Motability

Graham_Devon

God, I've just realised it looks as if I am defending the whole system, which I want to make the point that I'm not.

All I have been doing is trying to explain the system, and looking at the viability of the suggestions....and dealing with rife jealousy it seems.

As for saving money, here are my suggestions:

1. Stop paying higher rate mobility to people who don't need it. Just like winter fuel payments, those with x amount of cash in the bank don't need this money. But I'm not sure, lawfully, how this would be achieved. All I do know is that if you have over 16k in the bank, it stops a lot of benefits. Maybe we could look at doing the same for higher rate DLA, and therefore, in turn, the motability scheme.

This would not only save money on the motability aspect, but would also save money for all those taking the £200 a month when they don't actually need it.

2. Not sure making claimants pay for servicing would be achieveable in a business sense, but making them pay some or all of the money towards wear and tear items such as tyres is one which I can't really see a problem with. Tyre wear depends on how much use they get from the car, and ultimately also how they drive it. Again, not sure how this may effect the actual business end. But I really don't see why people like my dad should have his tyres changed free of charge....neither does my dad. He has before now wanted to change them before the minimum wear is hit, but been told he's not allowed, even if he pays.

3. Kind of goes hand in hand, but the insanity of the blue badge. Why should a disabled person be able to park for free at the beach car park, whereas I have to pay? Both of us are doing it for leisure. Indeed, my dad has, on occasions been too embarrased to use his blue badge as he doesn't see why he should, so has paid for the parking of the car. For other instances, such as visiting the docs and using the hospital car parks, fine. But we all need to go to town to shop. Why should disabled users not pay to carry out what we all have to carry out, disabled or not? However, would like to see the money saved here dedicated to better disabled spots. I took my son to A&E the other night, and had to pay £2 to park (PFI hospital). If dad had taken him, he would have simply put a badge in the window. Makes no sense.

4. Make them pay their own car tax. They get their cars taxed irrespective of whether they have a motability car or a private car they have bought. They are simply taxed for them. Again, I don't see this as crucial, and again, I don't see why someone should be able to ignore the cost of taxing a particular vehicle simply because they are disabled. Again, certainly this could relate to point 1, whereby those with a certain amount of money in the bank don't get their car tax paid for.

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

60,000 miles in 3 years.

And I've just read it is two nominated drivers paid for. Any others will have to be applied for and paid for by the user.

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

God, I've just realised it looks as if I am defending the whole system, which I want to make the point that I'm not.

All I have been doing is trying to explain the system, and looking at the viability of the suggestions....and dealing with rife jealousy it seems.




Not at all, I can quite easliy aford to buy a spanking new VW Golf. How could anyone be Jealous of someone who is genuinely disabled and gets the use of a free car?.My view is the Motorbility scheme is open to abuse,possibly on a mass scale.

The country needs to make savings and although its not a huge amout in the grand scheme of things as my old granny use to say "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" and IMO no part of the benefits system should be exempt from some economising .

Graham_Devon

smartn wrote: »

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.

I certainly agree.

The only issues I have with your suggestions is again, the business viability of it.

You've added in some irregularities. Something which business does not like.

In allowing people to swap, you are involving administration. In then giving that car to someone else for the remaining amount of years, you are again, involving administration. Firstly in handling and storing the car, secondly in shipping the car to the new user and third in dealing with that customer all over again when their (now short) lease comes to an end.

You have turned the rules around a bit, and that 8 year lease, which someone has got rid of has now turned into some sort of "pool" car ready for someone. But how on earth do you pick someone to have a 5 year old car, with a remaining 3 year lease? Random pot luck, while their neigbours get a new car with a fresh 8 year lease?

There has to remain a fair level of fairness in the system. If you do something, it has to be done for all. You can't expect a user to pay £200 a month for a service and then fob them off with a second user 5 year old car as Doris down the road has now found it's not suitable. If people are paying that money, they have to get the same level of service.

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

God, I've just realised it looks as if I am defending the whole system, which I want to make the point that I'm not.

All I have been doing is trying to explain the system, and looking at the viability of the suggestions....and dealing with rife jealousy it seems.

As for saving money, here are my suggestions:

1. Stop paying higher rate mobility to people who don't need it. Just like winter fuel payments, those with x amount of cash in the bank don't need this money. But I'm not sure, lawfully, how this would be achieved. All I do know is that if you have over 16k in the bank, it stops a lot of benefits. Maybe we could look at doing the same for higher rate DLA, and therefore, in turn, the motability scheme.

This would not only save money on the motability aspect, but would also save money for all those taking the £200 a month when they don't actually need it.

2. Not sure making claimants pay for servicing would be achieveable in a business sense, but making them pay some or all of the money towards wear and tear items such as tyres is one which I can't really see a problem with. Tyre wear depends on how much use they get from the car, and ultimately also how they drive it. Again, not sure how this may effect the actual business end. But I really don't see why people like my dad should have his tyres changed free of charge....neither does my dad. He has before now wanted to change them before the minimum wear is hit, but been told he's not allowed, even if he pays.

3. Kind of goes hand in hand, but the insanity of the blue badge. Why should a disabled person be able to park for free at the beach car park, whereas I have to pay? Both of us are doing it for leisure. Indeed, my dad has, on occasions been too embarrased to use his blue badge as he doesn't see why he should, so has paid for the parking of the car. For other instances, such as visiting the docs and using the hospital car parks, fine. But we all need to go to town to shop. Why should disabled users not pay to carry out what we all have to carry out, disabled or not? However, would like to see the money saved here dedicated to better disabled spots. I took my son to A&E the other night, and had to pay £2 to park (PFI hospital). If dad had taken him, he would have simply put a badge in the window. Makes no sense.

4. Make them pay their own car tax. They get their cars taxed irrespective of whether they have a motability car or a private car they have bought. They are simply taxed for them. Again, I don't see this as crucial, and again, I don't see why someone should be able to ignore the cost of taxing a particular vehicle simply because they are disabled. Again, certainly this could relate to point 1, whereby those with a certain amount of money in the bank don't get their car tax paid for.

I don't think we are arguing out of 'rife jealousy' as you put it. As a taxpayer we have a right to want our money spent in the most efficient and beneficial ways. I can't justify driving around in a new car myself and don't see why motability should be any different. It needs to be the most cost effective way of delivering a service to people who need it.

smartn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I certainly agree.

The only issues I have with your suggestions is again, the business viability of it.

You've added in some irregularities. Something which business does not like.

In allowing people to swap, you are involving administration. In then giving that car to someone else for the remaining amount of years, you are again, involving administration. Firstly in handling and storing the car, secondly in shipping the car to the new user and third in dealing with that customer all over again when their (now short) lease comes to an end.

You have turned the rules around a bit, and that 8 year lease, which someone has got rid of has now turned into some sort of "pool" car ready for someone. But how on earth do you pick someone to have a 5 year old car, with a remaining 3 year lease? Random pot luck, while their neigbours get a new car with a fresh 8 year lease?

There has to remain a fair level of fairness in the system. If you do something, it has to be done for all. You can't expect a user to pay £200 a month for a service and then fob them off with a second user 5 year old car as Doris down the road has now found it's not suitable. If people are paying that money, they have to get the same level of service.

Graham, I've never said the new system would be perfect and things would need to be worked out such as what you are describing, but to me you do seem to just want to put up objections to anything that is different to the current scheme. Whether we like it or not the country has some very difficult decisions to be made and if we cant adapt to changing systems like motability we are in worse trouble than i thought!

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

Not at all, I can quite easliy aford to buy a spanking new VW Golf. How could anyone be Jealous of someone who is genuinely disabled and gets the use of a free car?.My view is the Motorbility scheme is open to abuse,possibly on a mass scale.

The country needs to make savings and although its not a huge amout in the grand scheme of things as my old granny use to say "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" and IMO no part of the benefits system should be exempt from some economising .

Ok, if you are going to continue calling this a free car, as you going to describe the rest of the goods that benefits claimants use, as free?

Clothes for instance? Do they get free clothes, because they pay for them out of their benefits? Should they only be therefore allowed to shop at Dorothy Perkins?

How about food? Is that free too? Should they only therefore be allowed to shop at Lidls?

How about drink? Should they only be allowed to buy water?

It's not free. I don't know how many times that needs to be said, especially to you as you believe you know about how the system works. That money is the claimants money as soon as they receive it. Instead of recieving it, they have chosen to "buy" a service. That service has levels of service, which they can choose to use if they so wish, but in doing so, they will pay extra for.

Graham_Devon

smartn wrote: »

Graham, I've never said the new system would be perfect and things would need to be worked out such as what you are describing, but to me you do seem to just want to put up objections to anything that is different to the current scheme. Whether we like it or not the country has some very difficult decisions to be made and if we cant adapt to changing systems like motability we are in worse trouble than i thought!

Hopefully I'm not just putting up objections willy nilly.

The whole thread is about saving money. I'm not objecting per se, just stating that if you involve a load of administration, thats one of the highest costs you can bring in.

The service also has to remain fair.

I'm not objecting for fun. Just discussing the system. This one is pretty close to me really, as I'm involved in public money, and this sort of thing is forever cropping up, with wonderful suggestions on how we can save money. You get looked at as if you are a complete buffoon if you suggest something cannot be done. But it can't. If there is no service and no business wan'ts to offer that service, we can't implement it. But it seems the public know best, and we should implement it regardless.

Sometimes I feel as if people only look at costs from a personal level. All the other costs and problems associated simply don't exist, as personally they can buy something and do what they like with it. But in business it simply doesn't work that way. We got a load of hassle over TENS machines the other day. Got lambasted because we don't offer them and it only cost the person x amount to buy. But it doesn't stop there for business. We need insurance, we need to ensure proper use if WE are supplying it and we have to buy the correct one to fit the most people, not just one off the shelf at Boots.If we do that, we also have to offer special circumstances for those outside of the normal perimeters. But it doesn't seem to get across. All that person has in their head is "cost me £80, whats the problem".

leveller2911

smartn wrote: »

Graham, I've never said the new system would be perfect and things would need to be worked out such as what you are describing, but to me you do seem to just want to put up objections to anything that is different to the current scheme. Whether we like it or not the country has some very difficult decisions to be made and if we cant adapt to changing systems like motability we are in worse trouble than i thought!

I generally agree with many of Grahams views but I think on this one he expects you to have a fully costed programme on his desk by 3pm this afternoon..........;)

IMO its has nothing to do with jealousy Graham talks about ,like you say as Taxpayers we have the right to know how and where our money is being spent and when we do need to make savings we are "all in it together" including Bankers.

chewmylegoff

leveller2911 wrote: »

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?........

i totally agree with this. i don't see a problem with a person who would be deprived of a basic standard of living without a car, getting a car paid for by the tax payer.

the issue, if there is one, is with people who don't actually need a car, and can manage perfectly well without one, getting a car paid for by the tax payer.

this is just a general problem with all benefits system - how do you make sure (in a cost-effective way) that the people who do need assistance get it, and that no-one else can claim.

the fact that someone can get a car paid for by the tax payer in the first place if they have a child with ADHD (if that is true) is the problem - not the fact that a new car appears every three years.

far more money would be saved if the govt made sure that only the right people get this benefit, rather than reducing the cost per head across the board.