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

24skins

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 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'
.

So what about the person a few post back who 'perceives' that for every single genuine HRM claimant there are "dozens" of fakers? Every DLA statistic available shows that he 'perceives' wrongly, should we cut HRM to pacify his 'perception'? Some people are determined to see the majority of claimants as greedy/cheating/thieving etc and reducing the AP for Motability cars is unlikely to change that ('cos my neighbour's still got a free car innit? Nuffing wrong wiv 'im).

If the problem is perception then the cure is education, not demonising people who have done nothing wrong.

Alan_M_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

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.

Firstly Motability haven't removed anything from my wife, we still have the car and will do for another two and half years by which time they'll have seen sense and opened up the parameters again.

The real propblem here is people like you who "percieve" what others are getting and complain so loudly about "look what they get, I don't get anything like that...it's not fair Whhhaaaaa!"

Here's the issues in numbers.

95% off all Motability vehicles cost on average £19,500 with an average advance payment under £2000 (figures provded by Motability in the letter to all users explaining the reasons behind the scheme changes). You won't have got one of these letters, so I thought I'd better point out that the facts come straight from the operator.

Therefore 95% of the scheme remain unaffected with the new proposed change.

Of the 5% that fall outside of the averages, this number is almost entirely made up of very heavily modified vehicles for the severly disabled, wheelchair bound people that are almost entirely dependent on others. Hand control systems, large people carriers with wheelchair access etc. Some costing over £40,000 with advanced payments of £10,000 plus.

A tiny percentage are then users like my wife and I who choose to pay above the average for a nicer car.

Leaving your political agenda aside for one moment explain how the rule changes will help stop benefit fraud when 95% of the existing operation remains completely unaffected. Try and do that sticking just to some facts and leave the militant clap trap out of it just for one post.

Alan_M_2

!!!!!! 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

Yup, it's tough to debate a point when the true hard facts overwhelm your argument so completely that it makes it enitrely irrelevant.

Alan_M_2

savemoney wrote: »

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

This is a bigger issue by far, the thing is it doesn't "cost" anyone money and it's abuse is socially acceptable.

Do something useful Richie and use your civil service appointment to campaign for instant towaways of non disability registered vehicles.

You never know, you might accidentally be the next Jim Hacker on the back of it.

Edale

Richie - I have explained in a previous post that we live in a village and my son has conditions that sometimes need emergency hospital treatment, I was concerned that if we had conditions like the snow last year an ambulance would not be able to get to us. He also has a wheelchair and lots of other bits and pieces we need to take with us if we stay with family. I decided a large 4x4 was the most appropriate vehicle for our needs and got a Volvo XC90 on Motability with an up front payment of £5000, I actually don't like the car it uses loads of fuel and I don't enjoy driving big lumbering cars. The main reason for leasing it was that it best suited the needs of my son. The reason motability is a cheaper (most of the time) way to run a car is that they run the biggest fleet in Europe and can hence negotiate big discounts with manufacturers, insurance companies, tyre suppliers etc, in addition they do not have to make a profit (although have made healthy surpluses in the last few years). I have said before, I could take my son's DLA and spend it on beer and fags and noone would even know, but if I chose to have the most suitable vehicle for my son (heavily suplemented out of my own pocket in terms of advance payment and additional fuel costs), I feel criticised by both the daily mail and the likes of you. I am at the point that I am nervous about going to get the tyres the car will need very soon because I feel the staff there will have read the DM and think 'here goes another one driving around in a free flash car'.

I think the main problem is the seemingly uncontrolled increase in DLA claims along with the large 'incentive' of passport benefits such as additional tax credits, family fund, free heating (now lapsed), carers allowance etc etc. There is an awful lot to gain financially for a family on low incomes to have DLA awarded and I am sure this has motivated people in the past to claim. Dare I say the last government did not seem to care about using the countries money efficiently as can be seen from many other decisions they made and the financial pickle we are now in.

I am lucky enough to be able to finance this type of car privately and so will still be able to provide what I consider the best vehicle FOR MY SON once the lease expires, it just seems a shame that a decision that apparantly affects so few has to be made to appease the likes of you and the DM readers.

If you have knowledge of disabilities you will know that each persons needs are very bespoke and to try and set rules like this and the one about nominated drivers living within a certain distance are just stupid and will only serve to take away a big help to lots of genuine needy people.

jennie-jack

i have a motability car and need an automatic, this automatically puts the ap right up. when we picked it we had to pick for the whole family even though it was my car. the children get high rate care but not mobility so wouldnt get a car of their own but we need boot space for feeding tube supplies and feed and a wheelchair and a special needs buggy. this on top of needing a car high enough for me to get in and out of leaves me only with a few. i got a c4 grand picasso. if the rules stay in place will i not be able to get this again?

Richie-from-the-Boro

Edale wrote: »

Richie - I have explained in a previous post that we live in a village and my son has conditions that sometimes need emergency hospital treatment, I was concerned that if we had conditions like the snow last year an ambulance would not be able to get to us. He also has a wheelchair and lots of other bits and pieces we need to take with us if we stay with family. I decided a large 4x4 was the most appropriate vehicle for our needs and got a Volvo XC90 on Motability with an up front payment of £5000 (01), I actually don't like the car it uses loads of fuel and I don't enjoy driving big lumbering cars. The main reason for leasing it was that it best suited the needs of my son. The reason motability is a cheaper (most of the time) way to run a car is that they run the biggest fleet in Europe and can hence negotiate big discounts with manufacturers, insurance companies, tyre suppliers etc, in addition they do not have to make a profit (although have made healthy surpluses in the last few years). I have said before, I could take my son's DLA and spend it on beer and fags and noone would even know, but if I chose to have the most suitable vehicle for my son (heavily suplemented out of my own pocket in terms of advance payment and additional fuel costs), (02) I feel criticised by both the daily mail and the likes of you. I am at the point that I am nervous about going to get the tyres (03) the car will need very soon because I feel the staff there will have read the DM and think 'here goes another one driving around in a free flash car'.

I think the main problem is the seemingly uncontrolled increase in DLA claims along with the large 'incentive' of passport benefits such as additional tax credits, family fund, free heating (now lapsed), carers allowance etc etc. There is an awful lot to gain financially for a family on low incomes to have DLA awarded and I am sure this has motivated people in the past to claim. Dare I say the last government did not seem to care about using the countries money efficiently as can be seen from many other decisions they made and the financial pickle we are now in.

I am lucky enough to be able to finance this type of car privately and so will still be able to provide what I consider the best vehicle FOR MY SON once the lease expires, it just seems a shame that a decision that apparantly affects so few has to be made to appease the likes of you and the DM readers.

If you have knowledge of disabilities you will know that each persons needs are very bespoke and to try and set rules like this and the one about nominated drivers living within a certain distance are just stupid and will only serve to take away a big help to lots of genuine needy people.

Because your post is long, and most of your points I have covered in the past, allow mr to insert a RED number into you post to answer your many points.

(01) I've defended the issue of the AP in your favour many times in the past as justified as a needs~must requirement for mobility of the disabled person, and will continue to do so, including supporting your need on this occasion.

(02) We will have to agree to disagree on this we have polarised different views, I am not criticising you I'm defending you - your choice was based on need for a vehicle not simply a selfish desire for a flash MOTA. The ammunition fired at the 99% good people like yourself by the redtops and others, was given to them on a plate by the very small minority [Alan M and others] whose choice was not based on need but greed. It's my case therefore that Alan M and others like him brought this to your door, and the door of every deserving needs~based case .. .. not myself.

(03) As an aside to this missive I'm also on record arguing that Motability should foot the expense of paying for 2 sets of tyres and the cost of changing them Summer / Winter Tyres for those in needs~based geographic isolation.

Edale, I did not start this Alan M and others like him did. You are not one of those whose choice and motivation was greed and I never suggested you were.

The fact of the matter is everyone is shooting the messenger, many deserving mobility needs have been lost to many many people as a direct result of the 'vainglory' of the few.

Alan M is still crunching numbers, trying to [ gerrymander ] divert the groups attention from the real issue. The only issue I have with numbers is how a minuscule amount of HRDLA / Motability user types have managed to change this entire nations perception of the ill and disabled from good to bad.

tatonette

I think I know why.
In the past, those that are in work could see that by working they were far better off financially than the disabled.

Now with the jobs problem, those that work are seeing that being disabled is fast becoming the way to get to the same level of income.

So those who now work object to the disabled being equal or better off than they are.

It's all about being the underdog. As long as people see others as below them, they will have sympathy, as the gap narrows, that sympathy dies.

Besides which, I personally have been shocked as to what I can claim for now that I am a single mum of 3 and one being disabled.

Never in a million years did I think that I would be receiving the level of income I now get. Yet I still work 16 hours, but even that is now putting me on par with what I would get if I stayed at home.

Unfortunately being disabled nowadays is the key to quite a nice lifestyle.

As for the Motability car, I was so shocked to hear that my little one was to be given the High rate of DLA. This has meant that I have put quite a few thousand in the bank after selling my car and taking a Motability one instead.
As for it being 'free', I never had the money before, and I still don't have it, so there is no difference to my income. Yet I have a new car on the drive paid for by the government which I am truly grateful.

dave030445

If I want to pay £3600 ap for my mobility car then surely thats up to me.

G-MIKI

dave030445 wrote: »

If I want to pay £3600 ap for my mobility car then surely thats up to me.

Indeed it is, and I would defend your right to pay it. However, £6k a year is an awful lot to pay to run a car.

Buying second hand can work out an awful lot cheaper in the long run.