Joe and others good job DPAC is trying in this contact to Andrew Miller belo
We are appalled at some of the planned restrictions on Motability leases and have written to Andrew Miller the CEO of Motability Operations to ask for clarification.
Dear Mr. Miller,
I am writing to you on behalf of the steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) to seek clarification around some issues and to raise concerns about many of the proposed changes to Motability leases in the future. DPAC is also a member of the Motability Coalition group headed by Transport for All.
Currently we are being inundated with concerns from members and supporters and the levels of fear disabled people are experiencing concerning their loss of independence and ability to get to life saving medical appointments due to the proposed changes is extremely high. I also completely fail to see how some of the Drive Smart red points could work safely in practice.
Many people are rightly concerned that a limit on mileage to 10,000 a year which is 27 miles a day would mean they could not get to medical appointments, keep in touch with family and friends and lead any sort of social life. Particularly for those living in rural locations with no public transport an independent transport lifeline is vital. People with specific disabilities often have to travel to hospitals far away for their treatments and they can’t get the necessary treatments locally.
For those who are able to work, the impact is equally severe. Many disabled people depend on their vehicle to commute, often over longer distances due to limited accessible employment opportunities or transport options. This reduction could force individuals to choose between maintaining employment and staying within mileage limits, effectively pushing some out of work altogether.
The proposed excess mileage charge of 25p per mile further compounds the issue. For those who exceed the reduced limit—which will be unavoidable for many—this could quickly amount to hundreds or even thousands of pounds over the course of a lease. Such costs are simply unaffordable for many disabled people and effectively act as a penalty for living a full and necessary life. It places a price on independence, discouraging people from travelling for work, healthcare, or social connections. Isolation is already a significant issue for many disabled people, and these changes risk deepening that isolation by limiting opportunities to engage with the world beyond the home.
The other issue that has been flagged up about this arbitrary limit is disabled people working in various roles who due to the equipment they need to take with them eg hoist, shower chairs, oxygen, which is unmanageable by air or train, and who have to drive in Europe to get to their work will be prevented from working.
Drive Smart technology is of particular concern to many people too and we really don’t see how many of the things listed as causing red flags would work. Use of a phone when driving – disabled people like non -disabled people use google maps to navigate and also use google to ask questions pertinent to their journeys. Surely this promotes safety not work against it? How would you envisage not allowing that?
Driving after 10pm would also cause a red flag – Some jobs especially in industries like Television/sports often require people to work at late times. As you ask that people work over 12 hours a week outside the home how could you justify penalising them for doing that if they have to work past 10pm (obviously starting later in the day)?
Further how can any disabled person have a social life, go to the theatre, or cinema if their vehicle can’t be driven after 10pm?
Similarly it appears no-one can drive for over an hour without stopping but realistically if you are e.g. in a traffic jam on the M25 or elsewhere you can’t just suddenly pull over and stop safely. So how could that work in practice?
Driving more than 6 journeys in a day is also it appears not allowed although there must be times people need to do so.
An article in Disability News Service states that if you’ve decided one PA shouldn’t drive the disabled person can ‘simply’ have another PA drive for them which totally ignores the difficulty disabled people have recruiting and retaining PAs or the fact that as the employer you may not simply be able to sack someone and employ another person. It suggests a complete lack of understanding about employing care staff.
Added to all of these issues never knowing whether or not you’re going to have your vehicle repossessed by Motability or have your insurance cancelled by them will be enormously and continually stressful for disabled people and likely to exacerbate any existing Mental and Physical Health issues.
w.