- This topic has 38 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Topic
<p style=”text-align: left;”>Why is it as a disabled driver who needs an automatic, as I suspect many others do were penalised by the extra cost of an automatic compared to the manual equivalent car.</p>
- Replies
Rhodgie – I’m prepared to be corrected, but I don’t believe that war pensioner rates are subsidised at all. The benefit that they sacrifice is greater than the higher rate PIP, so their AP is lower to ensure that, in total, they pay exactly the same.
Glos Guy I honestly don’t know why their AP is a lot lower, I always thought it was because they’d served and deserved it? I was only using them as an example to make a point about subsidies ? hope that doesn’t start a whole new thread but probably wigwam will use it to deflect ?
Daf just make it a no cost option whatever you choose ?
I guess Gary drives a manual then ? ☹?
Wigwam… “stereotype the disabled” ?♂️ what gibberish is this ?♂️ We’re on a forum by disabled people, for disabled people, talking about issues relevant to disabled people
No, Gary has an automatic atm, but it sounds like you expect automatics to be the same price as manuals, and that’s rarely the case with manufacturers, so my question to you is, should motability only sell cars from manufacturers that allow the same AP for manual/automatic (when they won’t for private buyers) or should motability artificially increase the APs for manuals to reduce the cost of those of us that need automatics? The first would mean we would lose even more choice, the 2nd would be rather selfish.
Yes Gary, I’d expect Motability to not financially punish their clients who cannot drive manuals by making them pay more for an automatic.
And we’ve all seen that the AP isn’t directly related to the cost price of the vehicle… plenty of examples over the years on here where the top of the range version is cheaper than base spec because of the higher residuals. And it isn’t the manufacturer who decides the AP, its Motability and I’m sure you’ve noticed how they have been increasing and decreasing that AP by huge amounts not just quarterly but sometimes weekly, daily even? They must be adjusting it for a reason and could easily do the same to level out the difference in gearboxes.
I’m not sure how you can call it selfish… this’ll be my last post of the night cause I’m in bed getting ready for a 5am rise and a 12 hour working day tomorrow and for the next 4 days, I pay my taxes so disabled people get cars that in no way help me, so families get child benefit despite my kids being grown adults and married, so the government can build roads that I’ll never use, so the NHS can function despite me not needing it for 30+ years… it is how a functioning society works by everybody contributing and helping those who need it or would it be selfish if I withdrew from paying from these things which aren’t relevant to me.
firstly rhodgie, do your home work wpms ap’s are not subsidised. the wpms rate that we surrender to get our car is £69.85 pip/dla etc is £62.55 so we pay £7.30 a week more for our car hence they reduce the ap.
automatics are more expensive to buy for anyone from the manufacturers and their residual on the 2nd hand market is generally less than for a manual in this country as in the wider population they are not as popular therefore the ap is higher.
now i agree there ought to be system of grants like the one that the veterans agency offers for those that require an auto because of their disability but to say those on the scheme that have manuals should pay more to subsidise autos accross the board is just wrong.
the grant should be based on the disability not just personal preference.
the veterans grant is currently £660 so doesnt cover all of the extra cost of an auto and i think you only get it if theres an ap to pay.
I feel for disabled people who need to have autos, and maybe motability should do what they can to reduce the gap with charity financial aid. But as a disabled person who can’t drive at all for medical reasons (there’s a fair few of us as well) my named driver is happy with a manual, and I need to keep my own expanse down as much as I can.
Current Car
KIA Sportage GT Line Mhev
Previous Cars
Peugeot 5008 Allure Premium
VW Touran SEL
Citreon C4 Picasso<p style=”text-align: left;”>Mitch calm down, I already said I didn’t know how the wpms worked and I was only using it as an example so let’s not get our panties in a bunch and go off track…. sorry ??</p>
Never mind the “autos are dearer, 2nd hand residuals, blah blah blah…..” how about helping disabled drivers stay on the road ?NewYork1 I agree it’s good to keep expenses down so now that I’m up for work, tired, grumpy, looking at a 17 hour day before I get back to bed, can I get some of my tax back so I can buy my own car and not have to pay for your DLA… if you’re going to be so selfish over an extra couple of £’s then I will too ?
Second hand autos almost always sell for more than comparable second hand manual cars, not the other way around. In fact, in certain market segments the premium can be significant, as manuals become less and less desirable the further up the price range you go.
I would hazard a guess that the difference in price that Motability charge in AP for an auto over a manual (which is usually a lot less than the retail price difference) reflects the difference between the additional retail cost of an auto (less discount) minus the additional resale value that an auto would achieve at auction at end of lease.
I’ve always felt that the total costs (depreciation, running costs etc) for any car, whether that be manual, auto, EV, ICE, expensive or cheap, should be reflected in the AP and that no one type of car should be subsidised over another. However, given that Motability Operations make a sizeable profit out of each and every lease (around £500 from memory) and this is used to help pay for their over the top remuneration package (I’m not talking directors here, but ALL of their employees) and their whole purpose is to keep disabled people mobile, I find it disappointing that those whose disabilities mean that they can only drive an auto have to pay a premium. Motability could take a hit on the profit of those leases without needing other drivers to subsidise them. But, then again, Wigwam makes a fair point about auto not being the only essential requirement for those with certain disabilities, so where do you draw the line? The grants system exists, but always seems unfair to me as it’s means tested, unlike the scheme in general, but that’s a whole new (and very contentious) issue!
All I know is that cars that would be very suitable for me and my needs are also out of my price range because I have to have an automatic, when the manual version is being offered either with no upfront payment or a very small amount.
A friend of the family has a lovely car on the scheme, mums kept banging on about me getting the same one as it would be perfect, he got the manual version (same model but manual) for an upfront payment of £295, for me to get the same car but automatic would have been (well) over £2k.
I know I should be grateful to have access to the scheme but it does make things very difficult finding things on the scheme that are suitable but also affordable. At the present time, I have extended my lease but I am on the verge of leaving the scheme because I am pretty much priced out of using it especially with the thought that advance payments for me now could almost buy a suitable vehicle on the second hand market and the extra time could make that possible.
**Extra note, mum and dad have had automatic cars since the mid 70’s, always purchased via the second hand market and always at an extra premium to a manual car rather than less.
Just going off the auto premium for a minute even though I’m one of those that get hit by the extra cost of auto’s simply because I’m disabled but within this thread I’ve seen it mentioned that there are no cost for adaptions and would like to correct that because Motability might say “adaption, many of which are available for no extra cost” the remote control device I have to have cost £445 currently Q2 and Q3 so with the auto premium as well I have to find near on a £1,000 before I even think of AP’s.
Another cost that’s crept in under the radar is the transfer of your hoist to your new car again Motability says “we are aiming to make the majority of these (stowage systems) transferable in future” and is simply not true and where it was free to transfer a hoist from old car to new as long as the hoist was no more than 4 years old that option has been been handed over to the adaption installers who don’t want to know about transferring and say “it will be cheaper for you to have a new hoist than transfer your old one” because I’m sure the profit from a new install is higher than transferring an old second-hand one.
I’ll stop here because I don’t want to get into arguments of needing a larger car and its larger AP cost just for wanting, oh sorry, just for needing to carry a fully assembled pavement scooter in the boot.
The reason I asked the question is that I’ve just started looking at what’s available as current lease on a suzuki sx4 S-Cross szt is up next year, when I got the car I paid £300 for automatic could of had lower spec for free, but to change to same spec this time its £499 for manual and £999 for automatic, and when looking at vauxhall and other makes of SUV & MPV, the differences can be quite big, I’d love to have a hybrid but can’t plug in and charge to to only having parking bay over the road from my bungalow.
Your best bet Greg is to go for a self charging Hybrid as it’s the next best thing to plugging your car into the grid.
I was hoping to get a Ford Kuga full Hybrid (not the PHEW) because I’m not sure I could handle dealing with the charging cables but unfortunate I can’t be 100% sure my scooter will fit in the boot.
The other thing of course is like the premium for auto boxes there’s also a premium for Hybrids with the Kuga as an example being a grand more than the petrol/diesel version. Basic manual Kuga is £1,200 plus £500 for auto version plus another £1,000 on top of that for the Hybrid version.
I hope every thing has settled down for you next year when hopefully the dust has settled on the car industry and something can be found for you at a reasonable AP then.
@Greg Carter have you looked at the Toyota Hybrids. They are excellent cars and self-charging. I had a Corolla company car and even with my heavy right foot was getting well over 60mpg.
On the subject of automatics, when Motability finally dispose of the cars they will always get a higher price for an automatic compared with a manual. I was lucky in that my BMW was only available as an automatic.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see Motability pushing for a charging solution so that everybody has a wider choice.I agree about the need for autos and the extra costs. But that is true for every single aspect of a disabled persons life. Any benefit does not compensate for the extra costs incurred by being disabled. I think autos should be subsidised, other things being equal. Manufacturers often tie in a package, auto plus. The real problem as I see it, is Motability not playing hardball with manufacturers and getting a better deal. Deal only with manufacturers who will supply what motability needs. Big boots, economic, auto’s with electric seating and space are as rare as hens teeth and that is wrong.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.