Disabled driver demands £35k from Motability after ‘31 days of hell’

A driver who had his Motability lease terminated after taking an attack victim to hospital demanded £35,000 in compensation from the company after “31 days of hell”, a financial ombudsman heard.

The man, known only in papers as Mr H, had his vehicle seized by police for forensic investigation after he drove the injured man to hospital in October last year.

Shortly after, Motability issued a termination notice after telling the customer it had received conflicting information on the matter, before a week later reversing the decision after police said the man was not suspected of any crime.

However, Mr H was then told he’d have to pay more than £800 for the car to be cleaned before getting it back, and in the meantime was given a hire car, which he complained had a smell which gave him headaches.

After disputing the cost of the clean, Motability offered to pay the difference of a quote from a local company he provided, but this did not stop the man filing a complaint with the financial ombudsman with a demand for £35,000 in compensation.

He said the company had caused him “severe stress” and said it was “discriminating against him as a disabled person acting as a “Good Samaritan”. Later, he told the ombudsman he had been through “31 days of hell” during the period.

Ombudsman Hannah Dunkley, however, declined his demand, instead ordering Motability to pay Mr H £400 in compensation “to reflect poor customer service and support”.

She wrote: “There were several times Mr H contacted Motability by email and made comments about his mental wellbeing I think were concerning. Motability acknowledged these emails but I can’t see that it reached out to check Mr H was safe or provide details of services able to support him with his mental wellbeing.

“So, I think Motability let Mr H down here.”

Ms Dunkley wrote that Motability took the decision to terminate the man’s rental agreement after receiving “an error or inconsistency” of information from police investigating the initial incident.

She also recognised that under the terms and conditions, Motabilty was allowed to end a contact if a car had been seized by police.

But she wrote: “I think Motability ought to have considered whether it was fair to continue with the termination process given the uncertainty about the situation with the car.

“The circumstances in this particular complaint were unique and highly sensitive, so I think Motability needed to step away from normal processes and consider whether it needed more information before starting the termination process.”

She said a £400 compensation award was fair given previous cases considered. She also said that she understood it had been a stressful time for Mr H, but that a lot of it was due to events that led up to the car being seized by police.

“I’m only looking at the things Motability was responsible for,” she wrote.

Motability provides car lease agreements to those with a qualifying mobility allowance, such as personal independent payment (PIP). As of March last year, there were 860,000 customers, with the average age 52. It claims to have a 9.4 out of 10 customer satisfaction score.

A spokesperson for Motability Operations, the company that runs the Motability Scheme, said: “We recognise this was a difficult experience for Mr H and we’re sorry we didn’t handle every aspect of his case as well as we should have. We have a responsibility to protect the scheme and take concerns about misuse seriously. In this case, we acted in line with our terms and conditions based on information from the police.

“Once it was confirmed Mr H was not involved in the criminal investigation, we quickly arranged for his vehicle to be returned and provided a hire car in the meantime.”