I see that “Honestjohn” website is defending Motability more than Motability are doing so. https://tinyurl.com/2u5438hv
One or two car magazines have questioned the sense behind the changes as well.
I’m not surprised that Motability haven’t criticised the changes. They were passive beyond belief when the Richard Littlejohn article appeared some years ago and that was the start of the reduction in choice from (if my memory serves me) 5,500 vehicles to the 800 odd that we have today. When you think that EVs (and all the Chinese brands) didn’t exist back then, the drop is far greater than even the headline figures suggest.
I suspect that they were told that the treasury had seriously considered the removal of the block 20% VAT exemption (which would have rendered the scheme pointless) but, if they didn’t kick off, they’d get away with ‘just’ the removal of premium brands (even though it saves nobody anything) and the VAT on APs and insurance premium tax.
It’s also a stark reminder, if one was needed, that Motability Operations is a commercial business and their priority is generating enough revenue to pay for their gold plated salaries, bonuses and benefits. They don’t need to make a profit to do this, as all of these costs are incurred prior to any profit declaration. The needs of disabled people is purely incidental.