Cars on motability scheme are now limited up to AP £2000

akabee

tatonette wrote: »

Who or what is aka Loopy_Lynn???

If anyone has gone loopy it is you!!

You must be male and we know where they keep their brains!

:rotfl:
& this week you are a girl with 3 kids:eek:

This thread should jog your selective memory
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3641433

Alan_M_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

You chose it for 3 reasons :

- you could
- it was virtually a freebie
- and you / and / or your wife desired one

Which one irks you more?

The fact I could buy one because I've worked hard and could afford it? But now I've chosen to practically give up work to care for my wife becasue I don't want strangers (paid for by the governement) to be taking care of her.

If you think it's a virtual freebie - you're even more ignorant than I originally thought.

So what does a new Mercedes C220 cdi Sport cost if we did want one?

First lets see what it costs via Motability:-

What we pay = Surrender of DLA high rate mobility for 3 years = £8,018.40 + £6,800.00 advance payment - so the car actually costs us £14,818.40 for 36 months use.

So how does that compare if we arranged one on the open market via contract hire?

Direct from Mercedes on a 3 + 35 deal (cheaper rates are available if you shop around but for the purposes if this thread we'll use manufacturers numbers).

Deposit = £1,257.00
35x £419.00 = £14,665.00 (vat excluded to give real world comparison as a registered disabled person you are exepmt from VAT on vechile purchases)

Total = £15,922 over the 3 year term - on top of which I'd have to pay for insurance and general maintainance.

However we would then be receiving the higer rate of mobility payments equalling £8,018.40 over the same term.

The fundamental thing here is, the average DLA claimant isn't going to pass a credit check to the degree required to obtain the finance in open market conditions to secure any vehicle (never mind a Mercedes). The fundamental premis of Motability is to circumvent the credit problem, not provide "free" cars, a common misconception that you also seem to have fallen for.

Up until this latest car we used the Motability HP scheme and bought our own cars, the reason being I drive my wife upwards of 15,000 miles a year for medical treatment most of which is inaccessible or impractical by public transport, the old scheme only allowing for a maximum of 8,000 miles a year.

This has now changed, the HP scheme has been withdrawn unless it's for exceptional circumstances (very high mileage over 20,000 a year) but contract hire has now been extended to 20,000 miles per annum.

Fortunately most people reading these forums are intelligent enough to see through your ignorant rants and the fact you really don't have a grasp at all how (or more importantly why) the motability scheme operates.

System

Alan_M wrote: »

Direct from Mercedes on a 3 + 35 deal (cheaper rates are available if you shop around but for the purposes if this thread we'll use manufacturers numbers).

Deposit = £1,257.00
35x £419.00 = £14,665.00 (vat excluded to give real world comparison as a registered disabled person you are exepmt from VAT on vechile purchases)

Total = £15,922 over the 3 year term - on top of which I'd have to pay for insurance and general maintainance.

VAT exemption only if it is specially adapted for the disabled person so the price would be 35 *419 = £14,665 + VAT= £17,598
Total = £18855

Alan_M_2

!!!!!! wrote: »

VAT exemption only if it is specially adapted for the disabled person so the price would be 35 *419 = £14,665 + VAT= £17,598
Total = £18855

True, both figures should be shown for comparison.

We have small adaptations so have always had vat exemption.

So in summary (including vat).

Motability cost = £14,818.40

Real world cost = £18,855 less High Rate allowance of £8,018.40 = £10,836.60 - but then you have to pay insurance and maintainance for three years.

My point being, it's not a free car by any stretch of the imagination - it provides a facility for non credit qualifying people to get in a vehicle.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Alan M,

Tectonic repetition is a very powerful weapon, but it has to be in the right hands to be effective. I know how it works, and certainly know the numbers, regurgitating what you said in #115 is a waste of the worlds alphabet. Subsequently I have again ignored your thought through comparison numbers because they are totally irrelevant to my point, a hopeful distraction I suppose from your point of view, but irrelevant in my eyes.

I'm grateful that the adjustments made to the scheme return the purpose of the scheme back to the fundamentals of both the scheme itself and the intended purpose of the HRDLA award that of providing for mobility needs, not lifestyle choice.

"""I don't want strangers""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. Your good lady could travel in any one of the 'pool' cars with yourself, a £35k MOTA does nothing to improve your good lady's mobility needs outcomes.

"""I drive my wife upwards of 15,000 miles a year""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. Your good lady could travel the 15,000 miles a years in any one of the 'pool' cars with yourself, a £35k MOTA does nothing to improve your good lady's mobility needs outcomes.

"""impractical by public transport""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. I never suggested or inferred your good lady and yourself should travel the 15,000 miles a year in public transport.

"""free"" - I never said it was free, my observation that it was 'virtually a freebie' was because you had to take £6.8k out of your pocket not £35k, are you saying that now the rules have changed you will take £35k out of your pocket for your next vehicle ?

"""your ignorant rants and the fact you really don't have a grasp"" - its very close to a democratic forum and you are entitled to your view of what I post, I for one defend your right to say it, you will not be surprised therefore to know I don't share your view.

"""irks you more""" - no my friend, why would you think the fact that you could find £6.8k cash would irritate me, its something in the way you see others that makes you feel that way, it never occurred to me let alone caused any irritation.

"""how and more importantly why the Motability scheme operates""" - clearly I do, isn't that why they are changing it ? - that's precisely why they are changing the operating model from what you have had in the past to what you will be allowed to have under the scheme in the future.

Alan_M_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Alan M,

Tectonic repetition is a very powerful weapon, but it has to be in the right hands to be effective. I know how it works, and certainly know the numbers, regurgitating what you said in #115 is a waste of the worlds alphabet. Subsequently I have again ignored your thought through comparison numbers because they are totally irrelevant to my point, a hopeful distraction I suppose from your point of view, but irrelevant in my eyes.

I didn't write post #115.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""I don't want strangers""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. Your good lady could travel in any one of the 'pool' cars with yourself, a £35k MOTA does nothing to improve your good lady's mobility needs outcomes.

And as we've seen. the £35k MOTA as you put it, costs pretty much the same if I buy it privately or via Motability (circa £14K to £18K. But more importantly, it costs Motability NOTHING extra for me to have this vehicle.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""I drive my wife upwards of 15,000 miles a year""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. Your good lady could travel the 15,000 miles a years in any one of the 'pool' cars with yourself, a £35k MOTA does nothing to improve your good lady's mobility needs outcomes.

True, but again, I choose to do this in a vehcile that costs motability no more money than if I had chosen to opt for a Ford Mondeo Auto Estate - which it looks now won't be available on the scheme either as a diesel.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""impractical by public transport""" - another pointless repetition shooting off on a tangent. I never suggested or inferred your good lady and yourself should travel the 15,000 miles a year in public transport.

You didn't but it explains why we previously had to use the HP scheme and have now swapped to contract hire after they changed rules.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""free"" - I never said it was free, my observation that it was 'virtually a freebie' was because you had to take £6.8k out of your pocket not £35k, are you saying that now the rules have changed you will take £35k out of your pocket for your next vehicle ?

Semantics - (virtually a freebie or free) , and even if I contract hired the car privately, the up front payment would be circa £1,500, not the £6,800 I paid for the motability scheme. You simply don't pay £35K in full for a vehicle, you'd have to be a lunatic to tie that much capital up in a depretiating asset, that's why contract hire and PCP fianance are financing virtually 90% of the vehices on the road. It's now you wasting words.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""your ignorant rants and the fact you really don't have a grasp"" - its very close to a democratic forum and you are entitled to your view of what I post, I for one defend your right to say it, you will not be surprised therefore to know I don't share your view.

It is indeed a democratic forum, I stand by my view.

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""irks you more""" - no my friend, why would you think the fact that you could find £6.8k cash would irritate me, its something in the way you see others that makes you feel that way, it never occurred to me let alone caused any irritation.

How do I see others?

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

"""how and more importantly why the Motability scheme operates""" - clearly I do, isn't that why they are changing it ? - that's precisely why they are changing the operating model from what you have had in the past to what you will be allowed to have under the scheme in the future.

No you clearly misunderstand why the model is being changed.

The theory is to combat benefit fraud, how on earth does restricting the advanced payment and the scheme vehciles by list price combat benefit fraud?

There is an argument that the 5 mile restriction for authorised drivers will do this - but this seems to be compromising as many genuine cases as fraudulent ones.

Anyhow - what are the fraudulent claimants now going to say? "The son that "needs" to drive their car that used to live 30 miles away now lives with me to take care of me, therefore is not outside the 5 mile radius". Are motability going to send anyone check? Of course not.

If you want to seriously effect benefit fraud the problem needs to be addressed at the DLA application stage, not post award by the charity administering the contract hire scheme on behalf of the government.

The HP scheme has been removed to solve a VAT fraud problem that existed and was difficult to police.

But as 95% of vehicles supplied by Motability are valued at an average of £19,500 and have an advance payment of less than £2000 - how is changing the scheme terms to remove that 5% possibly attacking benefit fraud?

G-MIKI

!!!!!! wrote: »

VAT exemption only if it is specially adapted for the disabled person so the price would be 35 *419 = £14,665 + VAT= £17,598
Total = £18855

For "disabled person" read "wheelchair user".

And that is a very expensive way of running a car!

Antispam

A guy from Motorbility was on radio 4 other day. He said that no tax payer pays for the scheme and is self funding. Of course the money that pays for it is tax payers dla but its paid out whether you use motorbility of not assuming you get high rate dla

Richie-from-the-Boro

True about #114 I meant #115, what I said I stand by, just the wrong #No reference .. .. my bad !

- all your bold stuff I've posted many times over the last 52 weeks .. .. its irrelevant to my point
- round~and~round~and~round in circles we go
- the press see the disabled [ all of them ] as fiddlers and vermin, because you and your like get / got your way
- the facility provided by Motability was the enabler for yourself and others to get what the public see as a luxury Limo on a freebie

The fact of the matter is because the scheme was lax and allowed amongst other OTT luxury MOTA's a C220 cdi Sport for 'improving mobility needs outcomes' brought the scheme into disrepute and all sorts of pressures were brought on both the scheme and the participants of the scheme most of which were innocents and in no way complicit, they the truly deserving [ needs not wants ] are paying the price for the tiny minority of which you are one that took it .. .. because you could, not because of need, simply greed .. ..

- you wanted one
- they facilitated it
- you took it
- the press and politicians jumped on it
- the feral public jumped on the wagon
- and the result is ;

Because you can no longer have your toy you say """whoever came up with this Advanced payment cap idea needs their intelligence testing, the problem is giving people the benefit to start with, not what they do with it once it's been awarded"""

You're not the only one defending the status quo, others are also bleating because the AP has been adjusted to deny the redtops etal the ability to beat down on the disabled .. .. all in all a good thing. I think.

Alan_M_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

True about #114 I meant #115, what I said I stand by, just the wrong #No reference .. .. my bad !

- all your bold stuff I've posted many times over the last 52 weeks .. .. its irrelevant to my point
- round~and~round~and~round in circles we go
- the press see the disabled [ all of them ] as fiddlers and vermin, because you and your like get / got your way
- the facility provided by Motability was the enabler for yourself and others to get what the public see as a luxury Limo on a freebie

The fact of the matter is because the scheme was lax and allowed amongst other OTT luxury MOTA's a C220 cdi Sport for 'improving mobility needs outcomes' brought the scheme into disrepute and all sorts of pressures were brought on both the scheme and the participants of the scheme most of which were innocents and in no way complicit, they the truly deserving [ needs not wants ] are paying the price for the tiny minority of which you are one that took it .. .. because you could, not because of need, simply greed .. ..

- you wanted one
- they facilitated it
- you took it
- the press and politicians jumped on it
- the feral public jumped on the wagon
- and the result is ;

Because you can no longer have your toy you say """whoever came up with this Advanced payment cap idea needs their intelligence testing, the problem is giving people the benefit to start with, not what they do with it once it's been awarded"""

You're not the only one defending the status quo, others are also bleating because the AP has been adjusted to deny the redtops etal the ability to beat down on the disabled .. .. all in all a good thing. I think.

Unfortunatley, it's "People like you and your like" that actually beleive what is written in the redtops.

"because you and your like"

This is particularly damning of your opinion, I imagine we're only one step away from you blaming Margarat Thatcher for the "Dire Mess" the motability scheme is in.

So we've clearly demonstrated that the scheme costs the taxpayer the same no matter what vehicle is driven and yet we're still some sort of leech on society?

I'm afraid it's the attitudes of "people of your ilk" that cause this press sensationalism.

So Richie from the Boro, what disability do you (or your partner) have and what car do you drive on the motability scheme?