Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6216653 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6216653 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Motability Operations Ltd |
| Product | hire agreement (car) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MO must: (1) waive the £5,677.56 cost of the second gearbox replacement and remove it from Mr K's account; (2) refund any payments Mr K made towards this cost with 8% simple yearly interest from the date of payment; (3) pay Mr K £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience within 28 days, with 8% simple yearly interest if paid late. |
Summary
Mr K complained that a car supplied under a hire agreement with Motability Operations Ltd was of unsatisfactory quality after the gearbox failed twice within 4,050 miles. MO refused to cover the cost of the second replacement, claiming Mr K's erratic driving style caused the failures. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that two gearbox failures on a brand-new car within such low mileage was not reasonably durable, and that MO provided no diagnostic evidence to support their claim about driving style. The ombudsman ordered MO to waive the £5,677.56 repair cost, refund any payments made with interest, and pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality and durable. A brand-new car experiencing two gearbox failures within 4,050 miles is not reasonably durable. Although the dealership blamed Mr K's driving style, there was no diagnostic evidence supporting this, and the pattern of failures (stopping after the second replacement) contradicted the theory that driving style was the cause. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely the car was not sufficiently durable when supplied, making it not of satisfactory quality.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Motability Operations Ltd, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website