Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained about the quality of a vehicle supplied through a Motability hire agreement and the level of support provided for repatriating the vehicle from abroad. While traveling, Miss C experienced charging issues with the vehicle, which was taken to a dealership for inspection. A manufacturer garage found no mechanical or safety faults, determining the issue was due to a missing charging cable. Miss C was unable to collect the repaired vehicle due to medical reasons and requested Motability cover repatriation costs. The ombudsman found the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when supplied and that Motability acted fairly in not providing repatriation assistance, as Miss C remained responsible for the vehicle under the agreement terms and chose not to return it or notify Motability of her inability to do so.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality. For a new car, a reasonable person would expect a higher standard of quality. Although the vehicle experienced charging issues, the dealership found no mechanical or safety fault, and the issue was attributed to a missing cable rather than a defect. Therefore, the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when supplied. Regarding repatriation, the ombudsman found that under the agreement terms, Miss C remained responsible for the vehicle. The ombudsman noted that Miss C chose to continue traveling to another country and subsequently chose not to return either vehicle or notify Motability of her inability to do so. The vehicle was ready for collection within a reasonable timeframe. While the investigator suggested Motability could have shown flexibility given Miss C's medical conditions, the ombudsman concluded Motability was not obliged to go beyond its terms and was required only to act in line with its policy terms, treat Miss C fairly, and comply with relevant legislation, which it did.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website