I support the motability scheme but should it be handing out cars well in excess of £20,000 when something much cheaper would do the job fine?
The Motability scheme does not 'hand out' cars; the customer pays for them by surrendering a fixed weekly cash benefit.
The current amount is £61.20/week for which the criteria is, in shorthand terms, to be unable or virtually unable to walk.
If the PIP/DLA award is sufficient to cover the lease cost of a £20k car then why the hell should the customer be told it's too good for them?
Edited by Bromptonaut on 19/11/2019 at 09:02
|
“ The Motability scheme does not 'hand out' cars; the customer pays for them by surrendering a fixed weekly cash benefit.”
I don’t see why this was only enough to get a good solid but much cheaper car back when I was selling them in the 90’s, the full allowance was required to get a basic Astra or Escort but today it can provide such high spec cars as a near £20k SUV, I know people with BMW’s and Audi’s through motability. I also see no problem with the state providing transport to those in need but should we be providing luxury cars when something much more modest would suffice especially when money is perhaps lacking elsewhere when it comes to care for the disabled?
I admit that I don’t Know the full details of how it works and I’m certainly not saying anyone on it isn’t entitled but it does seem rather excessive to be getting such a high spec car on tax payers when a Corsa would do the same job with enough room for 4 in reasonable comfort. Unless space is especially required for extra equipment then no I don’t think tax payers should be funding expensive cars on motability.
I bow to my lack of knowledge on how disability benefits work however but it seems odd to me having supplied cars via the same system in the 90’s that they seem to be able to get vastly more expensive models today to do the same job.
|
|
It doesn't cost the tax payer any more money, regardless of what car the Motability customer is driving. And if, for example, my wife, was to opt out of getting the car, the cost to the tax payer would still be the same.
|
So the allowance is much higher these days, you could opt for a cheaper car and keep a portion of it to help with living costs then? That’s fair enough. As I say, in the 90’s the full allowance was required for a very basic car and today despite inflation and post Brexit vote price rises it allows a much higher standard of transport. It does keep the flow of well serviced used cars for the rest of us.
Quite often I used to convince people to take finance on a good used car instead which allowed them to actually own something after 3-4yrs then progress up depending on how much equity was left in it. Finance firms were usually quite happy with this though some wouldn’t lend on benefits alone. They did of course lose out on the new car warranty and additional motability benefits.
Edited by SLO76 on 19/11/2019 at 10:20
|
don’t see why this was only enough to get a good solid but much cheaper car back when I was selling them in the 90’s, the full allowance was required to get a basic Astra or Escort but today it can provide such high spec cars as a near £20k SUV,
Its quite simple, cars are relatively much cheaper these days. Back in 1994 a top spec Ghia 1.6 Escort cost £12750. We have been looking at a new Focus 1.5 turbo petrol Titanium spec and the retail price is £22400 with 0% finance. That is a 76% increase for a much bigger car with kit that had not been dreamed of in the 90's
In those 25 years the average wage in the UK has more than doubled and if benefits have risen at the same rate its obvious why a Motability client can get a better car then they could 25 years ago.
And don't forget that you can add to the allowance and get whatever car you want.
|
“ Its quite simple, cars are relatively much cheaper these days. Back in 1994 a top spec Ghia 1.6 Escort cost £12750. We have been looking at a new Focus 1.5 turbo petrol Titanium spec and the retail price is £22400 with 0% finance. That is a 76% increase for a much bigger car with kit that had not been dreamed of in the 90's
In those 25 years the average wage in the UK has more than doubled and if benefits have risen at the same rate its obvious why a Motability client can get a better car then they could 25 years ago“
Good point, the most expensive car I could give you for your full allowance in 1997 was a Proton Compact 1.3 LSi with metallic paint at around £9,000, a good £1,500 less than the very similar Mitsubishi Colt 1.3 GLX we also sold. Today that £9,000 is the equivalent of £16,244.65 which does seem rather overpriced to me and does paint a different picture. It seems inflation has rather run away from me and without motability who currently run around 600,000 cars in the UK the used market we sensible buyers rely on would see huge undersupply and price increases. Keep handing over those allowances folks.
|
|
|
|
it does seem rather excessive to be getting such a high spec car on tax payers when a Corsa would do the same job with enough room for 4 in reasonable comfort. Unless space is especially required for extra equipment then no I don’t think tax payers should be funding expensive cars on motability
It's a tricky one isn't it. Local couple have a new Ford Kuga on Motability. It would be perverse to rule that people must be kept poor if they are on benefits, at the same time it must seem unjust to those who are working full time, not receiving benefits, and can't afford a new £22,000 car.
It's partly about people's priorities of course. Some of the envious probably spend £300 a month in the pub - it's only a couple of pints and a packet of peanuts per day. They could lease the Kuga for less than that.
People working in poverty has always been the challenge. To his credit Gordon Brown tried to do something about it, but it just ends up subsidising low wages in a market economy.
Edited by Manatee on 19/11/2019 at 11:17
|
it does seem rather excessive to be getting such a high spec car on tax payers when a Corsa would do the same job with enough room for 4 in reasonable comfort. Unless space is especially required for extra equipment then no I don’t think tax payers should be funding expensive cars on motability
It's a tricky one isn't it. Local couple have a new Ford Kuga on Motability. It would be perverse to rule that people must be kept poor if they are on benefits, at the same time it must seem unjust to those who are working full time, not receiving benefits, and can't afford a new £22,000 car.
It's partly about people's priorities of course. Some of the envious probably spend £300 a month in the pub - it's only a couple of pints and a packet of peanuts per day. They could lease the Kuga for less than that.
People working in poverty has always been the challenge. To his credit Gordon Brown tried to do something about it, but it just ends up subsidising low wages in a market economy.
What car would you recommend that's cheaper on a lease than a Ford Kuga that also matches what they need?
|
What car would you recommend that's cheaper on a lease than a Ford Kuga that also matches what they need?
I have no recommendation, I was just commenting on the post I replied to and musing on why people might be resentful.
I am well aware that that cars are not given out for poverty, but for mobility. Also that users have a choice including using more or less of their cash benefits.
I don't like the idea of telling people what they should be happy with. It reminds me of Invacars, although I think they were alright in their day, considering what had been achieved in terms of welfare generally since the war.
Edited by Manatee on 19/11/2019 at 16:26
|
What car would you recommend that's cheaper on a lease than a Ford Kuga that also matches what they need?
I have no recommendation, I was just commenting on the post I replied to and musing on why people might be resentful.
People are often resentful as they just think someone is getting something they aren't - a lot of people want everything and don't like when others have something they don't.
You get complaints that rich people have too much money, jobless people get money for nothing and immigrants get houses for just turning up here (which they don't)
|
|
|
|
I bow to my lack of knowledge on how disability benefits work however but it seems odd to me having supplied cars via the same system in the 90’s that they seem to be able to get vastly more expensive models today to do the same job.
From 1992 to 99 I did casework with people who were subject to jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. A good few were accident victims where severe head injury consequences included physical complications and/or there were lost damaged limbs.
At time anything more than a basic car meant an upfront payment - probably well over £1k for a family size Ford or Vauxhall.
The allowance has increased since then but only (I think) because it's increased by RPI/CPI every year. Unlike working age benefits it's not been affected by the recent benefit freeze.
Simple answer is that £61.20 gets you more car in 2019 than the real terms equivalent, £25-£30, did 25+ years ago. Pretty sure same principle would apply to lease/PCP deals through retail networks. Lower interest rates must be a large part of it though as others point out the real terms cost of say an Astra today is lower than for equivalent in 1993.
|
|
<< Simple answer is that £61.20 gets you more car in 2019 than the real terms equivalent, £25-£30, did 25+ years ago. Pretty sure same principle would apply to lease/PCP deals through retail networks. >>
Interesting. It raises the question of what should be index-linked to the CPI - what the tax system can afford, what the disabled are entitled to, or the real cost of a basic new car. Discuss?
|
<< Simple answer is that £61.20 gets you more car in 2019 than the real terms equivalent, £25-£30, did 25+ years ago. Pretty sure same principle would apply to lease/PCP deals through retail networks. >>
Interesting. It raises the question of what should be index-linked to the CPI - what the tax system can afford, what the disabled are entitled to, or the real cost of a basic new car. Discuss?
Why should it be linked to the price of a car though? The mobility benefit is for any kinds of help someone might need to get about so not always a car - could be a wheelchair/scooter/taxi fares/bus fares etc as well as getting a car.
|
|
|
Interesting. It raises the question of what should be index-linked to the CPI - what the tax system can afford, what the disabled are entitled to, or the real cost of a basic new car. Discuss?
That is an interesting question.
When Disability Living Allowance (DLA) replaced Mobility Allowance in 1992 the weekly rate was £30.30. Information here (excel spreadsheet hosted by Institute for Fiscal Studies) suggests it's tracked prices index ever since.
Although DLA for adults has been replaced by Personal Independence Payment (with a more restrictive regime) the same progression seems to apply. As I mentioned before DLA/PIP etc are not affected by the benefits freeze.
In fact one of the other tabs shows rates for the old Mobility Allowance which suggest it's simply grown from £5 when MA replace Invacars etc in 1977. No attempt has been made to 'revalorise' in either direction.
I don't think some sort of 'Car Price Index' would help. As already pointed out car is just one option for what is a cash benefit. Motability cars are leased and while list and/or fleet prices (and because Motability is a huge fleet buyer it will get BIG discounts) are a factor in the sum payable interest rates and residuals also play a very significant part.
Historically low interest rates and, at least for some models healthy residuals, are part of reason why £61.20 now buys so much more car than £30.30 did in 1992.
If interest rates 'revert to norm' it will be interesting to see how Ministers (of whatever stripe) react to pressure from Disability lobby if cost of 'suitable' cars runs ahead of weekly PIP/DLA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am also a supporter of the motability scheme as long as I can have the same deal ...new car..all maintenance...tyres...insurance...from £50 a week...if not isn't that discrimination?
|
I am also a supporter of the motability scheme as long as I can have the same deal ...new car..all maintenance...tyres...insurance...from £50 a week...if not isn't that discrimination?
Fine, as long as you also agree to have a leg amputated or similar.
|
|
|
I am also a supporter of the motability scheme as long as I can have the same deal ...new car..all maintenance...tyres...insurance...from £50 a week...if not isn't that discrimination?
You can have my wifes mobility money if you like... if you take her excruciating and debilitating osteoartritis pain she would be very happy to swap with you. What do you say?
People like you disgust me.
|
|
<< You can have my wifes mobility money if you like... if you take her excruciating and debilitating osteoartritis pain she would be very happy to swap with you. What do you say? People like you disgust me. >>
Now we are getting a little vituperative. Unfortunately there is unlimited supply of sympathy but a shorter supply of public money to support it. I feel society can be expected to satisfy basic needs to help disadvantaged people - if those people choose to top that up to get a better vehicle, all well and good. But then we can get into the grey area of the 'shame' of being seen in receipt of 'charity'.
There's no easy answer.
|
|
|
|
You took that way too personally, my intention was not to offend anyone, My comment was aimed at the system, the system that discriminates against people...by reinforcing the label of disability...people who qualify for additional support should not be made to feel different by having to be on a special scheme instead of receiving appropriate amount of benefits which would allow them to purchase a car like anyone else......
|
You took that way too personally, my intention was not to offend anyone, My comment was aimed at the system, the system that discriminates against people...by reinforcing the label of disability...people who qualify for additional support should not be made to feel different by having to be on a special scheme instead of receiving appropriate amount of benefits which would allow them to purchase a car like anyone else......
I really struggle to see the discrimination here.
In real terms £ (allowing for inflation) you can get more lease car for £1 than you could 25 years ago. Motability adds a bit extra because of its charitable status and because it gets bulk deals including the insurance.
Bottom line is as others have said; if you want my 'privilege' then live with my disability too.
|
|
|
You took that way too personally, my intention was not to offend anyone, My comment was aimed at the system, the system that discriminates against people...by reinforcing the label of disability...people who qualify for additional support should not be made to feel different by having to be on a special scheme instead of receiving appropriate amount of benefits which would allow them to purchase a car like anyone else......
There is no discrimination at all - you were complaining that you could not access the same rates/costs just because you don't have any issues with your mobility - the system works as it should be - people can get help should they need it and if they want it.
The Motability scheme makes it easier to get cars/vehicles that suit the particular person and their disability and helps that get particular adaptions easily and with everything under one scheme which makes it a lot easier. What is wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Motability scheme does not 'hand out' cars; the customer pays for them by surrendering a fixed weekly cash benefit.
Don't kid yourself - the 'customer' doesn't pay - the tax payer pays.
The current amount is £61.20/week for which the criteria is, in shorthand terms, to be unable or virtually unable to walk.
That is staggeringly generous and......... iwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5355225/Boss-car-...s .......actually has become a national scandal.
We have just bought an auto top of the range Peugeot 2008 for £17,000 - on the road, a years tax and about 1/4 tank of petrol. It can be driven with one foot and the finger and thumb of one hand. At over £3k a year it would be worth nil in less than 6 years. It is beyond the dreams of a young family with both parents on near to minimum wages. Fair? I think not.
|
Don't kid yourself - the 'customer' doesn't pay - the tax payer pays.
Where do I even start. First of all it is the customer's money. The fact that they obtain it via en entitlement to benefit is neither here nor there.The taxpayer can take a view on the principle; he has no right to be a busybody as to how it's spent.
If you think £61.20 is "astonishingly generous" as state help for somebody who is virtually unable to walk you desperately need a reality check. It is for recipient to choose whether to spend it on taxis, on paying to get shopping delivered,getting a relative or friend to run them about or to go for the 'Full Monty" and get a Motability Lease Car. Whichever of those, or permutations of them, is chosen sixty quid won't go far.
What possible relevance do you think a 'scandal' supposedly uncovered by the Daily Mail (it was a select committee that did the legwork) has as to whether the scheme is fair?Motability is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, car leasing operation in Europe. The finance arm of which Mike Betts was CEO is owned by the banks. It's a commercial operation and needs people of appropriate calibre to run it. Those people cost. The PM's salary is utterly, utterly useless as a metric for remuneration of Public Servants never mind CEO's of multi-billion turnover finance companies.
Even if it was run by someone on Minimum Wage the saving on an individual lease car would be fractions of a penny.
The charity itself is not alone amongst like outfits in sitting on a surplus - in this case derived from operating profits. Perhaps it could be more generous with grants for (eg) hand controls or wheelchair access adaptations but as evidence for making savings on benefits it has the same evidential credibility as your views on oil changes or tyres - Zero.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 20/11/2019 at 11:25
|
|
<< The finance arm of which Mike Betts was CEO is owned by the banks. It's a commercial operation and needs people of appropriate calibre to run it. Those people cost. Even if it was run by someone on Minimum Wage the saving on an individual lease car would be fractions of a penny. >>
Bromp, I think you might find it difficult to prove your final contention mathematically. We could drift into a related discussion about why 'those people cost', when they have comfortable jobs (probably with associated stress) and I would say are more than adequately remunerated (I would also ask why some in the entertainment world attract shedloads when it is clearly not necessary to pay that much to get them?). In the recent debate about relative pay in the BBC, the amounts complained of are large, and the ladies lodging their complaints don't say "I am underpaid' (they're not), just 'he gets more'.
We always hear the mantra that 'we have to pay that to get the best people'. I reckon you just get the greediest in many cases.
Edited by Andrew-T on 20/11/2019 at 14:00
|
|
|
|
It's excessive. Yes it's a responsible job, but it has a large, captive, ready made customer base whose funds are supplied by the government. Get the administration and financial control right and that's basically it. Money for old rope, as evidenced by the surplus it has built up.
|
|
|
|
The current amount is £61.20/week for which the criteria is, in shorthand terms, to be unable or virtually unable to walk.
That is staggeringly generous and......... iwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5355225/Boss-car-...s .......actually has become a national scandal.
So for £61.20 a week would you be happy to swap that for a life of not being able to walk properly and quite possibly be in constanst, chronic pain?
If you think it's unfair what would you change? Increase the minimum wage or decrease the mobility benefit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
