Disabled Car Scheme

Anoneemoose

FBaby wrote: »

I disagree. PIP/DLA should be to meet a cost that arises specifically from a disability. If you are choosing to use this money towards a car instead of something else, then you don't have a need for it. Now you can debate that if it wasn't for the car, the person wouldn't be able to transport themselves at all, expect that in the vast majority of people claiming, it isn't the case and people would have a car anyway.

OP wants a car for him, not for his mum. He's got a car and can take her to places, so why he thinks that he should be entitled to a brand new car is beyond me. The whole scheme needs reviewing and access to motability should be much more restricted, ie. for people who drive themselves and really need a car, and who because of a very low income couldn't afford it otherwise, and even then, it doesn't have to be a new car.

Good grief, I can't believe your ignorance sometimes. I often read your posts and think, 'spot on' and then other times I feel you need a good head shake.

I totally agree with Person_One..I use motability because I need a car big enough to get a scooter in. I am really lucky that I don't need a wheelchair (yet), but I often use a scooter. I couldn't use buses because of the walking involved in between my house, the bus stop and then whatever I need to do (and back again). I could possibly use taxis, but the amount of them I would need would work out more expensive than forgoing my PIP for my car.

FBaby

Do you not realise that using public transport is often much more difficult for people with some disabilities than for able bodied people?

That's not the point of my argument. Of course I realise that, but I also realise that the majority of people who have opted for a motability car would pay to have a car even if there were not disabled because the reality is that most people don't like to use public transport and if they can afford a car, that's the option they take rather than using public transport.

This mainly applies to parents with children. How many SAHM opt to have a car because it's much easier to transport children even though they technically don't need it.

I'm not against disabled people who genuinely can't afford a car and genuinely need one to have a normal life being entitled to funds to afford a car, what I do have an issue is people like OP who want to abuse the system. He has a car, he can transport his mum, his mum probably could use her AA to pay for taxis to take her to the places she needs to go to, yet somehow, he feels he is getting a raw deal because he can't get a brand new car for himself because that's what some of his friends do.

I have a colleague who drives a motability car because of one of her children's disability. She had a car before that was a few years old and did fine. She still had to transport all her children to places and work, so needed a car, but of course, as soon as she was eligible, she just gave up the car to replace with a nice new one which she uses exactly the same way she did before, but as she says herself, she would be foolish not to take advantage of having a new car every three years instead.

It's always the same debate. It's not about not meeting the needs of people with disabilities who wouldn't be able to do so without additional funding, it's about people who don't need the funds but access them just because the system allow them to do so.

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

I'm not against disabled people who genuinely can't afford a car and genuinely need one to have a normal life being entitled to funds to afford a car

People are not just given money for a car! They are awarded DLA or PIP if they qualify for those benefits (and we all know that fewer people are qualifying these days and the criteria are getting stricter) and then they can choose to 'spend' some of that benefit on a lease car if that is the best use of it for their lifestyle and needs.

Just as you could choose to use some of your money to lease a car if that was the mode of transport that best suited your lifestyle and needs.

gettingtheresometime

I have a theory that the whole issue of motability cars is artificially propping up the motor industry as I can't think of one good reason why a motability car would need to be replaced after 3 years after receiving regular servicing.


Whilst I have no issue in people choosing to their disability benefit in whatever way they choose and I can see the argument in them using part of that benefit for a vehicle.


However I do think there should be a stricter criteria of eligible cars as some of the cars being 'bought' via the motability scheme is astounding

Person_one

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

I have a theory that the whole issue of motability cars is artificially propping up the motor industry as I can't think of one good reason why a motability car would need to be replaced after 3 years after receiving regular servicing.

You could say the same about company cars or leased cars then, and there are probably more of them on the road than motability cars.

Ames

FBaby wrote: »

That's not the point of my argument. Of course I realise that, but I also realise that the majority of people who have opted for a motability car would pay to have a car even if there were not disabled because the reality is that most people don't like to use public transport and if they can afford a car, that's the option they take rather than using public transport.

This mainly applies to parents with children. How many SAHM opt to have a car because it's much easier to transport children even though they technically don't need it.

I'm not against disabled people who genuinely can't afford a car and genuinely need one to have a normal life being entitled to funds to afford a car, what I do have an issue is people like OP who want to abuse the system. He has a car, he can transport his mum, his mum probably could use her AA to pay for taxis to take her to the places she needs to go to, yet somehow, he feels he is getting a raw deal because he can't get a brand new car for himself because that's what some of his friends do.

I have a colleague who drives a motability car because of one of her children's disability. She had a car before that was a few years old and did fine. She still had to transport all her children to places and work, so needed a car, but of course, as soon as she was eligible, she just gave up the car to replace with a nice new one which she uses exactly the same way she did before, but as she says herself, she would be foolish not to take advantage of having a new car every three years instead.

It's always the same debate. It's not about not meeting the needs of people with disabilities who wouldn't be able to do so without additional funding, it's about people who don't need the funds but access them just because the system allow them to do so.

Some people would describe paying three grand a year to hire a car when they already owned one as foolish. Especially since by doing so you lose your no claims bonus so if you have to go back to car ownership it's going to be more expensive.

Motability has been described as Brighthouse for cars, but at least with them you eventually own the tv. I've never understood why people are so jealous of others chucking away the thick end of nine grand with nothing to show for it.

As for why most (not all) leases are for three years, I think it's from a business point of view - longer than that and te repair bill will increase and resale value plummet.

gettingtheresometime

Person_one wrote: »

You could say the same about company cars or leased cars then, and there are probably more of them on the road than motability cars.

My point that I was trying to make (perhaps badly lol) was that at the end of the 3 years a mobility car, which is regularly serviced and maintained, is - provided the eligibility conditions are still valid - automatically renewed.


Why ? Its not as if, generally, the car is uneconomical to keep in service.

Ames wrote: »

Some people would describe paying three grand a year to hire a car when they already owned one as foolish. Especially since by doing so you lose your no claims bonus so if you have to go back to car ownership it's going to be more expensive.

In fairness I can't imagine that its very easy getting a 94 year old into a van! However I think (but don't quote me!) that Motability will provide a no claims certificate if applicable.

onomatopoeia99

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

My point that I was trying to make (perhaps badly lol) was that at the end of the 3 years a mobility car, which is regularly serviced and maintained, is - provided the eligibility conditions are still valid - automatically renewed.


Why ? Its not as if, generally, the car is uneconomical to keep in service.

Would you pay the same to lease a three year old car as a new car? Or to buy a three year old car as a new car?

If the term of the lease is three years, then the lessee can return the leased item and start a new lease, just like with leasing an unadapted car. What alternative do you suggest? That motability leases are treated differently from conventional leases?

smallzoo2

First, I dont want to be as hurtful as some of the people on this forum. I dont live on this forum so dont expect me to sit on 24hrs a day. I am not ignoring questions. I have only just had chance to logon again. I appreciate the helpful comments and will just ignore the rude ones.
1- my wife works and brings in about £6k so maybe I should have said that.
2- I am not as some of the replies have said wanting a new car. I just wanted to know if I was entitled to any help with transport
3- my mum doesn't have a home she moved in with us when my dad died and we used what capital she had to convert the garage into a flat for her.
4- I dont really care that some of you only take your mum out once a week , I have looked after both my grandparents and my dad until he died. My wife was a carer for 20 years We know what its like to be lonely and we believe that every person deserves a chance to live a full life whatever the age. I love my mum and if I feel it makes her happy to take her out 3 times a week I will do that.
5- As I said, I am mot moaning about it or expecting an easy life. I can assure you that looking after my mum and working until 10pm most nights 7 days a week is not an easy life.

I guess I expected from such a great site greater compassion towards our circumstances rather than scathing criticism and from some character assassination. Thanks from those who at least tried to give me some valuable advice.

maman

smallzoo2 wrote: »

First, I dont want to be as hurtful as some of the people on this forum. I dont live on this forum so dont expect me to sit on 24hrs a day. I am not ignoring questions. I have only just had chance to logon again. I appreciate the helpful comments and will just ignore the rude ones.
1- my wife works and brings in about £6k so maybe I should have said that.
2- I am not as some of the replies have said wanting a new car. I just wanted to know if I was entitled to any help with transport
3- my mum doesn't have a home she moved in with us when my dad died and we used what capital she had to convert the garage into a flat for her.
4- I dont really care that some of you only take your mum out once a week , I have looked after both my grandparents and my dad until he died. My wife was a carer for 20 years We know what its like to be lonely and we believe that every person deserves a chance to live a full life whatever the age. I love my mum and if I feel it makes her happy to take her out 3 times a week I will do that.
5- As I said, I am mot moaning about it or expecting an easy life. I can assure you that looking after my mum and working until 10pm most nights 7 days a week is not an easy life.

I guess I expected from such a great site greater compassion towards our circumstances rather than scathing criticism and from some character assassination. Thanks from those who at least tried to give me some valuable advice.

I think some of us were confused because your original post wasn't clear.


So the income you described is the total family income including your wife's £6K.


When you said you clean your mum's house you actually meant you clean the flat that's in your converted garage.


I'm not an expert on cars for the elderly/disabled but it seems from what others have said that your mother doesn't have an entitlement. I suppose the government would say she'd either take a free bus or use her pension to pay for taxis.


Two further questions: why does your wife work such few hours? Does your mother contribute to her living costs?


I'm asking because you seemed to want help with transport costs for your mother because you are short of money.


mse can be a harsh place but it's generally because posters feel they are not getting the full picture. Asking questions is the only way to find out.