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

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

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?

I accept all of that, but you have missed out one important fact. All of the cars that Motability have to lease are discounted by up to 40% by the manufacturer/government. There is no VAT payable by them for a start.
If you were to compare like for like - a Motability car V a privately leased car the cost of the privately leased vehicle would be more expensive. So for the price of say a Merc through Motability you would be lucky to get a basic Astra from a private leasing deal for the same money.
So where is the level playing field?
People think that this is an unfair advantage.

CTcelt1988

rockingbilly wrote: »

I accept all of that, but you have missed out one important fact. All of the cars that Motability have to lease are discounted by up to 40% by the manufacturer/government. There is no VAT payable by them for a start.
If you were to compare like for like - a Motability car V a privately leased car the cost of the privately leased vehicle would be more expensive. So for the price of say a Merc through Motability you would be lucky to get a basic Astra from a private leasing deal for the same money.
So where is the level playing field?
People think that this is an unfair advantage.

Level playing field? I'm sure Motability customers would rather be able bodied and not have to resort to a charity. I'd swap my car to be able to walk normally.

Able bodied people have a advantage over disabled people in terms of getting jobs and having a better quality of life. Able bodied people can also use public transport easier then a disabled person. Is that a level playing field as you say?

People who begrudge disabled people a car on the scheme just because they themselves cannot get a car, is pretty sad.

If you shop around, there are lease schemes for able bodied people which are almost the same cost of Motability.

The majority of Motability customers drive Ford's, Vauxhall's, Nissan or cars from the VW group. I doubt there's many who drive Mercs or BMW's as the advance payment is high.

bigbulldog

rockingbilly wrote: »

I accept all of that, but you have missed out one important fact. All of the cars that Motability have to lease are discounted by up to 40% by the manufacturer/government. There is no VAT payable by them for a start.
If you were to compare like for like - a Motability car V a privately leased car the cost of the privately leased vehicle would be more expensive. So for the price of say a Merc through Motability you would be lucky to get a basic Astra from a private leasing deal for the same money.
So where is the level playing field?
People think that this is an unfair advantage.

You also missed the point that a privately leased new car can be and should discounted upto 20% or even more of the lease price,so to compare your theory of a private lease to Motability is flawed.

rockingbilly

bigbulldog wrote: »

You also missed the point that a privately leased new car can be and should discounted upto 20% or even more of the lease price,so to compare your theory of a private lease to Motability is flawed.

No it is not.
Since when would a private leasing company get the same reduction of VAT (20%) because they are dealing with a disabled customer?
Leasing companies make no distinction between the disabled and non disabled when setting their rates.
I actually checked that point out with Lex Leasing who told me that they aren't interested in (a) providing adapted cars and (b) reducing the lease payments under the exempt VAT regulations. The price is the price whoever or whatever you are.

bigbulldog

rockingbilly wrote: »

So for the price of say a Merc through Motability you would be lucky to get a basic Astra from a private leasing deal for the same money.
So where is the level playing field?
.

As I have said your comments are flawed go and surf the internet.

See below examples...

http://www.hotukdeals.com/visit?m=43772&q=2601503


http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lease-ford-fiesta-1-0l-140-st-line-177-84-pm-177-84-upfront-300-processing-fee-36-2602134

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/volkswagen-scirocco-diesel-coupe-2-0-tdi-bluemotion-tech-r-line-3dr-dsg-personal-2601458

Confuseddot

bigbulldog wrote: »

As I have said your comments are flawed go and surf the internet.

See below examples...

http://www.hotukdeals.com/visit?m=43772&q=2601503


http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/lease-ford-fiesta-1-0l-140-st-line-177-84-pm-177-84-upfront-300-processing-fee-36-2602134

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/volkswagen-scirocco-diesel-coupe-2-0-tdi-bluemotion-tech-r-line-3dr-dsg-personal-2601458

Those deals don't include insurance and maintenance do they ? I imagine the end purchase value will be a bit different.

bigbulldog

Confuseddot wrote: »

Those deals don't include insurance and maintenance do they ? I imagine the end purchase value will be a bit different.

The 1st example is way cheaper by £3k+than what Motability can offer and it does not cost that for 3 yrs maintenance and insurance.

The 2nd example is about £2k cheaper than Motability can offer if they did 2 yr contracts.

The 3rd example is about £1600 cheaper than what Motability can offer again if they did 2 year contracts.

The only real difference is the annual mileage however if examples 2 and 3 were 3 year contracts they would be even better than what Motability offer by a long way.

FBaby

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

Oh I do know very well how it works. The argument is always the same, it's not free because it's instead of the mobility element. Except that this means that if the disabled person opts for a car, they clearly don't have ab essential financial need for other mobility to support to help have a 'normal' life, so therefore, if they can afford all those additional fancy specs, they can afford a used basic car and don't need motability.

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.

Ironically, that is exactly my point. For a large number of disabled people, PIP doesn't cover half or even 1/10 of what they need to pay as a result of their disability. They have no choice but to do without or to find funds elsewhere. So why should they have to do this whilst those who spend their PIP on a car they could afford without PIP? I have always said, and will continue to say that it's not about stopping PIP, it's about redistributing it fairly to those who can demonstrate a financial need for it and payment should be proportionate to that need.

As for the deals quoted, does motability require the same down payment? Does it limits mileage to under 6000 miles for the same price? I don't think so!

CTcelt1988

FBaby wrote: »

Oh I do know very well how it works. The argument is always the same, it's not free because it's instead of the mobility element. Except that this means that if the disabled person opts for a car, they clearly don't have ab essential financial need for other mobility to support to help have a 'normal' life, so therefore, if they can afford all those additional fancy specs, they can afford a used basic car and don't need motability.


Ironically, that is exactly my point. For a large number of disabled people, PIP doesn't cover half or even 1/10 of what they need to pay as a result of their disability. They have no choice but to do without or to find funds elsewhere. So why should they have to do this whilst those who spend their PIP on a car they could afford without PIP? I have always said, and will continue to say that it's not about stopping PIP, it's about redistributing it fairly to those who can demonstrate a financial need for it and payment should be proportionate to that need.

As for the deals quoted, does motability require the same down payment? Does it limits mileage to under 6000 miles for the same price? I don't think so!

Theres two components remember, Daily living and mobility. They get the mobility money which they use for a car or other transport needs.

How much do you think it would cost a disabled person to get to work if they didn't have Motability, and were unable to use public transport?

I'm not suprised your anti Motability, with your replies being very condensing towards the very thought of disabled people having a supposedly 'free car'.

You still haven't registered the fact that to get extras on the car the customer has to pay the difference, not the charity.

I repeat, Motability don't dish out the benefits. The DWP do.

Motabity only offer a choice to people who get the higher rate. They get the car or the money. Not both.

If the scheme got pulled tomorrow, the taxpayer would still be paying for the benefit.

Or are you suggesting that the DWP scrap the mobility component of PIP?

bigbulldog

FBaby wrote: »

As for the deals quoted, does motability require the same down payment? Does it limits mileage to under 6000 miles for the same price? I don't think so!

Apart from the 1st example the other 2 require a deposit of 2k and £2700 and I already pointed out the mileage difference.:)

Even though the 1st example only needs a £95 deposit,but it still is way more expensive via Motability.

Also the difference in the annual mileage with what your saving compared to Motability you could cover part of the excess mileage if needed and it would still be cheaper.