[Rich44]

The point isn’t to make a profit tho. Also making the excess mileage 500% higher is inexcusable too.

The point isn’t just these changes the point is they are demanding “we” all feel the pain yet there’s ZERO evidence of wage constraints at MB. Andrew Miller is on £924,000 plus bonuses that’s not far off 9 times the Prime Minister’s salary FFS. Add on the rest of the board then some of the other wages are well above average too. We have to tighten our belts, they should lead by example, no?

As I said before setting that mileage at 25p is not a cost that’s deliberately punitive.

Also this new mileage business under extremely limited situations. Do that means having to go to them explaining every last trip why it was necessary all to an unqualified phone person and I’m bloody fed up with it. I just had to do an 12 page form plus a 4 page application plus all my medical records to the council for a blue badge (no it can’t be passported via pip long story) same to the DWP usually followed by dealing with a physiotherapist doing an assessment, as well as being told I’m not disabled enough by Nimbus despite everything so have to argue with them despite having 3 previous renewals.

I’m sick to death of these places demanding every last piece of personal information I’d like some privacy and dignity and not have to go crawling off like some kind of old ugly disabled Oliver Twist “Please sir can I have some more miles”

Let’s not forget pip also went up by a healthy amount this month multiply that by 838,000 it’s a fair increase.

[Jason23]

Joe wrote:

I received another response from motability I have reviewed the additional questions you have raised. I understand why you want more detail, particularly where these changes affect something as important as your mobility and independence. As set out in my previous correspondence, the changes apply to new vehicle orders placed on or after 1 July 2026. Existing leases are not changing right now. You asked about the figures referenced in Andrew Miller’s published letter, including the estimate of around £300 million a year in additional Scheme costs and the statement that, without changes, lease costs could increase by around £1,100 on average over three years. These figures relate to the overall additional cost of delivering the Scheme and the average impact across renewing leases. They are not intended to be a simple per-customer division of the full Scheme population. The £300 million per year figure reflects the estimated increase in Scheme costs arising from the Government’s tax changes and associated pressures on renewing leases. The £1,100 figure is an average estimate of the cost impact over a three-year lease if no package changes had been made. We have therefore changed parts of the lease package to offset much of that impact and limit the average increase to around £400 over three years. You also asked about increases to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and whether this changes our position. In relation to increases in the mobility allowance over the course of a lease, these are factored into the pricing of the agreement when the lease is taken out. This means that any increases to the mobility component during a three-year lease are already reflected in the lease pricing for a vehicle on the Scheme, and do not change our position on the changes already announced. In relation to whether these changes would be reversed if Government tax policy changed in future, we keep the Scheme under review on an ongoing basis. However, I cannot speculate on future Government decisions or any future Scheme decisions beyond the changes already announced. You asked about customer engagement and whether hearing from more than 100,000 customers is a fair reflection of customer need. We have engaged with customers through surveys, interviews and focus groups over a period of months to understand how the Scheme package can evolve in response to cost and tax changes. With a customer base of more than 890,000, we cannot contact every customer each time, but the engagement was intended to gather a broad range of views and perspectives. I appreciate that you were not contacted directly and that this is a point of frustration for you. In relation to CEO pay, as previously outlined, CEO’s pay is set by an independent committee and reflects the experience needed to run a large, complex organisation such as Motability Operations. I am not able to provide further commentary on individual remuneration decisions, the committee’s internal processes, or comparative personal salary assessments. You also asked what duties justify that level of pay and what evidence supports the increase you referenced. I appreciate you have strong views on this topic. However, my role is to respond to the Scheme changes and how they apply in practice for customers. I am therefore not able to add anything further beyond the position set out above. For the reasons already explained in my earlier responses, our position remains unchanged. We have already provided our final response on this matter. We may not respond to any further correspondence about it.

 

Basically @Joe, bugger off and stop asking questions as we are not giving you any more answers.

[Joe]

I received another response from motability

I have reviewed the additional questions you have raised. I understand why you want more detail, particularly where these changes affect something as important as your mobility and independence.

 

 

 

As set out in my previous correspondence, the changes apply to new vehicle orders placed on or after 1 July 2026. Existing leases are not changing right now.

 

 

 

You asked about the figures referenced in Andrew Miller’s published letter, including the estimate of around £300 million a year in additional Scheme costs and the statement that, without changes, lease costs could increase by around £1,100 on average over three years.

 

 

 

These figures relate to the overall additional cost of delivering the Scheme and the average impact across renewing leases. They are not intended to be a simple per-customer division of the full Scheme population. The £300 million per year figure reflects the estimated increase in Scheme costs arising from the Government’s tax changes and associated pressures on renewing leases. The £1,100 figure is an average estimate of the cost impact over a three-year lease if no package changes had been made. We have therefore changed parts of the lease package to offset much of that impact and limit the average increase to around £400 over three years.

 

 

 

You also asked about increases to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and whether this changes our position. In relation to increases in the mobility allowance over the course of a lease, these are factored into the pricing of the agreement when the lease is taken out. This means that any increases to the mobility component during a three-year lease are already reflected in the lease pricing for a vehicle on the Scheme, and do not change our position on the changes already announced.

 

 

 

In relation to whether these changes would be reversed if Government tax policy changed in future, we keep the Scheme under review on an ongoing basis. However, I cannot speculate on future Government decisions or any future Scheme decisions beyond the changes already announced.

 

 

 

You asked about customer engagement and whether hearing from more than 100,000 customers is a fair reflection of customer need. We have engaged with customers through surveys, interviews and focus groups over a period of months to understand how the Scheme package can evolve in response to cost and tax changes. With a customer base of more than 890,000, we cannot contact every customer each time, but the engagement was intended to gather a broad range of views and perspectives. I appreciate that you were not contacted directly and that this is a point of frustration for you.

 

 

 

In relation to CEO pay, as previously outlined, CEO’s pay is set by an independent committee and reflects the experience needed to run a large, complex organisation such as Motability Operations. I am not able to provide further commentary on individual remuneration decisions, the committee’s internal processes, or comparative personal salary assessments.

 

 

 

You also asked what duties justify that level of pay and what evidence supports the increase you referenced. I appreciate you have strong views on this topic. However, my role is to respond to the Scheme changes and how they apply in practice for customers. I am therefore not able to add anything further beyond the position set out above.

 

 

 

For the reasons already explained in my earlier responses, our position remains unchanged. We have already provided our final response on this matter. We may not respond to any further correspondence about it.

[markp1]

I managed to get an email through to Andrew Miller registering my anger and dismay at the mileage changes and have had a reply which I’ll put here. I know it’s not much but if those who are angered by this email Miller and their MP we might at least raise wider awareness of these changes to the scheme and the effect they’ll have.

 

I do wonder if there has been any impact assessments done, I highly doubt it and if not if Motability are forced into doing them it may show that the impact falls foul of discrimination laws but I don’t know enough about them to be sure but I thought all changes to schemes like this have to have impact assessments done?

Anyway, this was Millers reply and I’ve already has further contact from Sam Hulance a Senior Customer Solutions Account Manager!

 

Dear Mr. Miller,

 

I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the changes announced for new Motability leases starting from 1 July 2026. Specifically, I am challenging the decision to:

 

Reduce the annual mileage allowance and increase the excess mileage charge by 500%.

 

Increasing the excess mileage charge from 5p to 25p per mile which let’s face it is extortionate and bears no comparison to mileage charged by dealers on private PCP’s. It’s almost as though someone shut their eyes and just plucked a figure out of thin air and said “this one”!

 

Increasing the excess mileage charge by 500% (from 5p to 25p) creates a significant financial barrier that penalises those whose disabilities require more frequent travel. The Motability Scheme was founded to provide “worry-free” mobility; these changes instead create financial anxiety and potentially “trap” disabled people in their homes to avoid punitive costs.

 

As a disabled person who relies on the Motability Scheme for essential independence, these changes represent a severe restriction on my freedom of movement. For many users, 10,000 miles a year is insufficient to cover regular medical appointments, social care needs, and daily life—especially for those living in rural areas (which I do) with limited public transport. In fact in my last car on the scheme I clocked up just over 50,000 miles and in my current car, which has just under 4 months to run currently has 42,614 and will probably top 47000 by the time I reach July 20th producing the ball clenching figures of £5000 for my first lease and £4250 for this one. That is totally unsustainable for me and I suspect many others. I am out of work and rely on benefits so just running a car and finding an AP is difficult enough, even more so with the Trump/Netanyahu war in Iran and the wider Middle East forcing up prices of just about everything but particularly fuel.

 

I am lucky in that I can order my next car before the cataclysmic changes are enforced on 1st July and I’m grateful for that stroke of luck. However I still have to find an AP and have been forced to sell my deceased parents jewellery, which I wanted to pass onto my kids, in order to get £1000 to at least give me the chance of finding something I might actually want to drive for 3 years assuming AP’s don’t continue to climb at alarming rates, something that’s happened on your watch. However unless these decisions are reconsidered and reduced in severity if I continue to do well over the punitive 27 miles per day I would be allowed under these new rules this will be my 3rd and final car on the scheme and I am not the only one saying this.

 

I have to say I wonder where you get your assertion that “on average scheme members only drive 7500 miles a year”. Really? Did you put out a questionnaire and only used  those who said they do low mileage as I’m on a forum where the vast majority are doing many more than that. Do you realise that your 10,000 mile a year limit equates to just 27 miles per day. For those of us living in a rural area with poor and often inaccessible public transport that’s an impossible number to keep to. To have slashed the 20,000 per year limit by 50% is reckless and far from supporting us as you claim it will force disabled people from the scheme forever. I suspect the last thing you or the motor industry needs is a mass exodus from the scheme.

 

I also note that whilst taking this wrecking ball to the scheme you yourself do not seem to have taken any of the hit. In fact the opposite as a quick google search shows you earned a 23.5% pay increase in 2025, bringing your total remuneration to £924,000. This package includes a £501,000 base salary, a £300,000 bonus, and benefits like a £21,000 car allowance. How can this be justified especially that bonus, a bonus for what exactly; royally shafting disabled people?

 

When The Mail and The Telegraph started spouting about “benefit scroungers driving free luxury cars” what did Motability do? Did you put them right, try to reclaim the narrative and put facts out there..no, you did absolutely nothing to dispel the lies being peddled. When this narrative was parroted by Reform and the Tories did you pipe up then? Nope, again silence while the public were duped into believing the lies as fact. Then when the chancellor banged on about free luxury cars, repeating those lies what did you do? You meekly removed perceived luxury brands to appease these people.

 

Then when she carried on picking on us and the scheme by the imposition of VAT on AP’s and then insurance tax what did the highly paid CEO of motability do? Did he say that’s enough, did he push back, did he rally the motor industry for whom motability customers make up 20% of all cars sold in this country to petition against it? Seemingly no, what he did was pocket his inflated, unjustified salary and meekly did as he was told and took a wrecking ball to the scheme. I wonder if Neville Chamberlain is a hero to you and if appeasement of the jealous and ill informed is what you will want to remembered for.

 

So I implore you and your board to reconvene today and review your flawed/made up data (delete as appropriate) and go for a mileage allowance of 15000 which is much more realistic and to also reduce the punitive 25p per mile excess to something more reasonable. Then you should resign and admit you have failed the very people who rely on Motability.

 

I request a formal response outlining how Motability Operations plans to support users who inherently require more than 10,000 miles per year due to their specific disability needs if you refuse to review what is clearly flawed planning.

 

Please note I have copied this in to my MP in the hope this can be raised in parliament.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mark Pithers

Andrew Miller’s email address is andrewmiller@mo.co.uk

 

sorry everyone thats my email to him here is his reply:-

Dear Mark,

 

Thank you for getting in touch to share your concerns regarding the recent changes to the Motability Scheme, particularly the reduction in mileage allowance, increase in excess mileage charges, and the impact this may have on your ability to continue with the Scheme. I am sorry to hear of your disappointment and understand why these changes will be concerning for many customers.

 

As outlined in our recent announcement, the changes are in response to increased costs following Government tax changes. We have taken careful steps to manage these costs and reduce the impact on customers, while ensuring the Scheme remains affordable and sustainable for the long term. Our priority remains to protect what matters most to customers and to continue offering an all-inclusive package that provides confidence and peace of mind.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and your MP.  I can assure you that these changes have not been made lightly by me or my team. I will pass your email to our solutions team, who will review your comment and provide a response. They will be in touch within 24 hours and will keep me updated.

 

Andrew

Andrew Miller

Chief Executive

 

Motability Operations

6th Floor, 22 Bishopsgate

London, EC2N 4BQ

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by markp1.

[Glasgow_lad]

Did they even consult anyone on the scheme for feedback to try tailor these proposals

Currently I have a 5008 3.5k ap and has done 14k miles in a year their expecting me to pay for 4k miles extra which tbh I could argue are in relation to court orders to allow me to see my children (shouldn’t even have to do this) but no gaurentee of exceptional circumstances

 

Yes whilst we can mostly agree the scheme has went under the radar with abuse or whatever the recent press and media campaign has pushed this agenda that folk with bare minimum illnesses get cars which is bs

 

Even if lets say someone who has a sore toe and is anxious they’ll bump into an ex (not getting at anyone who suffers anything just making a point)

Their not getting a car because of that

 

Their getting or allowed the car because their assessment backed up with medical evidence

 

Or they were as we know able to work the pip assessment

I think its the narrative of you can get a car for the silliest of things which is farther from the truth pip declined me numerous times even with evidence it was only when adp came in I finally was looked at for the disabilities I have

 

I honestly feel the domino effect internally on the scheme and externally with thr 2nd hand market are going to be insane once this is felt in a few years time

 

And even for those who remove themselves from the scheme but cannot get a decent finance deal due to credit ratings this is honeslty excessive af

Dreading this as I think my cars going to be a economical loss in the next few weeks for a rear end shunt because of repairer vs dealership stalemate and culminating costs

If it were me id be fighting the gov back were we could

 

Argue against the vat increases or negotiate it as low as possible

15k-16k is more a fairer example i dont beleive the 7k mileage sh** at all

Tires are probably fair but its so easy to get screws in your tires on the uk roads but perhaps this needs clarification further discounted hits for further tires passed the required allowance

Eu doesnt affect me so cannot fairly comment there

The labour goverment are fu***** this country over irregardless of what they inherited they’ve targeted the wrong folk and im not even going to get into the political side of things on were other money is spent or going to which could address this or other issues in the uk

 

But the last part confuses me the adp side of things

Are they saying us in scotland currently may be exempt at this time past July

I know the recent benefit changes from the dip have this effect with scotland for some reason I.e lower lcwra amounts

They dont tell you this but scotland is exempt with that lower lcwra amount changes for the time being (honestly thinking it’s all being transferred to a scottish dwp ss system)

[H.K_R]

I’ve had mine for two weeks now. It’s terrible and I hate it.
Unlike any other insurance telematics system, including Direct Line’s own system, it requires constant location access to every driver’s phones at all times.
This means that you can be tracked by IMS which is an unsavoury North American fleet tracking company whenever you so please. The data can also be accessed by whoever IMS feel would pay the most for your data. I would also think that IMS wouldn’t hesitate to go straight to PIP if you did anything outside of your assessment.

It also has a microphone on the facia, which isn’t explained, and can record the interior sound at all times too but they don’t mention that.

The app is incredibly shonky, and is a simple and poor reskin on the IMS One app. All the things in the app immediately redirect you to the Motability website.

It never connects to your phone, especially if you’ve got wireless Apple CarPlay or Android Auto running in the car. It also eats through your mobile data and only works on the 4G network meaning that if you’ve only got a small data plan on your phone, it costs you extra to use. It also drains your battery on your phone thanks to the constant tracking element.
Speaking of Apple CarPlay or Android Auto or even Bluetooth, you get penalised for using your phone on the car’s infotainment system, even if you’re not actually using your phone.

Mine has only succeeded in recording a journey once which was the day after I fitted it to the windscreen in which I was heavily penalised for gently braking to give way to an oncoming car. I’ve not had a journey record since and I’ve done nearly 800 miles across various areas and journey lengths.

I’m now getting constant texts from Motability demanding that switch on the location tracking at all times otherwise my lease will be at risk. Even through when I’m in the car, the location tracking is switched on.

It was reported by someone that it’s impossible to get the rewards that they advertise because it’s so sensitive to anything, and you can certainly kiss goodbye the piss-poor gift cards if you drive at night too.

Oh and if you plan on not using your car for 14 days or more, you must report this to Motability and explain exactly why you’re not using your car, otherwise you’ll be at risk of losing your car.

It’s a simple way of single handedly making all drivers under 30 disgruntled to the point where they hope they’ll leave the scheme in order to save a few quid on insurance.
They do state that they will install a normal old fashioned black box to your car if you don’t use Drive Smart. I highly recommend that you play this token because then you won’t be getting text messages telling you how to drive at all times. Including whilst you’re meant to be asleep which is nice. It also won’t track you 24/7.

I highly doubt that they’ll make an exception because it’s now written into your lease, meaning that it’s compulsory regardless.

I wish you and your uncle the best of luck and I would highly recommend that you bail out of the scheme as soon as possible if you can afford it. Especially with the upcoming changes which I suspect will be included in the slightly illegal “You’ve signed your contract with a silly electric PIN number saying we can change anything without notifying you” lease.

[jojo22]

Answers to some above Q that have been asked

Text from DWP gives no indication of award and asks that you do not ring them before you get the letter

I was not contacted via phone before they decided so I assume I gave them enough info to make a decision

Please note this is not advice but simply informing you how I filled out the light touch review form

I treated light touch review form in explanation pretty much the same as I did in my original appication 10yrs ago

I remembered that lack of detail could allow misinterpretation

Although there is no change from my original award

I thought it best practise to not simply say no change but instead expand/explain answers in more detail for ex about how my disability impacts daily life and why certain tasks cannot be done or if done how it impacts

I also answered every time and when/where applicable

Unable to do something “Repeatedly”/”safely/ reasonable time period”

PIP (Personal Independence Payment) assessments, a person must be able to complete activities “safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and in a reasonable time period” to be considered capable. “Repeatedly” means as often as reasonably required, while “reasonable time” is defined as no more than twice as long as a person without a disability.

I also ran out of room in the boxes  so I attached an A4 of explanations headed (additional information attached (staple to form) to support my claim)/Name/NI/date/ then signed it/belt n braces tracked/recorded delivery ( If needed extra supporting evidence can be sent in afterwards but note the PO number for extra info is slightly different to the main review forms return address) Google is your friend

Also my understanding is that an ongoing award was originally given as no change was expected

Also from memory a reported change in condition if declared may well result in the whole award being looked at again and not just the changes declared

Some people refer to indefinite awards but like ongoing awards (mine) all benefits are/can be open to further review anytime DWP wants to review.

As before seek proper advice this is only based on my preferred way of doing things having been through and won at tribunal

I confidently kept in mind that an ongoing PIP award is the strongest award

Fill in the short review form correctly attach more info if there is not enough space to give a full answer/explanation and the DWP would have to have very good reasons not to renew the award

Hope this helps

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by jojo22. Reason: spelling

[joss]

@Falcon1  Here is all the current info you need should you have to return your car early because of PIP re assessment.    https://www.motability.co.uk/get-support/if-things-change/allowance-ends

Your support package  https://www.motability.co.uk/how-it-works/allowances/support-package

I hope this helps you Falcon1

Good luck with your review.

 

Joss
Current car: BMW X2 sDrive 20i M Sport 5dr Step Auto In metallic Portimão Blue. 04:10:2025
Previous car:Peugeot 308 GT Premium 1.2 Pure tech Petrol.

[kezo]

I came across this in Disability Rights news, published on 8th December:

In the November 2025 Budget, the Chancellor announced that there would be changes to the Motability Scheme, in particular removing the VAT exemption for advanced payments for certain vehicles. This has caused concern for Motability users.
The Motability Scheme  enables Disabled people, who receive the higher rate mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), to use the mobility component of PIP, to lease a vehicle so they can get around safely and independently.

860,000 PIP recipients currently have a Motability vehicle and it is important that they understand how the Scheme is going to change and whether the change will affect them, the Motability Foundation has put together the following Questions & Answers, to clarify the changes to the Scheme.

Question: What changes to the Motability Scheme were announced at the Autumn Budget?
Answer: At the Autumn Budget, the Government confirmed that Value Added Tax (VAT) will apply to Advance Payments and Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) will apply to Scheme leases. These changes will take effect from July 2026. The Government have confirmed that VAT will not be added to wheelchair accessible vehicles.

These tax changes will mean the overall cost of providing the Scheme will become more expensive but will remain sustainable with a choice of affordable vehicles for those who use it. The Motability Scheme will seek to make changes to the leasing package so that these additional costs can be absorbed where possible.

Question: How will these tax changes affect lease costs for disabled people?
Answer: The average Advance Payment is expected to rise by around £400 across a three-year lease. The Scheme will continue to offer 40–50 vehicles with no Advance Payment, meaning there will be no up-front costs to pay in addition to weekly leasing costs.

Has the Budget changed eligibility for the Motability Scheme?
Answer: No, eligibility for the Motability Scheme has not changed.  Eligibility will continue to be determined by Government, and there are no confirmed changes to this at this time.

Question: Are current customers affected?
Answer: Current leases will not be affected by any changes. If someone chooses to lease another vehicle at the end of their current lease, then they would be affected by any changes.

Question: Will the Scheme remain affordable for disabled people?
Answer: Yes. Motability Foundation and Motability Operations will work to ensure that the Scheme remains as affordable as possible, including:

Offer around 40–50 vehicles with no Advance Payment
Maintaining availability of a wide range of suitable and good-value vehicles
Providing subsidies and grants for WAVs and essential adaptations
Question: Will lease payments exceed qualifying benefit allowance amounts, such as the PIP higher rate mobility component, following these changes?
Answer: The Scheme is designed so that many customers can meet their weekly lease costs using their mobility allowance alone.

Motability Operations and the Motability Foundation are committed to maintaining this principle. The continued availability of 40–50 vehicles with no Advance Payment means customers choosing these vehicles will not be required to pay additional upfront or ongoing costs beyond their weekly mobility allowance.

Should customers choose to lease vehicles that cost more than the sum of their allowance over the life of the agreement, they pay an Advance Payment. Advance Payments will increase as a result of the extra tax imposed on the Scheme, however, the weekly leasing cost will continue to be the weekly higher rate mobility allowance. As the Scheme evolves and we fully understand the impacts changes may have on disabled people, the Motability Foundation will also need to consider how its grant programmes best support those most in need.

Motability Foundation will continue to provide grants to support people with the most profound needs to access the Scheme.

Question: How will the Motability Scheme continue to support customers?
Answer: While some change is necessary to ensure future longevity, the Motability Scheme remains committed to its core purpose – providing mobility to disabled people, many of whom have no choice but to use private transport because of inaccessible public transport and infrastructure across the UK. The Motability Scheme commits to:

No changes for customers in current leases. Changes to the Scheme would relate to new leases.
Continuing to provide a range of around 40 to 50 vehicles available to lease with no Advance Payment
Motability Foundation and Motability Operations will continue to subsidise and provide grant funding for the ongoing provision of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles, while also funding adaptations to support over 82,000 customers with essential mobility solutions.
Motability Foundation will continue to provide grants to support people with the most profound needs to access the Scheme, having awarded £59.3 million in 2024/25 to help over 10,000 customers benefit from essential mobility solutions.

Question: Will the cost of new leases for vehicles with no Advance Payment increase? If so, by how much?
Answer: Offering vehicles with no Advance Payment will remain an ongoing commitment of the Scheme, with 40–50 such vehicles available even after the tax changes.

Therefore, while the lease cost of a vehicle itself may increase as a result of tax changes, customers will still be able to cover the weekly lease cost using their mobility allowance, as they do today.

Question: Will the cost of new leases for vehicles substantially and permanently adapted for wheelchair or stretcher users increase, and if so, by how much?
Answer: The Budget confirmed that tax changes will not apply to vehicles designed for, or substantially and permanently adapted for, wheelchair or stretcher users. In addition to this, the Motability Foundation remain committed to:

Continuing to subsidise and grant-fund wheelchair accessible vehicles
Supporting the cost of adaptations
Keeping these vehicles as affordable as possible
Question: What changes have been made to premium brand vehicles?
Answer: Premium brand vehicles were removed from the Scheme by Motability Operations on 24 November 2025. The Scheme will focus on providing vehicles that:

meet disabled people’s needs • represent value and purposesupport long-term affordability
New vehicle models are reviewed by the Motability Foundation’s independent Scheme Oversight Committee.

An overview of the full, up-to-date range of vehicles available on the Scheme can be found here.

Question: What other changes are being considered to manage costs?
Answer: To minimise price rises caused by new taxes, Motability is considering adjustments to:

mileage allowances
overseas breakdown cover
telematics use for insurance purposes
other included services
Proposed changes to the leasing package will undergo disability impact assessment by the Motability Foundation before any changes are approved, announced and implemented.

Question: When will detailed changes be communicated to customers?
Answer: Motability Operations, which runs the Scheme, will begin engaging with customers about the proposed changes in spring 2026. Proposed changes to the leasing package will undergo disability impact assessment by the Motability Foundation, which oversees the Scheme, before any changes are approved, announced and implemented.

Question: Where can Scheme customers find additional communications on Scheme changes?
Answer: Further detail of changes relevant for Motability Scheme customers can be found here – Your questions answered about the Motability Scheme changes.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/motability-answers-concerns-over-governments-plans-scheme

 

[kezo]

peterbosher56 wrote:

Agree, we have a car for our son and take him too and from college every day racking up 300+ miles a week. We are very strict about the use being for him and we have another car for all our other jobs. However, I do travel home without him in the car and may deviate by one mile to pick up some shopping. This isn’t an abuse as far as I can see but maybe some will disagree. It is a shame , much like the abuses of the Blue Badge scheme that some will take the micky and tarnish genuine recipients of help. Skoda Enyaq

Same here, we have a car for our daughter and have taken her to and from school ever since she lost school transport, which amounts to around 400 miles per month and the council pay for petrol. Due to her profound learning disabilties and severe behaviour challenges, she isn’t suitable for the big shops and would have a melt down or drop to the floor and wont budge, so we go the shops etc, whils’t she is in school or a GP appointment for me, as this is all to her benefit, that she has food and a healthy(ish) dad to look after her.  I visit my family in england once month sometimes by myself and sometimes with my daughter, either way its deemed to be to her benefit, as I/we often comeback with shoes & clothes (too many😂). 7/10 I make this journey in my own private car, simply because its more peaceful than the bing bonging heap of crap I have on the scheme!

My daughter will soon be going through the PIP procedure and if everything goes as expected, I shall be upgrading my own car (not that its old) and handing back the Motability car. I fear the scheme is going to get progressively worse over time and lifes hard enough without the DWP saying you mistreated the scheme and your face gleefully all over the daily fail’s or do I want a tracker on vehicle at nearly 60 years of age!

To minimise price rises caused by new taxes, Motability is considering adjustments to:

mileage allowances
overseas breakdown cover
telematics use for insurance purposes
other included services
Proposed changes to the leasing package will undergo disability impact assessment by the Motability Foundation before any changes are approved, announced and implemented.

[Phaedra]

Had a Skoda Yeti on a 3yr lease when my PIP assessment went pear shaped, took almost 2 years to sort it out and get the correct awards reinstated. 🙁

If I remember correctly it was under £200 a month, excellent value and an excellent car.  I’d certainly have one of those again but not so sure about the current Enyaq,

Please excuse spelling/typos. Apart from being a clot it turns out I had one on my cerebellum that's now causing various problems!

[kezo]

Debate already made the Daily Mirror!

The Department for Work and Pensions has provided an update on alterations to the Motability service following heavy criticism. This week the Conservatives vowed to prevent people with mental health conditions from accessing a programme intended to assist disabled benefit recipients in obtaining vehicles through the welfare system.

During yesterday’s House of Commons session, Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions) Sir Stephen Timms revealed that certain ‘tax reliefs’ would be scrapped next July. The government has chosen to prohibit luxury marques such as BMW and Mercedes from being utilised.

The Government has confirmed that VAT will be applied to Advance Payments and Insurance Premium Tax will be imposed on Scheme leases, coming into force from July 2026.

Motability has stated that the modification will boost the expense of a lease on the Scheme, with the organisation expecting ‘the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400 over the three-year package’.

When questioned by Labour’s Shaun Davies about measures being taken to enhance the scheme, Sir Stephen responded: “Changes announced at the Budget will improve value for money for taxpayers while ensuring that the Motability scheme continues to provide outstanding support for disabled people.”

Mr Davies emphasised the importance of the scheme, stating: “The Motability scheme stems from the vital principle that people with disabilities should be able to live a dignified and independent life. I have heard from several constituents about how accessible cars can help them into work and healthcare, which I welcome, but I have also heard from a number of others about those with questionable conditions being provided with cars that, quite simply, the average working family could not afford.”

In response, Sir Stephen said: “I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I would be happy to meet him. Motability is an important scheme that does an important job. Some tax reliefs will be removed in July. Existing leases will not be affected, and neither will wheelchair-adapted vehicles. There will still be vehicles, with no up-front payment, that are affordable solely through the mobility component of personal independence payment, so the scheme will continue to do a great job but will give better value for money for taxpayers.”

 Helen Whately, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, stated this week that the programme, designed to assist people with severe disabilities, cost £3bn last year and claimed it is now being accessed far more widely, including for conditions such as tennis elbow, acne and ADHD.

She stated: “So we’re saying something like Motability should be go back to what it is intended for helping people with severe disabilities, not for instance, whether it’s tennis elbow, acne or, as I just said, ADHD as reasons for getting a free motability car funded by the taxpayer, and I should say, and this is one of the things that’s become so unfair about our benefits system.”

In yesterday’s Commons debate, Liberal Democrat John Milne challenged: “The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that ‘millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.’ That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants-at most-would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?”.

To which Sir Stephen responded: “Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.

“So we’re saying something like Motability should be go back to what it is intended for helping people with severe disabilities, not for instance, whether it’s tennis elbow, acne or, as I just said, ADHD as reasons for getting a free motability car funded by the taxpayer, and I should say, and this is one of the things that’s become so unfair about our benefits system.”

“The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that ‘millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.’ That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants-at most-would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?”.

“Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.”

Paulette Hamilton emphasised the significance of the scheme, stating: “A constituent of mine with severe health needs recently told me that she gained employment only after she was able to learn to drive and then secure a car through the Motability scheme. Can the Minister set out what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that disabled people with health needs receive the support they need to gain access to work and to take part fully in the things they enjoy?”.

In response, Sir Stephen said: “There is a great deal of work to be done: the disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. We have talked already today about Motability, which is key for enabling many disabled people to get to work. After the changes next July, there will still be a wide range of vehicles available in exchange solely for mobility benefit. Access to Work is also extremely important. We consulted earlier in the year through our Green Paper on reform to Access to Work, so that we can help and support more people, and we will be bringing forward proposals along those lines in the new year.”

Regarding the changes in the November budget, Motability commented: “The tax changes will increase the cost of a lease on the Scheme and we anticipate the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400 over the three-year package. We will continue to provide a range of around 40 to 50 vehicles available to lease with no upfront payment.

“Changes to the Scheme’s package are expected to be introduced from July 2026. Motability Operations, which runs the Scheme, will begin engaging with customers about the proposed changes in spring 2026. Proposed changes to the leasing package will undergo disability impact assessment by the Motability Foundation, which oversees the Scheme, before any changes are approved, announced and implemented. As the Scheme evolves and we fully understand the impacts changes may have on disabled people, the Foundation will also need to consider how its grant programmes best support those most in need.”

[kezo]

MFillingham wrote:

Having had its success with a partial introduction of VAT on Motability vehicles, GB News is already announcing through its Facebook account, Reeves is working on removing all VAT exemptions from Motability vehicles. I feel if there’s no end to the scheme in the near future, then after the next election both the scheme and PIP as we know it are pretty much doomed.

From my POV, the scheme will have to change and through these changes its main customer base will decline and eventually be there to serve WAV customers, as its main purpose ( will remain zero-rated for VAT and exempt from Insurance Premium Tax (IPT).

Those that don’t need or can get around not having WAV, were already getting disgruntled at high AP’s and whispers were being heard about more a more wanting to leave the scheme. The additional cost to charge VAT on AP, which could easily add another £1000 or more on to a vehicle with ever increasing AP’s, is going to make users think twice about the value of staying on the scheme, compared to buying a vehicle of their own and in some cases using the sacrified benefit to run it, with the hope half of that can be saved, to get a better vehgicle in three years time, with a deposit, which would otherwise have been an AP. Of course, there are people on the scheme, who can just go and buy a new car, but no matter where you sit financially talk is getting is only getting louder on leaving.

In the same breath Motability’s “worry free motoring” slogan, is starting to unpick faster than a MG 7 year warranty. Then, theres the untold effects to both the new and used car market, which is a topic for another day.

I guess, what suprises the most is a media briefing by MO, is it recognises that any rise in the cost of a lease could have a significant impact on disabled people’s independence and daily life.

Who have suggested to minimise price increases for customers taking out a new lease, the Scheme is considering a range of other changes across the leasing package including mileage, overseas breakdown cover, increased use of telematics for insurance purposes and other services. These proposed changes will only be confirmed once a full assessment of their impact on disabled people has been completed. 

As a result of the tax changes, the organisation anticipates the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400????. The Scheme will continue to provide a range of around 40 to 50 vehicles available to lease with no upfront payment and these vehicles will be exempt from the new VAT rules.

https://news.mo.co.uk/news/vat-and-the-scheme

 

[jojo22]

I wish to add a little one off rant for what it is worth

I feel I may as well tag it onto this thread as good as any other

Future VAT to oneside

This is only imo and it is mainly based on my own gathering together of and it is my own interpretation based in part on a series of deliberate and timely released snippets of DWP age old water testing past/present press releases

This is a small stage/mobility cars/ on the scale of things to come this is imo nothing

its water testing/setting the scene in readiness

I strongly suspect on the scale of things this is just the start of bigger things to come

This .Gov Motorbility interference imo as we all know is nothing to do with saving money for the public purse it is simply a imo first stage Blair backed think tanks spring board tactic aimed to win over any gullible Joe public

Its a imo an age old prep tactic in tandem with certain press so that ( yet again) the public are brought onside before revealing the imo already determined spring Timms report and the HUGE cuts it imo will bring

The clowns expect to be taken seriously even though you have the chancellor of the exchequer in one breath Dissing and ignoring the OBR future predictions whilst at the same time having Timms gearing up his report so that it meets the OBR future predictions ( So cuts)

imo the already determined Autumn 2026 timms stitch up will imo not only be looking to tighten the actual PIP eligibility criteria but there also may well be imo a tighter award criteria for the higher rate of the mobility component and also the daily living component,

I also suspect that in conjunction the add on benefits of having the daily living component will be put under the spot light

They will imo (This is their actual remit/goal imo ) also be looking at cutting the monthly PIP Daily Living payment amount

As always time will tell but what we do know right now is that any future changes may very well affect those who have already won their awards

3/3 {The Review will consider how recommendations might be applied to
reassessments for people already claiming PIP to ensure it is fair and fit for
both new and existing claimants. }

The review’s terms of reference were updated on October 30

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/690215c7918e1f940b3cf7f6/timms-review-of-pip-terms-of-reference.pdf

They are coming back for a second bite at the apple having failed the first time and now that all their MPs have since had a N0 10 one to one breakfast invite and a talking to imo

When you take into account their pretence at past engagment and how that attempt failed/was foiled

Recent changes to the Terms of reference

Gag clauses for the selected review participants

Big Pharma MP backers looking to be repaid

What could go wrong?

Rant over and remember its just imo

 

 

 

 

 

[Glos Guy]

Callmejohn wrote:

GlosGuy As you would not be paying PIP Mobility to Motability, just watch the council do not count her pip mobility component as income or savings towards her care package charges.

Thankfully, they disregard the Mobility component of PIP when it comes to income, even if you take it as cash and don’t have a Motability car. That was very clear in all the guidance notes, and the financial assessment result that we had back confirmed it. We were also surprised that they disregarded a proportion of the daily living component as well, as that hadn’t been mentioned. I haven’t checked the maths, but suspect it’s the extra amount for the higher level award that they disregard. Thankfully, they also allowed all of the countless disability related expenses that I articulated, so much so that in total they offset the private pension income that my wife has above the minimum income guarantee. It took me half a day to complete the financial assessment thoroughly, along with several phone calls with the person at the council who was assessing it, and we got a great result that my wife was delighted with!

[Glos Guy]

Many thanks. I had originally assumed that the car would need to be bought in my wife’s name, but judging by the questions in the guidance this didn’t seem to be a given, hence my question. I wonder if they would accept eligibility if the car was registered in my wife’s name but purchased with my money?

This poses another question, although I think I know the answer. We have intentionally kept all my savings in my sole name, which has paid off as my wife has just had a financial assessment for care costs for the first time, and they only take into account savings in her sole name, or jointly (which we don’t have), so all my savings weren’t taken into consideration. If we bought an expensive car in her name, that’s a major asset, but the assessment only takes into account income (her private pension plus some of the daily living component of PIP – she doesn’t have a state pension yet) and savings & investments. There were no questions on possessions or cars, and because I would have paid for the car out of my money (not hers) it couldn’t count as a ‘deprivation of assets’ (where people buy something expensive, or give money away, in order to reduce their savings to meet the care costs threshold).

Rather than spend hours on hold to HMRC, I might go to the dealership and speak to someone who deals with these exemptions, as the onus is on the dealership to administer it so they’d have to know what is allowed and what isn’t, as they have to exempt the purchase from VAT (you don’t pay it and claim it back).

Great news if the optional extras are also VAT exempted (which begs the question why we pay the full cost of options on VAT exempt Motability cars 🤔) and it was news to me (until I read the guidance) that servicing and maintenance costs as also VAT exempt (I’d only use the supplying main dealer for this).

I think it’s still going to work out at much more than I’d be happy to pay, but I would kick myself if I didn’t research this option thoroughly before discounting it, rather than finding out all about it afterwards!

[joss]

Here is a report from Citizens Advice on How planned cuts to disability benefits will impact the people we support. You can download a copy of the report from here. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/policy/publications/pathways-to-poverty-how-planned-cuts-to-disability-benefits-will-impact-the/

Published: 28 May 2025
Citizens Advice (CA) have condemned the government’s Pathways To Work Green Paper in a hard hitting report of their own, entitled ‘Pathways To Poverty’.

The opening paragraph gives a clear indication of the anger and frustration inside an organisation whose workload is likely to be massively increased by the effects of the planned reforms:

“By refusing to properly consult on its plan to cut billions from disability benefits, the government is choosing not to ask questions it doesn’t want the answers to. The cuts will have a devastating impact on disabled people (and their children), sending hundreds of thousands into poverty, and many more into deeper poverty. This will result from a series of arbitrary reforms that have been designed around savings targets rather than improving outcomes, inflicting hardship on people in ways that the government doesn’t yet fully understand.”

The 44 page report is carefully researched and referenced and draws together information from other reports, some of the many Freedom of Information Act requests that have been published and the experiences of its own advisers and clients.

One of the things it argues is that the impacts of the proposals are likely to be worse than the government suggests, because:

The government used a dubious sleight of hand to reduce the number of people likely to be pushed into poverty. It counted people who would have been affected by the Tory WCA changes which never happened as having been lifted from poverty they were never actually put in.  So, rather than 250,000 being pushed into relative poverty by Labour, CA thinks it could be as many as 400,000.
The Green Paper doesn’t attempt to work out how many people will lose both PIP and the UC health element as a result of the changes, or how much they will lose.
The government document doesn’t analyse how many people already in poverty will be more deeply entrenched in poverty as a result of the cuts, although an FoI request has suggested this will be 700,000 people.
Pathways To Poverty goes through the effects of restricting PIP eligibility, cutting the UC health element and making PIP daily living the gateway to UC health.

It argues that the cuts could push people further from work, rather than helping them into employment.

It concludes by saying:

The government must reconsider its current approach. We are calling on the government to cancel proposed cuts to disability benefits. More immediately, we’re asking the government to:

Reverse the decision not to consult on cuts to disability benefits.
Delay parliamentary votes on disability benefit cuts until all relevant impact assessments have been published. This should include the impact on other public services and the voluntary sector, and estimated employment outcomes from measures proposed in the green paper.
The report is a must read for anyone campaigning on this issue and should be compulsory reading for any MP voting on it – though sadly they are the least likely group to ever open its pages.

Joss
Current car: BMW X2 sDrive 20i M Sport 5dr Step Auto In metallic Portimão Blue. 04:10:2025
Previous car:Peugeot 308 GT Premium 1.2 Pure tech Petrol.

[Rich44]

A title put a claim in for my 16 year old son who is ASD and has mental health issues too.

Anyway enhanced daily living with 4 points in 1 section and 10 points in planning a tourney for mobility.

2 points from enhanced and Motability plus driving at 16. I’m so thrilled that I can’t be disappointed over that 2 points, that imho he could’ve been awarded easily but equally I can see their point too.

The phone assessment was extremely fair even tho it took 2 hours with my wife my son lasted 15 minutes before leaving.  They weren’t awkward didn’t lie, didn’t bully all I can say about the hole thing was it on the face of it seemed fair and reasonable. I did take 3 weeks filling the form in and fully loaded every text box typed up.

So thrilled even if very slightly disappointed over the 2 points. We’ll wait until review in 2028 to try again if he’s as bad or worse by then.

I hope this is a sign that the dwp is trying to do better

[on the spectrum]

This is also on the the PIP Petition thread as well but may tell you about Govt stitch up which is o educate all as I am a pensioner much of this is not too bad for me but I

care about injustice on many of our fellow humans.

MPs to vote on disability benefit cuts without knowing ‘full impact’
Britain’s economic watchdog may not publish forecast of employment prospects until the end of October

Chaminda Jayanetti
Sun 30 Mar 2025 07.00 BST
Share

MPs are set to vote on Labour’s disability benefit cuts without any idea of how many of those affected will be able to find work, after it emerged that Britain’s economic watchdog may not publish its forecast of the employment impact of the plans until the end of October.

The Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment last week predicted that the cuts announced in the disability benefits green paper would drive at least 300,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.

Ministers argue that those hit by the plans – which restrict eligibility for personal independence payment (Pip) and slash the health element of universal credit for new claimants – could avoid poverty by finding work, helped by a £1bn disability employment support package that was announced alongside the benefit cuts.

However, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was unable to say how effective those employment support measures would be when it published its assessment of the green paper last week, citing a lack of policy or analysis detail from the government and insufficient time.

Instead, the OBR plans to include an assessment of the labour market impact of the green paper in its autumn forecast – which last year was published on 30 October.

That is likely to come long after MPs have voted on the major benefit cuts. The government intends to bring primary legislation in the current parliamentary session, which is expected to end in July. This legislation would allow the cuts to take effect in 2026-27.

“To force through policy change without a full analysis is not only poor governance, but does not seek to assess whether a policy would be effective,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, an opponent of the cuts.

“No government should make such decisions when the stakes are so high for disabled people. I cannot see how any MP could vote for such policies without having the evidence to back up their decision.”

Fellow Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan added: “I have asked in the chamber and in written questions as to the number of people to be helped back into work, the programmes that will be put in place to achieve that, and how much each will receive from the £1bn fund that has been set aside. The answer given is that ‘further analysis to support development of the proposals in the green paper will be developed and undertaken in the coming months’.

“This certainly means that MPs are likely to be asked to vote on changes to disability benefits before knowing the full impact of the changes. I’m not sure that’s a good way to make decisions, and it’s likely to cause colleagues even more sleepless nights.”

The OBR forecast that 3% of those affected by the last government’s now-abandoned plans to restrict disability benefit would find paid work.

“The lack of detail means [MPs] may well be voting for these measures, because of the pressure put on them by the three-line whip system, without realising the consequences in terms of life-changing cuts and ultimately a rise in benefit related deaths,” said Mark Harrison of Disabled People Against Cuts.

There will be no formal public consultation on the main cuts themselves, although the government is consulting on “transitional” protection for those hit by the Pip cuts.

skip past newsletter promotionSign up to First Edition

Free daily newsletter
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

Enter your email address
Sign up

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
There are suggestions that avoiding public consultations and using primary legislation are ways for the government to minimise the risk of legal challenges. The last government’s consultation on its planned disability benefit cuts was ruled unlawful earlier this year after a judicial review.

“Parliamentarians must ensure they properly scrutinise the details of any draft bill,” said Victoria Pogge von Strandmann, legal director of Public Law Project, which helped bring the judicial review. “We consider that MPs would be in a much better position to do this if they had the benefit of the output of a comprehensive consultation process, which sought views of those deaf and disabled people who will be directly impacted.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “The broken social security system we inherited is failing people who can work, as well as the people it’s meant to be there for.

That’s why we are delivering a £1bn support offer to guarantee tailored help into work to break down barriers for disabled people. We are also rebalancing universal credit payment levels, so the benefit’s main rate rises above inflation for the first time in a boost for low income working families.

“We will continue to deliver a social security system for those with severe health conditions, and we will protect the income of those who will never be able to work.”

[on the spectrum]

Well it seems a stitch up as usual it seems the MPS are to vote in may on these cuts without knowing the full impact as said in The Guardian which is outrageous so it shows we need to contact our MPS and sign any or every petition going about this Article in full here.

MPs to vote on disability benefit cuts without knowing ‘full impact’
Britain’s economic watchdog may not publish forecast of employment prospects until the end of October

Chaminda Jayanetti
Sun 30 Mar 2025 07.00 BST
Share

MPs are set to vote on Labour’s disability benefit cuts without any idea of how many of those affected will be able to find work, after it emerged that Britain’s economic watchdog may not publish its forecast of the employment impact of the plans until the end of October.

The Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment last week predicted that the cuts announced in the disability benefits green paper would drive at least 300,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.

Ministers argue that those hit by the plans – which restrict eligibility for personal independence payment (Pip) and slash the health element of universal credit for new claimants – could avoid poverty by finding work, helped by a £1bn disability employment support package that was announced alongside the benefit cuts.

However, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was unable to say how effective those employment support measures would be when it published its assessment of the green paper last week, citing a lack of policy or analysis detail from the government and insufficient time.

Instead, the OBR plans to include an assessment of the labour market impact of the green paper in its autumn forecast – which last year was published on 30 October.

That is likely to come long after MPs have voted on the major benefit cuts. The government intends to bring primary legislation in the current parliamentary session, which is expected to end in July. This legislation would allow the cuts to take effect in 2026-27.

“To force through policy change without a full analysis is not only poor governance, but does not seek to assess whether a policy would be effective,” said Labour MP Rachael Maskell, an opponent of the cuts.

“No government should make such decisions when the stakes are so high for disabled people. I cannot see how any MP could vote for such policies without having the evidence to back up their decision.”

Fellow Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan added: “I have asked in the chamber and in written questions as to the number of people to be helped back into work, the programmes that will be put in place to achieve that, and how much each will receive from the £1bn fund that has been set aside. The answer given is that ‘further analysis to support development of the proposals in the green paper will be developed and undertaken in the coming months’.

“This certainly means that MPs are likely to be asked to vote on changes to disability benefits before knowing the full impact of the changes. I’m not sure that’s a good way to make decisions, and it’s likely to cause colleagues even more sleepless nights.”

The OBR forecast that 3% of those affected by the last government’s now-abandoned plans to restrict disability benefit would find paid work.

“The lack of detail means [MPs] may well be voting for these measures, because of the pressure put on them by the three-line whip system, without realising the consequences in terms of life-changing cuts and ultimately a rise in benefit related deaths,” said Mark Harrison of Disabled People Against Cuts.

There will be no formal public consultation on the main cuts themselves, although the government is consulting on “transitional” protection for those hit by the Pip cuts.

skip past newsletter promotionSign up to First Edition

Free daily newsletter
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

Enter your email address
Sign up

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
There are suggestions that avoiding public consultations and using primary legislation are ways for the government to minimise the risk of legal challenges. The last government’s consultation on its planned disability benefit cuts was ruled unlawful earlier this year after a judicial review.

“Parliamentarians must ensure they properly scrutinise the details of any draft bill,” said Victoria Pogge von Strandmann, legal director of Public Law Project, which helped bring the judicial review. “We consider that MPs would be in a much better position to do this if they had the benefit of the output of a comprehensive consultation process, which sought views of those deaf and disabled people who will be directly impacted.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “The broken social security system we inherited is failing people who can work, as well as the people it’s meant to be there for.

That’s why we are delivering a £1bn support offer to guarantee tailored help into work to break down barriers for disabled people. We are also rebalancing universal credit payment levels, so the benefit’s main rate rises above inflation for the first time in a boost for low income working families.

“We will continue to deliver a social security system for those with severe health conditions, and we will protect the income of those who will never be able to work.”

[UncJ]

MickC wrote:

“People with the most severe disabilities or with health conditions that will never improve will never be reassessed”. Pensioners that went onto the Amber Rudd PIP light touch 10 year plan,which was brought in because it was not expected that pensioners are ever going to get better. Now i have not seen any mention of pensioners and the above in this green paper.

Great point Mick, not seeing any mention about the 10 year light touch anywhere at all. You don’t have to be a pensioner either to be on the 10 year light assessment path. Mind you, I’ve always had doubts as to how light the assessment would actually be, as we know moving the goalposts seems to be a regular thing with DWP & government. I thought I had DLA for life, how wrong that proved to be! 😳🙄

[joss]

Open consultation Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper
Published 18 March 2025

The Link below is for the published government”Green Paper” which is a “consultation document” It makes interesting reading. The Term “Consultation”is used very misleading to say the least. Read on…

What are the main changes in the Green Paper?
Personal independence payment
From November 2026, claimants will need to score at least 4 points from a single daily living activity to qualify for the daily living component of PIP, as well as scoring a total of at least 8 points.

So, if you are assessed as meeting 4 descriptors scoring two points each, that will be 8 points, but it will not qualify for an award of the standard rate of the daily living component of PIP.

But if you select one descriptor scoring 4 points and two descriptors scoring 2 points each, that will be 8 points and you will qualify for an award.

In the same way, six two point descriptors will currently qualify for the enhanced rate of PIP daily living, but under the new scoring system it will not qualify for any award of the daily living component

The changes will apply both to new claimants and to existing claimants when their award is reviewed from November 2026 onwards.

The mobility component will not be affected.

These changes are not being consulted on.

The DWP is consulting on how to support existing PIP claimants who lose their entitlement on review from November 2026.  The possibility of transitional protection is mentioned briefly in the Green Paper as well as ways to ensure that claimants who lose their PIP daily living component have their health and care needs met.

Assessments
There will be a greater proportion of face-to-face assessments for PIP, UC and ESA.

Reassessments for UC and ESA will be restarted prior to abolishing the WCA (see WCA above).

People with the most severe disabilities or with health conditions that will never improve will never be reassessed.

Assessments will be recorded by default.

There will be a review of the PIP assessment “involving experts, stakeholders and disabled people to consider how it needs to adapt for the future.”

How long will the changes take?
The consultation ends on 30 June 2025.

However, because the DWP has chosen not to consult on most of the major issues, including the changes to PIP scoring and the freezing of the health element of UC, it does not have to wait until the consultation ends before bringing forward new legislation for these changes.  The DWP have said they want to introduce legislation in this session of parliament, which ends on 21 July.

So it is possible legislation to enact some of the changes, especially to PIP scoring, could be introduced as early as May to try to prevent opposition to the cuts building.

The change to PIP scoring would still not take effect until November 2026, but the law enabling it could be firmly in place very much sooner.

For the limited range of proposals which are being consulted on, a White Paper will be published later this year with legislation to follow.  In addition, details of the scrapping of the WCA and the use of the PIP assessment to assess entitlement for the UC health element will be set out in the White Paper, although they will not have been consulted on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper

Joss
Current car: BMW X2 sDrive 20i M Sport 5dr Step Auto In metallic Portimão Blue. 04:10:2025
Previous car:Peugeot 308 GT Premium 1.2 Pure tech Petrol.

[MFillingham]

Kjid5 wrote:

Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride, awful article in the times from Alice Thomson Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride The biggest benefits scam of all is brand new, top of the range cars, taxed, MoT’d and insured, for the not-so-disabled Alice Thomson Tuesday March 18 2025, 9.00pm, The Times Do you want a free new car? There are 167 models to choose from on the Motability website. If you hand over part of your weekly mobility benefit, you can drive away with a leased Kia Picanto worth £15,000. If you part with your entire allowance of £75.75, you can move up to a Nissan Juke SUV, priced at £23,000, or a Volkswagen T-Cross. If you have the finances, you can pay £7,999 on top of your allowance and pick up the keys to a £52,770 BMW i4 M Sport or Mercedes CLA Coupé. Each vehicle comes with free road tax, RAC breakdown cover, servicing and MoT, tyre and windscreen repair, installation of a charge point for electric cars and insurance paid for three named drivers: family, friends or carers. Claimants can apply for a new model every three years. To qualify for one of these taxpayer-funded cars (or a scooter or powered wheelchair), you must receive the enhanced mobility allowance as part of a personal independence payment (PIP). And for many severely disabled people they are a lifeline, giving access to the world of work, school and community, getting them to hospital appointments without having to rely on erratic, expensive and often difficult-to-access public transport. A portion of their disability benefits goes directly to Motability Operations, the private company that runs the scheme and which is overseen by the Motability Foundation charity. The scheme started out with the best intentions. It was introduced in 1977 by Jim Callaghan to replace the rickety single-seater, three-wheeled Invacars — inferior Reliant Robins — donated to the disabled after the war. His government introduced the mobility allowance to help disabled people choose a suitable vehicle including any necessary adaptations under a government car-leasing scheme. For 50 years it has helped those with conditions such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson’s and their families. But it wasn’t until the increase in claimants post-Covid that the scheme ballooned. Motability cars now count for one in five of all new vehicles sold in the UK. Last year a record 815,000 people (out of 1.3 million who receive the enhanced mobility award) were signed up for the scheme, an increase of more than 170,000 in one year. This fleet of cars, the biggest in Europe, is valued at £14 billion. Several factors have driven this. Over the years eligibility has widened so people who can apply now include those who are obese or have severe back pain or eczema, suffer from depressive disorders, debilitating anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or autism and who have a problem planning journeys or walking more than 200 metres. The numbers have spiralled since almost all PIP assessments stopped being in person during the pandemic. If you go on TikTok or Reddit there are myriad self-proclaimed “advisers” showing you how to be eligible for the enhanced mobility award and a free car. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, disclosed this week that PIP claims were rising by roughly 1,000 every day. In certain areas of the country word of mouth has meant neighbours who see gleaming new cars on their street are looking at ways to access the scheme. In Gloucestershire last month, a minicab driver admitted to me that he sometimes used his wife’s Motability car for work because it is brand new, he doesn’t need to pay for its upkeep and she is housebound with “chronic ADHD”. He got the idea from a fellow taxi driver. The mother of a child with autism showed off her new free school-run chariot on TikTok to advertise an “adviser” service. Meanwhile, Bernard and Ann McDonagh, who were caught doing a runner from a restaurant in Swansea last year, used their Motability scheme Ford Transit van as a getaway car. As always, those who are abusing taxpayers’ money are ruining it for those who have a genuine, desperate need for the service. Motability Operations receives much of its income from public funds yet its website advertises “freebies, grants and discounts”. It has little incentive to monitor the system. The remuneration of its chief executive, Andrew Miller, totalled almost £750,000 in pay and bonuses last year. Why hasn’t the government done something about this? When Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, stood up in parliament today trying to persuade MPs of the need to slash the welfare bill, she should have committed to overhauling this allowance rather than simply suggesting she might tighten PIP awards. It was Labour’s John Mann, now Lord Mann, who said nearly a decade ago: “Motability is making too much money. It needs tighter criteria. Three years per car is too short a timeframe.” Part of the problem for successive governments has been that the Motability scheme has been keeping many car dealerships afloat when consumer demand for new cars dropped, while providing a pipeline of nearly 300,000 well-maintained secondhand cars a year. People with disabilities require help with transport to prevent them becoming isolated and to assist them, where possible, back into the workforce. Yet go on the Tube or train and you see how they are being cruelly penalised: lifts are often broken, ramps never materialise and many venues make little attempt to provide enhanced access. When my mother was in a wheelchair she struggled to work or to socialise outside her home. She couldn’t go to most offices, shops, events or cafés. The disabled desperately need help to make their lives not merely bearable but fulfilling. What they don’t need is their neighbours gaming the system to put a gleaming new BMW in the driveway every three years.

 

Thank you f it reposting in full.

In essence the article is right.  There are too many examples of the scheme being misused.  In many instances it’s where a car is provided for someone whose condition has them housebound.  Cars being used for people who are too mentally impaired to be able to leave the house are being used as a family car taking ‘benefit of the claimant to or beyond the intent let alone the written limits.

There’s so many instances we all probably know of someone who pushes the boundaries.  I know of an instance where mum drives a car for a daughter (genuinely disabled) but uses the car like it’s her car including taking grandkids to school.

The solution includes cracking down where the PIP award is for someone who rarely goes out.  Maybe a tracker to ensure car only gets used for the right person?

The majority of customers are either claimant drivers or close family of a claimant who can’t/wont drive but who does use the car ‘normally’. It’s how Motability can accommodate the rest where there’s a genuine need and prevent the multiple instances of Mickey taking.

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

[Oscarmax]

Kjid5 wrote:

Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride, awful article in the times from Alice Thomson Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride The biggest benefits scam of all is brand new, top of the range cars, taxed, MoT’d and insured, for the not-so-disabled Alice Thomson Tuesday March 18 2025, 9.00pm, The Times Do you want a free new car? There are 167 models to choose from on the Motability website. If you hand over part of your weekly mobility benefit, you can drive away with a leased Kia Picanto worth £15,000. If you part with your entire allowance of £75.75, you can move up to a Nissan Juke SUV, priced at £23,000, or a Volkswagen T-Cross. If you have the finances, you can pay £7,999 on top of your allowance and pick up the keys to a £52,770 BMW i4 M Sport or Mercedes CLA Coupé. Each vehicle comes with free road tax, RAC breakdown cover, servicing and MoT, tyre and windscreen repair, installation of a charge point for electric cars and insurance paid for three named drivers: family, friends or carers. Claimants can apply for a new model every three years. To qualify for one of these taxpayer-funded cars (or a scooter or powered wheelchair), you must receive the enhanced mobility allowance as part of a personal independence payment (PIP). And for many severely disabled people they are a lifeline, giving access to the world of work, school and community, getting them to hospital appointments without having to rely on erratic, expensive and often difficult-to-access public transport. A portion of their disability benefits goes directly to Motability Operations, the private company that runs the scheme and which is overseen by the Motability Foundation charity. The scheme started out with the best intentions. It was introduced in 1977 by Jim Callaghan to replace the rickety single-seater, three-wheeled Invacars — inferior Reliant Robins — donated to the disabled after the war. His government introduced the mobility allowance to help disabled people choose a suitable vehicle including any necessary adaptations under a government car-leasing scheme. For 50 years it has helped those with conditions such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson’s and their families. But it wasn’t until the increase in claimants post-Covid that the scheme ballooned. Motability cars now count for one in five of all new vehicles sold in the UK. Last year a record 815,000 people (out of 1.3 million who receive the enhanced mobility award) were signed up for the scheme, an increase of more than 170,000 in one year. This fleet of cars, the biggest in Europe, is valued at £14 billion. Several factors have driven this. Over the years eligibility has widened so people who can apply now include those who are obese or have severe back pain or eczema, suffer from depressive disorders, debilitating anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or autism and who have a problem planning journeys or walking more than 200 metres. The numbers have spiralled since almost all PIP assessments stopped being in person during the pandemic. If you go on TikTok or Reddit there are myriad self-proclaimed “advisers” showing you how to be eligible for the enhanced mobility award and a free car. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, disclosed this week that PIP claims were rising by roughly 1,000 every day. In certain areas of the country word of mouth has meant neighbours who see gleaming new cars on their street are looking at ways to access the scheme. In Gloucestershire last month, a minicab driver admitted to me that he sometimes used his wife’s Motability car for work because it is brand new, he doesn’t need to pay for its upkeep and she is housebound with “chronic ADHD”. He got the idea from a fellow taxi driver. The mother of a child with autism showed off her new free school-run chariot on TikTok to advertise an “adviser” service. Meanwhile, Bernard and Ann McDonagh, who were caught doing a runner from a restaurant in Swansea last year, used their Motability scheme Ford Transit van as a getaway car. As always, those who are abusing taxpayers’ money are ruining it for those who have a genuine, desperate need for the service. Motability Operations receives much of its income from public funds yet its website advertises “freebies, grants and discounts”. It has little incentive to monitor the system. The remuneration of its chief executive, Andrew Miller, totalled almost £750,000 in pay and bonuses last year. Why hasn’t the government done something about this? When Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, stood up in parliament today trying to persuade MPs of the need to slash the welfare bill, she should have committed to overhauling this allowance rather than simply suggesting she might tighten PIP awards. It was Labour’s John Mann, now Lord Mann, who said nearly a decade ago: “Motability is making too much money. It needs tighter criteria. Three years per car is too short a timeframe.” Part of the problem for successive governments has been that the Motability scheme has been keeping many car dealerships afloat when consumer demand for new cars dropped, while providing a pipeline of nearly 300,000 well-maintained secondhand cars a year. People with disabilities require help with transport to prevent them becoming isolated and to assist them, where possible, back into the workforce. Yet go on the Tube or train and you see how they are being cruelly penalised: lifts are often broken, ramps never materialise and many venues make little attempt to provide enhanced access. When my mother was in a wheelchair she struggled to work or to socialise outside her home. She couldn’t go to most offices, shops, events or cafés. The disabled desperately need help to make their lives not merely bearable but fulfilling. What they don’t need is their neighbours gaming the system to put a gleaming new BMW in the driveway every three years.

With all this publicity I can see some throttling back of the Mobility scheme again, you have to accept the scheme is being abused by some, unfortunately it does need overhauling, however it is us disabled people who will suffer through other people actions.

As regards 3 year lease, may be we should be looking at 5 year leases

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by Oscarmax.

Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.

[Kjid5]

Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride, awful article in the times from Alice Thomson

Motability scheme takes taxpayers for a ride
 
The biggest benefits scam of all is brand new, top of the range cars, taxed, MoT’d and insured, for the not-so-disabled
Alice Thomson
 
Tuesday March 18 2025, 9.00pm, The Times

Do you want a free new car? There are 167 models to choose from on the Motability website. If you hand over part of your weekly mobility benefit, you can drive away with a leased Kia Picanto worth £15,000. If you part with your entire allowance of £75.75, you can move up to a Nissan Juke SUV, priced at £23,000, or a Volkswagen T-Cross. If you have the finances, you can pay £7,999 on top of your allowance and pick up the keys to a £52,770 BMW i4 M Sport or Mercedes CLA Coupé.

Each vehicle comes with free road tax, RAC breakdown cover, servicing and MoT, tyre and windscreen repair, installation of a charge point for electric cars and insurance paid for three named drivers: family, friends or carers. Claimants can apply for a new model every three years.

To qualify for one of these taxpayer-funded cars (or a scooter or powered wheelchair), you must receive the enhanced mobility allowance as part of a personal independence payment (PIP). And for many severely disabled people they are a lifeline, giving access to the world of work, school and community, getting them to hospital appointments without having to rely on erratic, expensive and often difficult-to-access public transport. A portion of their disability benefits goes directly to Motability Operations, the private company that runs the scheme and which is overseen by the Motability Foundation charity.

The scheme started out with the best intentions. It was introduced in 1977 by Jim Callaghan to replace the rickety single-seater, three-wheeled Invacars — inferior Reliant Robins — donated to the disabled after the war. His government introduced the mobility allowance to help disabled people choose a suitable vehicle including any necessary adaptations under a government car-leasing scheme. For 50 years it has helped those with conditions such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson’s and their families. But it wasn’t until the increase in claimants post-Covid that the scheme ballooned.

Motability cars now count for one in five of all new vehicles sold in the UK. Last year a record 815,000 people (out of 1.3 million who receive the enhanced mobility award) were signed up for the scheme, an increase of more than 170,000 in one year. This fleet of cars, the biggest in Europe, is valued at £14 billion.

 
Several factors have driven this. Over the years eligibility has widened so people who can apply now include those who are obese or have severe back pain or eczema, suffer from depressive disorders, debilitating anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or autism and who have a problem planning journeys or walking more than 200 metres. The numbers have spiralled since almost all PIP assessments stopped being in person during the pandemic. If you go on TikTok or Reddit there are myriad self-proclaimed “advisers” showing you how to be eligible for the enhanced mobility award and a free car. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, disclosed this week that PIP claims were rising by roughly 1,000 every day.

In certain areas of the country word of mouth has meant neighbours who see gleaming new cars on their street are looking at ways to access the scheme. In Gloucestershire last month, a minicab driver admitted to me that he sometimes used his wife’s Motability car for work because it is brand new, he doesn’t need to pay for its upkeep and she is housebound with “chronic ADHD”. He got the idea from a fellow taxi driver. The mother of a child with autism showed off her new free school-run chariot on TikTok to advertise an “adviser” service. Meanwhile, Bernard and Ann McDonagh, who were caught doing a runner from a restaurant in Swansea last year, used their Motability scheme Ford Transit van as a getaway car.

As always, those who are abusing taxpayers’ money are ruining it for those who have a genuine, desperate need for the service. Motability Operations receives much of its income from public funds yet its website advertises “freebies, grants and discounts”. It has little incentive to monitor the system. The remuneration of its chief executive, Andrew Miller, totalled almost £750,000 in pay and bonuses last year.

Why hasn’t the government done something about this? When Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, stood up in parliament today trying to persuade MPs of the need to slash the welfare bill, she should have committed to overhauling this allowance rather than simply suggesting she might tighten PIP awards. It was Labour’s John Mann, now Lord Mann, who said nearly a decade ago: “Motability is making too much money. It needs tighter criteria. Three years per car is too short a timeframe.”

Part of the problem for successive governments has been that the Motability scheme has been keeping many car dealerships afloat when consumer demand for new cars dropped, while providing a pipeline of nearly 300,000 well-maintained secondhand cars a year.

People with disabilities require help with transport to prevent them becoming isolated and to assist them, where possible, back into the workforce. Yet go on the Tube or train and you see how they are being cruelly penalised: lifts are often broken, ramps never materialise and many venues make little attempt to provide enhanced access. When my mother was in a wheelchair she struggled to work or to socialise outside her home. She couldn’t go to most offices, shops, events or cafés.

The disabled desperately need help to make their lives not merely bearable but fulfilling. What they don’t need is their neighbours gaming the system to put a gleaming new BMW in the driveway every three years.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by Kjid5.