Discrimination

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #170257 Reply
    Ed

    I’ve just placed an order for an mg hs, the dealer has now told me that retail customers are taking priority over lease and contract hire sales. I have now been told they can’t even give me a date when I will get my new car. This feels very much like discrimination to me!  I asked if I purchased the car could I have it quicker, the answer was yes!

    I accept we are going through difficult times but it feels like this dealer and possibly the group have that many sales that they have little or no interest in motability.

Viewing 25 replies - 26 through 50 (of 121 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #170802 Reply
    wmcforum
    Which Mobility Car
    #170804 Reply
    mitch
    Participant

    at the end of the day if its such a bad scheme either do something about it, write to them detailing your complaints or to your mp. or dont use the scheme vote with your feet.

    at the end of this lease in march 23 i will probably leave, not because its a bad scheme but because i have only done 2k miles this time so far and its probably not going to increase anytime soon so it will make sense to get a cheap runaround myself providing 2nd hand prices dont keep going through the roof.

    dont take it out on fellow contributors go to the source of your dissatisfaction.

     

    #170805 Reply
    Not me real name I hope

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>Did a Google search 67.2 million people in the UK</p>
    Give everyone a million pounds each and still got change left over

    Now tell me about that profit again

     

     

    #170808 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Err. No. If you gave a million pounds to each person, you’d have enough for 800 people.

    #170811 Reply
    DumfriesDik
    Participant

    I doubt the profit would cover a £6 trillion give away!  😉

    Might get a tenner each though! 😉

    It sounds like some should form a pressure group and have a more concerted approach to Motability.

    Mazda CX5 is my DD
    VW ID3 Max on order 5 Nov 21

    #170812 Reply
    Glos Guy
    Participant

    Whilst the whole Motability & Motability Operations setup might be technically & legally described as a charity / not for profit affair, we all know that the reality is very different.

    After a long career in the commercial world, I spent the end of my career before retirement in the real charity / not for profit arena. Generating income was always a challenge and, other than the recommended reserves of 6-12 months operating costs, all income was spent on the needs of those who used the charity. This is pretty much the norm for most charities. Also, most CEO’s of even household named charities earn in the region of £100-150k, even though they manage thousands of staff and hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover and are rarely in monopoly situations.

    As we know, none of these challenges apply to Motability. They are a monopoly. They do not have to fight for income. They are not susceptible to ‘bad years’ when, for example, gifts in wills are very low (a massive issue for real charities). The CEO of this monopoly has a total remuneration package of over £1m. Also, when you pay even your most junior staff a pay and benefits package that is considerably above the norm for the private sector, never mind the third sector, then it is no wonder that there isn’t a big ‘profit’ left at the end to distribute! As I have often said, the fact that this gilt edged remuneration package is paid for by disabled people’s benefits is morally wrong on so many levels.

    It’s interesting to read about the huge sum of surplus funds that have been transferred to the ‘charity’. What are they doing with that money I wonder? Given that all that money has been generated by, let’s face it, excessive AP’s (they make several hundred pounds profit per lease), how can it be that AP’s are rising considerably and customers are now being charged for essential adaptations that were previously free?

    I was hoping that the arrival of a new CEO might result in some improvements, but he’s nearly a year into his role now and it’s got considerably worse, not better. Many of the issues that I have raised in this post were highlighted in the government sponsored review into Motability, but were ignored. Finally, it’s all very well saying “if you don’t like it, vote with your feet and leave”. Some of us have the means to do that, but many don’t.

    #170817 Reply
    BigDave
    Participant

    Whilst the whole Motability & Motability Operations setup might be technically & legally described as a charity / not for profit affair, we all know that the reality is very different. After a long career in the commercial world, I spent the end of my career before retirement in the real charity / not for profit arena. Generating income was always a challenge and, other than the recommended reserves of 6-12 months operating costs, all income was spent on the needs of those who used the charity. This is pretty much the norm for most charities. Also, most CEO’s of even household named charities earn in the region of £100-150k, even though they manage thousands of staff and hundreds of millions of pounds of turnover and are rarely in monopoly situations. As we know, none of these challenges apply to Motability. They are a monopoly. They do not have to fight for income. They are not susceptible to ‘bad years’ when, for example, gifts in wills are very low (a massive issue for real charities). The CEO of this monopoly has a total remuneration package of over £1m. Also, when you pay even your most junior staff a pay and benefits package that is considerably above the norm for the private sector, never mind the third sector, then it is no wonder that there isn’t a big ‘profit’ left at the end to distribute! As I have often said, the fact that this gilt edged remuneration package is paid for by disabled people’s benefits is morally wrong on so many levels. It’s interesting to read about the huge sum of surplus funds that have been transferred to the ‘charity’. What are they doing with that money I wonder? Given that all that money has been generated by, let’s face it, excessive AP’s (they make several hundred pounds profit per lease), how can it be that AP’s are rising considerably and customers are now being charged for essential adaptations that were previously free? I was hoping that the arrival of a new CEO might result in some improvements, but he’s nearly a year into his role now and it’s got considerably worse, not better. Many of the issues that I have raised in this post were highlighted in the government sponsored review into Motability, but were ignored. Finally, it’s all very well saying “if you don’t like it, vote with your feet and leave”. Some of us have the means to do that, but many don’t.

     

    For those advocating that Motability and Motability Operations should lose its ‘single supplier’ and/or charitable status (due to its profits build up etc), how would you feel if a ‘normal’ company where to take over lock, stock, and barrel?

    Don’t forget a ‘normal’ company (of the size needed to run such a scheme) needs the stability, expertise, liquidity and capital reserves to both run the scheme ‘day to day’ and to ‘weather any storm’. It would most likely be of ‘PLC’ size and structure (such as other large commercial leasing companies).

    Thus, their structure means that profits generated are not returned to the scheme, but to its shareholders (why invest in any company if there is no return?). The shareholders will mainly be the corporate fund holders/markets/hedge funds, pension funds and maybe to a very limited degree private investors (you would need a CREST to buy the shares directly, unless held by/in a nominee account in which case, the nominee rather than the actual shareholder holds the voting rights etc). So, the individual doesn’t have influence to change how the company runs etc. Many corporate investors would be foreign to boot.

    For example, look at Lex Auto Leasing. Mainly owned by Lloyds Banking Group. The same Lloyds Banking Group ‘rescued’ by the British taxpayer during the financial crisis. Then sold off – not to individual ‘tax paying’ people, but to the international corporate fund markets.

    It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas for corporate investors/fund managers /pension funds etc (and, god help us, hedge funds) to forego profits, dividends and other windfall payments (which the current Motability Operations plough back in). All they look for is the maximum return on the investment for them and their clients (and the bigger the return, the bigger their cut as well)!

    Profit will be king! Can you honestly see such as Advance Payments being reduced in this situation?  Like most things, service becomes a race to the bottom – look at what is happening in the energy sector now!

    So, which would you rather have? Motability, generating profits which are returned to the overall scheme? Or the scheme operating company paying its profits to what most people would refer to as ‘fat cats’?

    How would you really feel about your ‘mobility monies’ going to shareholders – many of which would probably be overseas investors anyway?

    Be careful what you wish for!

     

    #170819 Reply
    ChrisK
    Participant

    Err. No. If you gave a million pounds to each person, you’d have enough for 800 people.

    Anyway if we were all millionaires who would volunteer to sweep the streets and empty the dustbins.

    😊

    #170822 Reply
    Glos Guy
    Participant

    BigDave – all very valid points. I guess my biggest gripe is that all staff at Motability Operations (not just the much derided ‘fat cats’) are in receipt of an overall remuneration package that is way above their peers in the private sector, let alone the third (charitable) sector, all of which is paid for by the sacrificed benefits of disabled people. Motability is both a charity and a gilt edged top tier private sector employer, depending on which suits them.

    Let’s not forget that December is bonus month at Motability Operations. I am anticipating hearing quite soon how many thousand pounds the person that I know there has received for working in a call centre. For what I wonder when they are already very well paid? Yet again I will have to bite my lip, sounding pleased for them whilst knowing that my wife (who is unable to work) has helped pay for it through her disability benefits.

    #170851 Reply
    Vince Ray

    Regarding discrimination, I think the original poster may have a point. While I don’t think there is direct discrimination (i.e. dealers aren’t saying “we won’t deal with you because you are disabled”), there could be indirect discrimination. Does the policy of prioritising retail customers put disabled people at a particular disadvantage? I think it might do.

    If it does, then dealers need to show that the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I don’t know the industry well enough to know whether dealers can show that. But I think the issues would have to be explored before eliminating discrimination.

    #170857 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    I’m sorry but you’ll have to do better than that. How is a retailer selling goods to any customer that wants to buy those goods discriminating against anyone in any way?

    #170860 Reply
    Tim

    Is refusing fleet leasing over retail indirect discrimination toward women? Let’s say the majority of the NHS employee base is female, if manufacturers/dealerships are refusing sales to fleet and preferring retail, could that be indirect discrimination?

    And the above is flat out refusal for X period of time, in the OP’s case we’re talking you can still order, just not from available stock…

    #170862 Reply
    Rene
    Participant

    Does the policy of prioritising retail customers put disabled people at a particular disadvantage? I think it might do.

    I’ll give you an example.

    You have a job position to fill in your company.

    An abled person, and a disabled person show up. The abled guy has objectively better qualifications for the job, so you give him the job.

    Did you just discriminate the disabled person? Or did you make a rational (i’d call it obvious) decision based on what’s best for you and your company?

    Same thing with Motability. You could claim discrimination if we had to wait for a car longer than a retail customer all other things being equal. The problem is that all other things aren’t equal, a dealership makes considerably less money on a Motability customer than they make on a retail customer. That’s not discriminatory, that’s business.

    Does it suck? Well, as a guy who just ordered a new car with an 8-10 months lead time, yeah obviously it does. But screaming “discrimination” every time something doesn’t go our way, despite actually having some advantages over other retail customers (insurance alone for some people, depending on their history).

    What people really should scream for is for fair (equal) compensation for dealerships, taking away the reason for us potentially waiting longer. Giving someone less money and expecting the same service just strikes me as odd.

    Current: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19
    On Order: VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY22

    #170863 Reply
    Tim

    I don’t think the government can afford for the DWP allowances to pay for the same per sale as a retail channel customer.

    Having said that, the profits made by the scheme might suggest it is doable?

     

    #170864 Reply
    Wigwam
    Participant

    I can see no reason Motability couldn’t pay full price for its cars. Then our money would go towards the dealers profits rather than it having to be given away to charity every time it becomes such an embarrassingly huge amount in Motability Operations coffers.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Wigwam.
    #170865 Reply
    struth
    Participant

    As much as its annoying and perhaps not moral, one cant really expect most companies or people not to go with the better money. was it moral for carers to pack up and start working for amazon.. well they have to look after them and theirs first i guess.

    but at same time, disabled are discriminated against all the time in other ways. we dont have a loud voice so get drowned out by others.

    Current Car: Hyundai Kona Premium EV...2 way 40kg hoist
    Last Car: Toyota C-HR Excel Hybrid...4 way 80kg hoist

    #170877 Reply
    Ed

    I completely understand why dealers who like so many have had lean years, will go for the better sale with retail buyers. All I want from dealers AND motability is for it to be a level playing field.  I agree there is a global shortage of some things but facts are facts, when a dealer sells a car retail they can in some cases give delivery dates. Yet when you say motability they can’t commit to a date.

    #170921 Reply
    Rene
    Participant

    but at same time, disabled are discriminated against all the time in other ways. we dont have a loud voice so get drowned out by others.

    I don’t think anyone is denying that. I certainly am not, i’m just saying that this particular issue is not discrimination.

    All I want from dealers AND motability is for it to be a level playing field.  I agree there is a global shortage of some things but facts are facts, when a dealer sells a car retail they can in some cases give delivery dates. Yet when you say motability they can’t commit to a date.

    But it’s not though, that’s the issue. It’s not a level playing field, as long as Motability doesn’t pay them accordingly. At the moment, you pay that discrepancy with inconvenience. That’s not discriminatory or unfair – and while it does suck, it’s entirely normal and of course also not morally wrong.

    They earn around 75% ish percent less off of a Motability customer, it’s not just “fifty quid less”. It’s substantial. I also don’t believe that car dealerships currently (or ever?) are committing to actual dates. They give you a timeframe, usually – we ordered a new car three weeks ago and got quoted a timeframe, which obviously isn’t happening (quoted 6 months for a car that has 8 months waiting time retail), so it’s not like you’re missing out there anyway. You’ll not get a guaranteed delivery date until way late into the order.

    Current: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19
    On Order: VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY22

    #170947 Reply
    T.J
    Participant

    Going a little off topic, I understand the frustration against the management and what they “earn” but every time I’ve spoken to to the front line staff via phone or email they have always been very helpful and gone the extra mile (no pun intended).

    I’d guess that dealing with people on the scheme for want of a better way of putting it can have its challenges, for example to Joe Public a last minute change of colour is probably nothing more than an inconvenience but for someone like my wife it would feel like the end of her world…

    If paying the call centre staff an extra pound (made up number) an hour over what they would earn doing the “same” job elsewhere is the difference between getting a copy / paste reply or a simple response from a script and having someone put some effort in to actually try and help then overall I’m not sure how it can be seen as a bad thing.

    Having said all of that, like most large organisations I’m sure there are many ways to save money and run a tighter ship but from my personal experience I cant really fault the customer facing staff and think the scheme would suffer without them – not so sure I’d say the same about managers, consultants or advisers but never had the the “pleasure” of dealing with them lol

    #170949 Reply
    Rene
    Participant

    Well.. I will say, the (few) times we spoke to a Motability employee, they were always incredibly helpful and accommodating, yes. Lets get that out of the way, especially compared to “the usual experience” of calling customer services (waiting 45 minutes to talk to an indian guy that i, as a non-native english speaker, can’t understand even if my life depended on it).

    That being said, you did miss a few things here. First, it’s not a company as such. Motability has a pool of money, that pool gets filled by the contributions of disabled people who “donate” their benefits to the charity. Now you have multiple options. You can use those contributions to ensure that all the needs of disabled people are met in regards to cars and car adaptations, or you can chose what Motability is doing. Having an office in the poshest part of London, a stone throw away from Westminster, while paying their staff twice as much as other companies do (a call centre representative earns around £27.000 a year), and make disabled people pay for necessary adaptations to the car. While having around 2.5 billion pounds in reserve.

    Make no mistake, i’m not complaining about people earning a good living wage, especially if they do a good job for it (which they do, as i said) – most people here, me included, complain about the fact that Motability “lives” like a maggot in bacon, while the people who fund that “lifestyle” are struggling to even get a car that suits their needs, let alone pay for the adaptations. While, let me reiterate, having 2.5 billion pounds in reserve, for “bad days”. I have trouble imagining worse days than the last year to this point, yet the only ones suffering are disabled people who, for example, need an affordable big car for a wheelchair/scooter.

    In short, they’re not just “paying a pound more”, they’re paying almost 50% over what other companies are paying, for call centre representatives alone. Who work here:

    500 meters away from the Shard and the London Bridge.

    Now explain that to people who fall off the scheme because there’s nothing available to them (even less so now), i don’t know about you, but i am struggling to see the justification here. Yeah, having nice and competent caller support is nice, but dwelling in a luxurious office paid for by disabled benefits, while barely moving a finger.. I don’t know jim.

    Current: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19
    On Order: VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY22

    #170950 Reply
    Tim

    They can have nice things because they’re not funded by my hard earned taxes, oh wait.

    #170956 Reply
    Not me real name I hope

    Oh and there is a price cap on the car….why………because we said so thats why so you will just have to fold the back seats down now so you can fit your wheel chair in  hand over your cash because I have a lunch date on 34 th floor of the shard at Hutong and it won’t pay for its self will it now

    #170965 Reply
    Ianfca

    I am all for call centre staff getting a good living wage, but I can’t understand why they need a call centre in central London with all its associated high costs.

    #170967 Reply
    wmcforum
    Which Mobility Car

    I can’t understand why they need a call centre in central London with all its associated high costs.

    The call centre is in Bristol.

     

     

    #170970 Reply
    T.J
    Participant

    Rene, thanks for the detailed reply 🙂  Seems I was more than a bit off with the “extra pound”….  On one hand there is the argument that well paid staff in a nice environment have better moral which should lead to increased productivity and reduce staff turnover along with all the training + other costs involved in replacing people.

    The other side of the coin is  to “over pay” by such a large amount does leave them open to criticism / scrutiny and they really should give a detailed explanation of the reasons why and certainly give some justification regarding the location and expenses associated with head office.

    There is the also the complete can of worms as to whether or not many customer facing roles in general are underpaid and undervalued whilst those higher up are the opposite but that’s a different discussion altogether.

Viewing 25 replies - 26 through 50 (of 121 total)
Reply To: Discrimination
Your information: