Partially upheld: quality of goods/unsatisfactory quality of car complaint against Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6152193 of 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00. quality of goods/unsatisfactory quality of car complaint against Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6152193 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations |
| Product | consumer hire agreement (car) |
| Claim type | quality of goods/unsatisfactory quality of car |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | MO must honour its resolution offer: collect the car at no cost and terminate the finance agreement without termination fee; place an order for another vehicle if Mr T wishes; allow continued use of the car until replacement is delivered or allow immediate return with allowance reinstatement; pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience; provide pro-rata refund of advance payment upon car return. |
Summary
Mr T complained about the quality of a car provided through a consumer hire agreement with Motability Operations, which developed intermittent issues with the reversing camera, boot opening system, alarm system, and display screen within the first couple of months. MO arranged inspections but could not consistently replicate or formally diagnose the faults, and offered alternative transport arrangements which Mr T found unsuitable given his disability-related mobility needs. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but upheld the complaint in part, requiring MO to honour its settlement offer including termination without penalty, £250 compensation, and a pro-rata refund.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted that Mr T experienced genuine frustration and inconvenience, with greater impact due to his disability-related mobility needs. However, insufficient evidence was found to conclude the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as faults were intermittent and no definitive fault was consistently identified. While the alternative transport arrangements did not fully meet Mr T's expectations, MO took reasonable steps to maintain his mobility and ultimately made a fair settlement offer.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations, all decisions | 1 | 50% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website