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

tatonette

rogerblack wrote: »

You can lease a basic car for a comparable amount to motability.
If your insurance is significant, then it may double it on its own however.

I note your comment 'basic'.

Why should those with mobility dificulties have to have a 'basic' vehicle?

Your attitude is taking the disabled backwards to the days of the single seater 'pigs'.

Everyone has a choice, including the disabled. Why should the disabled be singled out as 'only needing a basic car'?

What type of car would you expect Baroness Grey-Thompson to have? Maybe a 'pig' ???

akabee

tatonette wrote: »

What type of car would you expect Baroness Grey-Thompson to have? Maybe a 'pig' ???

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/tanni-grey-thompson/84715

8: Gifts, benefits and hospitality
BMW UK (automobiles) sponsor London Organising Committee of Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and support a number of competing and retired athletes, including the Member; they provide her with a car for 18 months from June 2011, and pay insurance for the Member and her husband

Pete268

I have just read through this (long and frequently tedious) thread with interest having yesterday made the first tentative steps (metaphorically) to order my new car on the Motability scheme. It was only then I found out about this imposed £2k advance payment ceiling. Personally I do not read scandal sheet newspapers so was unaware until told yesterday the rationale behind this decision to cap advance payments.

Thus this advance payments cap now means that I can no longer lease the most suitable vehicle for my needs. Yes, I also admit I do like a large range topping model, however this is mainly due to the level of equipment fitted as standard that does actually make life somewhat easier. Items such as electric heated seats, quick clear windscreens, 4x4 drive, automatic/semi automatic gearbox, and having a car large enough to take an assembled power-chair in the boot, are not luxuries - more essentials to make life easier (and for example enable one to attend both distant hospital appointments and work no matter what the prevailing weather conditions are). Also using the Motability Scheme means the disabled person does not have the problem of sorting out the transfer of the various aids and adaptions that are needed (and paid separately for) such as hand controls, steering balls, power-chair hoist, ramps etc as this is helpfully arranged by Motability.

So, may I say a big thank you to the Daily/Sunday Mail et al for now making my, and other injured veterans lives more difficult.

Considering both the Mail and most of the redtops to claim to support veterans injured in the line of battle, I find it very perverse that thanks to their inaccurate reporting they have now caused myself and other equally badly injured veterans at best great inconvenience, at worst probably stopped some of my more severely injured colleagues and former colleagues remaining mobile by being able to lease a car most suitable for the respective disabilities.

To those who say Motability should only provide 'basic' cars, may I put to you, notwithstanding what I posted above about alleged 'luxuries' being actual necessities, just why should a person injured serving their country not be permitted to spend a not insignificant part of their War Pension on at least having a bit of luxury or indeed any 'nice' car that meeds their sometimes not insignificant needs. Most of the badly injured lads and lasses do not want to have to drive round in either a converted van or a Nissan Micra etc, but despite the hand that fate dealt them, do want to at least maintain some form of as normal a life as they can. Using their own pension to lease a decent car with the necessary adaptions is just one way of living that 'near normal' life.

Personally I have written to both Lord Sterling at Motability, the Minister of State for Veterans and my Constituency MP about this restriction on advance payments (and thus available vehicles). It flies smack in the face of the much hyped by government Armed Forces Covenant for those severely injured whilst serving their country and is nothing but an arbitrary knee jerk reaction to inaccurate and improper lazy journalism.

Peter

intranicity

Well said Pete, and many others.

We are a bit luckier though Pete, at least the WPMS means we have an extra £1000 towards the car as we pay more for the car from our pension.

If you want/need an automatic, and prefer a diesel to save money which makes sense, HRM customers are limited to just 2 vehicles without an AP, and only 86 vehicles if you go unto £2000, at least with the extra money WE pay from OUR pensions we have 12 available with no AP and 176 available with a £2000 extra payment. Sadly though, most of these vehicles are so small that you'd never get a wheelchair in one.

Looks like there will have to be many more WAV's now and massive fuel bills to match, not sure who is saving money now!

I will be leaving the scheme though not just because of this, but the new limits re insurance. I live alone, but have had the same partner/girlfriend for 7 years, she is on my insurance and this helps me as when we are together, we can share the driving, she's never driven the vehicle on her own, as she has her own car, but now as we live more than 5 miles apart, she can't be on my policy!

Shame these pen pushers can't grow some balls and back us up with the Daily Snail etc, and even better make sure that the scheme that worked just fine is policed properly, and the few that abuse the system are removed from it rather than penalise everyone....

tatonette

intranicity wrote: »

Well said Pete, and many others.

We are a bit luckier though Pete, at least the WPMS means we have an extra £1000 towards the car as we pay more for the car from our pension.

If you want/need an automatic, and prefer a diesel to save money which makes sense, HRM customers are limited to just 2 vehicles without an AP, and only 86 vehicles if you go unto £2000, at least with the extra money WE pay from OUR pensions we have 12 available with no AP and 176 available with a £2000 extra payment. Sadly though, most of these vehicles are so small that you'd never get a wheelchair in one.

Looks like there will have to be many more WAV's now and massive fuel bills to match, not sure who is saving money now!

I will be leaving the scheme though not just because of this, but the new limits re insurance. I live alone, but have had the same partner/girlfriend for 7 years, she is on my insurance and this helps me as when we are together, we can share the driving, she's never driven the vehicle on her own, as she has her own car, but now as we live more than 5 miles apart, she can't be on my policy!

Shame these pen pushers can't grow some balls and back us up with the Daily Snail etc, and even better make sure that the scheme that worked just fine is policed properly, and the few that abuse the system are removed from it rather than penalise everyone....

Yes I too will go along with what has been said. It's ridiculous to be given a limit, when it doesn't cost the government anymore money.

Or does it?

Motability buy the cars off the manufacturer and lease them out. So the capital cost is bourne by the charity. Who funds the charity in the first place?

The government/taxpayers do.

5 x £45,000 cars will cost the taxpayers £225,000.

whereas 10 x £22,500 cars will cost the same.

So by restricting the value of the cars, it means that the government can keep or even reduce the budget allocated to Motability and allow Motability to provide more cars albeit at the cheaper end of the range!

Yes I know that there is a larger AP, but even by taking that into account, the taxpayers would still be shelling out more if everyone was allowed a £45,000 car.

There is a lot of sense in that, but I would still love to have the car I wanted but couldn't get because of the limit.

intranicity

tatonette wrote: »

Yes I too will go along with what has been said. It's ridiculous to be given a limit, when it doesn't cost the government anymore money.

Or does it?

Motability buy the cars off the manufacturer and lease them out. So the capital cost is bourne by the charity. Who funds the charity in the first place?

The government/taxpayers do.

5 x £45,000 cars will cost the taxpayers £225,000.

whereas 10 x £22,500 cars will cost the same.

So by restricting the value of the cars, it means that the government can keep or even reduce the budget allocated to Motability and allow Motability to provide more cars albeit at the cheaper end of the range!

Yes I know that there is a larger AP, but even by taking that into account, the taxpayers would still be shelling out more if everyone was allowed a £45,000 car.

There is a lot of sense in that, but I would still love to have the car I wanted but couldn't get because of the limit.

Hi Tatonette,

Sadly though, this is one of the things that many people don't understand or choose to forget/ignore.

Motability don't "BUY" any cars, they ask manufacturers to give them a price to "LEASE" a car. This is why the prices change and cars are available one quarter and not another, if the car maker has old stock, or a poor selling model, they will make it more attractive to us to lease, if a car is selling really well on it's own, usually they will be more expensive through motability too, as the car maker isn't so desperate to shift a model, a few years ago, when the new car market was dead on it's feet, we had some superb deals, BECAUSE the makers were desperate to clear stock!

EVERY car that motability LEASE costs the same amount, the advance payments that we pay cover the extra amount that the manufactures want over and above the base amount.

This is why a base model car is often more expensive than a higher spec model, because at the end of the lease, the vehicles are returned and sold on, higher spec cars are worth more on the second hand market than base models.

So, whichever car you decided to take costs motability the same, the only exception are a few REALLY basic models, which the manufactures lease to motability for LESS than the total amount of HRM, so if you go for one of these, you actually pay less.

So hopefully now you'll fully agree that this new rule is just to make the Daily Snail happy and not to the benefit of the people that are eligible to LEASE a car through Motability.

tatonette

intranicity wrote: »

Hi Tatonette,

Sadly though, this is one of the things that many people don't understand or choose to forget/ignore.

Motability don't "BUY" any cars, they ask manufacturers to give them a price to "LEASE" a car.

EVERY car that motability LEASE costs the same amount, the advance payments that we pay cover the extra amount that the manufactures want over and above the base amount.

This is why a base model car is often more expensive than a higher spec model, because at the end of the lease, the vehicles are returned and sold on, higher spec cars are worth more on the second hand market than base models.

So, whichever car you decided to take costs movability the same, the only exception are a few REALLY basic models, which the manufactures lease to movability for LESS than the total amount of HRM, so if you go for one of these, you actually pay less.

So hopefully now you'll fully agree that this new rule is just to make the Daily Snail happy and not to the benefit of the people that are eligible to LEASE a car through Motability.

Thanks for that, I will check out what you say on who funds the scheme and get back to you, as there are some VAT implications in what you have said if that is correct.

I have had a look and found this:

The Motability Scheme, founded in 1977 is a partnership between the charitable sector, government, leading banks, and the motor and insurance industries..............
Motability was set up as a charity so it could also raise funds and make grants, in order to provide customers with a complete mobility package even if their allowance would not cover the type of car and adaptations that they needed.

It does seem that I am right. Motability does in fact own the vehicles and pays the manufacturer for them. Motability then leases them out, hence the VAT implication.

intranicity

tatonette wrote: »

It does seem that I am right. Motability does in fact own the vehicles and pays the manufacturer for them. Motability then leases them out, hence the VAT implication.

Not sure what the VAT implications have to do with anything sorry?

"1984 VAT removed from leasing payments for Motability cars"
from
http://www.motabilityoperations.co.uk/Pages/OH.aspx

as far as I know, there are no VAT implication at all in the motability scheme, and even if there was, what difference does this make to them capping the AP rates to £2000?

I am also sure that a Charity with the Buying power of Motability, if they do indeed 'buy' the cars and then lease them to us, do not pay anything even close to list price for the vehicles?

ezlistening

Seems like some real confusion over the mechanics of the motability scheme and who is invovled. not surprising really as it is quite complicated and there are two organisations with such similar names:

1) Motability - a charity who do two main things: a) Oversee the running of the scheme as a whole b) adminster funds and grants for people who need adaptions to vehicles (or specialist vehicles) and meet the criteria for assistance

2) Motability Operations - A not for profit company owned by the big four banks. They run the scheme and are the leasing company. As such they raise capita (lots), negotiate with car manufactuerers , deaeelrs, insurance companies etc to put togther the lease package for each vehicle. Whilst they do not make a profit the financial companies that lend them money through loans buying bonds etc do. As do the manufaturerees dealers etc.

The cost to the public purse is the same whatever car is leased as the difference between the part of the lease that is funded from an individual's DLA is basically the same for each car leased. the advance Payment makes up the difference.

As far as I am am concerned what a disabled person chooses to do with their disposable income is their affair. Whether they choose to spend it on a holiday or put it towards a higher lease advance payment is their concern.

Alan_M_2

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

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.

Yup, I didn't think you'd be able to provide any form of reasonable explanation of how the scheme changes will deal with the "fraud" you consider is taking place.