- This topic has 154 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by
.
- Topic
Daily Mail article bashing Motability:
- Replies
Equally i’d wager most of us are happy with our current car and changing every 3 years is a faff (so i would agree with John Mann MP) however Motability have to make the maths work resale values etc I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but when it ran its campaign re Range Rovers on Motabilty they were quite correct. None of us needs a Range Rover
Personally, I find having to wait 3 years is a faff sometimes, so I think the current term is about right! As I mentioned before, the longer the lease, the less financially viable it becomes to use Motability, so they’d be shooting themselves in the foot by enforcing longer leases (which, of course, wouldn’t be any cheaper).
We joined Motability after the first major cull, so missed the Range Rover era, but having seen an old price list a base model Range Rover Sport (with a fraction of the kit that the modern version has) had an AP of £15k, so with inflation that would be about £20k today which, added to the sacrificed benefits, would be a cost of £32k over a 3 year lease or £40k over 5 years. Of course, when the Daily Mail highlighted this, Motability failed to point out just how expensive it was to lease cars like that, leaving the impression that they were ‘free’ (as is happening again now sadly).
If people were only allowed what they ‘need’ then even the current limited choice would be culled and it would cause even more people to leave the scheme. If people can afford to pay more for a better car that they would ‘like’, and are paying all the additional costs of the lease (which they do through higher APs) then there is no problem with that IMO. Where it causes a problem is when incorrect media articles are allowed to go unchallenged and when some of those who can’t afford the more expensive cars allow their jealousy to suggest that others shouldn’t be allowed them.
It isn’t just the car being taken away it’s the rest of the disability benefit plus the increased rate ESA. Many people don’t have wealthy families or savings to fall back on and are completely unable to work even in the unlikely event that an employer would give a job to someone who hasn’t worked for 20 years!
There will be mass suicides by people who have no income and no means of getting one. Their lives will become untenable. What a government! They would rather plough billions into net zero and supporting illegals than looking after their own people. I can’t be the only one worried to death right now.
I am absolutely no fan of this government @Injector but I’d try not to worry. We will hopefully know what’s going to happen on Tuesday when the green paper is published. They are saying that those with genuine disabilities will still be supported.
My sense is that they will focus primarily on two things. 1) Getting those who are under 25 but not in education, training or employment, off benefits and 2) reclassifying certain health conditions such as anxiety and depression so that they don’t trigger disability benefits. I think that most voters would support both those aims, but targeting those with disabilities that genuinely prevent them from working would go down very badly with most right minded people and, when all is said and done, politicians want to be popular.
Equally i’d wager most of us are happy with our current car and changing every 3 years is a faff (so i would agree with John Mann MP) however Motability have to make the maths work resale values etc I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but when it ran its campaign re Range Rovers on Motabilty they were quite correct. None of us needs a Range Rover
Personally, I find having to wait 3 years is a faff sometimes, so I think the current term is about right! As I mentioned before, the longer the lease, the less financially viable it becomes to use Motability, so they’d be shooting themselves in the foot by enforcing longer leases (which, of course, wouldn’t be any cheaper). We joined Motability after the first major cull, so missed the Range Rover era, but having seen an old price list a base model Range Rover Sport (with a fraction of the kit that the modern version has) had an AP of £15k, so with inflation that would be about £20k today which, added to the sacrificed benefits, would be a cost of £32k over a 3 year lease or £40k over 5 years. Of course, when the Daily Mail highlighted this, Motability failed to point out just how expensive it was to lease cars like that, leaving the impression that they were ‘free’ (as is happening again now sadly). If people were only allowed what they ‘need’ then even the current limited choice would be culled and it would cause even more people to leave the scheme. If people can afford to pay more for a better car that they would ‘like’, and are paying all the additional costs of the lease (which they do through higher APs) then there is no problem with that IMO. Where it causes a problem is when incorrect media articles are allowed to go unchallenged and when some of those who can’t afford the more expensive cars allow their jealousy to suggest that others shouldn’t be allowed them.
All about optics isn’t it! the Range Rover was/is known as the footballers posh car so its only natural people go what the heck (a 50 60 70k) car for 15 grand. so it was the right/easiest choice to cull (they don’t see the maths you do and nor should they have to) heck even the Audi R8 was available at one point (according to a dealer source)
Probably why we don’t see the likes of Tesla (as that will add fuel to the flames)
I’d like to hear from those who can’t find a car to fit their “needs” with a sprinkle of nice to have on the Scheme at time of writing
I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but when it ran its campaign re Range Rovers on Motabilty they were quite correct. None of us needs a Range Rover
All about optics isn’t it! the Range Rover was/is known as the footballers posh car so its only natural people go what the heck (a 50 60 70k) car for 15 grand. so it was the right/easiest choice to cull (they don’t see the maths you do and nor should they have to) heck even the Audi R8 was available at one point (according to a dealer source)
Crikey, the UK isn’t the 1970’s Soviet Union (well, not yet anyway).
Who is the arbiter of what is ‘needed’ and what isn’t?
All the DM article back in 2011 did was remove choice from disabled people. You know, the same sort of choice that was fought for and won in the 1970’s not to have to drive around in a blue Invacar.
Prior to the DM article ,if one could afford it, yes one could have a Range Rover on the scheme and good luck to those who could/did.
Because of that article and Motability’s lack of moral fortitude to defend both its position and its customers, the element of choice was removed from customers (imagine the outcry if choice was removed from the general public and they could only have a ‘smallish’ vehicle).
Of course no one needed a Range Rover back then. Just as you could say nowadays that nobody needs a Subaru Outback. There are cheaper vehicles that would suffice. However, if a disabled person can afford it and would like ‘x’ vehicle, they should be given the opportunity to level up the playing field with the able bodied and have one.
As you should know, it makes no negative difference monetarily to the country what people drive on the scheme. Infact, if they choose a ‘gas guzzler’ they are contributing positively to the finances of the country by paying more duty on the extra fuel used.
I still see the ‘needed’ argument. I have an Ioniq 5 Namsan Edition. I’ve been asked why I needed a top of the range model on the scheme, which I see as a valid question. My answer is a combination of seat comfort and availability. With 2 in the house with spinal issues mine being right at the point most lumbar supports touch, finding a seat I can sit in for over an hour is a real challenge. There were 3 cars that were a possibility 2 of which were just model changes on the I5, the Namsan was available while ordering an Ultimate with tech pack without the heat pump would have been a factory order and with the heat pump was the same price as I ended up paying.
While it’s not right to ask each individual why they ‘need’ each car or specifically expensive models, surely there’s a limit as to what is available? If not as a public justification, there’s a cost for these cars that needs justification. It’s why people on the scheme complain about a BMW at 7/8 grand. Should spending that money every 3 years plus losing the higher rate PIP really be seen as OK for the majority of recipients? I acknowledge that some eligible for PIP are working professionals who would otherwise have a similar car on lease from other sources, those people can afford to and, to some extent should be able to, have a car suitable for their needs and all the other reasons behind purchasing a car. However, this opens another debate around whether there’s justification for providing a disabled wealthy person with the same support as someone barely surviving on benefits alone.
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
I still see the ‘needed’ argument. I have an Ioniq 5 Namsan Edition. I’ve been asked why I needed a top of the range model on the scheme, which I see as a valid question. My answer is a combination of seat comfort and availability. With 2 in the house with spinal issues mine being right at the point most lumbar supports touch, finding a seat I can sit in for over an hour is a real challenge. There were 3 cars that were a possibility 2 of which were just model changes on the I5, the Namsan was available while ordering an Ultimate with tech pack without the heat pump would have been a factory order and with the heat pump was the same price as I ended up paying. While it’s not right to ask each individual why they ‘need’ each car or specifically expensive models, surely there’s a limit as to what is available? If not as a public justification, there’s a cost for these cars that needs justification. It’s why people on the scheme complain about a BMW at 7/8 grand. Should spending that money every 3 years plus losing the higher rate PIP really be seen as OK for the majority of recipients? I acknowledge that some eligible for PIP are working professionals who would otherwise have a similar car on lease from other sources, those people can afford to and, to some extent should be able to, have a car suitable for their needs and all the other reasons behind purchasing a car. However, this opens another debate around whether there’s justification for providing a disabled wealthy person with the same support as someone barely surviving on benefits alone.
In my humble opinion if you want a top of the range vehicle and willing to pay the high AP go for it, being disabled is not fun, it just nice to have something to aim/look forward too.
As regards PIP for working professional they are just as entitled as anyone else they pay into the system design to support disabled people, I don’t remember anyone complaint when I was paying in the higher rate of tax prior to my accident.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally say the wrong thing.
@Oscarmax I hope I didn’t offend, I’ve no opinion on who should/shouldn’t get PIP in terms of income. I mentioned it because it’s a logical extension from what I was saying.
I completely agree with the first paragraph, one advantage in my choice was the lift I had because, for the first time ever, I got something new and high end. That is something I’m grateful to the scheme for enabling.
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
As you should know, it makes no negative difference monetarily to the country what people drive on the scheme. Infact, if they choose a ‘gas guzzler’ they are contributing positively to the finances of the country by paying more duty on the extra fuel used.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-relief-for-disabled-people/vrdp28000
Motability vehicles are VAT exempt.
Quite obviously i very much disagree with you, MB isn’t a scheme for you to get your dream car cheaper. It’s to cover necessities. We can argue if the scheme does that currently, i don’t think it does – but i also very much don’t think that we need 100 grand plus cars on the scheme.
If you fancy one of those, walk into the next dealership and order it non-VAT exempt.
Prior: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19, VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY23
Current: Hyundai Ioniq 6 Ultimate
Next: we'll see what's available in 2028.I’m very disappointed to see certain comments on this thread.
While it’s doubtless true that there are people with Depression&Anxiety who are taking the mickey – how can anyone say these conditions when genuinely serious aren’t disabling or a disability?
Disabled people gatekeeping what ‘true’ disability is really quite grotesque to me, there was a time autism spectrum disorder wouldn’t have been considered to be a true disability either. It’s a very crabs in a bucket mentality.
the problem i have with the articles like the daily mail is that they portray the cars as free. which they are not we forfeit at least £300 every 4 weeks £3900 a year to get a car of any discription. me even more as i am on wpms although my ap is usually about £1200 less. even so regardless of the car i cannot afford more than £1500 as an ap so straight away my choice is reduced. then when i look at what i need to be able to get in/out of a car and be able to sit comfortably my choice goes down even more. if i then remove all electrics and plug ins its down to 43 models. that reduces to 11 at the moment it may go up if the countryman comes back on at a reasonable ap.for most people the same applies the 890 vehicles available are drastically reduced when ou factor in financial position and most importantly their condition, how many cars can take one or more walking aids/scooters many electric cant cope with hoists de to the position of batteries under the floor at the rear. the choice for many is very restricted.
@Oscarmax I hope I didn’t offend, I’ve no opinion on who should/shouldn’t get PIP in terms of income. I mentioned it because it’s a logical extension from what I was saying. I completely agree with the first paragraph, one advantage in my choice was the lift I had because, for the first time ever, I got something new and high end. That is something I’m grateful to the scheme for enabling.
No you have not offended me, we all have different views and ideas, it would be a sad day if we were all the same.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally say the wrong thing.
I’m very disappointed to see certain comments on this thread. While it’s doubtless true that there are people with Depression&Anxiety who are taking the mickey – how can anyone say these conditions when genuinely serious aren’t disabling or a disability? Disabled people gatekeeping what ‘true’ disability is really quite grotesque to me, there was a time autism spectrum disorder wouldn’t have been considered to be a true disability either. It’s a very crabs in a bucket mentality.
Unfortunately there is a minority who are exploiting the PIP system, I don’t tell anyone my car is a Motability vehicle including my daughter, I have had my crutches kicked from underneath me, push off my mobility scooter and verbally abused for being disabled, this minority are putting disabled people in a bad light.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally say the wrong thing.
I’m very disappointed to see certain comments on this thread. While it’s doubtless true that there are people with Depression&Anxiety who are taking the mickey – how can anyone say these conditions when genuinely serious aren’t disabling or a disability? Disabled people gatekeeping what ‘true’ disability is really quite grotesque to me, there was a time autism spectrum disorder wouldn’t have been considered to be a true disability either. It’s a very crabs in a bucket mentality.
Unfortunately there is a minority who are exploiting the PIP system, I don’t tell anyone my car is a Motability vehicle including my daughter, I have had my crutches kicked from underneath me, push off my mobility scooter and verbally abused for being disabled, this minority are putting disabled people in a bad light.
Wow, that’s awful. I’m so sorry you have to go through that.
The issue is that as long as there are people who take the piss and papers that gleefully represent us all in the same light, nothing will improve. We all have stories of families that have successfully claimed everything on offer and passed on the skills to their kids so they too can live a life in luxury without lifting a finger for it. Even if there is a genuine medical reason these stories simply cause harm.
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
I’m very disappointed to see certain comments on this thread. While it’s doubtless true that there are people with Depression&Anxiety who are taking the mickey – how can anyone say these conditions when genuinely serious aren’t disabling or a disability? Disabled people gatekeeping what ‘true’ disability is really quite grotesque to me, there was a time autism spectrum disorder wouldn’t have been considered to be a true disability either. It’s a very crabs in a bucket mentality.
We are all entitled to our views, including yourself, but in the end it matters not a jot what we all think. The government will decide what constitutes a legitimate claim in the future and what doesn’t. I doubt that we will all be happy with the outcome, but our only recourse is the ballot box.
I’m afraid this whole thread is exactly what the interests behind these influential publications want: it’s distraction tactics. Look away from the powerful moneyed interests at the top of our society, who have seen their tax thresholds reduced & their tax avoidance unscrutinised. We’re still paying off the national debt incurred from the banking crisis & the massive fraud from profiteers during covid, but don’t talk about that, let’s blame those with no voice; the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities etc etc. And it works, because here we are, many in receipt of benefits talking about the odd person who’s abused the system or we don’t think is deserving of the same benefits & ignoring the elephant in the room.
blah, blah, blah
Listening to LBC this morning, it appears the Government are backing down on some of the proposals after uproar from Labour MP’s.
The DWP considers that the rate of fraud in relation to personal independence payment (PIP) is so small (0.3% + 0.1% official error) that it is assessed at 0% in the 2024 “Fraud and error in the benefits system annual report” and down from 0.9% in 2023. This is hardly surprising given the difficulty in getting an award for PIP in the first place.
The way the Daily Fail puts it the tax payer is out of pocket yet, neither Motability Operations, Motability (the charity) nor the Motability Trust receive any direct funding from Government. Motability Operations buys its vehicles, however, secure in the knowledge that Government welfare payments will provide—in the vast majority of cases—three years of secure funding to pay for the leasing of those vehicles. Motability Operations is heavily dependent on Government welfare payments for the continuation of its business model.
It’s saddening to hear that @Oscarmax and shouldn’t be happening to you or anyone else.
Totally agree with you manic_minotaur, I was totally taken aback by what was said and surprised it wasn’t challenged by others.
I’m very disappointed to see certain comments on this thread. While it’s doubtless true that there are people with Depression&Anxiety who are taking the mickey – how can anyone say these conditions when genuinely serious aren’t disabling or a disability? Disabled people gatekeeping what ‘true’ disability is really quite grotesque to me, there was a time autism spectrum disorder wouldn’t have been considered to be a true disability either. It’s a very crabs in a bucket mentality.
The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.
Anything i post over three lines long please assume it is an article lol.As you should know, it makes no negative difference monetarily to the country what people drive on the scheme. Infact, if they choose a ‘gas guzzler’ they are contributing positively to the finances of the country by paying more duty on the extra fuel used.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-relief-for-disabled-people/vrdp28000 Motability vehicles are VAT exempt. Quite obviously i very much disagree with you, MB isn’t a scheme for you to get your dream car cheaper. It’s to cover necessities. We can argue if the scheme does that currently, i don’t think it does
Ah, well done Rene, There is no one sharper than your good self. I knew someone would spot something and you were superbly quick off the mark to notice the injustice which I han’t spotted. Jolly well done, I am indebted to you.
Also thanks for posting the link that verifies it – I am not surprised you disagree with it, it is rather an injustice isn’t it?
How one can be entitled to a scheme vehicle, in effect free of VAT, but not if one wants to purchase their vehicle if none on the scheme are ideal or suitable, unless one is totally wheelchair bound, really is an injustice, Also, rather discriminatory in itself by creating a hierarchy of disability – those in a wheelchair and those not. Not to mention tying one into Motability (either a monopoly or a sole source company depending on how you view it – yet again choice being taken away).
I will be writing to Rishi Sunak (my MP) about it after milking is finished as I don’t think the weather is too conducive for having the Cultipress out today.
Many thanks again for reminding me.
i also very much don’t think that we need 100 grand plus cars on the scheme. If you fancy one of those, walk into the next dealership and order it non-VAT exempt.
Yes, well it was more of a very painful hobble as my prosthetic was chafing badly (to the point of my stump blistering) the day I went to order the X6. All the spaces on the car park at BMW Harrogate were full, plus there were roadworks immediately outside of the dealership.
As you may know, the Pannal area isn’t the best for parking anyway, so I had to drive around for a fair while until a space appeared nearby albeit a bit of a distance away. Hence, it was an exceedingly painful hobble to the dealership from further along Princess Royal Way.
from the subscription side of the Daily Mail
Are 50 grand Mercs available on the scheme???
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: The Motability scheme was never designed to buy 50-grand Mercs for bedwetting boy racers in balaclavas with made-up mental illnesses. Scrap it now!
Far away is near at hand in visions of elsewhere.
As has already been said we know that PIP is available to all regardless of income. Yes there are cars on the scheme with an 8K downpayment and we’ve been on the scheme since 2001 when the pricing book was huge and yes had some eye-watering down payments, would I like them yes, could I afford them not a hope, but that doesn’t mean someone else who has the means to pay the AP shouldn’t be allowed to get it does it just because I can’t? It’s the green-eyed jealousy monster which I’m sure most would happily give up for good health.
We have just gone through a grant application and were told it’s not for our wants but needs, which are your daily needs, not anything more or less. Other rules have also been tightened up. If public opinion and this sort of clickbait journalism are allowed to reign free, then we will all be driving around in a Berlingo, etc. but at the same time what do you think would happen to the UK car industry with no Motability or a greatly reduced number of participants in the scheme?
“The Motability Scheme makes a significant contribution to the UK economy, supporting thousands of jobs and generating substantial GDP. The report found that in 2022/23, the Scheme contributed £4.3 billion to UK GDP, equivalent to 0.2% of the nation’s economic output.”
A bit rambling but you get the idea.
People in the Mail comments section saying that they know people with Porsche and Range Rover vehicles “free” from the govt and there’s “nothing wrong with them.”
Then these posts are upvoted despite being lies. Nobody gets Porsche and Range Rover vehicles on Motability and I’m sick of seeing comments making out that everyone is perfectly able to work blah blah blah. Also that blue badges are given out like sweets. It raises my blood pressure reading this cr@p!
I’m afraid this whole thread is exactly what the interests behind these influential publications want: it’s distraction tactics. Look away from the powerful moneyed interests at the top of our society, who have seen their tax thresholds reduced & their tax avoidance unscrutinised. We’re still paying off the national debt incurred from the banking crisis & the massive fraud from profiteers during covid, but don’t talk about that, let’s blame those with no voice; the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities etc etc. And it works, because here we are, many in receipt of benefits talking about the odd person who’s abused the system or we don’t think is deserving of the same benefits & ignoring the elephant in the room.
Best post on this thread by a mile!
The government/s use the legacy media to do this whenever they wish. They did exactly the same during covid and the public fell for all the lies about a “killer disease” then just as they are now with these lies on disability. They want those affected to turn on each other, the classic divide and rule tactics that have been used by power for time in memorial.
The very best thing to do is simply ignore the lies and propaganda designed to turn us on each other. Don’t play their evil little game!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.