motability scratches and kerbed wheels?

L0RRY

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

why on earth should it be anyone elses business what disabled people spend thier own money on? if they want to spend money (which will never be returned) on getting a nicer car (which they will never own) then thats entirely up to them...........although personally i wouldnt because i see it as money down the drain & that goes against my money saving convert status!

motability exists to help disabled people become/stay mobile and part of that service is to take away the stress of having to maintain the car. a 10 year old car just wouldnt be sufficient because disabled people are often quite vulnerable so reliablity is essential not only to avoid breakdowns on the road but also to minimise need for garage maintenance because courtesy cars are more often than not totally unsuitable.

why should jealous people have any say in what car a disabled person drives if they choose to use the services of a company which offers worry-free maintenance when they themselves have no such restrictions? what next? benefit claimants can only wear primark underwear not m&s?

the daily mail reading taxpayers need to realise disabled people would be getting the benefits whether motability existed or not. it is the claimants choice what they do with that money, they could - privately lease, motability lease, buy new with hp, get a loan to buy second hand, pay for taxis etc.

L0RRY

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.

dla is not a means tested benefit, you can claim it even if you work. its purpose is not to keep you from the breadline (like income support) but to subsidise the often hidden extra costs of living with a disability

NAR

L0RRY wrote: »

dla is not a means tested benefit, you can claim it even if you work.

The bottom line is most disabled people would be unable to get to their employment without their motability car (myself included - 39 years employed).

mazza111

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.

VW Golf - Small car
Skoda Octavia - Large Car

Some people aren't comfortable driving a large car. Simples. I had my fella's Saab, and only drive it when I need to, not because it's large, because it's a git for me to get in and out of.

Don't start me on Skodas. I love my Skoda Fabia. 129k on a 1.4 Petrol engine and it's just had the original clutch replaced :T

Would recommend them to anyone. But come on, should that mean I force everyone else to buy a Skoda? Remember people are giving up their DLA money to get a car from the motability scheme. They should have a car that they are comfortable with. Whether that be a mini or a people carrier. Doesn't make any difference to me, but will sure make a difference to the person who's driving it.


As for the 3 or 6 years thing. Well, 3 years is when a car's first due it's MOT. Guess it would involve extra admin for the companies involved if they had to start covering the cost of the MOT too. Not just the MOT but the administration of it. Don't know for sure ofc, but reckon 3 years is about right.

dibuzz

So thats why the idiot reversing out of a disabled bay didnt care when he hit my car 3 times, he tried to claim I'd hit him, not easy when stood at the back putting my shopping in and engine switched off.
I suppose I should be glad I'd not parked other way or it might have been me not my bumper.
When a passing shopper tried to help he just said "well I'm not paying for it so tough" and drove off leaving us both stood there incredulous as he clipped another car :eek:
I realise this is an extreme example but if they don't have to pay for damage to their own car it's no wonder they dont take care.

Mazza, I agree, why drive a car you don't feel comfortable with just because its cheaper?
The old man mentioned above was driving a large Skoda, maybe if he'd had a Golf he wouldn't have been playing bumper cars with mine

sizzler1893

If the insurance claims arent the fault of the Motability driver you will still get your 'good condition' bonus.

Regarding condition, if the car is passed as being in good condition by the dealer but Motability (or their agents) disagree then the dealer gets fined.

moose1982

sizzler1893 wrote: »

If the insurance claims arent the fault of the Motability driver you will still get your 'good condition' bonus.

Regarding condition, if the car is passed as being in good condition by the dealer but Motability (or their agents) disagree then the dealer gets fined.

Trouble with the bit about the insurance is that RSA are, quite frankly, useless. My car was hit while stationary whilst my named driver was driving and the claim went against her because the third party made up a witness. I checked this witness out and they and the other driver were friends on Facebook, so have a guess at if she was really a witness . RSA said that making up false witnesses is allowed because they won't investigate them. I'd be pretty annoyed next year if I was told I cannot have my good condition bonus because of RSA. Complaints at RSA don't even get an response. Now, in my mind, if someone hits me (say at lights someone goes into the back of me), I'll just tell the third party that it isn't a problem because RSA will just roll over and then bump the pricing of insurance up to Motability Operations.

Oh and next year, I won't have another Motability car if they still use RSA. I have actively told friends and family about RSA and the other companies they operate to try and discourage custom for them.

leveller2911

L0RRY wrote: »

why on earth should it be anyone elses business what disabled people spend thier own money on? if they want to spend money (which will never be returned) on getting a nicer car (which they will never own) then thats entirely up to them...........although personally i wouldnt because i see it as money down the drain & that goes against my money saving convert status!

I had a disabled uncle, he had MS and sadly passed away a few years ago.Now I will only post facts, these are not my opinions but facts about his case. A number of times he asked members of the family to put some of his money (from benefits) into their bank accounts purely to keep his savings under the limit so that he kept receiving all of his benefits.Needless to say they all declined.

When you say "its up to them what they spend their money on" you are partly right but is it not the case that some of "their" money will be from benefits so they will be using benefits to pay towards a better spec car whilst at the same time keeping their "savings" under the limit where by they would have their benefits cut due to the amount of savings.
If a disabled person works then all credit to them and of coarse its up to them how they spend their money .

Like I stated previously I don't have any problem with the idea of Motorbility its the waste. With many cars now having 7yr warranties there is no reason why the lease cannot be for 7yrs.Its a fact that a new car depreciates in value the most during its first 3 years ,I don't see any reason why the lease cannot be for as long as a 7yr warranty lasts. MOT,s are a non arguement as service intervals on cars are getting longer so an MOT can be arranged at the same time.

It does seem that posters on the thread seems to be very quick at shouting down anyone who has a different opinion its a shame as it stifles debate ,especially given the fact that all the political parties agree that the scheme needs overhauling.

How many of you will openly say the system does not have major problems.


As a side issue but relavent is my sister has a disabled child and a good friend of hers has a young disabled son.He has needed a new wheelchair for over a year because he is growing out of his existing one.The problem is there is no funding available to buy him one but if they cut the waste from Motorbility and used that money to do more good at the basic level.

leveller2911

mazza111 wrote: »

VW Golf - Small car
Skoda Octavia - Large Car




Hyundai i30 about the same size as a Golf but £5k cheaper 5yr warranty for an extra £280 ..

Kia Ceed have a 7yr warranty, about the same size as a golf.

Oh and BTW I'm on my 2nd Octavia excellant car just getting bored with them now.:D

mazza111

leveller2911 wrote: »

mazza111 wrote: »

VW Golf - Small car
Skoda Octavia - Large Car




Hyundai i30 about the same size as a Golf but £5k cheaper 5yr warranty for an extra £280 ..

Kia Ceed have a 7yr warranty, about the same size as a golf.

Oh and BTW I'm on my 2nd Octavia excellant car just getting bored with them now.

Won't pass judgement on any of the cars unless I've tried to sit in them. It's my knees and left hip that's shot to pieces, it's my sister's knees, back and right hip that's shot to pieces. I've already said about the differences of us both trying to get into different small cars. Personally, my next one will be an automatic because of my hip (I don't get DLA btw) and will probably look at the skodas, but will probably end up going for something that sits a bit higher like the Meriva (had one before, don't like them, but that kind of shape is easier for me to get in and out of).

Once your bits start to give you problems, you will probably try a few cars until you find one that suits you.

Personally have heard stories about clutches going in hyundai's after about 30k miles. So would avoid them, I know it can happen in any car, but any time car is in garage is a down point for any disabled person. It's the difference between going out and being grounded.

And yes, while I agree that the system does come under SOME abuse, it's never good to tar everyone with the same brush. There are genuine cases where people choose cars to their needs. I've already shown 2 different small cars where the difference is huge on getting in and out for 2 different people.


Dibuzz - Shocking behaviour :eek: Reckon this type of old man would have been like that whether it was a motability car or not though, don't you?