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

seven-day-weekend

I have not read all the thread but here is my two pennorth.

I believe all genuinely disabled people who chose the motability scheme should be entitled to the cheapest car that is suitable for their disability. Anything else they should have to fund themselves.

I don't understand why anyone should need something costing £50k, there must be cheaper alternatives.

A friend of mine is a wheelchair user and has an adapted hatchback, he doesn't need a people carrier or a large van, ;lthough he is able to get himself from his wheelchair into the car, maybe someone whocan't would need a bigger vehicle.

But to sum up, the basic suitable car should be available and anything else non-essential paid for out of the person's own resources.

pwales_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I have not read all the thread but here is my two pennorth.

I believe all genuinely disabled people who chose the motability scheme should be entitled to the cheapest car that is suitable for their disability. Anything else they should have to fund themselves.

I don't understand why anyone should need something costing £50k, there must be cheaper alternatives.

A friend of mine is a wheelchair user and has an adapted hatchback, he doesn't need a people carrier or a large van, ;lthough he is able to get himself from his wheelchair into the car, maybe someone whocan't would need a bigger vehicle.

But to sum up, the basic suitable car should be available and anything else non-essential paid for out of the person's own resources.

spot on ......trouble is that was the way it was run, until last Thursday, cheapest option unless the customer wanted to pay the extra for a bigger vehicle .

pstuart

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I have not read all the thread but here is my two pennorth.

I believe all genuinely disabled people who chose the motability scheme should be entitled to the cheapest car that is suitable for their disability. Anything else they should have to fund themselves.

I don't understand why anyone should need something costing £50k, there must be cheaper alternatives.

A friend of mine is a wheelchair user and has an adapted hatchback, he doesn't need a people carrier or a large van, ;lthough he is able to get himself from his wheelchair into the car, maybe someone whocan't would need a bigger vehicle.


But to sum up, the basic suitable car should be available and anything else non-essential paid for out of the person's own resources.

Please read the whole thread.

Richie-from-the-Boro

66# in this thread, most bleating about why they can't have their big MOTA :

Only two mention the distance restriction ;

- #5 moose1982 girlfriend lives 7 miles away
- #62 Tally-Ho makes some other good points, but similar points on miles
- so we can conclude that the 5 mile radii is as yet on no ones [STRIKE]fiddleometer[/STRIKE] radar
- and that while most are whining about size - none are fiddling by letting others use it

So where do each Motability recipient think the radius should be set ? should we make it :

- ten miles .. .. .. oh no the 12 mile [ers] will object
- twenty miles .. .. .. .. oh no the thirty mile [ers] will object
- fifty miles - oh yes please that's about right my husband works 42 miles away an needs it every day for work

GlasweJen

Sorry John, I know you said this back on page 1 but I'm commenting now lol.

I think taxing/means testing DLA would be counter productive, if the powers that be decided to means test/tax the stupidly small amount (on my regular middle care, low mobility rates, the double high award feels huge lol) then I'd simply quit work and claim ESA. I fit into a support group criteria and life would be much easier, no worrying about over time to pay for the carers, worrying about where I'll find the 200 a month I need to give to access to work, I could take as long as I like in the morning, not worry about collapsing and breaking yet another display cabinet (yep still collapsing transplant didn't fix that bit). There would be time to schedule my online shopping delivery, I could dedicate more time to my voluntary work and I think I'd be happier.

But you know I'm against people who dont work when they can, suppose when you're financially better off not working then there'd be no point, especially when you come with an expiry date.

moose1982

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

66# in this thread, most bleating about why they can't have their big MOTA :

Only two mention the distance restriction ;

- #5 moose1982 girlfriend lives 7 miles away
- #62 Tally-Ho makes some other good points, but similar points on miles
- so we can conclude that the 5 mile radii is as yet on no ones [STRIKE]fiddleometer[/STRIKE] radar
- and that while most are whining about size - none are fiddling by letting others use it

So where do each Motability recipient think the radius should be set ? should we make it :

- ten miles .. .. .. oh no the 12 mile [ers] will object
- twenty miles .. .. .. .. oh no the thirty mile [ers] will object
- fifty miles - oh yes please that's about right my husband works 42 miles away an needs it every day for work

You are right, that Motability need to lay down a set radius to stop someone living in Torquay claiming for a car used by someone in Newcastle (poor example, but I'm sure you know what I mean). I think that it could well be set at 5 miles, but maybe a short form where you can ask for an extension to be placed on the radius? From there they can then say yes or no and by only having a small team (100 employees I think?), the same guidelines would be used.

I wouldn't mind a smaller car (I have a Focus at the moment and cars such as the Fiesta have the equipment I need like auto lights and wipers because I cannot operate them while using hand controls to drive) because my needs do not require anything larger yet. But people who genuinely do need something bigger will lose out.

There will never be a 'one size fits all', but maybe they need to have a consideration for people who need the rules relaxed slightly for them, not much, just slightly. If the rules cannot be relaxed, then maybe offer help to people coming off the scheme to get their own car by means of a loan, they can easily take the repayments back via DLA like they do now.

Or maybe I'm just over complicating things...

anneliza

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

66# in this thread, most bleating about why they can't have their big MOTA :


- fifty miles - oh yes please that's about right my husband works 42 miles away an needs it every day for work

What rubbish this is, the new rules say people living more than 5 miles away. It does not set a restiction on where the car is driven.

anneliza

Richie-from-the-Boro

The ' tip of the iceberg ' fraud issue already identified and acted on desperately needed adjustment. The mechanics of knowing who was fiddling and who was genuine would never be known because of the vague rules on nominated drivers and subsequently the validity of their insurance. The fact that 7,144 allegations relating to fraud or abuse including cases of uninsured driving, unauthorised use of Scheme cars, drink-driving and even criminal activity were difficult to prove / disprove by the police and Motability. These facts led to the ACPO recommending the new rules that were accepted by Motability in order to protect the reputation of the vast majority of law abiding mobility users, and the Motability schemes reputation.

The Mechanics

Now for example if the registered user is not in the vehicle at the time its stopped a policeman can quickly identify the driver / registered user / abuse / distance from keepers address / etc. Unlike before this can be done in an economic and timely fashion and will lead to a swifter prosecution in a court of law and / or / enforcement action by Motability including suspension or being permanently excluded from the Scheme and having the car taken from them.

gravitytolls

Re nominaTED driver. DH and I are NAMED drivers on FIL's car, as he drives. When he had his cataracts donme and had his prostate problem, he didn't. If he were to become permanenetly unable to drive, he'd be housebound, as we live 15 miles away (rural area) and would need to become nominated drivers. Poor thinking IMO.

Richie-from-the-Boro

moose1982 wrote: »

You are right, that Motability need to lay down a set radius to stop someone living in Torquay claiming for a car used by someone in Newcastle (poor example, but I'm sure you know what I mean). I think that it could well be set at 5 miles, but maybe a short form where you can ask for an extension to be placed on the radius? From there they can then say yes or no and by only having a small team (100 employees I think?), the same guidelines would be used.

I wouldn't mind a smaller car (I have a Focus at the moment and cars such as the Fiesta have the equipment I need like auto lights and wipers because I cannot operate them while using hand controls to drive) because my needs do not require anything larger yet. But people who genuinely do need something bigger will lose out.

There will never be a 'one size fits all', but maybe they need to have a consideration for people who need the rules relaxed slightly for them, not much, just slightly. If the rules cannot be relaxed, then maybe offer help to people coming off the scheme to get their own car by means of a loan, they can easily take the repayments back via DLA like they do now.

Or maybe I'm just over complicating things...

Many ordinary law abiding good people will be disadvantaged by the ' new rules ' particularly those in more rural areas. I agree with your comment about the ' one size fits all 5 mile approach ' - its a crude tool. What we have here is a well intended scheme to help the disabled was already already compromised, someone decided that the issue clearly were not going to get better, only [ I've no idea on the year on year increase figures ] worse.

The press and right wing nasty party has a tight grip on all disabled / DLA / ESA / Motability / Housing Benefit / Blue Badge etc issues in general and fraud in the particular. I can only assume that Motability took a lesser survivable belt from the ' cattle prod ' called ACPO before the politicians and press administered a considerably more painful attack on an otherwise excellent disabled provider.

I make three assumptions that (1) something had to be done about the escalating situation, and done now (2) it would be no more than a couple of keystrokes into the Motability computer to discover that maybe 99% of nominated drivers lived 5 miles or less from the registered holder, and that (3) the minimum of genuine users would be disadvantaged if that model was introduced.

However this is debated in this / these / threads it remains a fact that :

- - - 100% of all of those offences could not have happened without the complicity of the disabled person