That's the law everywhere in Canada, even in Quebec I believe but I am no expert there. It is simple contract law. In the U.S. common law and the statutory rules applicable to sake of goods have been modified but not here.

Even in the U.S. I'd be surprised if a manufacturer could not deny warranty where an unskilled owner performed his own oil changes. How could you prove you'd done them correctly?

 

Which law, please quote and give reference.

There is nothing in the Jaguar warranty that makes any mention, nor in any other OEM's warranty I have access to.

 

The common law of contract. I think you may need to read the warranty more carefully. I have not read one completely. I would be very surprised to find you to be correct on this point as it would represent a major error in legal drafting.

And much to my surprise the exceptions form part of Jaguar's agreement in the warranty. I have now read the warranty document and Jaguar agrees you may perform the required servicing yourself. You must be able to prove you have done it correctly and on time, all the required steps must be done and proved to be done and you must prove the parts and materials meet Jaguar's specifications. Jaguar is not responsible for any failures caused by not using Jaguar supplied parts or materials.

 

In the USA, where there's no requirement to use the dealer, it would be up to Jaguar to prove that the oil change was done incorrectly. Not the other way round.

I spent 30 years at USA new car dealerships representing a wide variety of manufacturers.....although not Jaguar, admittedly. Voiding/nullifying/denying warranty coverage is a rare occurrence. In my experience....maybe Jaguar is different than most others....warranty coverage is denied only when there is absolute, undeniable, irrefutable evidence that the manufacturer should not pay. Anything less than that and the manufacturer simply won't want to 'go there'.

Cheers
DD

 

And in Canada Jaguar expressly agrees you may perform the required maintenance or hire another retailer to do so, much to my surprise. In Canada you must be able to prove that you did so correctly. There is no reverse onus on Jaguar in Canada. There would be no disincentive in Canada for Jaguar to simply deny your assertion that the work had been done correctly as you would have to prove that or prove it had nothing to do with the failure. Good luck with that if you buy your car up here.

This would mean you would have to show competence and knowledge equivalent to that of Jaguar personnel which would depend upon what you claimed you had done. You would have to keep written records of the dates, mileage and sources of parts and materials. Unless you bought your oil filter and oil from a Jaguar dealer I'd say you'll be sol if your engine failed.

The specified oil is hard to source. There is no feasible way an owner could prove the oil filter he used was equal to that used by Jaguar, just for example.

Then there's the problem of resetting the oil level sender which I do not know how to do and nor does anyone else, so far.

 

Since the OP is in Pennsylvania, Canadian law is applicable.....how?


Anyhow, back to Canada....

Legalities aside for the moment, what is the actual on-the-ground, real world manner in which these situations are handled and decided by Jaguar of Canada? Not what they might do under the letter of the law but what they actually do in practice? Is it common to deny warranty coverage?

Geeez, how did I miss this fun thread? I need to pay closer attention!


Cheers
DD

 

So you were dead wrong yet again. How about that.

There is no practical difference in the application of the law between the US and Canada (and most other countries). After demonstrating that a given failure involved a system or component related to some scheduled maintenance, the OEM has the right to ask for reasonable proof that the maintenance was carried out when and how they require in the defined schedule. An invoice from an indy or a bill of sale for the correct materials has consistently stood up in court as being sufficient.

I should mention that SWMBO (who is getting a great chuckle over this) had a long and successful career managing international warranty contracts for one of Canada's largest engine OEMs.

As a suggestion, never bring a dull crayon to a shootin' match.

 

Whether you believe it or not, three decades of direct experience consistently indicates that there is onus on both sides:

1) the OEM must demonstrate that the failure over which the warranty is being denied is directly related to lack of scheduled maintenance. A burnt out alternator cannot be caused by lack of oil changes.

2) the owner must furnish reasonable proof that the scheduled maintenance was carried out through the simple means detailed above. There is no requirement to demonstrate that the owner knows a 10mm socket from a pair of vice grips.

There's plenty of hard data available if you wish to verify. Much more productive than assuming or speculating.

 

There is no onus of proof on a defendant manufacturer to prove anything in any Canadian court so far as I am aware. The full onus is on the plaintiff car owner to prove both the claimed manufacturing defect and that the conditions of the warranty apply. There are no judicial precedents to the contrary. Once the plaintiff car owner has proved his case the defendant must then defend but not before.

It is misleading to people to suggest that the manufacturer cannot easily deny warranty coverage where the vehicle has not been serviced by a dealer. Furthermore, if you choose not to use the dealer for service during the warranty you will never be offered any goodwill coverage by the manufacturer either within or beyond the contractual warranty.

DIY on a warranted car is not wise in our jurisdiction.

 

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier. Perhaps you (or someone else) would like to answer:

Legalities aside for the moment, what is the actual on-the-ground, real world manner in which these situations are handled and decided by Jaguar of Canada? Not what they might do under the letter of the law but what they actually do in practice? Is it common to deny warranty coverage?

Cheers
DD

 

Perhaps if you laid it out for a layman instead of making a very fine point
that any lawyer would recognise, it would be clearer to the layman reader.

You are correct, the claimant must make his case that:

- a warranty was in effect between the parties
- a particular defect/failure was covered by that warranty
- a particular defect/failure was not caused by any act of the claimant

The question then becomes a matter of the defendant manufacturer to
mount a defence that disproves or calls into question the case of the
claimant.

Hence, the word that the layman tends to use ... that being "prove".

Fine. But, you get what you put into it.

 

If you have your car serviced by the dealer you will encounter no difficulties whatsoever. If you have your car serviced elsewhere or DIY the dealers will not be very interested. Warranty service rates are "competitive" and not the money makers customers sometimes assume. Dealerships don't like the dead time involved in negotiating warranty approvals for cars without the factory dealership service history on their computer systems.

Dealerships play a huge role in warranty claims because they have a co-dependent relationship with their manufacturer. The vast majority of warranty service is actually approved by the dealership and the factory often just rubber stamps the dealers decision. Even for seriously expensive work like the engine replacement I just "enjoyed" the factory works very closely with the dealership mechanics in assessing the failure. Every dealership mechanic gets a factory training certification with updates regularly. One of the big expenses you pay for using dealership mechanics is the expense of this training.

Finally, if you have reported even the suspicion of a fault to the dealership they will record it. Then if a related problem pops up after the warranty expires you are in much better shape for a dealership supported goodwill claim. Obviously the more cars you have purchased from your dealership the better your bargaining position there. If you have gone outside your dealership for servicing then forget a goodwill claim, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer will be interested. I have saved far more in goodwill support received than any dealership servicing has cost me over the years.

 

I have searched for examples of what Jag has actually done in such cases but not surprisingly came up dry. There's only a small number of cars to start with, a tiny number of relevant failures and a miniscule number of controversial failures so not much mystery as to why it's not front page news.

I do have indirect access to the warranty system on one of the US 'big 3' and chat on a regular basis with one of their senior people who can speak on the corporation's behalf on such matters. In comparing their corporate philosophy to that of my/SWMBO's former employer, there is great similarity.

No OEM likes going to court especially over (relatively) chicken sh*t amounts. Legal fees would instantly exceed the amount of the award and the negative publicity is never good.

Contrary to what is written above, Canada does have legislation that does guarantee the rights of the consumer to have his car (or any consumer good) serviced anywhere he wants. The US legislation approaches the aspect differently but the end result is the same.

No OEM will deny coverage unless they have firm ground to stand on and is sure they can prove their case if it does go to or beyond arbitration

CAMVAP - Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan

You'll note that Jaguar Canada is a subscribing member of this organization and may explain why there are no public records of any incidents.

From my own direct experience, the largest claim I was involved in amounted to just under $1 million USD on an engine with a book value of $1.5 million. The engine suffered tremendous damage through fire only ~30 hours after overhaul by a factory affiliated shop. It was proven that the event was not related to any error on the part of the operator (despite initial allegations) but by an error committed during the assembly process in the overhaul shop. I served as technical expert to render an opinion as to whether the error could have been the proximate cause of the fire- which it was. The matter never reached the court and was settled behind closed doors to the satisfaction of all.

I mention the event as this was when I first met my SWMBO-to-be.

 

You've given a bit on general commentary on warranty administration and related subjects. But, my question remains unanswered. Perhaps my fault for not being clear enough.

( Having spent 30 years at new car dealerships. 23 of them in service and parts management, I have a good understanding of the fundamentals of warranty administration. Having lived thru many warranty audits, trained warranty administrators, negotiated countless warranty repairs, and so on and so forth, I daresay that I have as much experience on the subject as anyone here. I spent most of my life neck deep in it )

I'll rephrase my questions and we'll see what happens:

In your actual experience, if you have any, what's the common or typical resolution at a Canadian Jaguar dealership when there is an engine failure coupled together with DIY servicing. I am not asking what Jaguar of Canada might do under the letter of the law but, instead, what they actually do in real world, boots-on-the-ground practice.

Is it common in Canada to deny warranty coverage based on DIY serving? Have you had this happen? Can you or anyone here comment based on actual experience in such a scenario?

Cheers
DD

 

We wandered a long way off oil filter wrenches so it's perhaps best to continue the warranty discussion separately.

 

Good idea, thanks.

Your initial question was crystal clear. I've contributed what I have of relevance.

 

Related to some degree....

My VW Passat, was approx. 10 years old and around 80k miles when I noticed that the front wings were rusting through.
VW had a 12 year anti corrosion warranty in place for galvanised panels and should have covered it.

I made a claim for 2 front wings, and yes, had to jump through all sorts of hoops as they tried everything to run from it.

1. Has a repair been attempted? NO
2.It's actually the 3 year paint warranty that would cover this but you're outside the timescale. BS
3. We'll need to get it inspected. FINE
4. Have you had the car serviced regularly and in line with owners handbook by a qualified dealer? YES it has some partial dealer history but then self maintained with all receipts etc.
5. After months of haggling they offered a 50% Goodwill payment, NOT ACCEPTED
6. After much discussion they generously ( in their opinion ) offered 70% goodwill payment towards the fix. NOT ACCEPTED
7. I advised them of their legal contract and the fact that it was down to their design ( an inherent flaw as disussed in the tsb of June 2006 ) that caused the failure.
I would be taking them to small claims court and pushing home my point using everything at my disposal and making this as public as possible.

They eventually agreed to a 100% FREE fix under "Goodwill" NOT warranty....lol
I told them they could call it whatever they like as long as they fixed it for FREE, which they did.

I believe its a truism that mostly all OEM's will try to run and hide form their responsibilities, so no change there

 

I'd be interested in the reference to a law in Canada protecting a consumer's "right" to have his car serviced anywhere he wishes while under warranty. Each Province would have to pass its own such law as the federal government does not have that jurisdiction. I do not know of any such law in my Province.

It is clear from the website that the CAMVAP is purely voluntary. Anyone can voluntarily agree to arbitrate any type of dispute after the fact. Arbitration is fundamentally a parallel system to the Courts, the difference being arbitration is not compulsory, you have to agree to arbitrate.

Just by the by the anti corrosion warranty is mandatory in Canada but if you read the statutory warranty it is so full of holes as to be legally worthless (pun intended). All corrosion repairs performed under this warranty in Canada are technically voluntary since nobody maintains their vehicle as required.

 

The subject up for discussion, as asked several times, is real life experience in Canada.

Do you have any?

I think we're all getting tired of the dodge and weave technique.

The answer to your own question would be on page one of the search results if you'd done any research on the subject.

 

Plenty. I know of no auto manufacturer to lose a warranty denial case in Canada where the issue was the owner using aftermarket service or DIY.

If you're tired of the debate stop reading and stop posting.

I do not understand your reference to page one of the search results, what search results are you referring to?