Motability Operations Limited · DRN-6129457

The complaint Mr A complains about the quality of a car he acquired under a hire agreement with Motability Operations Limited (MOL). When I refer to what Mr A and MOL have said and/or done, it should also be taken to include things said and/or done on their behalf. What happened In December 2022, Mr A entered into a hire agreement with MOL to acquire a car first registered in December 2022. There was an advance rental payment of £2,799 and during the minimum hire term there were 39 instalments. Mr A said that despite multiple breakdowns and numerous callouts since November 2024, he has been repeatedly informed that the car has been checked and found to have no faults. Mr A said the same issues continue to occur, leaving him stranded and without reliable transport on several occasions. The car has been taken for repair multiple times, yet it is returned with the same unresolved faults. Mr A said that he relies on the car daily, and the ongoing failures have caused significant distress and disruption to his life. On 21 November 2025, MOL wrote to Mr A. In this correspondence they confirmed that when speaking to Mr A shortly before this correspondence they offered a voluntary cancellation at that point with their £250 exit fee, which Mr A declined. MOL said they investigated the issues Mr A mentioned with the dealership who informed to them that a fault was looked at on 20 March 2025, and during that visit a software update was completed to resolve the issue. MOL said the dealership carried out further software updates on 22 August 2025 and 8 October 2025 to address the EML warning light. MOL said they understand that Mr A returned the car to the dealership on 24 October 2025 for further investigation, but they have been unable to identify the fault. As such, MOL said they have arranged for an independent technical inspection to be completed, which took place on 18 November 2025, and the engineer of that inspection was also unable to find a fault. MOL said Mr A’s contract is due to end on 11 December 2025, which means he can place an application for a new car at any point, but he will need to pay any outstanding debt that has accrued. In addition, MOL said they have arranged for £250 to be paid for the stress and inconvenience caused. Mr A remained unhappy, so he referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (Financial Ombudsman). Our investigator considered Mr A’s complaint, but the investigator did not think there was enough evidence, on balance, to conclude that Mr A should be allowed to reject the car. Mr A disagreed with the investigator. As such, the complaint has been passed to me to decide.

-- 1 of 5 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Where evidence is unclear or in dispute, I reach my findings on the balance of probabilities – which is to say, what I consider most likely to have happened based on the evidence available and the surrounding circumstances. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to take into account the relevant rules, guidance, the law and, where appropriate, what would be considered good industry practice at the relevant time. Mr A acquired the car under a hire agreement, which is a regulated consumer credit agreement. Our service can look at these sorts of agreements. MOL is the supplier of goods under this type of agreement and is responsible for dealing with complaints about their quality. I have summarised this complaint very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. If there is something I have not mentioned I have not ignored it. I have not commented on every individual detail. But I have focussed on those that are central to me reaching, what I think is, the right outcome. This reflects the informal nature of the Financial Ombudsman as a free alternative to the courts. In this decision I am only considering the aspects MOL are responsible for, so I cannot look at certain actions and/or inactions of the dealership or other entities which Mr A might be unhappy about. As such, in this decision I only focused on the aspects I can look into. And I am only looking at the events that have been raised by Mr A with MOL, the ones they had an opportunity to address in their correspondence sent to him on 21 November 2025. As such, I am not looking at anything that has happened after this date. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements such as the one Mr A entered into. Under this agreement, there is an implied term that the goods supplied will be of satisfactory quality. The CRA says that goods will be considered of satisfactory quality where they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory – taking into account the description of the goods, the price paid, and other relevant circumstances. I think in this case those relevant circumstances include, but are not limited to, the age and mileage of the car and the cash price. The CRA says the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition, as well as other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability. In Mr A’s case the car was first registered in same month as he acquired it. As such I think a reasonable person would expect it to be of a higher quality than a cheaper and/or previously used car. I think it would also be reasonable to expect the car to last a considerable period of time before any problems occurred, and it would be reasonable to expect it to be free from even minor defects shortly after it was acquired. In summary, Mr A feels he should be entitled to reject the car and be compensated for the distress and inconvenience he has been caused. The CRA sets out that Mr A has a short term right to reject the car within the first 30 days, if the car is of unsatisfactory quality, not fit for purpose, or not as described, and he would need to ask for the rejection within that time. Mr A would not be able to retrospectively exercise his short term right of rejection at a later date.

-- 2 of 5 --

The CRA does say that Mr A would be entitled to still return the car after the first 30 days, if the car acquired was not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose, or not as described, but he would not have the right to reject the car until he has exercised his right to a repair first – this is called his final right to reject. And this would be available to him if that repair had not been successful. First, I considered if there were faults with the car. I can see that the following work was completed on the car: - 21 December 2023, when the car had travelled 9,863 miles, it had rework carried out to the brakes that had a squeaky sound. - 11 October 2024, when the car had travelled 16,798 miles, it had issues with non- start and a generator motor assembly needed to be replaced. At that same time the car needed to have the manual transaxle and its engine assembly replaced. - 19 March 2025, when the car had travelled 19,254 miles, it had an engine and EV/HEV system update. - 28 May 2025, when the car had travelled 21,786 miles, it had a recall completed on the Battery Management System. - 22 August 2025, when the car had travelled 23,207 miles, the engine light was investigated. - 8 October 2025, when the car had travelled 23,768 miles, the car had an engine light on and needed to have the throttle chamber assembly replaced. Based on all the above, I think the car was, most likely, faulty. But just because a car was faulty does not automatically mean that it was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied. As such, I have considered if the car was of unsatisfactory quality when it was supplied to Mr A. I have considered all the circumstances of this case, including the age, price, and mileage of the car, combined with when the above issues were noted, and from the available evidence I think, most likely, the car was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied to Mr A. And considering this was a new car, combined with when the faults first became apparent, I think, most likely, a reasonable person would not consider the car to be of satisfactory quality when supplied. When arriving at this conclusion I have also considered that a reasonable person would not expect a car which travelled less than 17,000 miles to need to have the generator motor assembly and the manual transaxle (and its engine assembly) replaced. I also do not think that the that a reasonable person would expect the car to have a throttle chamber assembly replaced on a car that had travelled less than 24,000 miles. Considering how long those parts should normally last, I’m persuaded that, more likely than not, the car would not be considered reasonably durable due to these faulty parts. I think, considering the specific circumstances of this particular case, this, most likely, would render the car of unsatisfactory quality. However, based on the evidence available I think, most likely, the repairs carried out appear to have been successful. Taking all this into consideration, I do not think it would be fair and reasonable for Mr A to be able to exercise his right to reject the car under the CRA. I know Mr A feels that he should still have a right to reject the car. However, he needed to make that clear enough, and for it to be understood as such by MOL (as the supplier on the agreement), before he exercised his right to a repair and/or follow up repairs. I have not seen enough evidence to be able to say that, most likely, he did so. Once Mr A agreed to the individual repairs, he could not exercise his right to reject under the CRA, without allowing a reasonable time for those repairs. Overall, I do not think that on balance Mr A did make it clear enough to MOL that he wanted to reject the car instead of having it repaired. I say this because even when some of the

-- 3 of 5 --

earlier repairs had failed, Mr A still gave them the car for repairs. Each time the car needed repairs Mr A allowed this to happen and, I understand, that he was offered courtesy cars during the period of repairs. I think, had Mr A clearly asked MOL to reject the car and did not want to exercise his right to a repair, he would not have been offered courtesy cars during the repairs in question. I know that Mr A feels that after he was told to pick up the car in November 2025, the car was still not fixed. However, I can see that an independent inspection was completed in November 2025, when the car had travelled around 24,985 miles. The inspection indicated that the dealership were unable to identify a fault with the car, and no DTC fault codes were recorded when a diagnostic analysis was carried out. I can see that the independent engineer also indicated that the car was switched on, and the dashboard warning lamps were observed, all completed their self-test procedures before being extinguished, including the engine management light, which remained extinguished. They said the car was driven in varying traffic conditions reaching road speeds of around 40 mph over 6 miles and during that time it appeared to accelerate efficiently with no loss of power or holding back being experienced, in either EV mode or with the engine operational. Also, no warning lights or messages were displayed during the road test. Averall, after completion, the independent inspection said they were unable to find a fault with the car. They said the car appeared to drive and accelerate as would be expected, with no loss of power being experienced. At no time during the road test did the engine management light illuminate, and no patent defects were detected at the time of inspection. As such, based on this information, I agree with the investigator who initially looked at Mr A’s complaint, and found that the car was, most likely, fault free after the November 2025 inspection when Mr A picked it up. Therefore, based on this, it would not be reasonable for me to say that there was a failed repair and that Mr A should be able to reject the car. I am well aware that Mr A said that since 21 November 2025 the car has again broken down and needed repairs. However, as I explained, in this decision, I am only looking at the events that have been raised by Mr A with MOL, the ones they had an opportunity to address in their correspondence sent to him on that date (21 November 2025). As such, I am not looking at anything that has happened after this date. That is because any further issues would need to be raised with MOL first, so they have a chance to investigate. Mr A has not provided any evidence of incurring any direct losses as a result of the repairs the car needed, the ones that would render it of unsatisfactory quality. However, I know that when the car needed repairs, on occasions up until 21 November 2025, this did cause Mr A a lot of distress and inconvenience while trying to resolve it. Mr A had to make the car available for the repairs, and, I think, Mr A would not have experienced some of this, had MOL supplied him with a car that was of a satisfactory quality. However, I can see that MOL already paid him a total of £250 in compensation to reflect the impact this situation had on him. I think that is fair and reasonable considering the specific circumstances of this complaint. In addition, I considered that when the car was having the repairs completed, Mr A was kept mobile in a courtesy car. As such, I do not think MOL needs to refund him any payments he made during that period. Here I am only referring to the repairs that would render the car of unsatisfactory quality. I say this because the car had other repairs completed during the time Mr A had it. Some of those were regular services and wear and tear maintenances such as to do with brakes or changing liquids or batteries. While I sympathise with Mr A for the difficulties that he is experiencing, based on all the information currently available in this case, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to say that, most likely, MOL should take any further action relating to this specific complaint.

-- 4 of 5 --

My final decision For the reasons given above I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Mike Kozbial Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --