This topic contains 35 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by jamesg 5 months, 4 weeks ago.
May 2, 2018 at 5:41 pm #49955
As I gave Dr Seth’s email, I contacted JLR about them rejoining the Motability scheme.
the answer is disappointing, but seems to lay the problem on Motability.
the response from JLR was this:
“Thank you for your letter addressed to Dr Speth dated 1st May 2018, in reference to request for Jaguar Land Rover to revisit joining the Mobility scheme.
Given my responsibilities within the Executive Office, Dr Speth has asked me to respond on his behalf.
Jaguar Land Rover were informed by the charity Mobility, that contracts to Motability Operations, who manage the scheme, that the eligibility parameters around the cars on the scheme would be changed. The new guidelines on vehicles now exclude Jaguar Land Rover products, unfortunately we have not received any further information to this.
Please allow me to confirm that Jaguar Land Rover can only apologise for the disappointment caused by the decision taken by Mobility. As you can appreciate such decisions are outside of the control of Jaguar Land Rover and it is with regret we are unable to influence any further changes.”
May 2, 2018 at 8:43 pm #49973
It’s unfortunate and the only answer is for Motability customers to complain to the charity (although there is no harm in complaining to the operation, Motability Operations, either) – as they are the ones who set the rules. Motability Operations and the manufacturers just play within them.
Even though some Jaguar models would come under the arbitrary price cap, I imagine that they could fall foul of the equally arbitrary BHP restriction. I think you could sneak an entry-level Jaguar XE onto the Scheme, but I doubt either Motability or Jaguar want to be in a position where they can only offer one vehicle, and the worst version of it.
The rules serve to minimise (negative) reputational impact to the Motability Scheme, although how effective they are at achieving this is debatable. There will always be negative publicity about the Scheme, by its very nature; this shouldn’t be allowed to harm the choice or affordability of models available to customers.
Personally, I think the Scheme would be better off if it was to allow far more ‘luxury’ vehicles back, as things were pre-2011.May 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm #49976
I totally agree, I find it a little discriminatory that because we are disabled we should drive nice cars, or have some luxury. Yes it’s a benefit but non means tested so why if someone can afford it, shouldn’t they have the benefit of good motoring in a little luxury. Are not our lives restricted enough without being told we are not worthy of a nice car??May 3, 2018 at 1:29 am #49982
Whole heartedly agree, if it’s not a means tested benefit then why even have a cap in place? Let those who can afford and want to pay a much higher AP do so
I would never be in a position do so but I would never hold any grudge to a person who could , infact it would the complete opposite for me I’d love to see you all get the cars you wanted
its time that the powers that be made a stand against all the social media trolls, daily rag smeer campaigns and put disabled drivers and their nominated drivers firstMay 3, 2018 at 2:00 am #49988
I totally agree guys, i think the cap is creating a problem for mota, allowing all cars access to the scheme will create compitition at the high end and make more money for the company.
Someone wrote on another thread that high end models could be offered to mota customers at the end of the three years, not sure how it would work but, im sure a lot of people would quite fancy a large BMW,Jag or Merc, even a three year old model.May 3, 2018 at 5:43 am #49991
The key thing here is profitablity of the scheme. Even if there is still a cap, but a higher one to allow these type of vehicles access to the scheme. The scheme shouldn’t be managed by pressure and should be run by making the right financial decisions.
As said above, there will always be negativity around the scheme, and in my humble opinion, it’s always people on the lower income brackets/ benefits doing the complaining without realising that we aren’t given these cars foc every three years.
Motability, if you are reading this, make the right business decisions and don’t bow to pressure please. We are all very grateful to the scheme and want it to flourish.May 3, 2018 at 6:57 am #49996
Yep, another who would never be able to afford such luxury (£500 ap would be my max limit), but feel the scheme shouldn’t discriminate against those with the means to have more expensive vehicles.
The only clause i would stipulate, is that a ‘cap’ should be placed on grants for cars (excluding wav’s) so people without the means to afford these more expensive cars don’t go applying for a grant to fund them. I think it would be taking the piss if someone like myself decided to apply for a grant for a car with a £3k AP making up or exaggerating the reasons why i would need such a car. Fortunately i’ve always found a car to suit my needs and budget without the need for a grant, I appreciate there are genuine reasons why some people need a grant but it has to be for practicality reasons, not luxury.
Currently the restrictions of cars on the scheme is giving the portrayal that disabled people shouldn’t be in a position to afford nice things. This is wrong, we all individuals and should be given choices that we can afford.
Perhaps now is the right time to raise a petition, if someone with good wording and grammar would like to draw something up, we could take it online, advertise it here and on Nick’s facebook page… i don’t think there’s been a better time to trial something like this and see what response we get? Perhaps the owners of this site would like to put their name to it, as in write it out, can only be good publicity?May 3, 2018 at 7:30 am #49998
Completely agree Trev. I have never understood the commercial or financial logic of any price caps, as long as all additional leasing costs are covered by the AP. It’s simply to stave off adverse PR and is therefore, by definition, discriminatory.
I further agree that grants should not be used to fund higher value cars. If someone is fully funding their Motability car they should be able to choose whatever they ‘want’. If someone is expecting their car to be funded by a grant, they should be allowed the car that they ‘need’.May 3, 2018 at 9:01 am #50000
Most cars on 3 year manufacturers warranty,that’s fine,but a Jag etc on Motability I think they would fear expensive cost if it breaks down outside warranty,so feel they would not want to offer over 3 years oldMay 3, 2018 at 9:03 am #50001
If someone could fully fund their car why would they need motability?
No I think that this cap is a good idea, just that it needs a bit of twerking, I think Motability made a commercial decision back in 2011, due to governmental pressure, and bad press.
If someone wants those “Luxury” vehicles and have the funds to purchase them then they do not need Motability’s help, however if they do not have the funding available and rely on Motability then they need to work with what is available, or end up without a vehicle, that would be their own decision.
At least for those of us that do not have funds and rely on a Motability vehicle, there is this scheme available, unlike a lot of other countries that do not have any scheme like this.
lightbodyae55May 3, 2018 at 9:52 am #50005
I’m afraid I don’t agree lightbody
Our payment to Motability comes from a benefit that’s is not means tested so that means regardless if you have 10 bucks or 10 million in the bank you still qualify should you be unlucky enough to find yourself disabled
so for example if someone like Lewis Hamilton wound up in an accident and became disabled, he would be entitled to the Motability scheme regardless of how many millions he has in the bank
whether or not he would want to join the scheme is up to him
but it’s black and white and not means tested so you cant have one rule for one and another for others
Someone who has built up a successful career or business then finds themselves disabled but because they’ve reached a certain threshold in savings they are turned away from the scheme?
no no noMay 3, 2018 at 10:11 am #50006
Most cars on 3 year manufacturers warranty,that’s fine,but a Jag etc on Motability I think they would fear expensive cost if it breaks down outside warranty,so feel they would not want to offer over 3 years old,that would matter more to Motability for their cover in the future,also agree nothing to do with them how much money you have,but how much they need to break even after costs, so sorry Brydo,don’t think second hand expensive motors will appearMay 3, 2018 at 11:32 am #50012
This is a difficult one and I can see both sides of the argument, first of all imposing the cap was to appease the media, financially it makes no sense. People reading the news about disabled people running around in BMW, Mercs and Jags get angry as they cant afford them and don’t understand why people on mobility should get them FREE as the media put it.
But I am pro choice so Motability should remove the cap, if it makes financial sense, and allow people the cars that they want. I do believe it would mean more choice down the scale also and possibly a bit more stability to the scheme where cars are on for longer with a stable AP.May 3, 2018 at 11:39 am #50013
I also disagree lightbody. People claiming DLA are from all walks of life and in very different income brackets. You shouldn’t be discriminated against if you want and can afford a nicer car or if the papers say we get a free car.
Yes, if you are applying for a grant, a car should be located for you as long as it meets the criteria you need.May 3, 2018 at 1:00 pm #50030
Lightbodyae55 – I think you might have misunderstood my point. When I say fully funded, I mean the AP. As opposed to those who have their AP paid for by a grant. That said, as others have pointed out (quite correctly), DLA/PIP are not means tested, so many who chose a Motability car may well have the means to fund a car privately (in many cases it would cost no more money than the sacrificed benefit to do so), but it is up to them whether or not they chose Motability. It’s bad enough depriving people of choice due to the fear of adverse PR, without bringing an added dimension of discrimination based on, what would effectively boil down to nothing more than jealousy!February 10, 2019 at 3:30 pm #70328
The problem with higher end car appears to be one of perception. If you completely set aside that disabled people might need a bigger more comfortable car due to their mobility (wheelchair) and travel needs. Then all that’s left is the perception that all of this is provided FREE to the disabled, the fact that the mobility allowance funds the vechile is convienently overlooked.
What next, OAPs are only allowed to buy supermarket own brands!!!!!!February 10, 2019 at 11:16 pm #70360
But the latest Jaguar E—Pace retails at £27k, which is less than loads of cars on the scheme. Let’s all chase Motability to put JLR on the scheme.February 10, 2019 at 11:47 pm #70363
Tony I have previously written to Jaguar and they indicated it was motability that wouldn’t allow them on the scheme and nothing to do with Jaguar. That’s a real pity as British people are losing their Job’s and we could help save them.
The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson CrusoeFebruary 11, 2019 at 12:16 am #70367
Seeing the replies here I thought I would include my reply from another thread in giving my personal view and timly enough give a different spin on what JLR has told Brydo in the past,
there is no right or wrong just different views at information on what we the customer gets told. I’m certainly not disagreeing with Brydo just feel my comments are better included on this thread. And well done Brydo and thanks for taking the time to get answers and keeping us all informed. It is appreciated.
my personal post from other thread. (Tony I have deleted this reply from the other thread to help it remain on topic.) following post in reply to Tonybt37 post asking “I ask you all to chase Motability to put latest Jaguar E-Pace on the list.”
irrelevant of JLR statements and replies it is Not Motability that gets to pick, they can only make those available that the manufacturers have made available and done a deal on (that meets criteria) at present although the E-Pace is under Cap its apparent JLR either has not offered it or the discounts available to Motability taking into the shocking depreciation/service cost etc in the 3 years does not meet Mr Betts formula. Business wise unfortunately without discount incentives the E-pace remains unviable.
with JLR so called being hit by the Brexit uncertainty maybe soon they will realise Motability is an option for overall sales but it’s JLR that needs to allow for and address the depreciation/cost factor Not Motability.
well that’s my personal view anyway, and hopefully with the industry claiming to being hit by Brexit and WLTP and falling sales manufacturers will decide to utilise avenues already at there disposal.February 11, 2019 at 7:19 am #70368
I think that Brydo makes an excellent point. JLR are indeed shedding jobs citing (primarily) the drop in sales of diesel and major problems with the (ginormous) China market, yet many Motability customers would find their cars (SUV’s in particular) ideal for their needs.
It was only a year or so ago that many of us got excited to see JLR adverts for the Range Rover Evoque joining the scheme, only to find out that Motability then changed the criteria for inclusion on the scheme and the car never appeared. In this instance, it was Motability who stopped the car joining the scheme, not JLR (see first post in this thread). Personally I would have had some reservations about getting an Evoque (having test driven one at length on two ocassions and being underwhelmed with it) but I was hoping that the Discovery Sport might make an appearance as it’s in the same price range.
As an aside, even though we live almost 100 miles from the nearest JLR factory, they use the M5 here to test their new cars when in development and I have often seen heavily disguised cars on test runs, usually first thing in the morning to avoid the ‘snappers’. A month or two ago I saw a small SUV on test. It was covered in the black and white masking tape so difficult to see what it might be, but I would put my money on it being an even smalller Jaguar SUV than the two models currently on the market. I’m sure that would be a popular vehicle on Motability!February 11, 2019 at 7:38 am #70369
Personally I would just like to see more affordable rear wheel drive cars for families… I only say this as rear wheel drives tend to have rather large footwells which means I can keep may manky left leg out straight.. Many front wheel and 4wd models don’t allow this without leaving.no room for back passengers. Only real option on the scheme at the moment is bmw 3 series. Although from reviews the kia Pro ceed despite having fnt wheel drive has loads of footwell space, let’s hope it’s true and it comes on as I am.tired of being forced into a large ap then a lot more on extras..February 11, 2019 at 10:26 am #70374
And here lies the problem, Mobility Operation is set up purely as a business model, rather than the dedicated needs of it disabled customers?
In 2005 I suffered a brain injury which has left me with mental and physical disabilities.
Unfortunately I do get confused and get things wrong, so I apologise in advance.February 11, 2019 at 11:48 am #70381
I honestly think that half the problem is that disability is seen to be a ‘working class’ problem! As if those in other classes (should we even have ‘classes’ in this day and age) don’t suffer disability.
I’ve often wondered what would happen if someone wanted a car that was rare enough to actually appreciate in value over the 3 years, thus making a good profit for motability! ?? Has anyone ordered a Bugatti Veron? ??February 11, 2019 at 3:25 pm #70393
JLR really do need to shift a lot of cars soon and surely no better way than doing it through Motability. You would therefore think they would get their act together and do a deal that works for both parties. A friend of mine owns several JLR franchises and told me that he is struggling to get people into the showrooms which suggests their problems won’t end soon.February 11, 2019 at 5:51 pm #70402
I think it’s all down to the Richard Littlejohn article slating Motability participants who were at that time going to be able to drive a Jag. Motability have stayed well away ever since. But I do agree with Stewart, JLR do need to shift some cars and this is their ideal opportunity.February 11, 2019 at 7:25 pm #70404
No, Littlejohns article was about BMWs not jags