I’m sure that they would because, as with the last time that they lambasted the scheme, they wouldn’t explain what the purpose of the scheme is or how it works. They would imply (as they did last time) that the cars are ‘free’ with no mention of the £12,000 sacrificed benefits and high advance payments. They also wouldn’t explain that two-thirds of those entitled to join Motability decide that they can do better with their money outside the scheme. Whether we agree with it or not, we live in a country where we have a benefits system that is geared towards those with the lowest (or no) incomes. Disability, however, does not discriminate and those with severe disabilities rightly have certain relief on things like VAT on adaptations and, of course, the VAT free Motability scheme. Many disability related things are already means tested. Because my wife and I both worked hard and saved hard, we have to pay for adaptations in our house that others will have provided free of charge. We are now having to have carers visit when I am not at home and, again, because we have been sensible financially, we have to pay for this in full when others will get it free. I get a Carers allowance – and it’s taxed. Thankfully, the Motability scheme doesn’t discriminate at the point of access but, of course, those with low means can apply for grants when most of us have to pay in full and therefore are effectively subsidising those who receive grants, so in reality there is an element of means testing within the scheme Of course, the Daily Mail wouldn’t explain any of the above because, to do so, it would be a complete ‘non-story’!
This is quite a difficult subject to square off. On one hand there are disabled people fully capable of buying vehicles outright because they have had the good sense or pure good fortune to be in a very comfortable position. On the other hand, these people shouldn’t be forced to be in a position where they have to suffer the consequences of severe depreciation that we all accept new cars come with. If they need or are forced to buy a new, adapted vehicle every 3/4/5 years, then that pot that makes them comfortable will become a rapidly concerning lack of protection for the future.
But the Scheme has always been to get people into a reliable vehicle to enable the worry free freedom and independence they couldn’t have previously enjoyed. So, people capable of buying a new car shouldn’t apply?
I end up in a position of putting myself in the place of a heavily disabled 18 year old. Capable of working, just, in need of an adapted vehicle but capable of driving around. This person can get a specialist driving lesson and pass a limited test, leaving them licensed for a specifically adapted vehicle but able to get around, however that vehicle will cost thousands, tens of thousands. It’s last for no more than 10 years reliably half to 3/4 of that realistically. Then they’ll be able to sell it off for a huge loss and buy another. Except they wont, leasing is the way forward and, because they can work, finding a few thousand for the advanced payment is not unreasonable, without Motability’s help they’d be housebound. I can think of 2 people I know in this sort of position, one can walk, just, but can not control pedals and needs adaptations for his car. From the outside he has a ‘normal’ car and he works in a decent job, by the time he’s in his mid thirties I see no reason for him not to be earning a very decent wage dong a technical job. The other has no use of his legs, so pedals is a no go and he’ll need space for a chair, whether that’s one stored for him or a WAV is his choice. He likes those boxes that sit above the car that can collect his chair and store it safe from the weather and return it at the other end. These he can own and move from vehicle to vehicle. He has a very good job straight from Uni, he’s an economist and works in the City providing forecasts. I’d love to earn a month’s worth of what he gets and he could easily afford to buy something spectacular and adapt in BUT, between the costs of adaptation and depreciation why should he lose significantly more on each vehicle than anyone else?
Due to knowing these two guys rather well, plus the experiences shared here and elsewhere, why should people be forced to lose their own money just because of their level of wealth. Means testing will almost certainly have a cut off point waay below what is realistic, reducing some people to becoming stuck.
If someone can afford a £6-8k Advance Payment every 3 years, good for them. I’m genuinely happy for them (if not a little jealous). If you can’t the scheme needs to have a non premium version suitable for all members. I justified the AP I spent on having the car for 5 years, looks like I got that wrong but such is life.
I'm Autistic, if I say something you find offensive, please let me know, I can guarantee it was unintentional.
I'll try to give my honest opinion but am always open to learning.
Mark