Upheld: misrepresentation and failure to supply goods matching specification complaint against Motability Operations Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6008527 of 2026-05-29T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation and failure to supply goods matching specification complaint against Motability Operations Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6008527 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Motability Operations Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | misrepresentation and failure to supply goods matching specification |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MOL directed to: (1) cover evidenced costs of personalised number plate without future charge; (2) add 8% simple interest per year from date of payment to settlement; (3) pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (4) remove any incorrect adverse credit file information. |
Summary
Mr M complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about a brand-new vehicle supplied under a hire agreement with Motability Operations Limited, claiming it was misrepresented and did not match his requested specifications. Mr M had specifically requested satellite navigation and powered door mirrors but discovered these features were missing only after accepting the vehicle at the dealership. Although the vehicle had no documented faults and was therefore of satisfactory quality, the ombudsman found it did not match Mr M's specification and upheld the complaint for misrepresentation. MOL was directed to cover the cost of Mr M's personalised number plate, pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while the vehicle was of satisfactory quality (no documented faults), it did not match the specification Mr M had requested. Mr M's detailed and consistent testimony about expecting sat-nav and powered mirrors, combined with his immediate raising of concerns the next day, was more persuasive than the dealership's assertion that the specification matched. The ombudsman concluded this constituted misrepresentation by omission, as Mr M would not have entered the agreement had he known these features were not included. The ombudsman was satisfied Mr M would have chosen a different vehicle with the requested features.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Motability Operations Limited, all decisions | 253 | 18% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website