Motability

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've actually discussed it in quite some detail, giving real reasons for my thoughts. You just called me Ed Balls (for some unfathomable reason) in response.

You seem incapable of discussing this in any type of reasonable manner. Fair do's, but don't expect any reasonable discussion if all you can bring to the table is your 3 posts on page 2.

Unfathomable? really?

That was blatant economic sophistry, of the type Ed Balls is renowned for.

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Although I can see where your arguments are coming from, I still maintain if it was cheaper to run a new car we would all be doing it!

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

Make recipients keep the same car for at least 10 years is a start and stop people having premium brands like BMW and VW......;)

Keeping the car for 10 years is a fair call.

I'm not sure if it's practical in a business sense though. So we'd have to create the company to deal with this.

As for premium brands, I can't agree that we should stop people having them. They are afterall, shelling out their own cash to do so, which is completely their choice.

The golf you talk of, will require a downpayment of around £700. That is up to the user whether they wish to pay that and have the golf, or they can choose not to, and pick up a VW Polo or Fox instead. Both of which require no downpayment.

Should we stop someone being able to choose whether they pay for their own choice? I don't really see what it would achieve?

Graham_Devon

smartn wrote: »

Although I can see where your arguments are coming from, I still maintain if it was cheaper to run a new car we would all be doing it!

Of course we would.

But we are running one or two personal cars. We are not running a fleet of 500,000+.

It's slightly different!

For all the suggestions so far, we would need to invent a company to deal with it. Make the company viable. Employ the staff to run it. AND save costs. I just don't know how it can be done. Not considering currently it costs £1700 a year per head. I'm not even sure it could, as if it was viable, I'm sure there would be a business out there running such a scheme. I'd certainly be very interested in leasing a 3 year old car for 3 years, rather than buying one. Maybe one for thought for the business minded?

As for insurance, as someone else mentioned. No business could run a fleet of 500,000 cars and hope that the user insures them correctly. They would be losing cars all over the shop. Therefore, insurance is built into the lease costs. Servicing? Yer, I guess you could get the recipient to pay for it, but again, you are then hoping they duly service it. Seems a little silly in my view.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Keeping the car for 10 years is a fair call.

I'm not sure if it's practical in a business sense though. So we'd have to create the company to deal with this.

As for premium brands, I can't agree that we should stop people having them. They are afterall, shelling out their own cash to do so, which is completely their choice.

The golf you talk of, will require a downpayment of around £700. That is up to the user whether they wish to pay that and have the golf, or they can choose not to, and pick up a VW Polo or Fox instead. Both of which require no downpayment.

Should we stop someone being able to choose whether they pay for their own choice? I don't really see what it would achieve?

Are you seriously justifying a £17k VW Golf for motorbility when the recipient has to pay JUST £700?, that still means the tax payers pay £16,300-00 and all the running costs except petrol.


I went to a funeral of a friend the other day and walking back to the car I got chatting to a chap on his own who had just received a new Kia Soul. We were chatting about the car, nice interior etc , a nice big grim came over his face as he mentioned it was a motorbility car for his wife........... His wife was at home and no where to be seen, he shouldn't have been using it but he was and it just shows how widely the system is abused, I also have a good friend who has a 2010 Ford Focus on Motorbility, he spends most of his time on the fishing bank. He is fit to work but has a bad back but he can walk a mile along the river bank..

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course we would.

But we are running one or two personal cars. We are not running a fleet of 500,000+.

It's slightly different!

For all the suggestions so far, we would need to invent a company to deal with it. Make the company viable.

You don't need to form a company to allocate a car for 10-12 years.They can do that with the current system. Any idea why cheaper brands and models are not specified over premium brands?.

For example as I stated before a Skoda Ocktavia with a larger boot space and doors as wide as a VW Golf is about £11-12k and Golf £15-18k thats a saving already.Now give the car for the allocated 10-12 years and I'm sure theres a substantial saving there already.I would also point out servicing costs are lower on the Skodas too...

Just to point out how perverse the system is a young lad has needed a new wheelchair for over a year but because there is a lack of funding he has waited and waited to be fitted for a replacement as he is growing and he needs a larger one.Finally after months of waiting he has got a new wheelchair but need a Motorbility car and you get one within a few weeks....

Aberdeenangarse

heathcote123 wrote: »

Didn't Abu Hamza get a nice new car on this scheme?

I bet he was rubbish at hand signals :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

Are you seriously justifying a £17k VW Golf for motorbility when the recipient has to pay JUST £700?, that still means the tax payers pay £16,300-00 and all the running costs except petrol.

The taxpayer is NOT paying £16,300.

I'm not stating this in a derogatroy sense, but do you understand how the system works?

The DLA recipient can only get a car if they pass the medical tests to receive £51.40 a week in terms of whats called the Higher Rate Mobility Allowance.

This mobility allowance is supposed to pay for stuff as it says on the tin. Mobility.

The DLA recipient has the choice of taking that £51.40 a week and using it for whatever purpose they wish. Could be buying a wheelchair, could be buying a wheelchair suitable vehicle. Could be re-doing the garden and entrance to make it wheelchair friendly, could be adaping their house to make it more suitable to their mobility needs.

OR, they can choose to "swap" that £51.40 a week and enter the motability scheme. The recipient then never sees that £51.40 a week, and instead get's to choose the use of a car.

So basically the £220 a month goes towards the "use" of a leased car.

There are certain models available where you can pay no more, and come out with a car. However, that's not always viable. Take my dad for instance. His mobility needs are mostly arthritic. 2 new hips and a new elbow. He therefore needs something he doe's not need to "climb" into. He needs something higher off the ground whereby he can simply walk to the car and sit in to it without having to bend down to get in. He also needs something whereby the shopping or whatever is easily accesible. Therefore he needed a higher car, the only choice really is an MPV.

So then you have a look at the brochure. He then looks at the upfont payment, made out of his own money and weighs this up against the cars in terms of MPG etc. He then chooses a car, and dependant on what he has chosen, pays the price in terms of an advance payment. There is absolutely no point in stating "well you can only have a Skoda Octavia Sir" as that simply wouldn't suit his mobility needs. Everyones different.

The taxpayer doesn't pay 16k, 30k, 9k, whatever. The taxpayer only pays the higher rate mobility. Even if someone chose NOT to have the car, the taxpayer will STILL be paying that person in receipt the exact same money. So you could get rid of the motability scheme completely, and it would cost the taxpayer absolutely no less.

Yes, there are motability grants. This is to run the actual scheme itself. In the same vein as there are grants to run mentally handicapped day centres.

As for running costs, you are correct, the only running costs are fuel. Add ons will cost extra. Insurance for foreign driving has to be paid for. Insurance for more than 2 drivers (I believe) has to be paid for (might be 3). Insurance for younger drivers has to be "topped up" if I remember rightly. Equiptment to tailor the car for foreign driving has to be paid for. If you want any equipment other than the standard equipment for that model....you pay for it. INCLUDING adaptions.

I went to a funeral of a friend the other day and walking back to the car I got chatting to a chap on his own who had just received a new Kia Soul. We were chatting about the car, nice interior etc , a nice big grim came over his face as he mentioned it was a motorbility car for his wife........... His wife was at home and no where to be seen, he shouldn't have been using it but he was and it just shows how widely the system is abused, I also have a good friend who has a 2010 Ford Focus on Motorbility, he spends most of his time on the fishing bank. He is fit to work but has a bad back but he can walk a mile along the river bank..

As with any other lease, the car s paid for by a person. In this case, it's the DLA recipient, regardless of whether they drive it or not. I can drive my dads car any time I like.

The reason for this is that if he can't drive, I can drive him around. I never really drive it as I never have the need, but I'm fully insured to do so.

Theres no point in a DLA claimant giving up over £200 a month of their income, only to suggest that because they are a DLA claimant, they are the only ones who can drive it and no one else. Again, it's just a lease scheme, and no other lease scheme that joe public can use would be quite as strict as many wish for the motability scheme to be.

There are mileage restrictions if it makes anyone feel any better?

At the end of the day, it "costs" the DLA recipient £200 a month. If you want the same thing, then go for it. You are not going to get the same pricing, it will probably cost you £30-40 per month more for the same type of car. But then motability is a huge scheme therefore cheaper pricing. Which is what everyone wants, lower costs!

OptionARMAGEDDON

As I said before, DLA needs to be cut then. We all need to take the pain. Far too generous if people can get a free 1 series every three years out of it on lease.

leveller2911

Thanks for the education Graham but I do understand how the system works. My point was/is that the system is flawed and abused. Your right in that the Taxpayers don't pay for the car as such but I stand by the fact that savings can be made on a large scale.