Motability

Losing_the_way

Few on the higher rate DLA that are entitled to the mobility allowance are actually physically disabled. If the rest were only eligible to secondhand cars through Motability I bet the claims for DLA would drop. I remember reading somewhere that only 5900 users of the scheme were actually wheelchair users. When you visit a supermarket car park watch how many people parking in the disable bays are actually disabled. Those that are truly disabled often have to wait for a space to become available. I've actually seen this.

Pimperne1

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.

Yes, as I said, we are going to have to make some tough decisions and one of the results might be that disabled people have to make do with less. As for labelling these people as disabled, is that not what the disabled badge in their car does? What are you saying about my lack of understanding about the motability scheme - are my figures incorrect?

From my view those currently abusing the scheme would think twice if they were turning up at work in a Reliant Robin rather than a new VW Golf.

vivatifosi

Losing_the_way wrote: »

Few on the higher rate DLA that are entitled to the mobility allowance are actually physically disabled. If the rest were only eligible to secondhand cars through Motability I bet the claims for DLA would drop. I remember reading somewhere that only 5900 users of the scheme were actually wheelchair users. When you visit a supermarket car park watch how many people parking in the disable bays are actually disabled. Those that are truly disabled often have to wait for a space to become available. I've actually seen this.

Do you think only wheelchair users are disabled LTW? There are plenty of people out there that walk with sticks, or with one of those zimmer frames on wheels, or who have a hidden disability. If they have a blue badge its not for us to deem whether or not they should have one. If on the other hand, people are parking in a disabled bay without a blue badge, and without an obvious short term need (such as a passenger with a broken leg), then that's a different matter.

On the subject of Motability, I agree it should be looked at, but then I think every spend should be looked at, we need all government departments and cost streams to be as effective and efficient as possible. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be cut, but nothing, no matter how sacrosanct, should be above review.

Graham_Devon

Losing_the_way wrote: »

Few on the higher rate DLA that are entitled to the mobility allowance are actually physically disabled. If the rest were only eligible to secondhand cars through Motability I bet the claims for DLA would drop. I remember reading somewhere that only 5900 users of the scheme were actually wheelchair users. When you visit a supermarket car park watch how many people parking in the disable bays are actually disabled. Those that are truly disabled often have to wait for a space to become available. I've actually seen this.

If they have a blue badge, which entitles them to park in disabled spaces it means they have passed the criteria to use a disability space.

You don't have to be disabled per se to use them. Just as you don't have to be a mother and toddler to use one of those spaces. I'm not a mother, but I can use them, as I am a father.

Could be that they have chronic breathing problems and can't walk far. Could be that they are crippled with arthritis and it's painful to walk. Might be that they have a mentally handicaped member of the family with them. None of those require the use of a wheelchair.

michaels

OK - so motability is basically a way for those in receipt of DLA to spend it on an expensive lease car? I would argue that in many cases they are not getting value for money as they would be better off running an older car or using taxis just like the rest of us. Any arguement about whether disabled mobility paymnts are too generous would seem to be a different issue?

Davesnave

vivatifosi wrote: »

If on the other hand, people are parking in a disabled bay without a blue badge, and without an obvious short term need (such as a passenger with a broken leg), then that's a different matter.

Not terribly relevant, but I once had such a short-term need. When I used a disabled bay and tried to stagger to the supermarket, I was verbally abused by diasbled badge holders, who then ran ahead of me to fetch the manager. :rotfl:

Didn't make me anti though. I think there are probably savings to be made here, but surely no one wants to go back to the days of the death trap Invacar, which had an astounding ability to turn over. I knew a polio victim who proved that, more than once!

Pennywise

Providing a car DOES cost more than just the DLA. Have a look at the Motability charity's annual accounts to see how much of its multi million pound funding comes directly from Government grants compared to the tiny proportion raised from the general public - it may call itself a charity, but it's government funded.

The average Joe Public CAN'T get the same cars for the same price - a quick look at car leasing websites compared to the Motability website proves it.

The providers of the cars are getting tax breaks, i.e. there is some zero-rating of VAT etc.

Look at the upgrade options - far cheaper than the average Joe Public would have to pay for a similar upgrade outside the Motability scheme.

Let's not forget that the car dealers and finance companies aren't providing the scheme out of kindness - they're making money out of it, so if they can provide it cheaper than Joe Public, then they're getting grants or tax breaks - or of course selling Motability cars at or below cost and charging Joe Public more to cover their profits.

It's not as simple as arguing that all it costs are the DLA payments which they claimants would receive anyway. There are a lot of hidden extra costs of the Motability scheme with the Government, i.e us taxpayers has to fund.

I'm all in favour of providing transport to the disabled, but the system needs to be looked at and if savings can be made at the same time as providing suitable necessary transport, then they need to be made.

To me, it seems perverse that a disabled person is "deemed" to need a new car every three years when most working people can't afford a new car at all, and most drive cars 3-6 years old. Reliability is no longer a problem, and anyway, surely it's just as important for workers to have reliable transport to get to work, to create profits, which pays taxes etc etc. It's the same with the public sector - lots of brand new and nearly new council vans, ambulances, police cars, etc., yet very successful businesses, like BT etc manage perfectly well on a fleet with a much older average age.

What do other countries do?

mystic_trev

My current car is ex Motability,a Peugeout 307 I bought at a BCA Auction. It was under a year old had done 6,000 miles and still had over two years manufacturers warranty. The cost? Under £6,500 half the cost of a new one. I've run it for three and a half years with no problems - the other good thing is it only need servicing every two years.

It's true that the Motabilty scheme has been open to abuse, although most of the loopholes have now been stopped. One of them was to buy a top of the range sought after car (even some Ferrari's were bought this way) No VAT, and the purchaser could then sell them on for a fat profit!

DervProf

smartn wrote: »

I don't see why they need to have brand new cars every three years though. Reliability of cars has improved dramatically.

I agree.

My car has cost me less than £1000 per year in terms of depreciation over the 8 years I`ve owned it. Repair costs ? About £2000 in that time. Servicing is cheap too - oil and filter(s) changed every 6000 miles, the brakes get changed when they wear out.

How much would it have cost if I had a couple of new cars in that time (and had to pay for dealer servicing) ? A lot more, I bet.

Graham_Devon

Pennywise wrote: »

Providing a car DOES cost more than just the DLA. Have a look at the Motability charity's annual accounts to see how much of its multi million pound funding comes directly from Government grants compared to the tiny proportion raised from the general public - it may call itself a charity, but it's government funded.

This is all true. I've edited your quote simply to save space, but agree to most of it.

I think the problem comes when it's such a large operation. It's the same in the NHS. You look at the IT equipment sometimes and think "well I don't need a all singing all dancing computer to edit some databases". Printers are the same. Provided is a printer thats provided everywhere else, regardless of usage. Costs could be saved in many areas by giving higher end printers to those who use the most, and lower end printer to those who only print a couple of thousand pages a year.

However, after listening to one of the reasons for the uniform computers, I agree, it's probably cheaper overall. Not in terms of tech cost, but in terms of admin, delivery, discounts etc.

So what seems like a waste initially, actually turns out to be far less wasteful than implementing individuality.

There surely will be some costs to be saved with the motability project somewhere. But I'm not so sure bringing in individual second hand cars etc is the answer. It would be an administrative nightmare sourcing, pricing and individually maintaining each car. As it is at the moment, thats handed over to the dealers, and cars are simply built to order if there is no stock. The dealers also take them on as trade in's once the lease is over. The dealers will certainly be making most of the money, and it's maybe the dealers we should direct the attention too. The disabled users are just using a scheme given to them. At the end of the day, they can only have what the dealer states they can have. Motability don't take part, other than to direct the payment to the beneficiary.

The low usage cars are the dealers dream. The higher usage they are not so keen on.

But if we went down the route of second hand cars, we'd also be looking at many of those cars needing brakes (not many motability cars need them before trade in), cambelts, clutches, exhausts, major service, and we'd have to add an extended warranty into the mix. All of which, at the moment, hardly any cars need, and if they do currently need them, it's usually down to fault, and therefore manufacturers warranties. I can see all thse added extras adding massive administrative hours to the system aswell as loads of extra costs.

It's the unknown extra costs that would cripple any scheme. Some renaults have seen complete eletrical rebuilds needed for the dash, costing over a grand. It's not under warranty. Imagine a scheme covering 527,000 cars whereby costs like that could just arrive, and you have to deal with it. Its a massive amount of uncertainty for a business to deal with. I doubt any business plan could cope with it in all honesty.