Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6138347 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6138347 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Motability Operations Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Motability must: (1) Collect the car without charging for collection; (2) Reimburse Mr D the full £495 paid for optional alloy wheels with 8% simple yearly interest from payment to reimbursement; (3) Pay Mr D £250 total for distress and inconvenience (£70 additional to the £180 already paid) with 8% simple yearly interest; (4) Remove any adverse information from Mr D's credit file relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Mr D acquired a brand-new car via hire agreement with Motability in February 2024, paying £200 towards the advance rental and £495 for optional alloy wheels. The car developed multiple issues including a faulty dashboard speed limit display that required a manufacturer software update with no timeframe. After repairs by the dealership and a third-party inspection, the speed limit issue persisted. Mr D lost faith in the car and decided to acquire another vehicle due to 12-month lead times for replacement. Motability offered £180 for distress and inconvenience and waived early termination fees, but Mr D referred the complaint to the FOS. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and ordered Motability to reimburse the full cost of alloy wheels, pay £250 total for distress and inconvenience, and collect the car without charge.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires suppliers to ensure goods are of satisfactory quality. For a brand-new car, a reasonable person would expect it to be in excellent condition with no faults and trouble-free motoring for a significant period. The car developed a confirmed fault with the dashboard speed limit display that required a manufacturer software update with no timeframe. The ombudsman found the car was not durable given the need for multiple repair attempts early in its lifetime. Motability's own reclassification of the cancellation as mechanical (reflecting the fault) undermined their position that the car was not supplied of unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman considered Mr D's medical condition and reasonable decision to acquire another car given the 12-month lead times and lack of guarantee for grant funding.
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