motability scratches and kerbed wheels?

honesty1

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.

Then report them!!!! People should not get away with that.

soolin

Honesty1 this thread was last visited 2 years ago, I doubt whether anyone will be reading your comments.

GlasweJen

My other half drives a land rover, I have a blue badge and we frequently get a nice lecture on how motability shouldn't fund such a car even though the car is not a mobility car and he pays a small fortune in road tax.

GlasweJen

Sorry too many windows opened and I've posted the above post in the wrong place, the new forum set up won't let me edit to delete the post!

msadvocate

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.

I could not have a basic model, I have no use of my left side therefore can't use things like to lights, headlights etc. I therefore need top spec cars as they come with Auto headlamps, lights etc. Basic models do not have these and I would therefore not be able to drive them. I think people also need to consider that when I started the scheme Motorbilty did not fund my essential adaption which I had to pay for which cost me £400, I have to do this everytime I get a new car as it is classed as a minor adaptation therefore they will not put some money towards it so the good condition bonus goes SOME way towards that payment.

I think people need to leave out commenting if they haven't got direct (by this I mean themselves or a close family member) who is in need of the Motability scheme as they do not know how it works or what a Life line it is to people.

P.S. I am a UK tax payer and a Motabilty customer, without my exact car I would not be a Tax payer as I would be housebound on over £14,000 a year (excluding PIP) and I wouldn't be paying my council tax either. So please think about what these cars can do for people and how the minority of abusers of the system is outweighed by the benefits!

fed_up_and_stressed

shoehornbill wrote: »

Well reading this I must say as a tax payer and private car owner I think this is absolutely disgusting and Iam not surprised tax payers end up resenting people who use the scheme.

most disabled people are also tax payers

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,

most If not all WAV's (wheelchair assistance vehicles) also require a hefty upfront payment of many thousands from the recipient on top of their DLA / PIP. We had to put £3,500 to ours plus pay £2,500 for a second hand power chair.

I know people will shoot me down and say they are not 'FREE', but the DLA is funded via tax and the recipient does not do anything to receive DLA so the money is 'FREE'. in that case I suggest you acquire a severe disability to see just how "fun it is" being a wheelchair user (i know not all motability customers are not wheelchair users)

Comments in red.


Editted to add - just noticed this is a zombie thread that has been resurrected by another poster today.

Lanzarote1938

Strange isn't it how ALL disabled people with motobility cars insist they would be sitting looking at 4 walls all day, unable to do anything that would involve travel but certain disabled people advocate taking away pensioners bus passes. So it's OK for oldies to have no transport concessions but OK for others to get a brand new car pretty well of their choice every three years.

What about we do away with mobility DLA cars and offer free bus passes instead. after all there is always wheelchair space on buses.

Ames

Bus passes are awarded on top of benefits, a motability car comes out of someone's benefits.

Not that I'm saying I agree with the removal of bus passes.

Lanzarote1938

Ames wrote: »

Bus passes are awarded on top of benefits, a motability car comes out of someone's benefits.

Not that I'm saying I agree with the removal of bus passes.

What mobility benefits does your average pensioner receive that they can exchange for a bus pass?

Is DLA/PIP not awarded as well as other benefits in many cases?

I know someone who has payment of DLA mobility but also has a Freedom pass at no additional cost as her condition does not allow her to drive

Ames

Perhaps it can be extended and the pension become eligible to be used for motability?

I do agree that the DLA/PIP and AA rules create an anomaly. Ideally it would be extended to pensioners too, but if not then it should stop at SP age for all. After all, the retirement age shouldn't come as a surprise and so gives time to save for a car.

Or maybe a better idea would be to raise the DLA/PIP and AA ages - if people are living healthier into their seventies then why not? It definitely seems odd that DLA/PIP stop and AA takes over at an age below the current state pension age.

I don't know what a freedom pass is, am I right that it includes some taxi journeys? Or is that some other southern thing?

I do think that bus passes should still be given to people who can't drive for health reasons even if they don't qualify for DLA/PIP.