@Woodpecker Just to correct two things.
Firstly, don’t be fooled by the ‘Motability was running at a loss’ line, because it wasn’t. The quoted losses were actuarial adjustments mostly brought about by the revaluation of their assets (the cars) following the market readjustment after the highly inflated residual values that occurred during and immediately post Covid, when new car supply and parts were difficult to obtain. On an ongoing operational basis they remained highly profitable – as evidenced by the fact that all their employees still received bonuses.
Secondly, it is not “immature” to state the fact that the pay and benefits of Motability staff at all levels is excessive. As someone who spent their career in the private sector, I have no issue with people getting well paid and having good benefits, but it has to be in recognition of the market that they operate within and their results. Motability Operations operate in a monopoly situation, which makes their jobs a doddle compared to those who work in a competitive marketplace, yet their pay and remuneration is significantly more than those who work in more competitive environments. This is morally wrong when this is all funded by disabled people, most of whom can only dream of such remuneration. It’s a simple fact that if they paid more in line with the market then APs would be lower.
@fwippers has just summed this point up very well on one of the other threads about these changes, saying – “ I don’t think it’s being contentious asking Motability to look closer to home, their staff pay and benefits package is way higher than the industry average. Opportunity to reduce costs which can be passed on to their customers. When you operate as a monopoly like the BBC, you tend to lose sight of these things.”