I still see the ‘needed’ argument. I have an Ioniq 5 Namsan Edition. I’ve been asked why I needed a top of the range model on the scheme, which I see as a valid question. My answer is a combination of seat comfort and availability. With 2 in the house with spinal issues mine being right at the point most lumbar supports touch, finding a seat I can sit in for over an hour is a real challenge. There were 3 cars that were a possibility 2 of which were just model changes on the I5, the Namsan was available while ordering an Ultimate with tech pack without the heat pump would have been a factory order and with the heat pump was the same price as I ended up paying.
While it’s not right to ask each individual why they ‘need’ each car or specifically expensive models, surely there’s a limit as to what is available? If not as a public justification, there’s a cost for these cars that needs justification. It’s why people on the scheme complain about a BMW at 7/8 grand. Should spending that money every 3 years plus losing the higher rate PIP really be seen as OK for the majority of recipients? I acknowledge that some eligible for PIP are working professionals who would otherwise have a similar car on lease from other sources, those people can afford to and, to some extent should be able to, have a car suitable for their needs and all the other reasons behind purchasing a car. However, this opens another debate around whether there’s justification for providing a disabled wealthy person with the same support as someone barely surviving on benefits alone.
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