Need help regarding QLD Safety Certificate for sale of private vehicle.

Ok my partner is selling her car as we purchased a new one.

We organised to get the car inspected at a local mechanic of a dealership (not her car brand but the closest to her house).

So anyway turns out they failed the car for small stone chips in the windscreen. Problem is, the chips are actually TINY. I’m not exaggerating this at all. Will link a photo below. In fact the reason they are so small herein lies the problem.

The dealership KINDLY offered to replace the windscreen for $450 or so… my partner said no she would go through insurance as it’s only $50 excess.

Today, the windscreen guy organised from insurance rocks up and goes “You have to be kidding me” and won’t replace it cause it’s fine.

He said he would write a statement to go back to the Dealership but I feel like I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place. The dealer won’t pass it cause they think it’s out (however in my not expert opinion they’re kidding themselves, and in the experts opinion it’s fine) and the insurance won’t replace it because it doesn’t need replacing.

Next step is going back to the dealer to demand they pass it but I still feel I have nothing to stand on except for the statement from the repair guy.

Do I have any other legs to stand on? ACCC / Ombudsman perhaps?

I know the simple answer is to just go somewhere else but a) it’s $100 down the drain and b) it’s on principle that the dealership is clearly trying to rip us off.

Cheers in advance.

Resolved: The Service Manager of the dealership accepted that the windshield shouldn’t have failed and so it was passed.

Cheers all!



    On the other hand if yiu're the dealer and someone comes to buy the car they are going to want an unbroken windscreen, which will cost money.

    Are you trading the car in at that dealership? If not just go to someone else.


      Not trading the car. Selling privately. Just went to the dealership as it was the closest one to her place.

  • +2 votes

    Photo not linked as promised.


        I've had private inspection tests with similar sized chips in the windscreen. It's only an issue if it's on the drivers side, especially where their face is. Problem is nobody knows how bad it can get in time and if it's weakened that area so any debris that might hit the windshield could injure someone. I've seen some grow and grow over time. Others remain the same. Windshield replacement isnt up to the repairer to decide if it needs it or not. Call the insurance company and tell them


    If the crack or chip only penetrates one layer (usually the outer layer) then chips, bullseyes and star cracks must be larger than 16mm in diameter (about the size of an Australian 5 cent coin). Long cracks must be longer than 150mm to be rejected.


    Similar story to tyre guy from last week… some of these RWC places feel like they need to justify their existence and feel the need to report something and then offer the obligatory “but we can get that done for you today”.

    If you feel it isn’t warranted, then maybe you need to a: plead your case (but the RWC tester won’t give a shit) b: take it up with your state’s registration authority if you think this tester is shonky and trying to drum up work by falsifying RWC checks.

    3.1 Windscreen and glazing (Reason for Rejection)

    • That part of the windscreen swept by the wiper blades (primary vision area) is cracked, scored, chipped, badly sandblasted or otherwise damaged so as to impair the driver’s vision or damage the wiper blades.
    • The area of windscreen swept by the wipers to the right of the centre of the vehicle has bull’s-eyes or star fractures more than 16mm in diameter or cracks more than 150mm long which either penetrate more than one (1) layer of the glass in a laminated windscreen or interfere with the driver’s vision.
    • The interior surface of a laminated glass windscreen is cracked.
    • +1 vote

      Look, 16mm is probably about 16x the size of what they are, but they aren’t bullseyes, they’re chips, and the regulations aren’t specific on what size would obstruct her vision.

      Put it this way, we have never seen them driving the car so they are 100% in no way obstructive to vision.

  • +2 votes

    You could argue with the dealership and ask them to indicate which specific part of the Code of Practice it is failed on.
    There are some specific sizes mentioned, but also "…so as to impair the driver's vision…".

    Otherwise just go somewhere else, for the sake of $100

    • +3 votes

      They are taking the piss. They are by no means large enough or in any way in the field of vision, nor are they through the first layer or on the inside of the glass.

      If it is at a dealership, ask to speak to the service manager and ask for an explanation on why it was rejected. Take in a copy of the RWC requirements and a copy of the report from the windscreen guy.

      Tell them you want it passed (if that is the only thing holding it back) and if they refuse to pass it until you get it replaced, let them know that you will take it up with the relevant authority (Qld Transport and Main Roads) that they are falsifying RWC tests to help them sell services.

      Leave and don't ever go back there if they refuse to sort their issues out.

      Road Worthy Test Requirements Winscreen testing is on page 16, section 3.1.


        yep. if still no luck with the dealership, just go somewhere else.
        many other businesses offer RWC for just $85. You can even get mobile inspection for the similar price.


      Call up obrien and get those chips fixed with their special glue thingy since it's not fully cracked through yet and I'm guessing a small chip like that could become bigger later on if left untreated….? Probably cost about $100 per chip or so last I heard.


        Or any other windscreen repair place. O’Brien’s tens not to be the best price.


          …but they are the best which is why they cost more….?


            @Zachary: I see the marketing works.


              @Euphemistic: Ok then…who's the best then if not O'Brien?


                @Zachary: There is no ‘best’ they all employ basically the same people. You’ll find some great installers who have a passion for what they do and some who just want the wages and don’t care. It is often the bigger the company and their marketing budget the less they car about employees which leads to lack of care. They often can afford to charge more because they catch people who don’t bother to shop around and just pay what they ask. (I’m guilty of this at times, going to the ‘big’ supplier without checking the competition). I was shocked how much extra O’brien wanted last time I had a windscreen replaced.


                  @Euphemistic: Hmmm… I see….but no one uses their signature glass glue, unless that's just marketing and others have their own equivalent?


                    @Zachary: Correct. Others will have an equivalent product that hasn’t had a sprinkling of marketing applied to increase the price.

                    Call me cynical, but just because an ad or brochure says they are the best doesn’t mean that others aren’t 95% of the quality with 75% of the price.

                    That’s also not to say that their claims are false either, but that unless verified by an impartial third party they may be exaggerated at best and downright false at worst. Marketing is about making people believe whatever hype you can spin them in order to collect as much of their hard earned as possible.

      • +1 vote

        Sorry - late reply. According to the windshield guy, they were so small he couldn't even fill them.

        Resolved anyway, service manager of the dealership agreed that it should never have failed in the first place.


  • +4 votes

    Mistake #1: Going to a dealership.


    Well, it seems obvious they wanted to sell you a windscreen replacement for $450. If you think it's dodgy, report it to mains roads. They are strict on who gets approval to do RWC inspections. You don't have to go back and have another confrontation with the dealer. Mains roads will contact the Inspection Station and go from there. Going back armed with the requirements and a witness might be an option as well. You can also fill in the chips with a $30 or resin kit. Should dry in one day.


    the windscreen guy organised from insurance rocks up and goes “You have to be kidding me” and won’t replace it cause it’s fine.

    Good to hear. Windscreen insurance is to replace damaged windscreens not RWC failed ones.


      Not sure what exactly you're getting at. The windscreen guy gets paid by insurance to change it. You saying he didn't change it because he didn't want to do the job and get paid is almost as stupid as the dealership saying its unroadworthy in the first place.

      It was no skin off his back to change it, he just said it wasn't required and wrote a statement to confirm that.


        What I'm saying is that windscreen insurance if for when your windscreen is damaged. Most insurance companies state something along the lines of…

        You’re covered for the cost of repairing or replacing your front windscreen if it’s accidentally broken.

        Your windscreen is not broken it is just borderline unroadworthy. The windscreen repairer was right not to replace it.

        “You have to be kidding me”

        If every windscreen like yours was replaced under insurance then our premiums would be sky high. The installer was not going to risk his contract with your insurance company by fraudulently replacing a windscreen that is not broken.

        my partner said no she would go through insurance as it’s only $50 excess.

        Tell Tammi she was wrong and to review her comprehensive insurance PDS.

        to demand they pass it

        Any update? What did they say to this?

        • +1 vote

          Ok well as far as I can tell, they failed the windshield because they claimed it was a "safety hazard that obstructed her view". If its a safety hazard how is it not right to be repaired?

          That's just silly. is my windshield stuck in limbo? It's too unsafe to pass a roadworthy but it's not unsafe enough to be replaced.

          Have a letter from the insurance guy:

          My Name is [Redacted], I have been fitting autoglass in Brisbane since 1999, and been a independent Windscreen Business Trading as [Redacted], I have been a sub-contractor to insurance companies since 2010,

          Regarding a Insurance Claim: [redacted], for a Renault Clio 2015 Rego: [redacted]

          A claim has been made by owner [redacted] to have the windscreen replaced due to a “Safety Issue” when [redacted] had tried to obtain a RWC, Stating “windscreen damage”

          On Inspection of the windscreen today 21/5/2020, I can see absoulutley No Reason for this Windscreen to be replaced, [redacted] pointed out the microscopic pit/s in windscreen that the mechanic had a issue with and advised it was needed to be replaced (mechanic quoted [redacted] for this to be done at his shop)

          The facts are the windscreen has no structural damage, the windscreen has no chips or cracks present at time of inspection, it does have 3 pin head size pits in the glass, this does not make the windscreen unsafe in anyway,

          I am happy to talk to mechanic or anyone that disagrees with myself

          Kind Regards


          to demand they pass it

          Any update? What did they say to this?

          I will go in tomorrow. I have been working all day.


          I also don't agree with you on the replacing of windscreen for damage. I have the right to put in a claim for anything on insurance, no matter how small. If its a 1mm scratch in my paint and i want to pay the $800 excess to get it replaced, i sure as hell can and they can't stop me. Sure they can say its going to affect my NCB or its not worth it, but thats for me to decide.

          On the same note, if I want my windscreen replaced because of chips or scratches, I am entitled to pay my excess and get it replaced. Not to mention, the insurer doesnt count windshield repair as a claim that would affect NCB.

          The insurance I have is a contract. If i want to pay $800 for a scratch or $50 for a windscreen, then they are required to fix it or replace it.

          For the record. My partner's PDS says this

          "We may offer you the opportunity to choose to pay extra premium to
          reduce the basic excess that applies to claims that solely involve your
          windscreen, sunroof or window glass. The excess that will apply to
          windscreen claims will be shown on your policy schedule."

          That is legitimately ALL it says on windscreens in her PDS. There is nothing that says minimum amount of damamge to consider repair or replacement of the windscreen.

          As i said before - the guy was happy to swap it, the reason we didnt is because a) thats $50 we don't need to spend and b) I want to prove a point to the dealership. If the dealership refuses to pass it I will report it to QLD TMR, pay the $50 for new windscreen and never recommend the dealership to anyone.


            @joshtammi: I'm happy to be proven wrong but I am still under the impression that the windscreen repairer did not replace the windscreen to save you $50 but because it was not a legitimate damage claim.

            His other argument with the dealership is to try and back you up that the windscreen is most likely in RWC condition.

            • +1 vote

              @MS Paint: No I am being truthful in that statement, he was more than happy to swap the windscreen right there and then, but said it would be a waste and agreed they were taking my partner for a ride. Thats why he wrote the report for us to give to them. If they don't accept he said call up again and we will just get the windscreen replaced (the claim through insurance remains open until we close it or the window is replaced/repaired).


    If it was me I'd pay the 50 and get it replaced. In the end it's one less thing a potential buyer can use to get the car for less which would usually cost more than the 50 you put out.


      Wrong thread …

    • -1 vote

      Are you talking about the $50 excess for the insurance replacement which the intaller refused to do? The dealership is asking $450, - ~$100 more than every quote I got for replacing the rear screen on a Ford Festiva, a particularly expensive one as it has a hole for the rear wiper socket, increasing the cost of the glass.


        Stop assuming shit and calling me a liar. The windscreen guy never refused to do it. He agreed my partner was being taken for a ride. He said he will replace the windscreen if the dealership refuses to pass it.

        Also it’s a European car. $450 is the going rate. BMW charges over $1800 for new glass on my other car.

        • +1 vote

          My mistake. I figured that when you wrote

          "You have to be kidding me” and won’t replace it cause it’s fine."

          that the windscreen guy had refused to to it, as you in that sentence had stated he wouldn't do it.

          You might have more luck if you get your support worker or some other English speaker to handle the dispute.


            @terrys: Apology accepted.

            The windscreen guy said that in reference to my partner inferring on what the dealership had said.

            Refuse was a poor word. He basically said he wouldn’t do it cause it would be a waste of time and money for us but that he would write a report to give to the dealership to tell them they’re wrong.

            He of course said he would swap the glass if the report didn’t work.

            In any case. The dealership service manager agreed and said the windshield should have passed and apologised for the stuff around.


    Very small chips are regarded as 'sand blasting', and as such can detract from the field of vision and quality of clear vision. I have failed many screens as they do not meet the legal safety requirement for a RWC. Light refraction and insert damage are the main issues here. If you disagree with an Authorised Inspector _ I never lost one judgement in 30yrs - you only have one option, and that is to visit the Transport Dept for a judgement.


    • +2 votes

      Did you even look at the photos? Or the post I wrote for the windscreen guys report. It’s two small pin hole sized marks which he can’t even fill they’re so small. Even a mosquito would leave a more visually distracting mark.

      In any case the dealership outcome is the service manager will inspect the car personally on Monday because ‘based on the report from the windshield repairman’ it shouldn’t have failed.


        Yes I did look at the photos, and the only Dept legally binding to make a judgement is the Transport Dept. We can give opinions, only opinions as the vehicle is not in my driveway to inspect properly.

        Now, taking your emotions out, and leaving the facts in, plus given the quality of the said photos, and the information given that there are marks on the screen, my statements are still valid.

        If you can see or feel ANY markings on/in the glass and insert swept area, then it can detract from from the field of vision, and therefore it may be unroadworthy. The size individually is not the only issue, but all the combined damage, the severity and hence, does any damage hinder the ability of the inserts, or will they damage the inserts, or could light refraction be caused and impact your vision in any or all moments of driving, especially at night or when wet. See, it is not as simple as you think, there are many issues apart from sitting in a vehicle and looking thru the glass, or particularly incorrectly looking from the outside inward.

        Like most rules, there are the standards, and the exceptions along with variations. We all can have our own personal interpretation of the issue given the photos where as they were…

        Now, again, if you still or ever have an issue with an Authorised Inspection Station, go in the first instance to Qld Transport for a judgement.

        To help you resolve your issue go to the umpire. Problem solved in minutes, and again…Simples.


    You cannot sale a car (in QLD at least) with a damaged windscreen.
    Tiny or not it is damaged.

    By the way, go to another Certificate provider to be sure. If they are SO tiny.

    I use ACE Mobile Safety Certificates. Normal guys, no nit picking.


      By that logic I’d argue every single car for sale in QLD that isn’t new shouldn’t be for sale.


        May be.
        Or may be the definition of "damage" is different.

        As suggested, get another Certifier and then report back.
        It may be cheaper is it is good to go.


      Might went to have a closer look at the Qld rwc rules there champ.


    I have something similar when getting a RWC in victoria. The service station wouldnot pass the windscreen and offered to have it replaced. I'm sure there was some financial reason for them.
    Because the windscreen was perfect in my opinion i took the car to the controlling government department … vic road and they inspected it and passed it and gave me a certificate stating so. I took this to the service station and got my RWC.

  • +2 votes

    Hello all who responded…. both positive and negative which is fine. Everyone is entitled to opinions. I didn’t appreciate being called a liar about the windscreen repair guy not willing to replace it though.


    Great outcome - the service manager from the dealership admitted the technician was not correctly applying the rules as per the Code of Practice.

    The car passed the inspection from him this morning.

  • Top