Not upheld: termination of hire agreement and customer service handling complaint against Motability Operations Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained about MOL's termination of her motor hire agreement and the manner in which MOL treated her during telephone conversations. Miss M had not been in possession of the vehicle since June 2025 because her partner, an insured driver, refused to return it. When Miss M informed MOL of this situation in September 2025, MOL determined that she had breached the contract terms requiring her to maintain possession of the vehicle. MOL issued a default notice in October 2025 and initiated recovery action. The ombudsman found that MOL acted fairly in terminating the agreement in accordance with the contract terms and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and that MOL did not treat Miss M unfairly during their telephone interactions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss M's failure to maintain possession of the vehicle constituted a clear breach of the hire agreement terms, which explicitly required the hirer to keep the vehicle under their control and not part with possession. MOL followed proper procedures by issuing a default notice before initiating termination and recovery action, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Regarding the telephone interactions, the ombudsman reviewed recordings and concluded that MOL acted reasonably in ending calls when they could not provide further assistance and when Miss M was becoming increasingly distressed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website