Not upheld: unfair contract terms and conditions; proportionality of tracker requirement complaint against Motability Operations Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A complained that Motability Operations Limited unfairly required a tracker to be fitted to her financed vehicle, claiming the requirement was based on a misunderstanding of her living arrangements with her daughter and that it was intrusive and undermined her independence. Motability had identified discrepancies between the named driver's address and Ms A's address, along with information suggesting the car may be kept at different locations. The ombudsman found that Motability's concerns were reasonable given its responsibility to ensure vehicles are used primarily for the disabled customer's benefit, and concluded that requiring a tracker was a proportionate response to manage prospective risk, even though it involved some intrusion.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Motability Operations Limited has a responsibility to ensure vehicles are used primarily for the disabled customer's benefit. The identified discrepancies between addresses and information about the car being kept at different locations gave rise to a reasonable concern requiring further assurance. While acknowledging the intrusive nature of a tracker and its impact on Ms A's privacy and independence, the ombudsman concluded that requiring a tracker was a proportionate response to manage prospective risk, particularly as it is intended to review usage patterns rather than monitor every journey.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website