I merely said it was a factor, like if someone adds a panoramic roof and leather seats, that car is going to fetch a higher price, so why should Motability Operations be the only one to benefit and I think we can acknowledge that they benefit big style to the tune of over One Million a year.
lt is well known that, not all added options fitted to a vehicle will guarantee an increase in value when you come to sell, especially cosmetic ones. Choice of paint does.
Even Motability state “Optional extras are not included with the lease but you can add optional extras if you wish. You will be responsible for the costs of this.”
However in many area’s we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, that in many cases we don’t get the luxury of choosing fully speced top of the range cars.
There is absolutely no additional paper work by any dealer, (or any calculation of milage) as all I am talking about is the final price and what that extra profit was and the only extra work is by Motability giving a percentage back to the customer of excessive profiteering. I am quite sure Motability Operations is able to cope with the very slight extra paperwork, they have the Billions to higher a few extra staff. At the end of the day no one needs to be able to put their finger on why the car made x profit over the book price, they will only need to know it did, as there could be many factors and we know that at present Motability Operations are the only one to financially benefit from it.
It is fallacy to believe Motability will get over the book price, it would simply lower the profit margin of the selling dealer agains’t an equivalent car. Motability may think this is the case and try it on, but its one of the reasons main dealers don’t buy scheme vehicles. The vehicle is then offered to a trader and then an auction if they aren’t interested. it does not need secnd guessing an auction returns the least amount.
We know Motability buy’s its vehicles at a discounted price from the manufacturer and doesn’t pay the VAT element. What we can surmise and I’m not alone here, is we pay the depreciation or part of, based on the low payments we make in comparison to other leasing companies. Motablity after 3yrs then sell the vehical at book price based on what the car would of cost retail. The difference is then what they actually paid for the vehicle, The VAT saved and what we paid of that period, minus any grants. I would imagine that accounts to a tidy sum and I’m one of the first to complain about their profits and pay structure.
But, whilst I agree we should be getting more than the now £250 GCP or whatever they call it now as the £600 was nicer. However are we actually being greedy, after all its an incentive to return our cars in good condition. If the majority returned vehicle in bad condition, I would imagine it would have a negative effect on AP’s. We also get more favourable terms compared to if we leased privately.
What I definately don’t agree with is, the amount of money that goes to charity external to the scheme. I strongly believe, this money should be going back into the scheme in some way. Whether that is to lower AP’s provide us with more choice or even a the possibilty of a new car payment at each renewal, even if linked to how you return your vehicle.
I don’t know mate 🙂
