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

Alan_M_2

Antispam wrote: »

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

You're absolutely right, no matter what vehicle is selected the scheme cost is the same.

Richie's argument is because we choose the vehicle we do, we are harming the the very ethos of the system by perception alone based on the (often incorrect) stories published in the press.

His comment "you and your like" says more about his political standpoint on this subject than any of the other objective arguments he's posted.

The FACT that the vehicle costs nothing extra in his eye's is entirely irrelevant, this is all about some people being seen to "get more" than others.

I'll hazard a guess here Richie, having never come across you on this forum before. You're a civil servant (probably connected with Social services or the DWP), you're not actually disabled yourself or have a relative that is or even have cause to participate in the Motability scheme. Am I close?

vax2002

c_smith wrote: »

I wish I could run a brand new Vauxhall Zafira for a £99 down payment and thereafter free for 3 years inclusive of tax, insurance and servicing.

The fact that you can says all there is to say really about the over generous motability scheme. While I pay thousands every year to keep my modest second hand car on the road, I am also having to subsidise others to drive around in brand new cars for free.

The welfare state has created generations of people who think the world owes them a living and it's their God given right to get everything for nothing. And anyone who DARES to question the fairness of it all gets criticized for their trouble.

Its a trade, many are born in to it, for ever genuine claimant there must be dozens taking the pizz.
Just to add most people dont even know the secret codes and abbreviations of the trade, never mind where to lay the first bricks.

Alan_M_2

vax2002 wrote: »

Its a trade, many are born in to it, for ever genuine claimant there must be dozens taking the pizz.

I'd reverse that, I'd say for all the dozens claiming genuinely there is one extracting the urine.

Alan_M_2

c_smith wrote: »

I wish I could run a brand new Vauxhall Zafira for a £99 down payment and thereafter free for 3 years inclusive of tax, insurance and servicing.

The fact that you can says all there is to say really about the over generous motability scheme. While I pay thousands every year to keep my modest second hand car on the road, I am also having to subsidise others to drive around in brand new cars for free.

The welfare state has created generations of people who think the world owes them a living and it's their God given right to get everything for nothing. And anyone who DARES to question the fairness of it all gets criticized for their trouble.

I'll swap my wifes debilitating illness with you for a Mercedes for life, never mind a Zafira.

How does that grab you?

savemoney

It shouldn't matter what vehicle you drive whether its a rolls Royce or mini, as long as the payment system is set up where the customers pays the difference. Why shouldn't the customer decide whats best for them? and why shouldn't they enjoy luxury if they so wish as long as the advanced payment reflects the difference, its of no consequence to anyone but the customer and the scheme. As mentioned it doesn't costs any more money to the tax payer and rightly so.

I dont have a motobility car I choose to buy my own car Honda Civic 3 year old, its my daughter that gets the DLA. I drive her around most weeks and also to uni

System

I'll swap my wifes debilitating illness with you for a Mercedes for life, never mind a Zafira.

Ah the ultimate trump card in any argument dealing with DLA has now been played

'I'll swap my/my wife's/ my daughter's/etc* [insert illness/disability here] for whatever an able bodied person can have/do

We will now have a series of similar posts. it's the way these threads always degenerate


* Delete as appropriate

24skins

!!!!!! wrote: »

Ah the ultimate trump card in any argument dealing with DLA has now been played

'I'll swap my/my wife's/ my daughter's/etc* [insert illness/disability here] for whatever an able bodied person can have/do

We will now have a series of similar posts. it's the way these threads always degenerate


* Delete as appropriate

To be fair to him, he's being treated as though he's done something wrong when he hasn't; there was no rule or guidance stating that Motability cars should be the most basic model required to meet the disabled person's needs. He used his own money to rent the car he desired as Motability rules clearly allowed him to do, it's not his fault that other people misunderstood the scheme.

davsidipp

!!!!!! wrote: »

Ah the ultimate trump card in any argument dealing with DLA has now been played

'I'll swap my/my wife's/ my daughter's/etc* [insert illness/disability here] for whatever an able bodied person can have/do

We will now have a series of similar posts. it's the way these threads always degenerate


* Delete as appropriate

its not a trump card its a fact if you dont like it tough dont mean to say the post has to be removed.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Alan_M wrote: »

You're absolutely right, no matter what vehicle is selected the scheme cost is the same.

Richie's argument is because we choose the vehicle we do, we are harming the the very ethos of the system by perception alone based on the (often incorrect) stories published in the press.

His comment "you and your like" says more about his political standpoint on this subject than any of the other objective arguments he's posted.

The FACT that the vehicle costs nothing extra in his eye's is entirely irrelevant, this is all about some people being seen to "get more" than others.

I'll hazard a guess here Richie, having never come across you on this forum before. You're a civil servant (probably connected with Social services or the DWP), you're not actually disabled yourself or have a relative that is or even have cause to participate in the Motability scheme. Am I close?

You've had several feeble tries at 'discovery', not one person in these groups even knows if I'm disabled or a Blue Badge user yet I defend and will continue to defend at every opportunity the rights of the disabled, as can be evidenced by a simple 'trawl' of my posts .. .. it [ my personal status ] will remain that way .. .. undiscovered.

To understand my use of """you and your like""" you need to understand the background. I've variously asserted here in this group for almost two years that :

- perceived [ or actual ] greed by the disabled
- perceived [ or actual ] cheating by the disabled
- perceived [ or actual ] theft by the disabled
- perceived [ or actual ] misuse by the disabled
- perceived [ or actual ] avarice by the disabled
- perceived [ or actual ] in your case 'vainglory'

Will bring to task the Motability & Blue Badge Scheme, resulting in a loss to the disabled, most of whom are not greedy or dishonourable people, and many of whom work.

And it has, precisely that prediction has happened """you and your like""" have brought both institutions, Motability & Blue Badge Scheme into perceived [ or actual ] disrepute, none of which would have been possible but for the complicity of the disabled.

"""you and your like""" in this instance have yourselves brought about the change in AP rules, and even now when the balance has been redressed back in line with what is 'reasonable' you continue with your whining, feeble complaint that """whoever came up with this Advanced payment cap idea needs their intelligence testing""" and refuse to acknowledge that you brought the great clunking AP hammer down on your own head.

If the disabled want society to understand that the majority 99.9% are good people they should put their own house in order first, and keep it that way. Motability took away your bling~toy .. .. their decision was reasonable, you or your good lady didn't need it, it did not improve your good lady's mobilty one iota, accept it and stop bleating about its removal Alan M.

savemoney

The reason the system of advanced payment changed was not a result of cost saving as it does not cost the tax payer any more, it was a result of media hype complaining some of the disabled are taking the Mick. If the disabled person wants a extravagant vehicle they pay extra. Motobility are also clamping down on fraud they gave an example in media only recently where its been suggested some able bodied people are abusing the system by getting someone on high rate dla to get a vehicle in there name even though that person lived in a nursing home so they can claim they taking them out an weekends and have a flash car. I am sure there are some examples where nothing wrong is being done and is genuine but we all know society does bring in examples where some people will do it for less honourable motives mealy to get a nice car.

Also lets not forget the car is not the customers its mealy a lease. I know its not market rates and the £50 per week is very good deal for the customer but as motobility is a charity its not run for profit so there will be less costs.

Most of the abuse I see out and about appear to be able bodied people parking in disabled spaces with no blue badge shown. Of course some people think no harm done well it does because I then have to either drop my daughter off or let her walk, she can not walk far some days and I often have to take her back to the car. I have even had people give me funny looks mainly elderly for dare park in a area reserved for disabled, I dont know why they think disability some how connected only with age. I show the badge and the holder is with me