Motability Operations Limited · DRN-6025848

The complaint Mrs M complains that a car supplied to her under a hire agreement with Motability Operations Limited (MO) was of unsatisfactory quality, and that she’s been held liable for repair costs. What happened In October 2024, Mrs M was supplied with a new car through a hire agreement with MO. She made an advance rental payment of £1,249 and the agreement was for a minimum hire term of 39 four-weekly rental payments. While Mrs M was responsible for the car, it was also driven by her husband. For ease I’ve only referred to Mrs M below – but comments about her driving the car should be taken to include any authorised driver. In May 2025, the car was returned to the dealership with a recorded mileage of 16,080 as the clutch was struggling to change gears. The clutch was replaced, and MO covered the cost of the repair. Mrs M says the clutch still didn’t feel right when the car was returned – but was told by the dealership it would take time to ‘bed in’. The car was returned to the dealership in July 2025 with a recorded mileage of 17,471 as the clutch had failed a second time. The dealership arranged to replace the clutch and MO paid for the repair at a cost of £2,152.52. It told Mrs M that as this was the second repair for the same issue she would need to repay the cost – as the fault was caused by her driving style. Mrs M made a complaint. She didn’t agree the failure of either clutch was due to her driving style, and said it was more likely the car had an inherent fault. She said they had experience with manual cars and know how to drive them correctly. She said she’d lost confidence in the car and asked to return it – but MO said this wasn’t possible as she needed to pay the outstanding balance for the repair first. The complaint was referred to this service. One of our Investigators considered the complaint and upheld it. They found there was insufficient evidence to support MO’s assertion that the clutch failed due to Mrs M’s driving style. They found it unusual that the clutch components would fail twice in such a short period of time, and that no further problems had been reported since then. They found it more likely that the clutch had failed prematurely as a result of the car being of unsatisfactory quality. They said MO should therefore cover the cost of the repair and not require Mrs M to reimburse those funds. MO didn’t accept our Investigator’s recommendations. It said its internal fleet team had reviewed images provided by the dealership and were satisfied the wear patterns were consistent with clutch slip, rather than a manufacturing defect. It said it was happy to agree an affordable payment plan with Mrs M, but she remained liable for the repair cost which remained outstanding. It asked for the complaint to be referred to an Ombudsman for a final decision. So, it’s been passed to me to decide. I wrote to both parties to explain that I’d reached the same overall conclusions as our Investigator – for the same reasons. But I also intended to say MO should remove any adverse information from Mrs M’s credit file in relation to the repair cost, and that it should pay her £100 compensation. MO replied, and said it disagreed with my conclusions for the

-- 1 of 4 --

reasons it had previously provided. I’ve now reached a decision on the matter. 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. 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 decision on the balance of probabilities – what I think is more likely than not 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. Mrs M was supplied with a car under a hire agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means I can consider a complaint about it. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements such as the one Mrs M 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. So, if I thought the car was faulty when Mrs M took possession of it, or that the car wasn’t sufficiently durable, and this made the car not of satisfactory quality, it’d be fair and reasonable to ask MO to put this right. In this case, the car was brand new. So, I think a reasonable person would expect the car to be in perfect working order, and to be able to use it for a significant period of time before experiencing any major faults. While MO initially covered the cost of the repair, it now seeks to recover that cost from Mrs M. It relied on clause 8.3 of the agreement, which says Mrs M is responsible for costs incurred in repairing damage to the car if – amongst other things - she fails to keep it in a good condition. It’s not in dispute that the clutch failed on two occasions within a short period of time. The first failure occurred around seven months after the point of supply, and the second around two months later. In both cases, the car had travelled less than 17,500 miles. I think it’s fair to say it’s unusual for a clutch to be replaced this early in a car’s life – especially twice in a short period. This suggests the problem was likely caused either by an inherent fault, durability issue or failed repair, or that the problem developed through misuse by Mrs M as MO suggests. I’ve considered what I find more likely on balance. Under the CRA, faults which occur within the first six months are assumed to have been present or developing at the point of supply – unless there’s evidence to suggest otherwise. Where a fault occurs after more than six months, that assumption doesn’t apply. In this case, both faults occurred shortly after six months. But, given the timeline of events and the fact this was a brand-new car, I’d find it reasonable that MO be able to demonstrate that the faults were a result of external factors – such as misuse – rather than an inherent quality or

-- 2 of 4 --

durability issue. The evidence available in this case is limited – but I’ve considered the information provided by both parties. I’ve seen a note from MO’s system, which contains a summary of an internal mechanical referral. This states: “Evidence issue caused by user: possibly but as we are not driving the car we cannot say that is the reason but it looks that way...clutch is heavily worn- unable to advise on reason but all hydraulics are working as they should.” I think it’s fair to say this opinion is inconclusive – and doesn’t state with any certainty that the clutch was worn due to misuse – only that it was a possibility. A second note a few days later states the dealership concluded the damage was caused by driving style due to ‘damage to flywheel and hotspots’ but provides no further detail about this. Our Investigator asked MO on several occasions if it could provide any expert opinions, reports or testimony to support its conclusion that the clutch was worn through misuse. While MO has replied saying that the dealership, its technical experts and the manufacturer all agree that the fault was caused by misuse, it provided no direct reports, expert testimony or other mechanical evidence to support this other than the above note – which I’m not persuaded is enough to demonstrate that the fault was caused by Mrs M. The only other direct mechanical evidence I’ve seen is a copy of the car’s work history. This only states that the clutch was replaced in May and July 2025 – and doesn’t contain any diagnostic information or conclusions regarding the cause of the faults. MO has also provided several photos of the clutch components – but these only show that the components were worn, which isn’t in dispute. I don’t think the fact the dealership was unable to locate any mechanical faults during the repair means the problem was caused by Mrs M. I’ve also considered the timeline of events. The first instance of clutch failure occurred after Mrs M had the car for around seven months and after she’d driven around 16,000 miles. The second instance occurred two months and around 1,400 miles later. It seems unusual that the second instance of clutch failure would occur so much more quickly than the first. I think if a driving style that caused significant rapid wear to the clutch components had been used – such as excessive clutch riding – both failures would have occurred in a similar timeframe. I also note that in November 2025 Mrs M provided our Investigator with an updated mileage of 21,099 – suggesting she’s been able to travel more than 3,600 miles since the second repair without any further issue. Given that the second clutch wore extremely quickly – and Mrs M’s testimony that the clutch didn’t feel right following the first repair – I also can’t rule out the possibility that the repair simply failed and that the fault lay with the installation of the replacement clutch – which MO effectively accepted responsibility for by arranging. While MO raised the possibility that a new person is now driving the car – or that Mrs M corrected her driving style – I’ve seen no evidence to persuade me of that. Overall, on the balance of probabilities and taking all of the available evidence into account, I’m not persuaded the clutch failure was caused by Mrs M’s driving style or misuse of the car. I find it more likely that a defect with the clutch or its associated components caused it to fail much earlier than a reasonable person would expect. The clutch is a key component vital to the safe operation of the car, and I don’t think a reasonable person would expect it to fail twice within a short period less than ten months after the supply of a brand-new car. So, I’m satisfied the car MO supplied was of unsatisfactory quality. To be clear, I understand MO’s comment that it has relied on the findings of its technical

-- 3 of 4 --

experts – as it’s entitled to do. But for the reasons I’ve explained, I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to persuade me of those findings. Given the timeline of events and unique circumstances of this complaint, I think there was a greater onus on MO to show the clutch failure wasn’t caused by an issue present or developing at the point of supply – and I don’t think it’s done so. Putting things right As I’m satisfied the car was of unsatisfactory quality, I’ve considered the most appropriate remedy. The car was repaired at Mrs M’s request, and the second clutch replacement appears to have rectified the problem. So, I find that a fair and proportionate remedy would be for MO to cover the cost of that repair. As the cost of the repair was initially paid by MO, and hasn’t yet been reimbursed by Mrs M, MO should waive that cost and not pursue Mrs M for it. It should also remove any adverse information associated with the repair cost from Mrs M’s credit file. I also think Mrs M was caused some distress and inconvenience here as a result of MO supplying a car that was of unsatisfactory quality. She had to arrange for the car to be repaired on two occasions, and I think it would have caused some stress when MO pursued her for repair costs that she says she was unable to afford. To put things right, MO should pay Mrs M £100 compensation. Since the clutch was replaced, Mrs M has asked to return the car as she’s lost confidence in it. For the reasons I’ve outlined, I find it a fair resolution to this complaint that MO cover the repair cost. I understand MO has previously told Mrs M she has the option to pay a fee to end the agreement early – but it appears this didn’t happen as the repair cost remained outstanding, which I’m requiring MO to waive. If Mrs M still wants to end the agreement early that’s something she’d need to contact MO directly to discuss. So, to put things right MO should: • Waive the cost of repairing the second clutch. • Remove any adverse information from Mrs M’s credit file associated with the above cost. • Pay Mrs M £100 compensation. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, my final decision is that I uphold Mrs M’s complaint. I require Motability Operations Limited to carry out the directions outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs M to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Stephen Billings Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --