Certainly not. I recently discovered (I read it in 'The Times' so it might be true) that they each get a stunningly generous £75.75 per week
Jealousy is a cruel and ugly trait.
To get a Motability car you need to get Personal Independence Payment for Mobility at the Enhanced Rate. The claimant needs to be either unable or virtually unable to walk or to have very profound cognitive issues - maybe after a traumatic brain injury.
It's a benefit intended to help with the costs of that lack of mobility. If you spend it on taxis how far do you think it goes? Six miles into town from here is north of £20 - one way.
Motability is a lease scheme. Becuase of its size it commands large discounts on new vehicles and as we all now ex-Motability vehicles command a premium second hand. The £75.75/week, forsaken in full, will get you a reasonable car like a Pug Rifter or basic Ford or whatever hatch or SUV. Like any other lease scheme there's an upfront payment up to several thousand. The idea that people are getting subsidised Beemers at our expense is nonsense in stilts. The media spreading that lie forego their reputation for decency.
That said there's a huge issue with fraud and Motability. The dealers selling the cars and to some extent the manufacturers and Motability itself are complicit in this. It needs to be stopped and some people need to do gaol time for it. And I don't mean benefit claimants.
|
|
Certainly not. I recently discovered (I read it in 'The Times' so it might be true) that they each get a stunningly generous £75.75 per week
Jealousy is a cruel and ugly trait.
Hmm. A bit ad hominem. Have I inadvertently touched a nerve? Anyway, jealousy is more of an emotion than a trait.
It's a benefit intended to help with the costs of that lack of mobility. If you spend it on taxis how far do you think it goes? Six miles into town from here is north of £20 - one way.
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
Motability is a lease scheme. ..... Like any other lease scheme there's an upfront payment up to several thousand.
Only if you choose above and beyond basic models. Here is an extract from M's website.....
....What is an Advance Payment and which vehicles need one?
It’s the amount you need to pay upfront for some large or high specification vehicles. It’s in addition to your weekly mobility allowance.
It covers the difference between the cost of your car and your allowance paid over the length of your agreement. It’s not a deposit and it’s non-refundable........
......There are also some vehicles which have no Advance Payment, or cost less than your weekly allowance, which means you’ll still get the rest of your allowance to spend however you choose. To find these, use the filters when you search.
The idea that people are getting subsidised Beemers at our expense is nonsense in stilts. The media spreading that lie........
....seems to me only a partial lie. One could argue percentages.
Edited by John F on 21/03/2025 at 11:51
|
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
I don't know whether that's true or not. We certainly have several taxi/private hire companies in Northampton with disability adapted vehicles.
Taxi use is, I think, differentiated by both class and age. Working class people are, based on my own observations, far more likely to use them than the well heeled. Before I left home at 19 I'd been in one once or twice.
My kids, Millennials, are in and out of Ubers all the time.
My point remains that where you need taxis £75/pw doesn't get you far!!
Are you saying that people should be limited to no more than basic models of smaller cars?
Somehow I edited out the qualification about only needing deposits upfront for larger and more upmarket models. The appearance of vehicles, in number, with no upfront payment is interesting. When I was first involved with the scheme in the nineties pretty much anything needed a thousand or so up front.
My point remains that, aside from fraud of which there is far too much, there's no real cost to the taxpayer as the £75 is paid any way. Whether to forgo it for a car is a decision for the recipient.
If you really think the price of three taxis to town is massively generous given the level of disability needed we will have to differ.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 21/03/2025 at 15:36
|
|
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
My point remains that where you need taxis £75/pw doesn't get you far!!
True, if you choose to live far from amenities. But most people, including the disabled, live in towns and cities. If and when we become sufficiently disabled and immobile, we shall move from our delightful small Northamptonshire village which has no shop or post office to a more practical location.
Are you saying that people should be limited to no more than basic models of smaller cars?
Certainly not. People should have the freedom to spend their money as they like. But there is a well known proverb beginning 'beggars can't.....
|
True, if you choose to live far from amenities. But most people, including the disabled, live in towns and cities. If and when we become sufficiently disabled and immobile, we shall move from our delightful small Northamptonshire village which has no shop or post office to a more practical location.
The 'village' here has a population of near to 4,000 supports two shops, a post office and a fluctuating number of pubs.
You'd still struggle to live a normal life without going into town regularly.
Speaking as a Welfare Rights Adviser I'd also add that the depiction of benefit claimants as beggars is pretty offensive. PIP's not means tested and not limited to those out of work. Motability cars allow many of them to work.
|
|
|
if you choose to live far from amenities
Many disabled people start as able-bodied but get disabilities from age/illness - and many of these don't have the option or opportunity to move to purpose-built accommodation in towns or cities. You're lucky to have the ability to move.
|
|
|
|
|
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
Where do you live that there are not many taxi's? Round our way - Doncaster there are a lot of them and Uber is a billion pound company so think there must be a lot of taxi rides to make them a lot of money.
Regarding disabled people often having lifts from people - I'm sure that does happen but people want independence and without a scheme like Motability they would not always be able to afford a car of the size and type they require - especially when you start looking at WAV (wheelchair accessible vehicles) which are silly money for most people to be able to afford without help.
My wife has a Motability car and it allows us to be able to afford a decent big car so we can get an electric wheelchair in the back which we could not have done in our old smaller cars we used to like and allows my wife to be comfortable in the car, especially on longer journeys where the extra leg space is apprecieated.
Also for anyone that wants to take the pain and suffering that my wife has to live with off her I'm more than happy to give them £75 a week as well as the car.
|
|
PIP does not apply after pension age should the claimant start to need assistance after pension age - it needs to start before.
I know a few state pensioners who have had to fund adapted vehicles themselves. Seems very unfair.
|
I know a few state pensioners who have had to fund adapted vehicles themselves. Seems very unfair.
It is unfair but loss of mobility is massively more common as we get older and a line has to be drawn somewhere.
My Mother lost mobility in her mid eighties after a fall. Should she have got £75/week?
|
|
|
|
Also for anyone that wants to take the pain and suffering that my wife has to live with off her I'm more than happy to give them £75 a week as well as the car.
That
Exactly.
|
Also for anyone that wants to take the pain and suffering that my wife has to live with off her I'm more than happy to give them £75 a week as well as the car.
That
Exactly.
As someone that lives with a disabled partner I would say to those with healthy loved ones count your blessings, you have no idea what some go through....
Edited by paul 1963 on 22/03/2025 at 08:23
|
|
<< As someone that lives with a disabled partner I would say to those with healthy loved ones count your blessings, you have no idea what some go through.>>
Now in my mid-80s, I continue to count my blessings - despite accumulating five NHS joint replacements, my partner is still able to do nearly everything she needs. But when all is said and done, even unlimited sympathy doesn't provide the necessary to pay for all the pricey aids the unfortunate ones have come to expect.
|
|
|
|
|
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
Where do you live that there are not many taxi's?
Rural Northants....but there is plenty of taxi availabitity, and also a volunteer driver organisation.
Regarding disabled people often having lifts from people - I'm sure that does happen but people want independence and without a scheme like Motability they would not always be able to afford a car of the size and type they require.......
You do not have to own a car to be 'independent'. One of my able sons chooses not to own a car. And it seems that most Motability cars are unadapted brand new standard mundane models, unaffordable for many hard working people.
|
Most people, even disabled folk, rarely take taxis. There are usually networks of family, friends and volunteer services willing to help. Many have a partner with a car.
Where do you live that there are not many taxi's?
Rural Northants....but there is plenty of taxi availabitity, and also a volunteer driver organisation.
Regarding disabled people often having lifts from people - I'm sure that does happen but people want independence and without a scheme like Motability they would not always be able to afford a car of the size and type they require.......
You do not have to own a car to be 'independent'. One of my able sons chooses not to own a car. And it seems that most Motability cars are unadapted brand new standard mundane models, unaffordable for many hard working people.
I thought there were not many taxis used in your area? If they is plenty of availability surely they must be often used or they would not serve your area?
It's very true you don't have to have a car to be independent and many people who are disabled don't have cars either. However, for many disabled people using public transport is much more difficult and at times impossible, than it would be for your son. And the extra payments from PIP allow people to get a vehicle that's more suitable for their needs, as well as (hopefully) being less likely to have any breakdown issues - which can bring it's own problems when you are not free to go when & where you want.
I know you are only looking at one thing as well - a lot of disabled people who don't get a vehicle from Motability do get wheelchairs from them which can be very expensive and you've not mentioned about the WAVs - would you expect those to be paid for in full by someone disabled, thus forcing them out of vehicles they use to get around and to and from work places?
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get a Motability car you need to get Personal Independence Payment for Mobility at the Enhanced Rate. The claimant needs to be either unable or virtually unable to walk or to have very profound cognitive issues - maybe after a traumatic brain injury.
Really? I don't think you know much about about this scandalous state of affairs. This from today's Times......
'DWP figures show there are 650,111 people with mental health conditions in receipt of the enhanced mobility award in January. More than 121,000 have "mixed anxiety and depressive disorders" and the main disabling condition for a further 129,000 is listed as autistic spectrum disorder' .
|
|
'DWP figures show there are 650,111 people with mental health conditions in receipt of the enhanced mobility award in January. More than 121,000 have "mixed anxiety and depressive disorders" and the main disabling condition for a further 129,000 is listed as autistic spectrum disorder' .
Are you saying that anxiety and depressive disorders are not disabling. How do you think autism, particularly in it's severe forms, manifests itself.
The idea that if people can use an unadapted car they don't need Motability is nonsense on stilts again. There's a poster in this thread telling us how he can put his wifes electric wheelchair in the boot.
Until last year I was doing PIP applications and tribunal appeals as part of my job; I know exactly how it works.
The Times has an agenda.
|
|
DWP figures show there are 650,111 people with mental health conditions in receipt of the enhanced mobility award in January. More than 121,000 have "mixed anxiety and depressive disorders" and the main disabling condition for a further 129,000 is listed as autistic spectrum disorder' .
Are you saying that anxiety and depressive disorders are not disabling.
Rarely to the extent to warrant an enhanced mobility payment. And many such neuroses are inherent character traits rather than mobility problems. Depressive illness is often transient and self limiting. I fail to see how the provision of a new car would enable someone with, say, agoraphobia to be more agreeable to going out and about.
How do you think autism, particularly in it's severe forms, manifests itself?
Depends on the severity. The threshold point on the behaviour spectrum seems to have shifted in recent years to give a medical label to what used to be regarded as mild eccentricity.
The idea that if people can use an unadapted car they don't need Motability is nonsense on stilts again. There's a poster in this thread telling us how he can put his wifes electric wheelchair in the boot.
I don't have that 'idea'. It is merely a matter of fact that many mundane models can accommodate such equipment without adaptation. They do not necessarily need to be brand new models courtesy of the taxpayer.
Until last year I was doing PIP applications and tribunal appeals as part of my job; I know exactly how it works.
Well, that hasn't been apparent from your posts. I wonder what the 'doing' entails. It is clearly difficult to establish whether the threshold of eligibility, which in the absence of precise quantification of disability is inevitably prone to subjectivity, has been crossed by a determined claimant without a thorough knowledge of their physical or mental pathology. I trust use is made of the GP's records.
The Times has an agenda.
Apart from an obvious goal of selling as much advertising as possible and making a profit, I don't know what you mean by 'agenda'. I have long admired its investigative reporting....and this is a salutary example. It was interesting to read the floundering response of M's overpaid (approx three quarters of a million per annum) blundering CEO (appalling loss making investment decisions) in today's edition.
|
The Times has an agenda.
Apart from an obvious goal of selling as much advertising as possible and making a profit, I don't know what you mean by 'agenda'. I have long admired its investigative reporting..>>
I agree - I thought that throwawy remark was short-tempered and almost meaningless, perhaps indicating more about the political leanings of its owner.
|
|
Everyone would do well to remember that people in receipt of benefits pay tax too. There is this constant refrain about 'the taxpayer' having to support others when, in fact, we are all 'the taxpayer'.
I wonder how many who believe that disabled people should be denied access to means of getting around would also support withdrawing the state pension and NHS services at 80 because they were expected to dead by now.
|
|
INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1967–68)
HC Deb 11 April 1967 vol 744 c1018 1018
§ Motion made, and Question,
§ 12. That income tax for the year 1967–68 shall be charged at the standard rate of 8s. 3d. in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds £2,000, at such higher rates in respect of the excess as Parliament may hereafter determine.
That was 33%.
This is why we have all our current problems.
People want lower taxes. People don't want to pay for vital services or repaired roads or those who are more deprived. Politicians lowered taxes to get votes, Sold off social housing etc etc.
My brother had a very severely disabled boy and till that boys death in 1994 he was cared for by very good NHS and Social services.
Yes there are some scroungers but the current gov attitude to hit the neediest the hardest is so wrong..
|
|
|
Everyone would do well to remember that people in receipt of benefits pay tax too. There is this constant refrain about 'the taxpayer' having to support others when, in fact, we are all 'the taxpayer'.
It's a question of balance. This from the Office for Nat Stats....
-
The proportion of people living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes decreased from 53.6% to 52.6%; this is the continuation of a downward trend following a sharp increase during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (FYE 2021).
-
Clearly anything above 50% is unsustainable.
I wonder how many who believe that disabled people should be denied access to means of getting around .......
Hardly worth responding to as I cannot imagine anyone would think that 'disabled people should be denied access...' But those, including myself, whose income (and now pension) came (comes) from taxation and who are/were responsible for effectively distributing taxation wealth (every prescription and sick/'fit' note I issued was effectively a cheque drawn upon the income of the unsick and working fit members of the recipient's family and community), bear considerable responsibility towards the whole community, not just to their clients.
Edited by John F on 23/03/2025 at 08:51
|
|
<< It's a question of balance. ... Those, including myself, whose income (and now pension) came (comes) from taxation and who are/were responsible for effectively distributing taxation wealth (every prescription and sick/'fit' note I issued was effectively a cheque drawn upon the income of the unsick and working fit members of the recipient's family and community), bear considerable responsibility towards the whole community, not just to their clients >>
Trying to look back a long way, I can't help suspecting a steadily growing focus on individual needs/wants while thinking less about 'the community' which is expected to provide. When that community is not making enough 'profit' to afford all the demands for support, government is expected to manage the problem, which it is trying to do, with the predictable response. I'm not sure exactly what Maggie meant when she famously told us that there was no such thing as Society, but that is roughly where we are now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rarely to the extent to warrant an enhanced mobility payment. And many such neuroses are inherent character traits rather than mobility problems. Depressive illness is often transient and self limiting. I fail to see how the provision of a new car would enable someone with, say, agoraphobia to be more agreeable to going out and about.
Like pretty much everything you've said on this thread you need to stop digging.
Well, that hasn't been apparent from your posts. I wonder what the 'doing' entails.
Doing means what it says. Asking a few gateway questions to ascertain whether a claimant might have a chance of meeting the criteria. Going through the form with them addressing each activity and descriptor in turn tallying up the points they might get.
On an appeal you go through what the Healthcare Professional has said and what conclusion the Decision Maker has drawn from that. Does it look right?
Often it does not. I had a lady who had received a heart and lung transplant. She could just about walk from the disabled parking space across a small atrium and into our interview room. From what the professional said you'd have thought she'd give an Olympic 100metre runner some competition.
GP records are part of it but since the late nineties there's been a move away from looking for diagnoses in favour of a functional test of what can/cannot be done. Of course there are judgements but he PIP 2 guide for Assessors is pretty much objective.
I agree with you about the Times and investigative reporting but its tendency to latch onto what makes headlines and clicks over objectivity and honest reporting worries me; it shouldn't be aping the Mail.
|
|
<< I had a lady who had received a heart and lung transplant. She could just about walk from the disabled parking space across a small atrium and into our interview room. From what the professional said you'd have thought she'd give an Olympic 100metre runner some competition. >>
Bromp, I don't think you strengthen your case by making such an extreme suggestion ! I think we all know where you are coming from.
|
Bromp, I don't think you strengthen your case by making such an extreme suggestion ! I think we all know where you are coming from.
Do you see reports from DWP Healthcare Professionals on a regular basis?
Some are very good others are so poor and error ridden that you wonder whether they actually refer to the same claimant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
