Motability

Graham_Devon

smartn wrote: »

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.

I think 8 years may be a little too long, for a variety of reasons. Were talking 5 MOT's, maybe 2 cambelts in that time (not because they specifically need doing, a personal user may choose not to, but because it needs to be done for warranties and stuff).

5 years may be viable though? Many companies are now doing 5 year leases.

The only reason I can think of really against a 5 year lease is that needs often change for disabled users. So a car to suit todays needs may be viable for 2-3 years, but if the disabled person gets worse as many inevitably do, they may need to rethink their vehicles. But that is the only reason I can think of instantly.

I do know of one of my parents neighbours who recently had to swap their car at approx 16 months, because the disabled person was no longer able to drive it, due to getting worse, and the wife couldn't drive manual. It did cost them a fair whack out of their own pocket however. So it's not all glory once you have the car.

Another point, moving away from your post, is something which many don't think of with motability. I've often heard people suggesting they should buy their own car, and thats what many eligible actually do. However, for others, many don't have access to 3-5k to buy a half decent car, and don't particularly, on a fixed income, like the idea of having to shell out £300 for a service one month, only to be followed up by £260 for an MOT failure two months later.

The idea of a fixed cost is very beneficial to many on a fixed income for whom is would be very difficult to save up large sums and have the money available to pay out large, unexpected bills.

Pimperne1

Maybe we should be re-designating what "disabled" means. Here are the UK figures (one of the things in which I expect we lead the world):

People with disabilities

There are over 6.9 million disabled people of working age which represents 19% of the working population.[1]
There are over 10 million disabled people in Britain, of whom 5 million are over state pension age.[2]
There are two million people with sight problems in the UK.[3]

http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts

iltisman

I only know 2 people with motability cars both can walk for miles and one cycles to the gym .
One has a family income of £250K pa and the other £100k they tend to be used as runabouts by family members.

SingleSue

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Good post. I had a colleague who worked with me once who had some problems with his son. He came into the office punching the air one day and I said "Good news?". "Yes, Jonathan's been diagnosed with ADHD". A couple of other questions identified that he was going to be "considerably" better off.

What sort of society do we live in?

My reaction to being told I had children with ASD? I cried for weeks. In fact, 10 years after the diagnosis of middle son, I still cry at the unfairness of it. It was absolutely devastating to find out what you thought was your perfect child had a lifelong disability that would impact every area of their life and the devastation did not end there, youngest has several other problems (one very life threatening) as does middle son.

The only thing that did make me feel better was that with the diagnosis, they would receive the help they required in school...and even that was a battle!

The reaction to being told my eldest son had a physical disability that would see him in a wheelchair within 10 years and possibly limit his years on this planet? More tears, more devastation.

Certainly no joy at the potential of finanacial assistance, something which is certainly not guaranteed.

For info, only youngest receives DLA....HRC and LRM so no 'free' car.

Graham_Devon

iltisman wrote: »

I only know 2 people with motability cars both can walk for miles and one cycles to the gym .
One has a family income of £250K pa and the other £100k they tend to be used as runabouts by family members.

If that is honestly true, then shop them.

The family income is completely irrelevant. But the cycling to the gym etc is obviously a case of fraud. Nothing to do with motability. But fraud of the entire benefits system itself.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think 8 years may be a little too long, for a variety of reasons. Were talking 5 MOT's, maybe 2 cambelts in that time (not because they specifically need doing, a personal user may choose not to, but because it needs to be done for warranties and stuff).






Just out of interest what are the mileage limits with Motorbility ?. The reason I ask is many Camblets changes are around 60,000 miles for one cambelt change and they don't need changing if its chain driven.

Emy1501

Pimperne1 wrote: »

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.

Stop talking rubbish and even if we were bust this scheme would really have little to do with it. The reason we will become bust if we do is people spending beyond their means. As I say maybe you should get a wheelchair and see how you do for a week.

leveller2911

Emy1501 wrote: »

Stop talking rubbish and even if we were bust this scheme would really have little to do with it. The reason we will become bust if we do is people spending beyond their means. As I say maybe you should get a wheelchair and see how you do for a week.

But its not just for people in wheelchairs, I'm all for genuine disabled people getting all the help they need but how many people have Motorbility cars who are not in a wheelchair ? my guess is the vast majority are not in wheelchairs.DLA is being given out to people who don't warrant it.

The scheme costs £1.5 billion a year and yet basic needs like fitted wheelchairs for children have a funding shortage. What should our priorities be?........

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think 8 years may be a little too long, for a variety of reasons. Were talking 5 MOT's, maybe 2 cambelts in that time (not because they specifically need doing, a personal user may choose not to, but because it needs to be done for warranties and stuff).

5 years may be viable though? Many companies are now doing 5 year leases.

The only reason I can think of really against a 5 year lease is that needs often change for disabled users. So a car to suit todays needs may be viable for 2-3 years, but if the disabled person gets worse as many inevitably do, they may need to rethink their vehicles. But that is the only reason I can think of instantly.

I do know of one of my parents neighbours who recently had to swap their car at approx 16 months, because the disabled person was no longer able to drive it, due to getting worse, and the wife couldn't drive manual. It did cost them a fair whack out of their own pocket however. So it's not all glory once you have the car.

Another point, moving away from your post, is something which many don't think of with motability. I've often heard people suggesting they should buy their own car, and thats what many eligible actually do. However, for others, many don't have access to 3-5k to buy a half decent car, and don't particularly, on a fixed income, like the idea of having to shell out £300 for a service one month, only to be followed up by £260 for an MOT failure two months later.

The idea of a fixed cost is very beneficial to many on a fixed income for whom is would be very difficult to save up large sums and have the money available to pay out large, unexpected bills.

I'd have to argue that 8 years seems easily acheivable for a modern well designed car. The cost of a cambelt change and a couple of extra MOT's is significantly less than the cost of a new car. If a users needs change then so be it, they get a new car or the existing one adapted (whichever works out cheaper). The car could then be matched to someone with the relevant needs. What I am trying to get away from is the idea that the need is for a new car. The need is for reliable transport.

SingleSue

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Maybe we should be re-designating what "disabled" means. Here are the UK figures (one of the things in which I expect we lead the world):

People with disabilities

There are over 6.9 million disabled people of working age which represents 19% of the working population.[1]
There are over 10 million disabled people in Britain, of whom 5 million are over state pension age.[2]
There are two million people with sight problems in the UK.[3]

http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts

I am classed as disabled, yet receive no benefits for it. My middle and eldest sons are classed as disabled and receive no benefits for it. My dad was registered disabled (when it was possible to do so) since the 70's and also received no benefits for it (apart from the time he was in hospital post accident, he worked full time until retirement age), he does now at nearly 71 receive attendance allowance after 2 strokes.

I am sure that there are countless others who meet the criteria of being disabled but who do not (for whatever reason), claim any kind of disability benefit and do work.