Mobilty cars .....Joke

Nilrem

Silvertabby wrote: »

I haven't read every single one of these posts, so apologies if someone has already pointed this out, but there is a simple reason why many disabled people opt to pay extra in order to get something other than a bog standard Astra or Corsair.

A friend lost a leg (above the knee) and very badly damaged her real leg in an accident. In theory, she can drive any car as long as it's an automatic but, in practice, if she was limited to an Astra or Corsair it would have to be adapted with a hoist on the roof to haul her out of the too-low drivers seat! She pays the extra not because she wants a big fancy car, but because her choice was limited to vehicles with a high drivers seat, so she can get out and about without having to ask strangers to literally pull her out of the car. I'm sure she isn't the only one with this problem.

That's the sort of reason the idea put forward by some idiots who think that the "free car" should be a specific specially built (and ironically probably far more expensive for the tax payer*) model is so stupid.
There is no single model of car on the market that meets every users needs, some people need adaptations to the foot controls (moving them to the wheel or similar), some need adaptations to the wheel, some need more leg room, or a higher/lower ride height, some need a much bigger boot, or doors.

My mother has major hip problems (caused by failed operations), she needs a large door to get in/out of a car comfortably, and preferably a higher than normal seat.
So despite them being built on the same chassis she had issues with the Astra but could get in and out of a Zafira of the same age (the Zafira seat was about an extra 6 inches off the ground, and had a higher door so she didn't have to bend to get out).


*Given it would have to have all the costs associated with a new car design (tens of millions in design and testing, and hundreds of millions in tooling/setup) with none of the advantages that the likes of the cars in the scheme have of being mass produced.

Mercdriver

50Twuncle wrote: »

Tothepoint - do you also begrudge genuinely disabled people from claiming (and receiving) the mobility component of DLA/PIP ?
If so - you are a sick individual who I hope one day does not experience a health issue that affects your mobility

even if he says he is only after fraudsters, the terms he is using is by definition prejudiced. I know people who have been off sick for years and years, one of them I don't remember her ever working, whereas my father in law paid into the fund for 40 years and was allowed only one year of benefit. At the age of 62 they told him that if he didn't do a 3 year course, that might lead to a job, they wouldn't give him Job seekers which was what he was forced to apply for.

There are certainly people out there taking handouts, no doubt about it. But if you have a debilitating illness or disability, you are not taking a handout in the sense that Mr No point uses it. The benefit is intended to give disabled people an equal opportunity to access the world and the workplace. It is therefore not a handout as it is not meant as a means to have an advantage over other people.

Mercdriver

To the point -

Which newspaper sites would these be? You might not pick up a copy of a tabloid, but you do look at their stories and carry around their prejudices.

Mercdriver

To the point - in reference to no win no fee

If you had already been off sick for 7 months before the accident due to a tumour (the accident happened on Day 3 of my return to work) would you have taken the chance on the free for all in court? I had a pretty watertight case but no money to advance it with, so had to take my chances with no win no fee. In the end despite my solicitor saying I should get £10K plus loss of earnings I ended up getting a quarter of that. To fight it would have been to risk having to pay out more in legal fees than what I might be awarded. When you are only just getting your self together it takes a braver person than I to chance those odds. So you take one bird in the hand it being worth 2 in the bush as the saying goes.

bigbulldog

I think the best thing to do with this thread is don't respond to the ignorant and self righteous preachers the like of tothepoint and his club of halfwits.!!!

Mercdriver

takman wrote: »

If what he is doing is not illegal then how can you expect him to pay more tax than he has to?.

Do you pay more tax than you have to by choice?.

I pay every penny of tax that I am required to. Of course I (well not me, but my accountant) try to be as tax efficient as possible, but I'm not taking any money from tax payer's funds. Come to think of it neither was Jimmy Carr and he got hung out to dry. Branson has the gall to take money from the public purse and then doesn't (in the words of The Last Leg) "do his bit".

I am now an LLP holder, but all my profits are based in the UK and I pay corporation tax as well as income tax.

Tothepoint.

Mercdriver wrote: »

even if he says he is only after fraudsters, the terms he is using is by definition prejudiced. I know people who have been off sick for years and years, one of them I don't remember her ever working, whereas my father in law paid into the fund for 40 years and was allowed only one year of benefit. At the age of 62 they told him that if he didn't do a 3 year course, that might lead to a job, they wouldn't give him Job seekers which was what he was forced to apply for.

There are certainly people out there taking handouts, no doubt about it. But if you have a debilitating illness or disability, you are not taking a handout in the sense that Mr No point uses it. The benefit is intended to give disabled people an equal opportunity to access the world and the workplace. It is therefore not a handout as it is not meant as a means to have an advantage over other people.

If only that were the case.

Mercdriver

To the point - Go and do some proper research and find out how many motability claimants are living just from benefits and are not working. All you need to do is put in a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Work and Pensions. Maybe then the rest of us wouldn't think you are a ignorant prejudiced twit.

I guarantee it isn't all non working as I know a few myself personally. You've made an a55 out of yourself here, just assuming that all motability claimants aren't working.

Keep reading the Daily Fail online and you'll continue to go blind to reason. Oops sorry you're already there.

Tothepoint.

Mercdriver wrote: »

To the point - Go and do some proper research and find out how many motability claimants are living just from benefits and are not working. All you need to do is put in a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Work and Pensions. Maybe then the rest of us wouldn't think you are a ignorant prejudiced twit.

I guarantee it isn't all non working as I know a few myself personally. You've made an a55 out of yourself here, just assuming that all motability claimants aren't working.

Keep reading the Daily Fail online and you'll continue to go blind to reason. Oops sorry you're already there.

Where have I done that? I've never made any such claims.

You seem to know more about the daily mail than I do. Which won't be hard as I'm not a reader of your chosen comic.

GTE_Boy

It's a very emotive subject subject these free mobility cars.