I don’t want to enter into a debate about it, but it’s well known the Motability policy at the time the contract was signed was that vehicles could be sold to the hirer. The later policy changes should not be enacted retrospectively. Thats my only point, and it will be interesting to see what the FOS make of it. The reason it’s going to the FOS is not of my choosing, but because Motability said that is the route for escalation because they can’t escalate it internally. Which is highly unusual, given its a policy they have made themselves.
I agree if a “supplier” changes the contract midterm, depending who the “supplier” is you either sign a new contract / the new contract doesn’t apply during the term of the existing contract or given “x” days to walk away without penalty. Similar happens with work contracts / banks and anywhere a contract is formed between a “supplier” and “buyer / Leaser / renter” etc etc.
I have always found it odd, how Motability can play with contracts midterm and (a) not directly inform those midcontract (b) do it freely when they want, which no other company would get away with.
Its not only the option to buy that has changed recently, lease extensions were shortened to 6 months from 2yrs, meaning those who payed a higher AP or loaded the cars with extra’s, with a view of extending the lease for the full 5yrs, also got cought up in contract changes however, some have successfully challenged this!