in danger. There are forums all over the internet about the issue. My 2010 XC 60 leaked when it was 5 years old, the re-fit of the windscreen is leaking 8 years later. There is an issue with the glue bonding. Volvo absolutely know about this because (my glass re-fitter in Melbourne has done 3000 Volvo windscreens (4 in just one week including mine) but in my experience, Volvo will deny there is an inherent problem. These cars should have been recalled and unless people contact the ACCC, Volvo are going to get away with denying knowledge of the problem. The lack of action from consumers is how they are getting away with it.

Philia_Bear

Air bags do not depend on a windshield even being present let alone stable

I had zero issues getting volvo to replace one... but only because I was happy enough to take it to NCAT at minimal cost to myself

This is not the USA, the NTSB does not exist in Australia and the federal consumer laws in Australia are 100x better than the USA

Learn how to use them instead of hoping for the ACCC to do something on your behalf

Hilary

I’d be interested to know more about those federal consumer laws that you suggest I learn how to use. Volvo australia has flat out denied there is an issue. Apart from the inconvenience and cost to me - I find the whole denial thing to be very concerning.

Philia_Bear

Hilary
I’d be interested to know more about those federal consumer laws that you suggest I learn how to use. Volvo australia has flat out denied there is an issue. Apart from the inconvenience and cost to me - I find the whole denial thing to be very concerning.

You should read this book https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

It's standard corporate practice for what you describe

Australian consumer law and just some of your rights

https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf

jamesinc

I would think if the issue was the glue, couldn't your windscreen person just not use the problem glue? From my experience with windscreens they pretty much universally use one of a handful of urethane adhesives. I've had trouble with replacement glass not bonding but it was only because the old adhesive hadn't been removed properly from the frame.

Still, yes, I think I agree with PB, an XC60 is a luxury car and a failing windscreen seal at five years I think may be a warranty repair under Australian Consumer Law, by applying the durability test.

More info on durability: https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/inline-files/ACL-guidance-durability_0.pdf

pauljloz

jamesinc
I would think if the issue was the glue, couldn't your windscreen person just not use the problem glue? From my experience with windscreens they pretty much universally use one of a handful of urethane adhesives. I've had trouble with replacement glass not bonding but it was only because the old adhesive hadn't been removed properly from the frame.
Still, yes, I think I agree with PB, an XC60 is a luxury car and a failing windscreen seal at five years I think may be a warranty repair under Australian Consumer Law, by applying the durability test.
More info on durability: https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/inline-files/ACL-guidance-durability_0.pdf

A good trick is to purge the notion it is a warranty issue, there should be a recall, ACCC needs to help you, the dealer / manufacturer should do x/y/z.

Under ACL you are seeking a remedy for something that is not of acceptable quality or reasonably durable. Nothing more - nothing less.

Don't stray off into the weeds. If the other party says it has not a warranty issue, there is no recall, or never seen it before, don't blink or engage just repeat you are seeking a remedy as you consider (whatever it is) is not of acceptable quality or reasonably durable.

This only applies if it is not of acceptable quality or reasonably durable (ie not if you are being unreasonable or seeking this from someone against whom you have no rights under ACL).

Hilary

Thankyou both for your thoughts. At 5 years Volvo did not want to cover the cost (outside of warranty) and water had got into the central electric system causing $thousands of damage. I emailed Volvo international and Volvo Australia eventually came to the party but they definitely did not want to and admitted no liability. They re-fitted that windscreen and 8 years later it started leaking again and is unstable. It’s now 13 years old and naturally they are not wanting to cover the re-fit. Volvo have chosen not to recall the affected vehicles between 2010 and 2012 roughly. They won’t tell me what the the issue causing it is because if they answered that, they would be admitting there is an issue. You can read many theories on these forums about the factory process and the hundreds of thousands of vehicles affected. It’s not about the $ I’ve stumped up to have the windscreen re-fitted again but about the ‘cover up’ by Volvo in not taking ownership of the issue and recalling the affected vehicles. Owners of affected vehicles get the wall of silence and because the first failure usually happens outside of the warranty period, it’s more convenient for them to call it wear and tear. This denial is working well for them because most people stump up the money because it’s easier than holding a large corporation accountable. I’ve paid $300 to have it Re-fitted because I’ve gone straight to a glass re-fitter (that Volvo use anyway) but naturally they put a rather large mark up on it - you could expect to pay $460 through Volvo. I couldn’t be bothered going through VCAT FOR $300 and this is the problem. Volvo are getting away with not recalling the vehicles because people find it quicker and easier to pay for the problem themselves.

Philia_Bear

I would have gone through ncat just for the ruling on the issue

Once there is a published ruling in your state on a specific issue it removes the "we have never heard of this" argument

You get to claim reasonable costs so it's time over money

I may be time poor but I always have time to shove it to the man

Hilary

Here is a a comment I’ve read on other Volvo forums - posted by some one else, that sheds a little light on the issue Mar 18th, 2022, 19:53 - see below

I have posted on this in other thread before and can tell you an imperfectly bonded windscreen is a safety issue and the manufacturer is liable if the fault is due to inadequate assembly in the factory. The windscreen is part of the overall body structure and if it isn't bonded properly the car would fail its type safety test.

Volvo, and I don't mean stray dealerships who may be Volvo today and something Korean tomorrow, have accepted responsibility for this bonding issue and authorise their dealerships to carry out the work at Volvo's expense. If your dealer doesn't jump to rebonding it, contact Volvo UK or Volvo Sweden directly and seek their assistance.

It was only by accepting rebonding claims that Volvo were able to work out which cars had been improperly assembled and take preventative measures. An improperly bonded windscreen can get the occupants of a car killed if that car is involved in a collision. Volvo can't afford to have that happen.

Windscreens supplied to Volvo by the glass suppliers come complete with pre-treatment of the bonding edge surfaces. The bonding compound is applied by robots and reacts with the pre-treatment to adhere completely to the glass. Since it seems that the separation between the screen and the flange takes place on the glass surface, it is likely that the pretreatment has not been correctly applied. This puts the liability into the hands of the supplier and Volvo can recover from them.

Dealers who carry out rebonding get paid to do it by Volvo. It's only those inept outfits that have not read their recall or manufacturers liability notices that fob off owners because they think that they will not be able to charge for the work. This liability issue will apply to any car that left the factory with an improperly bonded screen whatever the year of manufacture.

———————————————————

this is the email address of Volvo international. They just hand balled to Volvo Australia who basically deny there is a ‘windscreen problem’

On 20 Jun 2023, at 5:36 pm, VCC International <international@volvocars.com> wrote:

Dear Hilary,

I am sorry to hear you've not yet been contacted. I have asked the team for an update on the case, and will get back to you once I have heard back.

Kind regards,

MayaVCC International

international@volvocars.com

VOLVO CAR CORPORATION

Dept. 63781

Assar Gabrielssons Väg, SE-405 31 Göteborg, Sweden

volvocars.com

Registered Office Göteborg, Sweden

Registration No. 556074-3089

--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: Hilary 20/06/2023 02:06

To: international@volvocars.com

Cc: owners.australia@volvocars.com

Subject: windscreen issue

On 15 Jun 2023, at 8:41 pm, VCC International <international@volvocars.com> wrote:

Dear Hilary,

Thank you for contacting VCC International.

We are sorry to hear about the issues you have been experiencing with your vehicle, and thank you for bringing this to our attention.

We have informed Volvo Car Australia, our market representatives, of the concerns you have mentioned. As your local market, they are best placed to investigate this for you. Volvo Car Australia will investigate this further, and be in touch with you directly to discuss this. If there's anything else we can help with, please let us know.

Kind Regards,

Maya

VCC International

international@volvocars.com

VOLVO CAR CORPORATION

Dept. 63781

Assar Gabrielssons Väg, SE-405 31 Göteborg, Sweden

volvocars.com

Registered Office Göteborg, Sweden