Not upheld: quality of goods supplied under hire agreement; alleged failure to accept vehicle rejection complaint against Motability Operations Limited (MOL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained about a new car acquired through a hire agreement with MOL that developed a battery drain issue within two months of supply. Although the battery was replaced at no cost, Mr G claimed the fault persisted and sought to reject the vehicle. MOL declined rejection and eventually cancelled the agreement, refunding the advance payment and a loss of use payment. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply but upheld MOL's right to repair rather than accept rejection, as the dealership found no fault after the battery replacement. Without independent expert evidence of a persistent defect, the ombudsman did not uphold Mr G's complaint for vehicle rejection, optional extras refund, or hire vehicle cost reimbursement.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman established that the car had a battery fault at the point of supply, which was not satisfactory quality for a brand-new vehicle with less than 400 miles. However, MOL exercised its right to repair the fault by replacing the battery. The critical issue was whether the repair failed. The ombudsman found that the most recent evidence from the dealership confirmed no fault was present after the repair, whereas Mr G's breakdown report only indicated a suspected fault requiring further investigation. The ombudsman concluded that Mr G bore the onus to demonstrate the repair had failed through independent inspection, and the breakdown report alone was insufficient evidence of an ongoing defect. Therefore, MOL was not obliged to accept rejection of the vehicle.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website