Not upheld: insurance restrictions on named drivers and contradictory information about emergency drivers complaint against Motability Operations Limited (MOL)

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that MOL would not allow her 24-year-old daughter to drive a car acquired under a hire agreement due to insurance restrictions on under-25 drivers. MOL declined to add the daughter as a named driver because the car exceeded the specified insurance group and engine power limits. Miss C was initially told her daughter could be added as an emergency driver but later learned the policy had changed in April 2025. The ombudsman found the insurance restrictions reasonable and noted Miss C was aware of them before ordering the car. Although MOL provided contradictory information about emergency drivers, the £1,300 compensation already paid was deemed adequate. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that MOL's insurance restrictions on under-25 drivers were reasonable and clearly stated in the hire agreement terms. Miss C was aware of these restrictions before ordering the car and proceeded despite knowing her daughter would not be able to drive it. While MOL did provide contradictory information about emergency drivers, the £1,300 compensation already paid was deemed adequate to address this unfair treatment. The different policies for temporary hire cars versus hire agreements were found to be within MOL's discretion to set.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website