Motability Scheme, very impressive car choices.

[Sticks.]

FlyingMeeces said:

The higher rate mobility component of PIP, personal independence payment (ha!) is the benefit in question.

It'll be interesting to see how the number of Motability cars reduces as the (money-saving) tighter rules of PIP are rolled out. And how many people have to give up work as a result.

Those on the fiddle won't be affected as there's unlikely to be any money spent on enforcement.

[FlyingMeeces]

Sticks. said:

FlyingMeeces said:

The higher rate mobility component of PIP, personal independence payment (ha!) is the benefit in question.

It'll be interesting to see how the number of Motability cars reduces as the (money-saving) tighter rules of PIP are rolled out. And how many people have to give up work as a result.

Those on the fiddle won't be affected as there's unlikely to be any money spent on enforcement.

It's already happening, really badly.

With it happening at the same time as various NHS stuff affecting patient transport services, it's going to be/has been absolutely catastrophic for those marginal people.

I remember saying it a couple of years ago, but there's something terribly wrong when a person is better off being like me than they are having a little bit of precarious mobility on foot remaining. Wheelchair services now will not provide chairs to people who can walk a little bit outdoors too, I think for the past few years at least, with absolutely no regard for whether or not that person can get the kids to school or do the weekly shop or move about during a full day's work.

[mph1977]

Sticks. said:

FlyingMeeces said:

The higher rate mobility component of PIP, personal independence payment (ha!) is the benefit in question.

It'll be interesting to see how the number of Motability cars reduces as the (money-saving) tighter rules of PIP are rolled out. And how many people have to give up work as a result.

Those on the fiddle won't be affected as there's unlikely to be any money spent on enforcement.

motability mis-use is rarely aobut DLA/PIP 'fiddling' and more often aobut the coercive abuse of vulnerable adults by their so called friends and blood relatives ...

[HTP99]

On the last refresher I went on; April I think, we were told that due to the way that PIP is evaluated and the fact it takes into account mental capacity now, more people are in receipt of the higher rate component now than before PIP.

[burritoNinja]

FlyingMeeces said:

It's already happening, really badly.

With it happening at the same time as various NHS stuff affecting patient transport services, it's going to be/has been absolutely catastrophic for those marginal people.

I remember saying it a couple of years ago, but there's something terribly wrong when a person is better off being like me than they are having a little bit of precarious mobility on foot remaining. Wheelchair services now will not provide chairs to people who can walk a little bit outdoors too, I think for the past few years at least, with absolutely no regard for whether or not that person can get the kids to school or do the weekly shop or move about during a full day's work.

Really is scary. I was fortunate enough to have been able to buy my mobility scooter myself. There is a disabled woman in our street who has hers through PIP and they take something like £30 a week or so she said. With the cuts and people being forced off PIP, she is terrified of losing it.

Using my scooter at 29 was when I became so very very aware at how disabled people are treated. You get many who just stare. Many who won't even move to let you past and many who simple will do anything to avoid eye contact.

Edited by burritoNinja on Thursday 23 June 13:35

[Por911T]

Im on the mailing list for all the defleeted mobility cars - jeeez the volume they defleet is absolutely gobsmaking !

[Sticks.]

mph1977 said:

motability mis-use is rarely aobut DLA/PIP 'fiddling' and more often aobut the coercive abuse of vulnerable adults by their so called friends and blood relatives ...

Yes, the DLA fraud rates are(were) very low.

And what's done about the abuse of Motability?

[mph1977]

Sticks. said:

mph1977 said:

motability mis-use is rarely aobut DLA/PIP 'fiddling' and more often aobut the coercive abuse of vulnerable adults by their so called friends and blood relatives ...

Yes, the DLA fraud rates are(were) very low.

And what's done about the abuse of Motability?

other than dealers being complicit in the mis-use in many cases ?

or the refusal of people to be responsible citizens and report suspected abuse of vulnerable adults or children to the relevant social work or police teams ?

[350zStee]

Butter Face said:

'Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years. Seems reasonable.

I've refrained from posting in this thread as I saw how it was going from the first post.

All these horrible people and their 'free' cars, in comparison to those who just keep the Higher rate money and buy their own

This is not true, Butter Face. Motability pay Kwik-Fit a monthly rental to cover tyres on their vehicles, and Kwik-Fit pay for and manage all tyres internally. I know because it is my job!

A Motability driver has never been knocked back for tyres due to low mileage or excessive amounts damaged tyres.

[FlyingMeeces]

350zStee said:

Butter Face said:

'Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years. Seems reasonable.

I've refrained from posting in this thread as I saw how it was going from the first post.

All these horrible people and their 'free' cars, in comparison to those who just keep the Higher rate money and buy their own

This is not true, Butter Face. Motability pay Kwik-Fit a monthly rental to cover tyres on their vehicles, and Kwik-Fit pay for and manage all tyres internally. I know because it is my job!

A Motability driver has never been knocked back for tyres due to low mileage or excessive amounts damaged tyres.

Bit of daylight between 'don't like replacing' and an outright refusal, innit?

The Kwik-Fit joint round my way have been awesome, even when the van wouldn't fit on their lift for its MOT (lift decided van was too heavy, van definitely was not too heavy, none of us wanted to force the issue!).

[Butter Face]

350zStee said:

Butter Face said:

'Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years. Seems reasonable.

I've refrained from posting in this thread as I saw how it was going from the first post.

All these horrible people and their 'free' cars, in comparison to those who just keep the Higher rate money and buy their own

This is not true, Butter Face. Motability pay Kwik-Fit a monthly rental to cover tyres on their vehicles, and Kwik-Fit pay for and manage all tyres internally. I know because it is my job!

A Motability driver has never been knocked back for tyres due to low mileage or excessive amounts damaged tyres.

I don't see how what I said is not true? I got told that off the record by someone at Motability, I never stated it was policy to only get 2 sets. They state 'fair usage' on their terms and conditions which gives them scope to say no to someone if they wanted to.

[350zStee]

Butter Face said:

I don't see how what I said is not true? I got told that off the record by someone at Motability, I never stated it was policy to only get 2 sets. They state 'fair usage' on their terms and conditions which gives them scope to say no to someone if they wanted to.

Sorry, I didn't word that right. What I was referring to was ''Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years.'

I don't want to mention specifics. But generally the more tyres that are fitted by the supplier to lease cars, the more rental they can charge lease companies per month. Hence the reason why there is a no quibbles tyre fitment policy.

Edited by 350zStee on Thursday 23 June 20:33

[rainmakerraw]

350zStee said:

Sorry, I didn't word that right. What I was referring to was ''Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years.'

I don't want to mention specifics. But generally the more tyres that are fitted by the supplier to lease cars, the more rental they can charge lease companies per month. Hence the reason why there is a no quibbles tyre fitment policy.

Edited by 350zStee on Thursday 23 June 20:33

Out of interest then, why is it that Kwik Fit always have to 'phone Motability for authorisation' when they inevitably don't have the lowest priced ditch finders in stock? I always have barges and that means awkward tyre sizes, so conveniently (for me) they only ever have premium brands in stock. It's inevitably a half hour or so extra wait for me while they wait for Motability to get back and authorise the more expensive tyres. If KF are already receiving a flat rental, why the need for authority? Or are the branch really asking the bean counters at their own head office if they can go ahead and just blaming Motability for convenience over explaining the whole thing to (often clueless) end users?

Also, two full sets in three years? Jeez I've just picked up a ~240hp FWD barge that loves to lose traction at the front. They're gonna love me!

[itcaptainslow]

rainmakerraw said:

350zStee said:

Sorry, I didn't word that right. What I was referring to was ''Fair usage' is the term but I have been told off the record that they don't like replacing more than 2 full sets in the 3 years.'

I don't want to mention specifics. But generally the more tyres that are fitted by the supplier to lease cars, the more rental they can charge lease companies per month. Hence the reason why there is a no quibbles tyre fitment policy.

Edited by 350zStee on Thursday 23 June 20:33

Out of interest then, why is it that Kwik Fit always have to 'phone Motability for authorisation' when they inevitably don't have the lowest priced ditch finders in stock? I always have barges and that means awkward tyre sizes, so conveniently (for me) they only ever have premium brands in stock. It's inevitably a half hour or so extra wait for me while they wait for Motability to get back and authorise the more expensive tyres. If KF are already receiving a flat rental, why the need for authority? Or are the branch really asking the bean counters at their own head office if they can go ahead and just blaming Motability for convenience over explaining the whole thing to (often clueless) end users?

Also, two full sets in three years? Jeez I've just picked up a ~240hp FWD barge that loves to lose traction at the front. They're gonna love me!

From memory Motab state that branded tyres must be fitted to their cars!

[stuartmmcfc]

HTP99 said:

I have been a "Motability Specialist" at the dealer that I work for, for 10 years, I have never heard of that policy, however I have encountered people that; like you, think that it is policy, they have usually come from other makes so perhaps it is the policy of a particular manufacturer.

I just had a phone call from Motability in response to an email I sent about this subject ( petty, but I became really interested and had nothing else to do that day )
You're right. It's not policy, however the lady told me that if its not standard equipment, then a lot of manufacturers fit them anyway for Motability. She then reeled off a long list of manufacturers who do this. Tbh I didn't catch them all but it included a lot .
Pretty impressed that they rang me on a Saturday afternoon with such a prepared answer to what, in essence, was a pub conversation!

[Oojermaflip]

It is true that Motability Operations are a Plc owned by the main UK banks but the government does effectively subsidise the Scheme as Motability don't have to pay 20% VAT on cars supplied to the scheme and customers don't have to pay 20% VAT on the rentals. This is a specific and significant concession for the Motability Scheme and its customers which enables Motability pricing to be more than 40% cheaper than the equivalent private leasing quote ( Motability Operations confirm this pricing stat in their most recent interim accounts). This means that more expensive cars are effectively subsidised more than a cheaper car. Today you can have a Mercedes C Class on the Scheme and Motability reclaim VAT of c£5k on this car compared to c.£3k that would be payable by a retail customer on a Ford Focus.
This concession was granted by gov't to help the Scheme get off the ground in 1977 but it's questionable whether it is still required today given that Motability Operations make more than £200m per annum.


quote=mph1977]

williamp said:

I doubt people on here are questioning their right to a mobility car if the need exists. Perhaps they are questioning why the taxpayer pays for premium brands, when cheap cars (hell, after Friday who knows) cheap British made cars would "do" and be "adequate"???

Motability Ops is company owned by the retails banks and Motability the charity , there is no state involement

a motability lease lease takes most if not all of your higher rate mobility component (HRMC) of DLA/PIP /war Pension

a good number of the cars on the scheme also require an 'advance payment' to cover the difference between the lease cost over the 3 / 5 years and the amount recieved via the HRMC.

so kindly bore off with your inaccurate and hate driven comments.

[mph1977]

Oojermaflip said:

It is true that Motability Operations are a Plc owned by the main UK banks but the government does effectively subsidise the Scheme as Motability don't have to pay 20% VAT on cars supplied to the scheme and customers don't have to pay 20% VAT on the rentals. This is a specific and significant concession for the Motability Scheme and its customers which enables Motability pricing to be more than 40% cheaper than the equivalent private leasing quote ( Motability Operations confirm this pricing stat in their most recent interim accounts). This means that more expensive cars are effectively subsidised more than a cheaper car. Today you can have a Mercedes C Class on the Scheme and Motability reclaim VAT of c£5k on this car compared to c.£3k that would be payable by a retail customer on a Ford Focus.
This concession was granted by gov't to help the Scheme get off the ground in 1977 but it's questionable whether it is still required today given that Motability Operations make more than £200m per annum.

this is not specific to Motability - the vat exemption and VED exemptions apply to any vehicle / equipment / adpatations used specifically for disabled people ...

[Oojermaflip]

rehab71 said:

Motability run the largest fleet in the country and as such they get huge discounts, so that is why they can offer BMWs etc. with attractive initial rentals. The lease is for 3 years, 20,000 miles per annum, 2 drivers and full maintainence, I'd be staggered if anyone could get a retail offer anywhere near what they can get a Motab car for.

Yes Motability have the largest fleet in the UK - almost 650,000 customers - and as suggested above it is virtually impossible to get a retail offer anywhere near as competitive as Motability offer their customer. Motability Operations enjoy unique VAT advantages which mean that they don't pay VAT on the cars that they buy and their customers don't pay VAT on the rental (which you would normally have to on the type of lease that Motability offer). This together with the discounts offered by manufacturers means that A Motability car is on average 44% cheaper than the equivalent car available to a private buyer (as confirmed by Motability Operations latest interim accounts).

[stuartmmcfc]

And in a life full of stty things that's one of the good things

[BlackLabel]

mph1977 said:

Oojermaflip said:

It is true that Motability Operations are a Plc owned by the main UK banks but the government does effectively subsidise the Scheme as Motability don't have to pay 20% VAT on cars supplied to the scheme and customers don't have to pay 20% VAT on the rentals. This is a specific and significant concession for the Motability Scheme and its customers which enables Motability pricing to be more than 40% cheaper than the equivalent private leasing quote ( Motability Operations confirm this pricing stat in their most recent interim accounts). This means that more expensive cars are effectively subsidised more than a cheaper car. Today you can have a Mercedes C Class on the Scheme and Motability reclaim VAT of c£5k on this car compared to c.£3k that would be payable by a retail customer on a Ford Focus.
This concession was granted by gov't to help the Scheme get off the ground in 1977 but it's questionable whether it is still required today given that Motability Operations make more than £200m per annum.

this is not specific to Motability - the vat exemption and VED exemptions apply to any vehicle / equipment / adpatations used specifically for disabled people ...

Not quite true - the VAT relief rules were significantly tightened up a few years ago (in part due to the fraud that was going on) - if you want VAT free vehicle now you have to meet the following conditions:

1 - you must be a full time wheelchair user (mobility scooters don't count).
2 - the vehicle must be permanently and substantially adapted (hand controls, wheelchair lifts that kind of thing).

Most people on the motability scheme are not full time wheelchair users.


That said, I think the reports of misuse which we hear of are often exaggerated and the scheme generally works well and is reasonably cost effective for the tax-payer.