Motability

Pimperne1

Well. it cost the Government £990m a year for the 560k people who participate so I would argue that its up for discussion.

A couple of points from Wikipedia:

Customers choose a new car every three or five years with insurance, road tax, servicing, tyres and breakdown cover all included in a single monthly payment. This payment is made automatically by the Department for Work and Pensions to Motability Operations under the authority of a form CP50 signed by the hirer. At the end of the contract period, the customer can choose to take another brand new vehicle. The customer may also wish to purchase their current vehicle directly from Motability at the end of their contract either for their own use or a friend's.

Over 560,000 customers currently choose Motability for their mobility needs and 97% would recommend the Scheme to their friends. Around two-thirds of Motability’s customers drive their own vehicle, but non-drivers can get a car as a passenger. Similarly, parents and caregivers can also apply on behalf of a disabled child from the age of three.

Is it money well spent when the country is in such dire straits?
Would a new Reliant Robin factory be supportable to meet this need?
Do you know anyone who is abusing this facility (I do)?

PasturesNew

This is what they used to get http://www.visionmotorservices.co.uk/cridge/d/778-3/Invacar.JPG

Pimperne1

PasturesNew wrote: »

This is what they used to get http://www.visionmotorservices.co.uk/cridge/d/778-3/Invacar.JPG

I think we will all be sacrificing quality of life in the near future and this has to be considered. With Tesco etc delivering directly to the home there must be less of a case for this relative luxury. When we had money to burn then its easy to see why generous schemes could be supported, now we have some tough decisions to make (and I would argue that disposing with this is not too tough a decision - unless the user is in employment in which case I would certainly be more supportive).

Graham_Devon

Sticking disabled people in a reliant robin isn't the best of ideas, neither is sticking them in any other silly little cars. It would be classed as discriination now (quite rightly too), highlighting them as disabled.

It's also worth pointing out that the disabled can't, in many cases, actually make their own living. Therefore my personal view is that they should in no way suffer further. They already suffer a disability.

Removeing the motability scheme would NOT save any money. The £990m would simply end up in the claimants pocket, instead of going towards motability.

Do some reasearch before putting your foot in it, both in terms of lack of understanding towards the motability scheme, and also lack of foresight into how discriminative it would be to start putting the disabled in cheap little silly cars...not only that, but cheap little silly cars most of the time wouldn't suit the type of disability.

Poor thread.

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sticking disabled people in a reliant robin isn't the best of ideas, neither is sticking them in any other silly little cars. It would be classed as discriination now (quite rightly too), highlighting them as disabled.

It's also worth pointing out that the disabled can't, in many cases, actually make their own living. Therefore my personal view is that they should in no way suffer further. They already suffer a disability.

Removeing the motability scheme would NOT save any money. The £990m would simply end up in the claimants pocket, instead of going towards motability.

Do some reasearch before putting your foot in it, both in terms of lack of understanding towards the motability scheme, and also lack of foresight into how discriminative it would be to start putting the disabled in cheap little silly cars...not only that, but cheap little silly cars most of the time wouldn't suit the type of disability.

Poor thread.

I don't see why they need to have brand new cars every three years though. Reliability of cars has improved dramatically. Why should they have new cars every three years when the vast majority of working folk can't afford them. Maybe do some deal on three year old cars coming off lease or something.

We need to look at all ways to save money and having just seen some of the poor kids on children in need who don't have state funding for desperately needed care when they are dying, I think brand new cars for so many is money that could be better used elsewhere.

Graham_Devon

smartn wrote: »

I don't see why they need to have brand new cars every three years though. Reliability of cars has improved dramatically. Why should they have new cars every three years when the vast majority of working folk can't afford them. Maybe do some deal on three year old cars coming off lease or something.

We need to look at all ways to save money and having just seen some of the poor kids on children in need who don't having state funding for desperately needed care when they are dying, I think brand new cars too so many is money that could be better used elsewhere in many cases.

It's a fair point.

But I guess it's for the very same reason that all lease type companies also ditch cars / vans at 3 years old. Maintanance.

It's just a lease scheme at the end of the day.

Again, wouldn't make any difference to the £990m whether they had brand new cars or 3 year old ones. The car is paid for by the claimant using their higher rate DLA allowance. If they don't have the car, they simply get the money instead. Motability is simply passing the payment from the DLA recipient to the dealer involved. Not all dealers have taken part, and you can only get the cars the dealers offer as the dealers will have worked out their profitability.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sticking disabled people in a reliant robin isn't the best of ideas, neither is sticking them in any other silly little cars. It would be classed as discriination now (quite rightly too), highlighting them as disabled.

It's also worth pointing out that the disabled can't, in many cases, actually make their own living. Therefore my personal view is that they should in no way suffer further. They already suffer a disability.

Removeing the motability scheme would NOT save any money. The £990m would simply end up in the claimants pocket, instead of going towards motability.

Do some reasearch before putting your foot in it, both in terms of lack of understanding towards the motability scheme, and also lack of foresight into how discriminative it would be to start putting the disabled in cheap little silly cars...not only that, but cheap little silly cars most of the time wouldn't suit the type of disability.

Poor thread.

Cut DLA then.

smartn

The reason lease companies ditch cars after three years isn't because of maintenance costs any more though. It's because people like to own shiny new cars. Sure, you have MOT issues etc but I am 100% convinced a private company could administer a scheme including maintenance and a reliable high priority breakdown service. New cars have as many problems as nearly new anyhow.

I think run properly with dedicated support staff it could be done a lot cheaper, with perhaps even a better service in the event of breakdowns etc. The best part of a billion a year is a spend that is worth looking at.

Graham_Devon

I'm sure it would cost more.

567,000 MOT's would cost a fair bit in itself. Let alone the administrative nightmare in sorting it out.

Who's going to buy these cars back at the end of the lease? Car supermarkets, nor dealers want car parks full of 6 year old cars.

How would you pay for such a scheme? At the moment with a new car, we know a Citreon C3 is going to cost 12k or whatever. But under your proposal, we'd have no idea. Each car would cost a different amount of money. No private company would be able to forecast costs.

We'd have unknown MOT issues. Unknown maintanance issues (the car is now outside of the manufacturers warranty). Unknown cost per car issues. How would we supply the cars? At the moment, they are ordered in advance and in many cases built to demand. How could we do that for second hand cars in reality?

Theres a hell of a lot more to it.

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm sure it would cost more.

567,000 MOT's would cost a fair bit in itself. Let alone the administrative nightmare in sorting it out.

Who's going to buy these cars back at the end of the lease? Car supermarkets, nor dealers want car parks full of 6 year old cars.

How would you pay for such a scheme? At the moment with a new car, we know a Citreon C3 is going to cost 12k or whatever. But under your proposal, we'd have no idea. Each car would cost a different amount of money. No private company would be able to forecast costs.

We'd have unknown MOT issues. Unknown maintanance issues (the car is now outside of the manufacturers warranty). Unknown cost per car issues. How would we supply the cars? At the moment, they are ordered in advance and in many cases built to demand. How could we do that for second hand cars in reality?

Theres a hell of a lot more to it.

I didn't say it would be easy! But if the economics for running older cars don't stack up we'd all be driving around in new wouldn't we? I could afford a new car and would own one if I thought it were more economical.

Economies of scale stack up for second hand same as they would new. I'm sure you wouldn't pay a private company £50 per MOT if you were putting half a million MOT's there way each year. Seems to me like buying new is the easy option because no-one wants the hassle, I'm sure a private company could do this well and a lot cheaper. We need to start thinking more like this because the reality is we can't afford to keep blowing money so new ways need to be looked at.

In reality, as politicians make the decisions and half a million votes may be lost because people don't get the new cars it would probably never happen!

JWF

It doesn't sound like the sort of scheme that could be in the slightest bit economically managed by a Government agency. Can you imagine how many extra heads would end up in administrative roles and adding to the overall cost?

And I am surprised that White Horse hasn't chipped in with some pearls of wisdom on this one.