Motability

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

LOL sorry if I'm coming across that way.

I suppose I can just see problems with the solutions offered.

Maybe because my family benefit directly I've also witnessed the personal aspect, pros and cons.

I know my dad would struggle without the service, and to him, it's £200 a month well spent. In terms of what he gets for that £200, he wouldn't be able to match the same spending power and service himself. I.e. he would probably end up having to buy an older, less reliable car, especially considering his needs of a larger, higher car so the couple of grand wouldn't go far.

Certainly he doesn't have the money to go out and buy a car tommorow. Not sure he would get the type of loan that I could, simply because he's disabled therefore doesn't have the same earning opportunities he used to have, so would probably end up with a higher rate loan.

It's all relative. I may not be able to match his service in terms of what he can get on motability if I spent the same amount of money doing a private lease. However, I can go out and get a loan, probably at a better rate than he could, and end up with a better overall car than him if we both had the same amount of cash to spend each month. I've got the earning potential. He lost it. With losing it, he also lost access to various finance products.

Emy1501

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?........

Your now having a different debate. The OP seems to believe that the disabled should only be entitled to robin reliants every 5-10 years and someone else seems to believe because he can't get a new car every few years then neither should the disabled.

I'm all for benefit reform but the problem is how do you prove someone lying to their GP? I work in the private sector dealing with injury claims all the time. I suspect most of them are exaggerated or false and a recent survey of GP's found 70% had concerns about the people claiming whiplash type injuries.

The problem is few GP's etc are going call a claimant a liar and therefore unless you also plan to penalize the genuine sick then you have to accept the rough with the smooth.

A few on here are complaining about people they know abusing the system but as asked, how many have shopped the people they know? i suspect none.

OptionARMAGEDDON

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.

Its times like this we should think, what would the chinese do? I bet they dont have similar schemes. Its no wonder they have huge cash reserves to sit on instead of loads of disabled people driving roundin 1 series paid for by the state and a nation of thickos whining on about rights.

smartn

Emy1501 wrote: »

Your now having a different debate. The OP seems to believe that the disabled should only be entitled to robin reliants every 5-10 years and someone else seems to believe because he can't get a new car every few years then neither should the disabled.

I'm all for benefit reform but the problem is how do you prove someone lying to their GP? I work in the private sector dealing with injury claims all the time. I suspect most of them are exaggerated or false and a recent survey of GP's found 70% had concerns about the people claiming whiplash type injuries.

The problem is few GP's etc are going call a claimant a liar and therefore unless you also plan to penalize the genuine sick then you have to accept the rough with the smooth.

A few on here are complaining about people they know abusing the system but as asked, how many have shopped the people they know? i suspect none.

If you are referring to me as the guy who thinks the disabled shouldn't have a new car because I don't, you are missing the point entirely. Anything that is funded by the tax payer should be done as cost effectively as possible so the little money there is available can be distributed to other worthy causes. Spending 1.5 billion a year on new cars isn't necessarily the best way to spend tax revenue. The whole point of motability is for disabled people to get around as reliably and comfortably as possible, this does not need new cars every three years to acheive this!

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

And isn't that just crazy? they can be millionaires and still claim it?

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL sorry if I'm coming across that way.

I suppose I can just see problems with the solutions offered.

Maybe because my family benefit directly I've also witnessed the personal aspect, pros and cons.

I know my dad would struggle without the service, and to him, it's £200 a month well spent. In terms of what he gets for that £200, he wouldn't be able to match the same spending power and service himself. I.e. he would probably end up having to buy an older, less reliable car, especially considering his needs of a larger, higher car so the couple of grand wouldn't go far.

Certainly he doesn't have the money to go out and buy a car tommorow. Not sure he would get the type of loan that I could, simply because he's disabled therefore doesn't have the same earning opportunities he used to have, so would probably end up with a higher rate loan.

It's all relative. I may not be able to match his service in terms of what he can get on motability if I spent the same amount of money doing a private lease. However, I can go out and get a loan, probably at a better rate than he could, and end up with a better overall car than him if we both had the same amount of cash to spend each month. I've got the earning potential. He lost it. With losing it, he also lost access to various finance products.

Do you have a car, or do you just use your dads?

Emy1501

smartn wrote: »

If you are referring to me as the guy who thinks the disabled shouldn't have a new car because I don't, you are missing the point entirely. Anything that is funded by the tax payer should be done as cost effectively as possible so the little money there is available can be distributed to other worthy causes. Spending 1.5 billion a year on new cars isn't necessarily the best way to spend tax revenue. The whole point of motability is for disabled people to get around as reliably and comfortably as possible, this does not need new cars every three years to acheive this!

And how do you know it's not cost effective? The scheme has been recently looked at and you can no longer get top of the range cars etc. I sure the disabled are not to bothered about changing their vehicle every 5-6 years if it was more cost effective but I suspect for what ever reason the scheme seems cost effective as it as it run partly not for profit and as a charity.

What I find strange is there is way more waste going than this and I find it strange that this topic bothers people so much. It's the second thread on it within 2 weeks

chewmylegoff

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

Its times like this we should think, what would the chinese do? I bet they dont have similar schemes. Its no wonder they have huge cash reserves to sit on instead of loads of disabled people driving roundin 1 series paid for by the state and a nation of thickos whining on about rights.

i wonder if you'd still want this country to be more like china if you woke up tomorrow and found that your legs no longer worked.

OptionARMAGEDDON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i wonder if you'd still want this country to be more like china if you woke up tomorrow and found that your legs no longer worked.

I would prefer to run my chances and give this country a headstart over the rest of the globe than sink the nation through self pity and a deep rooted socialist instinct that I am owed anything.

smartn

Emy1501 wrote: »

And how do you know it's not cost effective? The scheme has been recently looked at and you can no longer get top of the range cars etc. I sure the disabled are not to bothered about changing their vehicle every 5-6 years if it was more cost effective but I suspect for what ever reason the scheme seems cost effective as it as it run partly not for profit and as a charity.

What I find strange is there is way more waste going than this and I find it strange that this topic bothers people so much. It's the second thread on it within 2 weeks

I don't know whether it's the most cost effective way of doing things as it stands, that's why I think other options need to be considered even if not particularly popular. No politician probably wants to tell half a million people they can't have there new cars as often so its probably conveniently being forgotten. I agree this is only an element of whats being wasted/spent but as tax payers we have a right to know these things are being looked at and all results should be published. I want my taxes to be spent efficiently on the most needy people in society, I don't believe motability as it stands is actually doing this.