Motability

smartn

We don't reallly need to invent a company to deal with this. Lets put it out to tender to the big manufacturers as a bulk order. Vauxhall already offer 1st time purchases a lifetime warranty with there cars now. Use a couple of manufacturers (may be Honday and Nissan who provide UK employment!) and get the best price from them. Keep the cars 8 years. Money saved, let the manufacturers manage the problem re MOT's etc and loadsa money could be saved ane employment maintained!

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.


BUT the motorbility car should ONLY used for carrying out tasks for the recipient which is frequently abused by many. The chap at the funeral I mentioned was "on his wifes business" ........Yes of coarse he was i'm far too cynical I guess.....

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

So why on earth were you makign out, completely and utterly falsely, that it costs the taxpayer £16k+ for that car, if you knew full well you were making things up?

Emy1501

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Only on this website could you make the statement "Not giving 560,000 people a new, fully insured, taxed, annually serviced, free tyres replacement, breakdown covered vehicle every three years would be as expensive giving them one".

What is missing in all these schemes, but which will shortly need to be introduced, is "can the country afford it". I for one will be delighted when a more reasoned and financially prudent approach is adopted when someone comes up with such a hair brained scheme.

If we were living within our means then I would have no problem with this, we're not so I do.

There are way more other things we could cut rather than picking on in many cases the most vulnerable people in society. So what if they get a bit of luxury to compensate for the problems they and their families. We aren't going to go bust because of these cost. The other day I help push a wheelchair on to bus as the ramp wasn't working and bus driver was basically disinterested. I wonder how many of the seemingly jealous people on here would be willing to swap places to get a new car every 3 years

smartn

Graham - just wanted to say having talked this through on the thread and the practicalities of it with you and other members I'm no longer convinced of my idea of second hand cars, but I'd be interested in reasons from anyone as to why we cant do what I suggest above re 8 year retention and get the manufacturers to administer the scheme.

smartn

Emy1501 wrote: »

There are way more other things we could cut rather than picking on in many cases the most vulnerable people in society. So what if they get a bit of luxury to compensate for the problems they and their families. We aren't going to go bust because of these cost. The other day I help push a wheelchair on to bus as the ramp wasn't working and bus driver was basically disinterested. I wonder how many of the seemingly jealous people on here would be willing to swap places to get a new car every 3 years

I refer to my previous comment re Children in Need and insufficent funding for kids with cancer. We need to look at all options to maximise value from the tax we spend. Is it really a hardship to have a maximum of an 8 year old car as opposed to a new one?

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

BUT the motorbility car should ONLY used for carrying out tasks for the recipient which is frequently abused by many. The chap at the funeral I mentioned was "on his wifes business" ........Yes of coarse he was i'm far too cynical I guess.....

Actually thats incorrect.

The car can be used for any tasks by any nominated driver where the task can be seen as beneficial towards the disabled person.

I for instance could take my dads car out to go and get my shopping, and justify that by also getting my dad a few bits.

Sure, there are going to be people who use the car where it doesn't directly benefit the DLA recipient.....but that will always be the case. I'm not sure how exactly we would police the scheme otherwise, other than requesting the use of the car and having to prove it was beneficial each and every trip.

SingleSue

leveller2911 wrote: »

I have a sister who has a disabled daughter who have a people carrier motorbility car ,she is in a wheelchair and does need the car.Where I don't agree with the system is that they pay for no sevicing,no tax and no insurance.They are able to get a brand spanking new one every 3 yrs when there nothing wrong with the existing car.As far as I'm aware cars depreciate the most within the first 3 years so why are they allowed another one?There is no logic to the system at all.

I also have a friend who's son will be in a wheelchair within 4 years, he has a nice new VW Golf, £17k and I'm the first to admit he will need a car but he doesn't now. Up until recently the DLA for the last few years has been saved up for a "Conservatory" fund.Why is an expensive brand like VW along with BMW on the scheme in the first place?. You can by a brand new Skoda Octavia with a larger boot and doors for £11k , VW Golf £17k.......Its pretty obvious that the country can no longer run the scheme in its present form which is expensive and open to abuse on a wide scale.

The link below also points out if you have a child with ADHD you can qualify for Motorbility.It makes a very interesting read.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/10/adhd-motability-scheme-exposes.html

But very unlikely you will get it, very very rarely given for ADHD (someone did post the true figures on another part of this forum a few weeks back and the number was incredibly low countrywide).

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually thats incorrect.

The car can be used for any tasks by any nominated driver where the task can be seen as beneficial towards the disabled person.

I for instance could take my dads car out to go and get my shopping, and justify that by also getting my dad a few bits.

Sure, there are going to be people who use the car where it doesn't directly benefit the DLA recipient.....but that will always be the case. I'm not sure how exactly we would police the scheme otherwise, other than requesting the use of the car and having to prove it was beneficial each and every trip.

No my post wasn't incorrect, your wording may be different but it means the same.

The named driver may only use the car to carry out task for the recipient and not for their own "private" use.....

The facts are Graham and you may not like the fact but we can't afford the benefits system espcially those which are flawed and easy to cheat..

Pimperne1

Emy1501 wrote: »

There are way more other things we could cut rather than picking on in many cases the most vulnerable people in society. So what if they get a bit of luxury to compensate for the problems they and their families. We aren't going to go bust because of these cost. The other day I help push a wheelchair on to bus as the ramp wasn't working and bus driver was basically disinterested. I wonder how many of the seemingly jealous people on here would be willing to swap places to get a new car every 3 years

Actually you have hit it on the head there. We are not going to go bust - we are bust. The reason we are bust is because we don't consider affordability for the nation when someone invents these hairbrained schemes.