Motability Operations Limited · DRN-6208382

The complaint Mr P complains that Motability Operations Limited trading as Motability Operations (MO) rejected his request to exit his lease agreement and failed to ensure he was listed as a named driver on the insurance policy. What happened In May 2025 Mr P entered into a contract hire agreement with MO in respect of a new car. When he collected the car he says he was instructed to enter a PIN into an electronic document before he had inspected the vehicle. This confirmed his formal acceptance of the car. Subsequently he discovered a scratch on the dashboard. The dealer endeavoured to repair this but was unable to do so and offered him £100. Mr P says the scratch affected the heads up display (HUD) and he wanted it replaced. The dealer didn’t agree. MO considered Mr P’s complaint and made him an additional goodwill payment of £305 to cover the advance payment he had made. Some four months after entering into the agreement it was discovered that Mr P had not been added to the insurance policy provided by MO. It ensured he was added without delay and it sought to find out why this had happened. The dealer was unable to clarify what had occurred and MO made a goodwill payment of £200 to Mr P. MO also offered Mr P an early termination without a cancellation fee being applied. Mr P remained unhappy with the outcome of both his complaints. He said he had relied on the car being suitable for his needs and the scratch affected his enjoyment and use of the car. He also said the fact he had not been insured for some four months had exposed him a to a significant financial and legal risk. He explained he had used the car to transport family members who had also been exposed to risk. Mr P brought his complaint to this service where it was considered by one of our investigators who didn’t recommend that it be upheld. She noted the dealer had said the scratch was cosmetic and she thought the compensation was fair. As for the issue of the insurance she was not aware of any financial loss faced by Mr P and so she didn’t consider MO need do anymore. Mr P didn’t agree and said the scratch was more than cosmetic. He also reiterated he had been required to enter the PIN before checking the car and this meant he had not been able to inspect it before making this commitment. He also said the scratch had a major impact on the HUD. He believed the car had not been of an acceptable quality as required under consumer law. He also raised other issues regarding the quality of the car, but our investigator explained as these had not been raised with MO they would have to be considered under a separate complaint if Mr P wished to pursue them. 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

When the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory as some of it is here – I’ve reached my outcome on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I consider likely to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I also want to assure Mr P and MO that I’ve reviewed everything on file. If I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I appreciate Mr P is disappointed with the car and MO’s handling of his request but I do not consider I can uphold his complaint. I will explain why. It is agreed by all parties there is a scratch on the dashboard. However, they do not agree about its impact. The dealer has said: “The scratch doesn’t cover the speedometer etc, it is on the decorative trim that goes across the dashboard, it’s a minor scratch that doesn’t warrant the dashboard being replaced hence the offer of £100 goodwill.” I have seen no evidence from ether party or from an independent inspector to show the scratch in any detail or how it affects the HUD. The dealer also says that Mr P entered the PIN having inspected the vehicle and knowing the scratch was in place. Clearly Mr P disputes this. So, I have been presented with different versions of events by both parties without any supporting evidence. In the circumstances it seems reasonable that Mr P be offered some compensation which both the dealer and MO have done. I think that is a reasonable response to the issue. I do not consider that Mr P has shown this scratch is such that it entitles him to exit his agreement. As for the matter of Mr P not being insured to drive the car I agree this was a serious error, but I also consider he had a responsibility to have checked the insurance was in place. Fortunately, he suffered no financial or other loss as a result of this error and so there are no grounds for MO being obliged to pay him any compensation. If it had not rectified the matter once it had become aware of it then I may have taken a different view. However, MO did resolve it without delay and paid him £200 and I consider that to more than fair. Overall, I consider the compensation offered by MO on top of that provided by the dealer is sufficient and I do not think it need do more. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Ivor Graham Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --