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

ferox666

Well I think this is wonderful news.

I know two separate people (aged in their 50s) who both have a motability car for "arthritis" and openly admit they don't need it. One of them has a BMW (not the X5 though).

We've also seen all the many cases of fraud in the media where despite some posters here saying there are tough re-assessments, somehow these people manage to cheat the system for many years (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-10727181 1996-2008 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017566/Builder-claimed-70-000-benefits-crippling-pain-spent-DECADE-working-construction-site.html 2000 - 2010. Thousands more.)

It's the principle of the fact of someone driving about in a high-end luxury BMW X5 when actually Joe Taxpayer is funding it's servicing, insurance, and the bulk of it's cost. Perverse maybe, but I'd rather £40,000 was spent on a less attractive WAV than £35,000 on a luxury 4x4.

My heart does go out to the genuinely disabled, who I know the majority of claimants are. But the large minority of abusers has meant this had to happen. Hopefully the blue badge scheme will be next. If the abuse could be weeded out I'd be happy for the genuinely disabled to get more than the current rate. It'd be affordable too, since there'd be less people on the scheme. But years of abuse under the Labour government has resulted in this. Look at the % of "disabled" people in this country compared to the European or Worldwide average, and tell me there is nothing wrong??

Motability is to provide you for a car you NEED not the model you WANT, the scheme is still far more generous than every other country in the world for disabled people.

pwales_2

Corgiman answer me this , how can a paraplegic unemployed driver now get a car which is big enough ?

davsidipp

but lower value cars dont suit everyone and i dont see the need to stop it as it was. if people want a high spec car they paid for it the goverment never lost out it seems to be due to outrage in the papers over customers having top spec cars and others getting jealous.

davsidipp

ferox666 wrote: »

Well I think this is wonderful news.

I know two separate people (aged in their 50s) who both have a motability car for "arthritis" and openly admit they don't need it. One of them has a BMW (not the X5 though).

We've also seen all the many cases of fraud in the media where despite some posters here saying there are tough re-assessments, somehow these people manage to cheat the system for many years (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-10727181 1996-2008 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017566/Builder-claimed-70-000-benefits-crippling-pain-spent-DECADE-working-construction-site.html 2000 - 2010. Thousands more..
It's the principle of the fact of someone driving about in a high-end luxury BMW X5 when actually Joe Taxpayer is funding it's servicing, insurance, and the bulk of it's cost. Perverse maybe, but I'd rather £40,000 was spent on a less attractive WAV than £35,000 on a luxury 4x4.

My heart does go out to the genuinely disabled, who I know the majority of claimants are. But the large minority of abusers has meant this had to happen. Hopefully the blue badge scheme will be next. If the abuse could be weeded out I'd be happy for the genuinely disabled to get more than the current rate. It'd be affordable too, since there'd be less people on the scheme. But years of abuse under the Labour government has resulted in this. Look at the % of "disabled" people in this country compared to the European or Worldwide average, and tell me there is nothing wrong??

Motability is to provide you for a car you NEED not the model you WANT, the scheme is still far more generous than every other country in the world for disabled people.

me thinks a bit of brainwashing here .

T--J

corgiman wrote: »

My point exactly somebody other than the customer is paying for the higher value cars when the whole idea of the mobility scheme is to keep disabled people mobile so surely saving money with lower value cars should be encouraged

My post states that the customer IS paying for the higher spec car by way of the Advanced Payment. I added Motability into the equation because I'm not aware of the actual figures, they may even contribute no more for high spec cars than bog standard ones for all I know. But even if they pay vast sums of money, if you don't donate to them, you really have no say in how they choose to spend their money providing they're acting legally ... if you do then make a complaint or vote with your wallet & stop donating.

Motability should not be making life more difficult for genuinely disabled customers by bowing down to the jealousy of Daily Mail readers & their ilk but hopefully this statement means they won't:

We will, of course, ensure that customers whose disability-related needs require a car above this level can be accommodated. This will simplify the Scheme and focus on those who most need our help but it must be remembered that the quality of the backup service required by disabled people is key to the success of the Scheme.

Richie-from-the-Boro

There we go then descending into a precise description of why these changes were deemed [ by whoever ] to be necessary, as to whether its a Treasury based exercise that's down to a personal opinion but does not change the new world the Motability user is going to have to live in. Motability has been a huge benefit of real freedom to its user base over the years, many can remember the ' plastic pigs ' `we don't want the population, press, or the politicians to push users back in that direction do we ?

Many people live on a tight budget and even though in receipt of DLAHRM could not afford the luxury of any advance payment approaching £2k after their immediate needs are taken care of. As I said in #1 - more for the needy - all they've done [ with disabled peoples money ] is clamp down on those who want a premium MOTA costing 25 grand or more which is more a fashion choice than a mobility need.

NOTE :

- #48 : only 17 per cent of DLA recipients .. .. are in work .. .. any kind of registered work
- #13 : """ a WAV costs over 40 grand """ and is purpose built exclusively for use by the disabled .. .. a Sharan is built for use by anyone including the able-bodied
- a bath lift is built for use exclusively by the disabled
- a leather recliner costing £1k is built for use by the disabled or the able-bodied
- a leather riser / recliner costing £1k is built for use exclusively by the disabled
- all Motability vehicles are VAT exempt
- when DLA to PIP is concluded the Motability contributors base and income will shrink dramatically -see pic below
- its only the pool ' that's restricted to those with to an up~to £2k AP
- dori2o put it well .. .. saying .. .,. [STRIKE]here[/STRIKE] there should not be a 2/3/4 tier system when it comes to Motability



Pic of - ATOS / LiMA operators final exam selection criteria

Edale

corgiman wrote: »

My point exactly somebody other than the customer is paying for the higher value cars when the whole idea of the mobility scheme is to keep disabled people mobile so surely saving money with lower value cars should be encouraged

Wrong - see my post above, the disabled person pays for the increased cost of buying and running a higher value vehicle through a higher advance payment. The advance payment is affected by the projected residual value, servicing costs, tyres, insurance and the discounted purchase price Motability pay. Because of this it is possible for a vehicle with a much higher list price to have a lower advance payment than a cheaper vehicle.

For vehicles without a grant (the vast majority) Motability cover all their costs including administration from the advance payment and DLA payments which the disabled person gets DWP to pay direct to Motability. Indeed in the first 6 months of this year they generated a surplus of £121 million! (see page 9 here which is a link to Motability operations accounts if you don't believe me).

Richie-from-the-Boro

Edale wrote: »

Wrong - see my post above, the disabled person pays for the increased cost of buying and running a higher value vehicle through a higher advance payment. The advance payment is affected by the projected residual value, servicing costs, tyres, insurance and the discounted purchase price Motability pay. Because of this it is possible for a vehicle with a much higher list price to have a lower advance payment than a cheaper vehicle.

For vehicles without a grant (the vast majority) Motability cover all their costs including administration from the advance payment and DLA payments which the disabled person gets DWP to pay direct to Motability. Indeed in the first 6 months of this year they generated a surplus of £121 million! (see page 9 here which is a link to Motability operations accounts if you don't believe me).

An asset size of 2 million vehicles, 2,400 new customers per half year period, a 5 year £3 billion plus liability since the Nov 2010 extension to the programme. So a surplus of £121 million is the [ asset / debt ] normal leverage ratio for a business of its size.

* Twelve months growth plus 20% - they must know something we don't, unless the PWS Scheme is magnitudes bigger than I thought, I was expecting a reduction of close to that with the DLA / PIP knock on'

Edale

£121 million was the surplus for that period alone, the total retained reserves are £1.095 billion at end of March 2011. Fleet is 575,000 vehicles don't know where you get 2 million from.

Tally-Ho_2

As has been stated earlier in this thread (if you avoid the Daily Mail'ism posts) it costs the government (aka taxpayer) no more or less if one chooses a mini or BMW X3. The difference in values, servicing, insurance, depreciation etc is worked out and forms the Advance Payment. Motability (the leasing company) is not subsidised and runs on a 'not for profit' basis. Even if one trousers one's allowance and doesn't use Motability the cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same.

The only government (taxpayer) funding goes to pay for specialised vehicles from the Specialised Vehicles Fund which Motability administer. The Specialised Vehicles Fund provides financial assistance to those severely disabled scheme customers who require complex vehicle adaptations that allow them to enter a car as a passenger while remaining seated in their wheelchair or enables them drive their car while seated in their wheelchair.

The funding of Motability is explained by Maria Miller (Minister for the Disabled) here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-02b.20100.h

For those who cannot afford the Advance Payment on a particular sized vehicle they need (or adaptations outwith the Specialised Vehicle Fund) these are paid via the charitable arm of Motability (not the taxpayer). The Charitable arm gets it funding from selling raffle tickets and other fund raising (not the taxpayer unless one takes into account Gift Aid but nearly all charities use this to increase their charity funding, not just Motability).

I am sure we would all agree that access to the Motability scheme should be restricted to those whose disabilities dictate a need for mobility assistance and that there has been/are people who have abused not only the scheme, but the benefits system that enables them to take advantage of the scheme. These people need to be weeded out.

However Motability have bowed to media criticism (yes The Daily Mail'isms comes into play here) with their inaccurate reporting which gave a totally false perception of the scheme (and was subsequently retracted by the DM). However mud sticks no matter whether the story was right or wrong and instead of rising above it, Motability have bowed to incorrect reporting which created an incorrect perception which is to the detriment of genuine disabled people who day after day use the scheme.

Foe example the arbitrary 5 miles radius for nominated drivers, takes no account of the fact that in some geniune cases, nominated drivers can live over 5 miles away from the claimant. An example being the case where the disabled person usually drives him/herself but occasionally cannot and needs a friend/colleague travelling with him/her to take the take the wheel on a long journey for example. If that friend/colleague does not live within 5 miles, the disabled person has to drive even if starting to feel unwell. Or where a single disabled person has a relative as second driver who resides in the next village six miles away - the nominated driver drives their own vehicle to the disabled persons house in order to take the disabled person out in the Motability car. There are numerous scenario's where a nominated driver could live away but this blanket 5 miles radius will only serve to cause genuinely disabled people problems whilst not tackling the cases of a whole family using 'grannies' Motability car as their own personal run around.

The blanket £2k Advance payment does not take into account those disabled people who need a larger car (with a correspondingly larger AP) for example to fit an adult powerchair into the boot. WAV's are not always the solution. Again thanks to incorrect reporting, Motability have imposed an arbitrary limit that takes no account of a genuine disabled person's needs. Not everyone needs a BMW X3 of course but a reasonable modestly equipped largish automatic car can (and did) often have an AP over £2k which is paid out of the lessee's own money without any burden on the Tax Payer (infact possibly the opposite as a larger car probably uses more fuel so more fuel duty is paid!).