Maybe I should try to make my point another way.
When we lease a car from Motability we effectively make two financial arrangements. One fixed. One variable. The fixed one is the sacrificed benefits which, post RPI increase, will be circa £10,725 over 3 years or £17,875 over 5 years (PIP rates). The second one is the AP which, as we know (because they go up and down) is variable.
I completely agree with good condition bonuses, as some customers hand back cars in very poor condition and should be penalised for that, so there should be an incentive to look after the car. However, if Motability have surplus funds to distribute, then the logical conclusion is that the variable costs (the AP’s) have been higher than they need to be. So, rather than continue to charge over inflated AP’s, only to give money back through a new car payment, why not charge lower AP’s in the first place?
I realise that this is a bit more complicated than it sounds, as AP’s go to the manufacturers and the surplus money may also come from other factors such as higher than expected residual values, but the fact remains that you only have to read this forum to appreciate that many customers have massive cash flow challenges (which Motability certainly doesn’t) and having to find more money up front than they really need to will, for many, be an added level of stress and financial pressure that they don’t need.
So, in summary, I would prefer that they went back to how they used to do it. Reasonable AP’s and a Good Condition Bonus at the end, but no new car payments. It just seems to be adding a level of complexity and admin cost that needn’t be there in the first place.