This is trivial and pedantic point because I can see that your use of the word "warranty" is misleading, but again:You were the one who assumed it was a warranty job.
the warranty claim form
it would be a warranty issue
I think you misunderstand me; yes in this instance they should fix the battery issue and yes it should not be at any cost to you, I agree because it is an inherent fault.The car went in to the dealer with the central locking working. Obviously, as part of the work for the recall required disconnecting the battery and due to what must be a problem known about by Jaguar there is now a problem with the central locking. Is it right that the dealer say, which they are not, here's your car, the recall work has been done but you will not be able to use your car because of the problem of the central locking not working because we disconnecting the battery? OK, with older cars, disconnecting the battery would mean that you would need to input the radio code. However, most modern cars have what is now an 'entertainment' unit needing no code as it is integrated in to the system via the VIN. Is it not a little ridiculous that to replace a battery, which is something that will happen at least once if not more often in the life of a car that you need to add a shed load of money to the cost as well as the cost of the battery?
At no point was I informed that 'if we carry out the recall', which is to do with safety, 'that the central locking will no longer work'. Surely, I should expect the car to come back as it went in with the recall actioned. In the meantime I have a 2 month old loan vehicle with 1,300 miles on it.
If it is a design fault then it is difficult for the dealer to argue the car was fit for purpose and so they are liable for a repair. They then turn to JLR for their costs because JLR supplied a faulty product.Nobody else gets it fixed for free when it happens to them outwith their warranty, so likewise the dealership should be taking the hit. If it is true that Jaguar have now accepted the claim then this technically should set a precedent for everyone else to be able to claim from Jaguar.
I have already said that in the bit of my post you have omitted to quote. That's not my point.If it is a design fault then it is difficult for the dealer to argue the car was fit for purpose and so they are liable for a repair. They then turn to JLR for their costs because JLR supplied a faulty product.
lol try my first sentence.No - you said the opposite: "But I don't believe it should be a "warranty claim", as in the dealership being able to claim from Jaguar for this failure."
Again, I am not disagreeing with this. My point is, when this inherent problem occurs why does the dealer get it paid for by JLR, yet private owners do not?Put yourself in the shoes of the dealer though. The car dies through no fault of theirs so why should they pick up the costs. If JLR have agreed to reimburse them, then there is no issue. If JLR had not agreed, I am pretty sure the dealer would have said that Paul must pay. It is like a spark plug breaking when a dealer tries to remove it - they would not pay for the resulting cost for repairing.