Not upheld: termination of hire agreement and application of sanction period complaint against Motability Operations Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained about Motability terminating his vehicle hire agreement and imposing a two-year sanction preventing him from hiring another vehicle after his temporary hire car was seized by Police. The vehicle was seized because the driver (Mr S's nephew, a named and insured driver) was observed engaging in suspected illegal activity. Mr S argued it was unfair to hold him vicariously liable for his nephew's actions when he was not present. The ombudsman found the termination and sanction were fair because the hire agreement terms explicitly permitted termination upon seizure, the seizure was lawful, and Mr S remained contractually responsible for all named drivers' actions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the hire agreement terms clearly permitted termination upon vehicle seizure, and the seizure was lawful and not a mistake. Although Mr S was not present and his nephew acted without his knowledge, the agreement terms made clear Mr S remained responsible for all named drivers' actions regardless of his presence. The ombudsman considered the two-year sanction reasonable given the high risk of vehicle confiscation and business integrity loss, and found it consistent with Motability's sanction guidelines.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website