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

Options
1…5681011…15

Comments

  • Ames
    Ames Posts: 18,459 Forumite
    Options
    rockingbilly wrote: »
    Thank you for your input.
    So if you were disabled mobility wise pre 65 you would continue to get the mobility element after 65 - that seems fair.
    And post 65 if you lose your mobility then that is classed as a normal aging process and nothing to do with a disability.
    So if I lose the right to a mobility element post 65 because of the transition from DLA to PIP and having had it for 15 years+ I presume that that means I am less mobile post 65 not because of the disability but because of aging process?
    Utterly confusing.
    Surely the answer should be that if you can prove that the mobility problems emanated pre 65 you should be allowed to claim for it at any age.
    The only reason I ask this is that I am undecided as to whether I go for the transition (which I am likely to do) or just cancel the DLA award (HRM & MRC) and go for AA whilst I gather more evidence to prove that my mobility issues did in fact exist and arise in 2002 at age 53

    If you cancel DLA and go for AA it doesn't matter how much evidence you amass about when the problems started, there is no mobility component of AA and you won't be able to go back to PIP. You could have proof that you were born with no legs, you still wouldn't have an entitlement to a mobility component of any benefit.
    Unless I say otherwise 'you' means the general you not you specifically.
  • rockingbilly
    rockingbilly Posts: 853 Forumite
    Options
    Ames wrote: »
    If you cancel DLA and go for AA it doesn't matter how much evidence you amass about when the problems started, there is no mobility component of AA and you won't be able to go back to PIP. You could have proof that you were born with no legs, you still wouldn't have an entitlement to a mobility component of any benefit.

    That's totally unfair especially if the claimant has just turned 65 and only then found out that he/she could have claimed pre 65.
  • teddysmum
    teddysmum Posts: 9,471 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    rockingbilly wrote: »
    That's totally unfair especially if the claimant has just turned 65 and only then found out that he/she could have claimed pre 65.


    Also unfair when the disability is in no way age related eg loss of a limb through an accident, brain damage from a viral infection.
  • Jackieboy
    Jackieboy Posts: 1,010 Forumite
    Options
    bigbulldog wrote: »
    No you don't in fact when the car goes back in good condition you get a £250 bonus.

    But with some of the really good private leasing deals around the difference would cover that and of coarse some won't.

    Sorry, I don't really think that makes sense.
  • Richie-from-the-Boro
    Richie-from-the-Boro Posts: 6,945 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    78 in the thread and the #1 was Deleted_User who was whining because an additional panoramic sunroof (£1100) raised roof floor (£115), upgraded sound system (£1300), 19" wheels (£1200) and so on which would be best for his needs were suddenly no longer allowed under the default Motability scheme rules.

    Its not needs, its wants my friend. This type of posting always provokes an anti Motability reaction and has done all the years I've been on these boards, hence of course these items were properly taken from the scheme in the first place. Cancel the scheme and use the money to go to a coachbuilder. You are entitled to your wants go and get exactly what you want - pay direct.
    Disclaimer : Everything I write on this forum is my opinion. I try to be an even-handed poster and accept that you at times may not agree with these opinions or how I choose to express them, this is not my problem. The Disabled : If years cannot be added to their lives, at least life can be added to their years - Alf Morris - ℜ
  • CTcelt1988
    CTcelt1988 Posts: 257 Forumite
    edited 20 January 2017 at 11:49PM
    Options
    Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »
    78 in the thread and the #1 was Deleted_User who was whining because an additional panoramic sunroof (£1100) raised roof floor (£115), upgraded sound system (£1300), 19" wheels (£1200) and so on which would be best for his needs were suddenly no longer allowed under the default Motability scheme rules.

    Its not needs, its wants my friend. This type of posting always provokes an anti Motability reaction and has done all the years I've been on these boards, hence of course these items were properly taken from the scheme in the first place. Cancel the scheme and use the money to go to a coachbuilder. You are entitled to your wants go and get exactly what you want - pay direct.
    They can pay for these extras themselves though. Any extras are paid by your customer, not the taxpayer.

    If I wanted a reversing camera added, I could pay the extra £170 to have it on. Nothing wrong with adding extras, as long as the customer is prepared to pay for it.

    After 3 years, Motabity will sell the car and would profit having a car with extras added.
  • Savvy_Sue
    Savvy_Sue Posts: 46,024 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »
    78 in the thread and the #1 was Deleted_User who was whining because an additional panoramic sunroof (£1100) raised roof floor (£115), upgraded sound system (£1300), 19" wheels (£1200) and so on which would be best for his needs were suddenly no longer allowed under the default Motability scheme rules.
    Richie he was NOT whining because of that! He was annoyed because other 'upmarket' features which he WOULD have found helpful were no longer available to him - relating to mirrors and seats as I recall. He was frustrated because he was not able to pay extra for some features which WOULD have been helpful, because that particular model had been removed. However he WAS allowed to choose a cheaper base model, and then pay to upgrade it with fripperies such as those you mention here, giving roughly the same overall cost. What he couldn't do was pay to have the USEFUL features on the cheaper base model.
    Signature removed for peace of mind
  • Savvy_Sue
    Savvy_Sue Posts: 46,024 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    I've found the post by Deleted_User which I was referring to. I'm going to split the relevant part into paragraphs hoping it might make things clearer. He did confirm earlier in the thread that my understanding was correct.
    Deleted_User wrote: »
    My ideal car on the scheme, which is no longer available, has a list price of £29,990 for an automatic: £490 above the cap so not available.

    Ok, however, I can order a lower spec model of the same vehicle that has a list price of £28,900 and I can choose extras including a panoramic sunroof (£1100), raised roof floor (£115), upgraded sound system (£1300), 19" wheels (£1200) and so on, all of which would push the value of the car well above £30,000...

    Why can't I offer to pay an additional amount over £29,500 that would allow me to "bump up" the Motability-acceptable model/trim level to the level I need and hence provide me with the best vehicle for my needs? Motability would still have only funded a vehicle under the cap with me paying a little extra. (Yes, I know that this logic can be extended to why doesn't everyone who wants a Ferrari use the scheme to pay a little extra to do so? A friend got a Range Rover Sport on the scheme due to exceptional medical requirements and to do so I think he paid an Advance Payment of £18,000).
    So he understands why he's not allowed to do what he'd like to do, but I can understand his frustration. He can add unnecessary bells and whistles, at his own expense, but for the same cost (or less) to Motability, he can't have a better spec car which better meets his needs.
    Signature removed for peace of mind
  • Ames
    Ames Posts: 18,459 Forumite
    Options
    I agree, people seem to have read the opposite of what he said! He was clearly pointing out that if someone can pay thousands for pretty pointless extras, they should be able to pay a similar (in some cases smaller) amount for a higher spec car with features useful to their disability.
    Unless I say otherwise 'you' means the general you not you specifically.
  • bigbulldog
    bigbulldog Posts: 632 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Jackieboy wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't really think that makes sense.

    You asked if when a Motability car has scratches and dents do they pay for them to be fixed during there lease yes as I would assume that they have to pay the insurance excess however at the end of the lease when they have to give the car back then no they don't pay for the repairs however sometimes even with scratches etc they will get a good condition bonus of €250

    I think,but please correct me if I am wrong on a private lease the car has to be virtually in the same condition as when you took the initial delivery other wise they will charge you for it to be repaired.

    What I was saying in the last paragraph was the massive savings on a few of the private lease deals would cover the cost of any scratches etc.

    Hope that makes sense.:)
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards