Motability Operations Limited · DRN-6234003

The complaint Mr G is unhappy that a car supplied to him under a hire agreement with Motability Operations Limited (‘MO’) was of an unsatisfactory quality. What happened In September 2024, Mr G was supplied with a new car through a hire agreement with MO. He paid an advance rental payment of £1,249 and the agreement was for a minimum hire term of 39 four-weekly periods. Mr G wasn’t happy with the quality of the car supplied to him, and he had various issues relating to the app feature, the infotainment system, and the handbrake. The car went back to the supplying dealership on a number of occasions, but the issues couldn’t be fixed. So, Mr G complained to MO. MO upheld the complaint and agreed to terminate the agreement, to provide a pro-rata refund of the advance rental payment, and to pay Mr G £350 compensation for the inconvenience he’d suffered. Mr O didn’t accept the offer, and he brought the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service for investigation. Our investigator didn’t think MO’s offer was fair. They said that Mr G had a four-day period without either the car he was hiring or a courtesy car in January 2026; and there was a further two-day period where Mr G was provided with a courtesy car, but this wasn’t suitable for his medical needs. So, they thought MO should refund the payments for these periods. The investigator also said that Mr G’s usage of the car was impaired as he wasn’t able to use the app for 16-months, and because he didn’t have full use of the infotainment system for 8-months. So, the investigator said that MO should also refund 15% and 10% of the payments made for these periods. These recommendations were in addition to the offer MO had already made. MO didn’t agree with the investigator’s opinion. They said the car remained drivable while it was in Mr G’s possession, and the core functions remained usable. They said that, while the app issues meant that turning on the heated steering wheel and seats remotely didn’t work, Mr G was still able to turn these on from inside the car. They also said that the infotainment issues were intermittent, not continuous. Finally, they said the courtesy car issues were as a result of a third-party company, for which they had no control over. So, they thought the offer they had made was reasonable in the circumstances. Based on these comments, the investigator said that MO didn’t need to refund the payments for the total of six-days without a suitable courtesy car, and that the 15% refund for the app issues should be reduced to 5%. Mr G wasn’t happy with the revised recommendations, and he asked that this matter be passed to an ombudsman to decide.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. If I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, I’ve reached my view on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. In considering this complaint I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (if appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the time. Mr G was supplied with a car under a hire agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we’re able to investigate complaints about it. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA’) says, amongst other things, that the car should’ve been of a satisfactory quality when supplied. And if it wasn’t, as the supplier of goods, MO are responsible. What’s satisfactory is determined by things such as what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory given the price, description, and other relevant circumstances. In a case like this, this would include things like the age and mileage at the time of sale, and the vehicle’s history. The CRA also implies that goods must confirm to contract within the first six months. So, where a fault is identified within the first six months, it’s assumed the fault was present when the car was supplied, unless MO can show otherwise. So, if I thought the car was faulty when Mr G took possession of it, and this made the car not of a satisfactory quality, it’d be fair and reasonable to ask MO to put this right. In this instance, it’s not disputed there were issues with the car supplied to Mr G, and this made the car of an unsatisfactory quality. As such, I’m satisfied that I don’t need to consider the merits of this issue within my decision. Instead, I’ll focus on what I think MO should do to put things right. Putting things right In resolution of the complaint, MO have already offered to allow Mr G to reject the car with a pro-rata refund of the advance rental payment he made. They also offered to pay him £350 compensation for the impact of what happened. It’s my understanding that Mr O has accepted this, although he believes the compensation should be higher, and that he will be returning the car to MO when his new car, ordered through the Motability scheme, is available for him. Given this, I see no compelling reasons why I shouldn’t adopt this as part of my overall decision, and I won’t comment further on this. Mr G says he had a four-day period in January 2026 when the car supplied by MO was due to be repaired, but no courtesy car was available. There was also a two-day period where Mr G was provided with a courtesy car, but he said this wasn’t suited to his medical needs. I’ve seen that Mr G said he would provide some evidence to show when he was without use of a courtesy car, e.g., emails from the dealership confirming that a courtesy car wouldn’t be available while the faults were being investigated. But nothing has been provided. I’ve also noted that, in a call on 24 October 2025, Mr C confirmed to us that, due to what had happened previously, the company that provided the hire cars for MO had banned him. MO also made reference to this within their response to the investigator’s view, but they said

-- 2 of 4 --

there wasn’t any period they were aware of where Mr G was without use of either the car they supplied, or a courtesy car. Having considered the above, and the lack of any evidence that Mr G was without either the car supplied by MO or a courtesy car for any extended period, I won’t be asking MO to refund him the 6-days payments initially recommended by the investigator. Notwithstanding this, and while Mr G has been able to use the car while it was in his possession, given the issues with the app and the infotainment system I’m satisfied that his usage and enjoyment of the car has been impaired. Because of this, I also think it’s fair that MO refund some of the payments Mr G made. The app issues have resulted in Mr G not being able to use some of the remote functions of the car, but this didn’t mean that those functions didn’t work – they did, it’s just that Mr G needed to be in the car to use them. I appreciate that, given Mr G’s medical issues, this would have had some impact on him, but I also need to consider that this impact would’ve been limited, and the lack of remote use more annoying than limiting Mr G’s ability to use the car. As such, I’m in agreement with the investigator that a 5% refund is suitable in the circumstances. Turning to the infotainment system, this would’ve had a greater impact on Mr G than the app issues. The infotainment system issues meant that features such as lane assist, parking assist, parking sensors, and the sat nav wouldn’t always work, and this also meant that Mr G was sometimes unable to open the boot. These are more day-to-day issues, and impact the safety features of the car, but they were also intermittent issues, unlike those with the app. So, taking everything into consideration, I think that a 10% refund is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, if they haven’t already, MO should: • allow Mr G to end the agreement, providing a pro-rata refund of the advance payment once the car has been returned; • refund 5% of the rental payments made, for a total period of 16-months, due to the impaired usage caused by the app issues; • refund 10% of the rental payments made, for a total period of 8-months, due to the impaired usage caused by the infotainment system issues; • apply 8% simple yearly interest on the refunds, calculated from the date Mr G made the payments to the date of the refund†; and • pay Mr G the additional £350 they have offered to compensate him for the trouble and inconvenience caused by being supplied with a car that wasn’t of a satisfactory quality (MO must pay this compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell them Mr G accepts my final decision. If they pay later than this date, they must also pay 8% simple yearly interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment†). †If HM Revenue & Customs requires MO to take off tax from this interest, MO must give Mr G a certificate showing how much tax they’ve taken off if he asks for one. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold Mr G’s complaint about Motability Operations Limited. And they are to follow my directions above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or

-- 3 of 4 --

reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Andrew Burford Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --