motability scratches and kerbed wheels?

Patronus

shoehornbill wrote: »

DISGUSTING .

Just wanted to say, my Mum treats her car with the utmost respect and care. She freaks if it gets a tiny scuff mark! I'm sure there are people who treat their cars with no respect but please don't put everyone into a majority because that is not the case at all.

mazza111

Ahh the good old, you should only have such and such a car argument..

What's good for one disabled person isn't so good for another.


My sis has a Citroen C4 Picasso Grand (Think this is the model, could be mistaken, big piece of kit anyhoo), she owns it outright, although she could have got it through motability. She was looking to trade it in for a smaller car.

We both tried the Corsa, I could get in and out without too many problems. She couldn't. We then crossed to road to Ford, where the Fiesta suited her, but didn't suit me.

Remember that boot space also comes into the argument for a disabled person, especially if they have a wheelchair and/or other equipment to carry. It's hard to get a small(er) car that makes it easy to get a wheelchair into without having to totally dismantle it. I found this out recently having to use a wheel chair for my daughter who had a broken leg and the opposite knee was dislocated. I drive a wee skoda fabia, and the wheelchair just doesn't fit with parcel shelf or without taking all the extra bits off. Usually had parcel shelf off and had to strip wheelchair down. So many things to consider when you are dealing with equipment

leveller2911

mazza111 wrote: »

Ahh the good old, you should only have such and such a car argument..

What's good for one disabled person isn't so good for another.




Remember that boot space also comes into the argument for a disabled person, especially if they have a wheelchair and/or other equipment to carry. . Usually had parcel shelf off and had to strip wheelchair down. So many things to consider when you are dealing with equipment

I agree that the car chosen should suit the need so why would someone go for a VW golf over a Skoda Octavia?.Theres far more room in an Octavia and its over £5k cheaper,cheaper servicing costs too.

I don't see any logic in choosing a car which is smaller in size ,when generally speaking a persons needs increase and at the same time is far more expensive.Now I know that people will pay extra top-ups of their own money to get a higher spec car but then the question should arise does that person warrant the 100% benefit?, if they can afford to top-up for a better spec car then maybe they have enough money to purchase a car without the need for the benefit. The question needs to be answered why are BMW and Saab cars included on the motorbility scheme, if you can afford to top-up the benefit to have one then maybe you shouldn't get the benefit. There are plenty of cheaper manufacturers out there like Skoda, Hyundai,Kia etc with excellant warranties.

Another question is why can't the cars be kept for more than 3 years, why not 6 yrs? what is the reasoning behing a 3yr lease?.

I'm not knocking the principle ,I'm a critic of the huge waste in the scheme.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Motability is largely but not totally self financed, the subsidy [not AP] people argue every week on this forum is about adaptations to vehicles not the initial purchase of the vehicle itself. The subsidy [if that is the word] by the GOV / taxpayers, is the money paid for WAV / and / or / based, and is only for """"" complex vehicle adaptations that allow individuals to enter a car as a passenger while remaining seated in their wheelchair or enables them drive their car while seated in their wheelchair """""

The Motabilty scheme can be and is abused daily by friends an relatives of Motabilty recipients, but get a grip on the facts .. .. .. the redtops tell lies !

newbutold

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

.

I hope you have reported them!

Chrissiew

HB58 wrote: »

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![/QUOTE


Of course they can sorry, when I write about DLA especialy HRM I always think about myself and I cant work, I do realise others who recieve the componant can.

CTcelt1988

leveller2911 wrote: »

I agree that the car chosen should suit the need so why would someone go for a VW golf over a Skoda Octavia?.Theres far more room in an Octavia and its over £5k cheaper,cheaper servicing costs too.

I don't see any logic in choosing a car which is smaller in size ,when generally speaking a persons needs increase and at the same time is far more expensive.Now I know that people will pay extra top-ups of their own money to get a higher spec car but then the question should arise does that person warrant the 100% benefit?, if they can afford to top-up for a better spec car then maybe they have enough money to purchase a car without the need for the benefit. The question needs to be answered why are BMW and Saab cars included on the motorbility scheme, if you can afford to top-up the benefit to have one then maybe you shouldn't get the benefit. There are plenty
of cheaper manufacturers out there like Skoda, Hyundai,Kia etc with excellant warranties.

Another question is why can't the cars be kept for more than 3 years, why not 6 yrs? what is the reasoning behing a 3yr lease?.

I'm not knocking the principle ,I'm a critic of the huge waste in the scheme.

The reason the lease is 3 years is that the cars have better resale value and less likely to have had repairs. It would be impractical for Motability to have a 6 year lease, as it would cost more to run. Cars would need 4 MOT's, and if cars needed repairs, it would cost Motability more. Also,certain models ie automatics, would be harder to sell when they came back. Most contract hire cars are 3-4 years, Motability are no different to those.

wilf55

hi guys the op asked for advice and opinions regarding scratches on a car not a free for all debate on dla etc etc!

lets stick to the post please

if you havent got anything nice to say.....

devizes18193

This is one of the things that worry me with contract hire.My youngest 16 has in the last 5 years trashed my kia seddona breaking one of the middle row of seats which we had to get reinforced ,he kicked in a rear speaker and has tried punching his rear window enough to force it open on the catch it has .
He has documented behavioral developmental issues and autism .
I put it to moblity what would happen if he had done that in a contract hire and they said it would be down to us to replace . I dread to think what a middle seat would cost .

L0RRY

shoehornbill wrote: »

I thought this is the response id get

I do agree that the scheme is an excellent benefit to disabled people, but it is abused both by people who should not qualify for the DLA and scam the system, and also some disabled people who do not take reasonable care of the cars.
Everyone has got the arguments that the damage comes from wheel chair damage, whilst a very large number of users are wheel chair users many are not wheel chair bound they have other various disabilities.

Even in this short forum it details damage non wheel chair related the damage such as;
kerbed wheels
childrens bikes crashing into them
bumpers clipped on bailing machines

Even the users feel the cars have been damaged, yet because a salesman wants a sale he openly in front of the customer says it will be ok and reports it as good condition!! Motability is a charitiy why dont these people give the bonus money to charity to help more disabled people rather than happlily pocketing the cheque even though they know that the car is not in good condition, Motability dont want to know either because it is a business that makes a lot of money and has a lot of staff, so they also turn a blind eye.

And there is some conception on this forum that all disabled people are in a wheel chair, and sit at home sitting looking at a wall and without the mobility car they will be sat there 24/7. This is untrue I know several people on the scheme I can assure you they would still get out !!

Long term some of the users will ruin it for everyone due to a lack of funds, please look after these expensive vehicles. Just think yourself lucky at the fantastic welfare system support this country gives you.

In many countries if you are disabled you are not automatically entitled to free help.

lots of disabled people need to park tight to the pavement to stop them/their wheelchair falling down the kerb when getting out of the vehicle so kerbed wheels can be very difficult to avoid totally