- This topic has 16 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
- Topic
Finally, after 14 months since I raised a complaint and back and forth with Motability, who refused to accept the original decision, I have now received provisional decision from the ombudsman (and not a mitigator, who normally deals with the complaints at their lower level). What are people’s thoughts, please? I have 51,800 miles on the clock. Should I keep the car? Perhaps opportunity to leave Motability? Below is AI one page summary (out of original 8)
Summary of the Provisional Decision
The Ombudsman has issued a provisional decision in favour of Mr K regarding his complaint against Motability Operations Limited (MO). The complaint concerns a vehicle supplied under a Motability hire agreement that was found to be of unsatisfactory quality. The Ombudsman’s current view is that the complaint should be upheld, subject to any further comments or evidence submitted by 18 August 2026.
Mr K received a new adapted vehicle through the Motability Scheme in April 2024, paying an advance payment of £1,599. He also paid a further £2,155 directly to the dealership for optional extras, including an additional charging cable, alloy wheels, and a panoramic sunroof. Within weeks of receiving the vehicle, he reported several problems, including brake noise, warning messages, and intermittent faults affecting driver assistance systems. Repairs were carried out, including replacement of the brakes and battery, but concerns remained. An independent inspection later identified unresolved electrical fault codes, following which MO offered to terminate the agreement and refund the advance payment. MO also offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Mr K considered this insufficient.
After reviewing the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality as required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The faults appeared relatively soon after delivery, involved important electrical systems, and were not fully resolved despite repair attempts. The Ombudsman considers it more likely than not that the problems were present, or developing, from the point of supply. A reasonable consumer would not expect a brand-new vehicle to experience these types of faults or require brake-related repairs shortly after delivery.
The Ombudsman accepts that Mr K has the legal right to reject the vehicle because an attempted repair failed to bring it back to a satisfactory standard. However, he does not agree that MO should be required to provide a brand-new replacement vehicle or fund a new agreement at today’s significantly higher advance payment rates. He considers such a remedy disproportionate, particularly given the vehicle’s age, mileage, and the fact that only a limited period remains on the original agreement. Instead, he concludes that MO’s offer to end the agreement and refund the full advance payment is fair and, in fact, more generous than the refund that would normally be required under consumer legislation.
The Ombudsman also considers that Mr K suffered additional losses because of the vehicle’s faults. Since the optional extras were purchased with the expectation that they would be enjoyed throughout the full 39‑month agreement term, he believes Mr K should receive a pro-rata refund for the unused portion of those extras if the vehicle is returned.
Regarding the replacement hire car supplied during repairs, the Ombudsman accepts that it did not adequately meet Mr K’s mobility needs. Although the vehicle included the necessary adaptation, it was smaller and less suitable for his particular circumstances. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that MO bears responsibility for the inconvenience caused and should also reimburse 80% of the petrol costs evidenced by Mr K, recognising that he incurred higher running costs than he would have with his electric scheme vehicle.
In relation to compensation, the Ombudsman has decided that total compensation of £500 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience experienced. As MO has already paid £250, a further £250 should be paid.
Accordingly, if Mr K chooses to return the vehicle, the Ombudsman intends to require MO to: terminate the agreement without further liability, collect the vehicle at no cost, remove any adverse credit information, refund the £1,599 advance payment, and provide a pro-rata refund of the optional extras. Whether or not the vehicle is returned, MO should reimburse 80% of the petrol expenses, add statutory interest to refunded amounts, and pay a further £250 compensation. The provisional outcome is that Mr K’s complaint is upheld.
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)
- Replies
As long as Motability honour all the proposals in this provisional I’d say that’s a very good outcome. Well done.
The key thing for me would be getting a pro rata refund of the optional extras, given that they were substantial and it was no fault of your own that the car was a dud and had to be returned. That only seems fair to me and it’s disappointing that Motability didn’t do this automatically.
The proposed 80% refund of petrol costs and the compensation are added bonuses. Given that Ombudsman services often tend to find in favour of the companies who pay for their existence through levies, it’s a big win when they find in favour of the consumer. It just goes to show that it’s worth pursuing things when you feel you have been wronged. Once again, well done.
Long awaited, but excellent result!
I think its in Motability’s interest to uphold the provisional decison, as its the intened outcome the Ombudsman want to reach, as a binding decision and I’m sure Motability want to see the back of it as much, as you are.
Whats next, well only you know the answer, but given you have been looking at several different vehicles away from the scheme, might just be the answer your looking for! Also bearing in mind, the schemes new T&C’s and lower mileage compared to what you have already covered.
Well done!
Finally, after 14 months since I raised a complaint and back and forth with Motability, who refused to accept the original decision, I have now received provisional decision from the ombudsman (and not a mitigator, who normally deals with the complaints at their lower level). What are people’s thoughts, please? I have 51,800 miles on the clock. Should I keep the car? Perhaps opportunity to leave Motability? Below is AI one page summary (out of original 8) Summary of the Provisional Decision The Ombudsman has issued a provisional decision in favour of Mr K regarding his complaint against Motability Operations Limited (MO). The complaint concerns a vehicle supplied under a Motability hire agreement that was found to be of unsatisfactory quality. The Ombudsman’s current view is that the complaint should be upheld, subject to any further comments or evidence submitted by 18 August 2026. Mr K received a new adapted vehicle through the Motability Scheme in April 2024, paying an advance payment of £1,599. He also paid a further £2,155 directly to the dealership for optional extras, including an additional charging cable, alloy wheels, and a panoramic sunroof. Within weeks of receiving the vehicle, he reported several problems, including brake noise, warning messages, and intermittent faults affecting driver assistance systems. Repairs were carried out, including replacement of the brakes and battery, but concerns remained. An independent inspection later identified unresolved electrical fault codes, following which MO offered to terminate the agreement and refund the advance payment. MO also offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Mr K considered this insufficient. After reviewing the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality as required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The faults appeared relatively soon after delivery, involved important electrical systems, and were not fully resolved despite repair attempts. The Ombudsman considers it more likely than not that the problems were present, or developing, from the point of supply. A reasonable consumer would not expect a brand-new vehicle to experience these types of faults or require brake-related repairs shortly after delivery. The Ombudsman accepts that Mr K has the legal right to reject the vehicle because an attempted repair failed to bring it back to a satisfactory standard. However, he does not agree that MO should be required to provide a brand-new replacement vehicle or fund a new agreement at today’s significantly higher advance payment rates. He considers such a remedy disproportionate, particularly given the vehicle’s age, mileage, and the fact that only a limited period remains on the original agreement. Instead, he concludes that MO’s offer to end the agreement and refund the full advance payment is fair and, in fact, more generous than the refund that would normally be required under consumer legislation. The Ombudsman also considers that Mr K suffered additional losses because of the vehicle’s faults. Since the optional extras were purchased with the expectation that they would be enjoyed throughout the full 39‑month agreement term, he believes Mr K should receive a pro-rata refund for the unused portion of those extras if the vehicle is returned. Regarding the replacement hire car supplied during repairs, the Ombudsman accepts that it did not adequately meet Mr K’s mobility needs. Although the vehicle included the necessary adaptation, it was smaller and less suitable for his particular circumstances. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that MO bears responsibility for the inconvenience caused and should also reimburse 80% of the petrol costs evidenced by Mr K, recognising that he incurred higher running costs than he would have with his electric scheme vehicle. In relation to compensation, the Ombudsman has decided that total compensation of £500 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience experienced. As MO has already paid £250, a further £250 should be paid. Accordingly, if Mr K chooses to return the vehicle, the Ombudsman intends to require MO to: terminate the agreement without further liability, collect the vehicle at no cost, remove any adverse credit information, refund the £1,599 advance payment, and provide a pro-rata refund of the optional extras. Whether or not the vehicle is returned, MO should reimburse 80% of the petrol expenses, add statutory interest to refunded amounts, and pay a further £250 compensation. The provisional outcome is that Mr K’s complaint is upheld.
Well done.
It is probably one of the best Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) outcomes against Motability that I have seen (and I have read most this past few years).
As to your path ahead, with all the changes to the scheme, in particular the lower mileage allowance, it may be time to part company with Motability if your needs can be adequately met outwith the scheme.
You also need to get in writing if terminating the car that it will not go on record as a termination as it may go against you if in future happens again.
@kdwolf Well done, I also have a non Motability (SDS Scotland) issue which has been at the Ombudsman for the last 14 month. all be it with a ridiculous and in factual, initial response, last October, which was appealed against and a review is being carried out.
@kdwolf Can I ask you what you would have done next, if the decision had not went in your favor. Would you have went down the road of taking legal action through a lawyer. Or is there another stage/body where it can be escalated onto.I would also be grateful for advice from anyone who has or knows of someone who the Ombudsman has ruled against them, where to go next.
The Ombudsman also advised me that their ruling would only be a recommendation to the council and not a binding ruling. Also if it is at the lawyer stage, can it then be released into the public domain. as my understanding is that it cant be while it is at the Ombudsman.
Any expertise advice would be welcome, as a lawyer, just advised me that it had to go through stage two of the council complaint’s system and if not accepted onto the Ombudsman, for a decision, before he could handle it.
Great result! You’ve been unlucky with the Enyaq, we’ve had ours almost two years, apart from a failed window regulator we haven’t had any issues.
Remarkable story. What a PITA it must be for you.
Are you happy with this as an outcome?
Skoda Enyaq Race Blue
To be honest, I blame the Ombudsman more than Motability. I raised the complaint in June 2025. In September, the (clueless) mediator assigned to the case left the business, and a new one was appointed only to uphold my complaint. In November 2025, Motability rejected the regulator’s findings. Only in May was an ombudsman finally appointed. In the era of AI-first everything, that screams incompetence to me: train an LLM to specialise in England and Wales law, plus Jock’s law, for half the price of a mediator’s cushy salary, and the job could be done the same day.
If they had acted in a timely manner, it would have saved me more than £12,000 on the next Motability deal I could have signed before 1 July.
@Glos Guy, as a result, the pro-rata refund is peanuts now: £2,155 / 36 x 8 = £478.
So, putting aside the fixed compensation I will receive anyway (80% of the petrol cost plus £250) I now have two options: return the car, assuming I can do that as early as September, and receive £1,599 plus £478, which is £2,077 I can use as a deposit plus insurance and left foot accelerator; or keep it until the end of April and then decide.
I was tempted by the Lotus Eletre, but the finance terms they want, together with the car’s residual value, are petrifying.
With the Jaguar I-Pace, I found a good one and called the official Jaguar dealer to ask about bringing the car in for inspection, extending the warranty, and buying a multi-year service package. But they made it feel as if they were doing me a favour just by talking to me, so that one is not for me either.
Pre-registered VWs are another option. The ID.4 GTX layout makes no sense to me: a screen here, a button there; but the ID.7 GTX feels like an entirely different animal.
To my surprise, I also liked BYD Atto 3 EVO Excellence.
Sadly, I cannot test-drive any of these cars because none has a left-foot accelerator. That is normal for me, though: I will just have to watch Mat Watson’s reviews instead. Which leads me to @Callmejohn’s question.Although I am not a solicitor, when I decide to act, I normally do not lose cases. So it was clear to me that I would win this one; the only question was how much. And the “how much” here is a disappointment. Last year, I tried to find a solicitor who would work with me on a discrimination case because I cannot take any car on a test drive under the Motability scheme when none has a left-foot accelerator. One would assume Motability would require dealers to provide one, at least on the most popular models. To my surprise, the law firms I contacted replied that they were “busy” and could not take my case. So I did not proceed: I only pick fights I am comfortable winning, and only when I can fight them alone, without a solicitor.
I acted the same way with DWP at a time when I took them to tribunal, and recently with a powerless couple in one of London Boroughs, who were about to be evicted from council housing for the eighth time in 11 years because the council needed their flat. Six months later and with my little help in the tribunal, the couple got a permanent flat that had been empty for four years.
So I have no idea yet what is next – hence asked for ideas. I will also monitor like a hawk @BigDave’s Q3 deals board.
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect dealers to have adapted cars in stock for people to test. There is a multitude of different adaptations so it’s just not practical. That’s where adaptation centres come into play. When my wife first needed hand controls Motability referred us to an adaptation centre where she could test various adaptations. Later, when my wife could no longer drive and we needed a person hoist we went to a Motability roadshow where we could test the different types so that we could establish which one was best for us.
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect dealers to have adapted cars in stock for people to test. There is a multitude of different adaptations so it’s just not practical. That’s where adaptation centres come into play. When my wife first needed hand controls Motability referred us to an adaptation centre where she could test various adaptations. Later, when my wife could no longer drive and we needed a person hoist we went to a Motability roadshow where we could test the different types so that we could establish which one was best for us.
My point exactly – your wife had adaptation centre to go to.
We don’t have one. At a time, when Enterprise-rent-a-car only started in the UK, they would lease me any automatic car with a hand control with 48 hours notice – someone would come and mount it and then dismount. You don’t have even this option with test cars.
Also I don’t expect all the cars, but most popular, which I would assume can be 3-5 most popular models amongst us the “lefties” – Motability has all the statistics they need to act upon.Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect dealers to have adapted cars in stock for people to test. There is a multitude of different adaptations so it’s just not practical. That’s where adaptation centres come into play. When my wife first needed hand controls Motability referred us to an adaptation centre where she could test various adaptations. Later, when my wife could no longer drive and we needed a person hoist we went to a Motability roadshow where we could test the different types so that we could establish which one was best for us.
My point exactly – your wife had adaptation centre to go to. We don’t have one. At a time, when Enterprise-rent-a-car only started in the UK, they would lease me any automatic car with a hand control with 48 hours notice – someone would come and mount it and then dismount. You don’t have even this option with test cars. Also I don’t expect all the cars, but most popular, which I would assume can be 3-5 most popular models amongst us the “lefties” – Motability has all the statistics they need to act upon.
I didn’t realise that you weren’t within travel distance of an adaptations centre. I know that they are few and far between. We were fortunate that one was fairly close to us.
I still don’t think that it’s practical for dealers to have adapted cars, as the money that they’d lose on those cars would be many times more than the money they make out of Motability deals, but given the size of Motability it should be possible for them to have an arrangement with adaptation centres where they could pay them to bring the car to those who live too far from one, or even to have a small number of adapted cars themselves (with the most popular adaptations) where a trained staff member could do the same. It is, after all, supposed to be “worry free motoring”, although that tag line is becoming more laughable by the week!
or keep it until the end of April and then decide.
Obviously this could drag on a bit longer depending how Motability respond, but keeping the car, you have faught hard to be rid of seems somewhat counter productive.
I don’t know whats best, but surely your best getting as much ££ back as possible to put to a new lease, if your staying?
or keep it until the end of April and then decide.
Obviously this could drag on a bit longer depending how Motability respond, but keeping the car, you have faught hard to be rid of seems somewhat counter productive. I don’t know whats best, but surely your best getting as much ££ back as possible to put to a new lease, if your staying?
My understanding from 8 pages that Motability cannot respond anymore and Ombudsman’s decision is binding. I am driving to Newcastle this weekend, but will start looking for options once back.
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)@Glos Guy,
For clarity, I don’t expect dealers to have a demo car with left foot accelerator – it is not their business. But I would expect Motability to buy several cars across the country, install the pedal and keep with main dealerships e.g. Exeter, Portsmouth, London… At the end surely this is why Motability exists (for now).
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)Interesting comments about a left foot accelerator (or other adaptations) not being available for test drives as this is something we’ve just discovered as well, being brand new to the scheme. Like the OP, an adaptations centre is too far away to be an option.
Can understand why Motability might not be keen to spend money on providing this as a service, though it makes choosing an adaptation difficult for those who live in remote areas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.