Upheld: goods not as described; inadequate complaint handling; failure to consider alternative remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6375354 of 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00. goods not as described; inadequate complaint handling; failure to consider alternative remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Motability Operations Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6375354 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Motability Operations Limited |
| Product | hire agreement (car) |
| Claim type | goods not as described; inadequate complaint handling; failure to consider alternative remedies under Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MOL directed to pay Miss P £750 compensation. This payment will offset Miss P's losses and she will remain in the hire agreement and accept this as resolution to her complaint. |
Summary
Miss P entered into a hire agreement with MOL in January 2025 for a car advertised with software functionality for overnight charging. The software was not included as it was still in development. Miss P paid £3,999 advance rental plus £1,130 for optional extras (with a £750 discount applied), and has incurred approximately £200 in additional electricity costs by charging at daytime rates instead of cheaper night rates. MOL offered rejection of the car but did not adequately consider the consequential losses Miss P would suffer, including loss of her advance payments, optional extras, and discount. The ombudsman found MOL breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and failed to explore alternative remedies. The complaint was upheld and MOL was directed to pay £750 compensation, which Miss P accepted as fair resolution while remaining in the agreement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that MOL breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by supplying goods not as described. While MOL offered rejection as a remedy, it failed to adequately consider the consequential losses Miss P would suffer, including loss of advance payments, optional extras, and the £750 discount. The ombudsman determined that MOL did not explore alternative remedies available under the CRA such as price reduction or damages for consequential losses. The ombudsman found that Miss P's inability to use the overnight charging feature resulted in additional electricity costs of approximately £200. Although the ombudsman could not award the full extent of Miss P's claims (such as replacement car costs), a payment of £750 was determined to be fair and reasonable compensation that would offset her losses while allowing her to remain in the agreement.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Motability Operations Limited, all decisions | 254 | 18% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website