I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but when it ran its campaign re Range Rovers on Motabilty they were quite correct. None of us needs a Range Rover
All about optics isn’t it! the Range Rover was/is known as the footballers posh car so its only natural people go what the heck (a 50 60 70k) car for 15 grand. so it was the right/easiest choice to cull (they don’t see the maths you do and nor should they have to) heck even the Audi R8 was available at one point (according to a dealer source)
Crikey, the UK isn’t the 1970’s Soviet Union (well, not yet anyway).
Who is the arbiter of what is ‘needed’ and what isn’t?
All the DM article back in 2011 did was remove choice from disabled people. You know, the same sort of choice that was fought for and won in the 1970’s not to have to drive around in a blue Invacar.
Prior to the DM article ,if one could afford it, yes one could have a Range Rover on the scheme and good luck to those who could/did.
Because of that article and Motability’s lack of moral fortitude to defend both its position and its customers, the element of choice was removed from customers (imagine the outcry if choice was removed from the general public and they could only have a ‘smallish’ vehicle).
Of course no one needed a Range Rover back then. Just as you could say nowadays that nobody needs a Subaru Outback. There are cheaper vehicles that would suffice. However, if a disabled person can afford it and would like ‘x’ vehicle, they should be given the opportunity to level up the playing field with the able bodied and have one.
As you should know, it makes no negative difference monetarily to the country what people drive on the scheme. Infact, if they choose a ‘gas guzzler’ they are contributing positively to the finances of the country by paying more duty on the extra fuel used.