motability scratches and kerbed wheels?

Jahlove

Hi i was just wondering if anybody could give any information about how strict motability are with scratches and kerbed wheels. My wife has made alot of kerbing to the wheels on our mobility car and there is also a scuff on the front bumper from where one of my children crashed their bike into it!

I Have looked through all of my paper work and can't seem to find anything about this, Will we be charged for any damage?

Parva

Nope, you won't be charged. Indeed you will likely still qualify for the £250 bonus at the hire end as it seems that they often pay this out provided that the car is in reasonable condition for a 3 year old car.

colin13

I recently handed my car back witha broken mirror cover,and had 2 insurance claims,but surprised when I got a cheque in the post for £250 good condition bonus,ur car will be perfectly ok,dont worry about it

easy

I doubt you'll have to pay anything. To be honest, the condition report is filled out by the salesman who is letting you have your new car (assuming you are getting a new one), and they are not interested in minor damage, it doesn't matter to them, so they seem to just tick the "good condition" box and that's that.

Two cars back (so 5 years ago), I managed to clip my back bumper on my brother-in-laws bailing machine a week before returning my Astra -my first mark on the car - too late to be able to get it put right. It pushed the corner of the bumper in a bit, and left a green streak on it (dark blue car). I was expecting to lose my good condition bonus - just put it down to bad luck and experience. I even pointed it out to the salesman when I took the car in (feeling quite guilty about it). He said "oh, we'll not worry about that" and declared the car OK, 2 weeks later I got my cheque.

So don't worry

NAR

The phrase used is "Reasonable wear and tear," which over 3 years will allow for scratches, small marks and wear of the tyres. So almost certainly no charge and can't see it affecting your good condition bonus either.

Chrissiew

Yeah your right shoehornbill recipents do not do anything to recieve DLA because they bloody cant you numpty!! They recieve the mobility part of DLA because they are too disabled to work or get around on their own, they recieve it because otherwise they would be housebound.

A mobility car can get scratched due to getting a wheelchair in and out, a used mobilty car goes into auction after the 3 years are up where anyone can buy it for a fraction of the price so a few minor bumps and scratches mean nothing.

NAR

shoehornbill, while you and like minded people are still alive discriimination will be alive and well.

HB58

I feel I must point out to Chrissie that people are able to receive HRM and still work. In fact, it is often the HRM that enables them to be mobile enough to get to and from work in the first place!

Shoehornbill - you talk as if people with illness and disability do not pay tax. Please don't divide the world into 'tax payers' and 'DLA recipients' because life is not that clear cut!

easy

A motability leased car is PARTIALLY funded from the DLA money which the disabled person gives up. A large number of people also pay an additional advance payment when they lease the car, and some cars are leased on the scheme because the manufacturers discount certain models to motability.

It is my understanding that the leasing arm of Motability runs as a company * - it must make a profit to continue - and it's lease pricing structure takes into account cars being returned with wear and tear damage. Scraped bumpers, kerbed wheels, and minor dents are classed as minor damage by them (as is paint scraped off on boot lips and door sills when the user has a wheelchair to lift in and out of the car daily).

An eligible disabled person will receive DLA. Some may choose to hand that DLA over to lease a car. It is up to Motability to decide what they will accept as reasonable damage, and how they police that - in my experience the sales people at dealerships are entrusted with this task, and some give a margin of latitude when they make the assessment. It is up to motability whether they are happy with that arrangement.

There is very little connection indeed between between the taxpayers contribution to DLA, and how Motability regard damage to cars returned on their scheme.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am certainly very grateful that Motability is there, I feel very privileged that I can have access to a nice car on the scheme, and I do my utmost to keep it in the best condition that I can.
Your assertion that

"I feel tax payers money funds DLA that is used to pay for lease cars that again are VAT free and have other financial assistance on top from tax payers, and the users of these vehicles just have no RESPECT for them."

Is frankly just WRONG.

* I do know that Motability also has a charitable arm. I believe the funds raised from this go to helping fund adaptions and advance payments for those who cannot afford them for themselves.

kingfisherblue

My son is disabled and we have a Nissan Note through the Motability scheme. I drive it because he is too young to drive and also because he will never be eligible for a driving licence due to his learning disability. He is not 'wheelchair bound', but he is a wheelchair user. He can move abnout indoors, but struggles with both breathing and pain in his limbs for any distance, so uses a wheelchair when we are outside the home.

I, like many other Motability customers, take great care to look after the car. This is our second car on the scheme, although he was eligible for it several years ago. The good condition bonus - which was paid because I returned it in excellent condition - could be paid back to the charity, and for those who can afford it and wish to do this, that's great. However, I have meagre savings (I need some savings in case my washer breaks - it is essential when you have a doubly incontinent child who vomits frequently, and no laundrettes locally!). I used these savings to pay for the advance payment, and then used the advance payment to replace the savings.

My understanding is that if any claim is made n the insurance, you automatically lose the bonus, but reading post 3 it seems that I am wrong.

If we did not have the car, it would be considerably more difficult to get about with my son. The bus service in our village is expensive and not wheelchair friendly. On Sundays, it only starts at 2pm. If I wanted to take my children to see their grandparents, it would cost, for myself and two children, £11.90 for daysaver tickets, but we would be very limited on the buses we could use as there are so few in the evenings and at the weekend. It would also take an hour each way, yet they only live eight miles away. My disabled child has a free bus pass, so I would not have to pay for him on the bus, but it would be difficult to take him because of the lack of access on the vehicles used.

Yes, there are s0ome who abuse the Motability scheme, but most of us who use it are very grateful that it exists.

leveller2911

The problem with the motorbility scheme is that it can be abused. I don't have any problems with funding travel for the genuinely disabled but there is a sizeable minority that do not need/deserve motorbility.

I'm sure many of us know of people who abuse the scheme,I know 3 people who do not need the help but claim it.One person manages to walk a mile along a river bank carrying 60kg of fishing equipment and yet claims for a bad back.Another person manages to climb a 6ft fence,work under cars when they need repairing and rides a 900cc racing motorbike.They all claim motorbility.

Many of the cars in the scheme should never be in it such as BMW,s Saabs etc.My own opinion is if someone needs a car then it should be a basic model and they should get the car free for 10yrs and be responsible for repairs,servicing etc.Cars depreciate the most in the first 3 years and someone along the line will pay for the depreciation.

Why would someone need a £17k VW Golf when a £12k Skoda Octavia will do the job better, give them the car for life but they should pay for the upkeep.

The crux of the problem is when people are seen in nice shiny new cars subsidised by the taxpayer and the system is abused by a sizeable minority you will alway get resentment.The Government needs to find a way that is fair to the recipient and the taxpayer whilst giving long prison sentances to those bottom dwellers who abuse the system.