Negative changes to the Motability scheme as of 1st January 2017.

CTcelt1988

rockingbilly wrote: »

The vast majority of 'run of the mill' cars 3 years old have a value of approx. 47% of the price when new. The more expensive the car the more Motability lose on the depreciation.
That is one argument to restrict cars on the scheme by price.
The second argument is that you have to consider what the general public perceive. If they work full time and every three years are only able to buy and run a Vauxhall Astra why would it be right to see those on the scheme having a £50,000 Merc or BMW on their drive. It would p*** them off big style. So to placate them the cars on the scheme are restricted to what the ordinary working guy could afford themselves - that makes everybody happy.
There is one proviso that if those on the scheme want a £50,000 car then they should be prepared to fund the £20,000 difference as the advance payment.

So you think Motability should only have small cars like the Astra? What about wheelchair users who need a bigger car to get it in and who need a higher driving position? You think these cars should be removed just to please the Daily Mail brigade?

The Daily Mail will still moan about the scheme, no matter what cars are on it.

In terms of depreciation, Vauxhalls are terrible.

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

So you think Motability should only have small cars like the Astra? What about wheelchair users who need a bigger car to get it in and who need a higher driving position? You think these cars should be removed just to please the Daily Mail brigade?

The Daily Mail will still moan about the scheme, no matter what cars are on it.

In terms of depreciation, Vauxhalls are terrible.

I know they are, anybody that buys a new one at the RRP must be crazy.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Cars that the average working family would buy depending on their needs - just a couple, family of three kids etc. The sort of vehicles that you see on a daily basis in the Asda/Lidl car parks
I can't see the need to have for example a Mercedes estate when say an Insignia estate would do just as well.
When I had my last Motability car (Astra) in 2011 you had the choice of the basic car only, if you wanted Bluetooth for your phone that cost me another £245

FBaby

I don't think Deleted_User was saying that they needed or were going to ask for the upgraded sound system, nor that their mobility should pay for it - it would surely be added to the advance payment they'd make.

This is exactly the argument as to why PIP, or at least, motability, should be mean tested. If you can afford all those extra, why should you be entitled to a nice car from the tax payers? Why shouldn't the money go to those disabled people who can't afford to pay for their basic needs because PIP doesn't cover what their needs cost?

It really gets to me that they are people in pain who could benefit from a specialist bed etc... but can't afford it because PIP can't cover it, or some communication devices that would mean they could actually communicate with the outside world, and then we have people who moan because they can't get their big fancy car even though they could afford a regular car...

CTcelt1988

FBaby wrote: »

This is exactly the argument as to why PIP, or at least, motability, should be mean tested. If you can afford all those extra, why should you be entitled to a nice car from the tax payers? Why shouldn't the money go to those disabled people who can't afford to pay for their basic needs because PIP doesn't cover what their needs cost?

It really gets to me that they are people in pain who could benefit from a specialist bed etc... but can't afford it because PIP can't cover it, or some communication devices that would mean they could actually communicate with the outside world, and then we have people who moan because they can't get their big fancy car even though they could afford a regular car...

You do realise that higher spec cars come with a higher advance payment of up to £3,000? It's hardly free. Also, taxpayers are paying for the PIP benefit, not the car. It's up to the claiment what they decide to do with the money. They could easily buy their own car with the money.

The cost is the same to the taxpayer.

If Motability ceased to exist, there would be no savings to the taxpayer, as people would get the money.

Do you object to disabled people using Motability? Or are you one of the Daily Mail readers who froth at the mouth at the thought of disabled people having a nice car?

[Deleted User]

FBaby wrote: »

....If you can afford all those extra, why should you be entitled to a nice car from the tax payers?

I think that you are missing the point here. The "tax payers" have nothing to do with my Motability car. Motability receives no government funding to run the scheme other than the benefit payments that could go directly to the claimants (there is an one exception to this of £8 million from the DWP but that is ring-fenced for specialist adaption grants).

The challenge for Motability is to push car manufacturers to sell Motability cars at a lower than RRP price, for an insurance company to offer them a great deal (well done RSA) and for a breakdown company to also offer a great deal (well done the AA). The clout of Motability enables the organisation to arrange deals that I as a private individual cannot arrange. Motability benefits from my benefit payments and I benefit from their clout.

There are different aspects to the question of what is the purpose of Motability. Many see it as a charity that supports those with extra needs to live a more equal life with others in society who have greater freedom to work and earn money. However, Motability has two sections: one the charity and one the business. The charity is the head organisation that decides most aspects of how the scheme operates. The charity also funds specialist adaptations and some other things that I don't know about. Motability Operations is a business that makes it all happen and transfers its profits back into Motability the charity to do the above.

Motability Operations is a business. They take the £64.15 that I am paid as a veteran who receives War Pensioners Mobility Supplement (after being paralysed from the knees down due to a training accident). That cash can come to me every month to do as I please. Or there is a charity and organisation that uses the clout of buying over 200,000 vehicles each year to get great rates from car manufacturers and insurance companies to facilitate people in renting a car for three years.

Its just a huge car leasing company but with the intention of supporting the disabled in our society to live fuller lives.

With my £64.15 I can choose to get a basic Ford Fiesta and to have some of my weekly allowance still paid to me (woohoo!). Or I can put the whole lot towards a slightly larger Ford Focus with heated seats and an automatic gearbox. Or I can put the whole lot and chip in an extra £2000 that I've saved up from my pension to get a larger car (such as the Nissan X-Trail that I wanted) that allows me to try and do a lot more of things that I would love to be doing if I hadn't broken my back. Living a full life with a disability, for many, takes up a lot more space. Being confined to a small, basic car "to get around" is simply not feasible when you have to use a wheelchair. And heaven help you if you use a wheelchair and take up wheelchair rugby and have to move one of those chairs around...

But this whole topic isn't a question of disability. This is a question of Motability operating an organisation where they make a profit; they were doing so in December and they are still doing so today. Where Motability have failed is that they haven't clearly explained to the public how they operate and that the value of the cars on offer should simply come down to the maths of the purchase price, the operating costs and the sale cost, and whether these are all balanced out by the benefit payments and advance payment. If the benefit payments cover the former then the car should be on the scheme. If the payments fail to meet the costs then the car should be ditched.

There are so many presumptions that many people make about someone with a serious disability: "they can't do that", "that isn't right" or the most depressing "what would they like to drink/eat?" Why can't a disabled person have a car that they love and are proud of? If they are happy to lose a greater amount of their benefits to fund a swankier car that's larger than the minimum car size available then why shouldn't they do so?

[Deleted User]

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I don't think Deleted_User was saying that they needed or were going to ask for the upgraded sound system, nor that their mobility should pay for it - it would surely be added to the advance payment they'd make.

What they seemed to be saying was that if they could have a lower spec car and pay to add fancy bits to it pushing it above the threshold, then why not be allowed to have the higher spec car which would better meet his needs and make a payment to bring the cost to Motability below the threshold.

Spot on Sue. Thank you for clarifying my argument.

CTcelt1988

People like Fbaby spout nonsense without actually understanding how the Motability scheme works.

It's never been a 'free' car. It's always been the case that if a customer wants a higher specced car, then they have to pay the extra themselves. People give up their higher rate DLA/PIP for the car. Motabity only give people a choice what to do with their money. Some take a car on the scheme, many don't. Some use their DLA/PIP for taxes or bus fares.

There is so much misinformation about how the scheme works, which leads to people questioning why disabled people should receive a car on the scheme.

GlasweJen

We've never had a mobility car, our car is a Jeep Grand Cherokee with all the extras, before that it was an old Land Rover and before that I wasn't paralysed.

In our boot you'll find half the boot (and it's a big boot) taken up by a dog box for a registered assistance dog, she needs to travel by box that's how she was trained. 2 oxygen tanks and a couple of masks, there's usually a spare wheelchair cushion in there, a multi-stage child's car seat (keep us legal with the nieces) my wheelchair if I'm in the car and the usual gubbins found in a car boot, first aid kit, stuff to change the tyre etc.

If I'm in the car we can't fit the shopping in the boot, if we have the kids in the car we have to keep stuff at their feet.

Last year we looked at ditching the jeep (a 12 plate) and going on motability but they didn't have a car that would suit us so we left it and we're looking for a new car with masses of boot space, we're considering a 7 seater with the back chairs pulled out.

Jackieboy

I think people who argue that they get nothing extra for their disability benefit need to have a look at what you would have to pay to lease even a very basic car - they'd have a pretty big shock.

GlasweJen

Jackieboy wrote: »

I think people who argue that they get nothing extra for their disability benefit need to have a look at what you would have to pay to lease even a very basic car - they'd have a pretty big shock.

And I think people who aren't disabled should research how much care costs, my PIP doesn't cover my care costs and thats combining care and mobility. We pay for the car with our wages.