Well Rene, certainly invigorated you.
You may be correct regarding ‘ discriminated’ selling patterns. But gross generalisations are open to further analysis certainly.
Not all Motability customers rely upon Motability as the only way to buy a new car. The implied link between disabled customers and relative financial insecurity is not sustainable.
Moving on. In any customer/vendor relationships it’s not usual for people to jump the queue. Most British people frown upon such practices, in theory and reality. Imagine the situation in a shop, or restaurant where cash purchasers were attended to before credit card holders or vice versa. Or any preferential treatment being given according to wealth, ability….the very notion is objectionable.
Similarly, Customer A orders a car. It’s morally questionable if any vendor could justify ( even on a monetary level), allowing Customer B, who uses a different means to acquire the vehicle, to push in front.
But then there’s no discrimination on abilities. But on leasing procedure? We must hope that dealerships aren’t selective in the way you suggest.
Regarding Paul’s analogy of children next door. Bizarre comparison particularly so as the issue is not impatience clearly but equitable treatment. I thought that was quite clear. My current vehicle is quite satisfactory but a dealership has entered into an agreement with me and possibly failed to inform me that I might be treated differently.
Analogy is sometimes a weak alternative to evidence.