Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / defective vehicle complaint against Motability Operations Limited (MOL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained about a brand-new car acquired under a hire agreement with MOL in April 2024, alleging serious faults including clutch overheating warnings, intermittent performance problems, and electrical failures from the beginning. He formally rejected the car in August 2025 and sought refunds, a replacement vehicle, and compensation for distress and inconvenience, including an Equality Act injury-to-feelings award. MOL disputed the claim, noting that Mr J first reported issues on 25 June 2025 (14 months after supply) and had not provided sufficient proof of faults. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to conclude the car was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied, noting the absence of independent mechanical reports or job sheets and that no defects were reported at the one-year service. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of satisfactory quality, which requires goods to meet the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. While acknowledging that a brand-new car should be free from minor defects and of high quality, the ombudsman found that Mr J failed to provide sufficient evidence of the faults. The absence of any independent mechanical reports, job sheets, or garage invoices documenting the root cause and specificity of the alleged faults, combined with the fact that no defects were reported at the one-year service, meant there was insufficient evidence to conclude the car was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied. The ombudsman also noted that Mr J did not exercise his short-term right to reject within 30 days and that MOL's request for inspection and repair was reasonable given the 14-month delay in reporting issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website