- This topic has 46 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Topic
The Top Chap from Motability Operations gave a speech about how fantastic everything is.
- Now over 700 000 customers (this is a big jump, last quote was 670k and can remember it being 630k
- ‘Motability Operations has already moved more than 34,000 people into EVs and currently buys more than 7% of all new electric vehicles in the UK’
- Over our entire customer base, not just those in EVs, nearly half live on less than £20,000 a year, and only about half have off-street parking,”
- £300m had been set aside “to make EVs more affordable and accessible … spent close to half of this
- £13m of investment in installing more than 25,000 home chargers for customers.
- 33,000 wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) – no electric design solution
- Replies
Motability now donate millions to other charities
Did not know about this, that’s pretty shameful IMHO.
"Come on BYD Seal!"
I’m not sure who donates to who
but as a person donating to a charity I would expect my money to go to that Charity as in If I donate to guide dogs for the blind I would stop donating if I found my money was then being donated by that charity to another charity as that would be sharp practice and risks further support from disgruntled donors
just like the WWF instead we don’t “ adopt an animal” to raise funds we “adopt a car for three years” to raise funds
.
Sigh! But whatabout the communities being lost from Lithium mining or the chidren that work down Lithium mines In Asian countries e…., just so are kides and granchildren can breath clean air. Not as EV’s are green during manufacture as they have a higher footprint, which many on the scheme won’t cover enough miles to offset this!
Wot ya mean bruv? There is no loss of communities, but communities are created, mining comunities are the strongest ones, england had lots of strong coal mining communities. What about the kides working down mines, you got any names i can check? An dem ev vehilcles are replaceing nasty oily sooty desels knocking the socks of stinky diesels for the evironment like 2 birds wi one stone. Whats dem mines you on about so i can check?
Hi GG, is it MO or the Charity donating to other charities .? Regards
Probably the charity Mike (for tax reasons) but it matters not a jot. Motability (the charity) is funded by Motability Operations, who are funded by us.
I’m not sure who donates to who but as a person donating to a charity I would expect my money to go to that Charity as in If I donate to guide dogs for the blind I would stop donating if I found my money was then being donated by that charity to another charity as that would be sharp practice and risks further support from disgruntled donors just like the WWF instead we don’t “ adopt an animal” to raise funds we “adopt a car for three years” to raise funds
Exactly. The organisations that they donate to are all for the benefit of disabled people, but I maintain that this is still wrong. We have never been asked whether we are happy for a proportion of our contributions towards our Motability cars to be onwardly donated to a third party. I’m guessing that given a choice, most would prefer lower APs. It wouldn’t make a huge difference, but there’s a principal at stake here, especially in a climate where AP prices are through the roof and many Motability customers are struggling to make ends meet.
Ski mask
it’s well documented however it does require a certain amount of awareness and the ability to read and understand there is plenty of information out there for you to find
I wish you well in your journey of understanding and empathy
good luck
I think it’s quite simple. I didn’t authorise Motability to donate any of my money to charity and therefore they should cease doing this. The excess profits Motability make should be used to reduce AP’s or increase GCB and should not be used for any other purpose.
. Sigh! But whatabout the communities being lost from Lithium mining or the chidren that work down Lithium mines In Asian countries e…., just so are kides and granchildren can breath clean air. Not as EV’s are green during manufacture as they have a higher footprint, which many on the scheme won’t cover enough miles to offset this!
Wot ya mean bruv? There is no loss of communities, but communities are created, mining comunities are the strongest ones, england had lots of strong coal mining communities. What about the kides working down mines, you got any names i can check? An dem ev vehilcles are replaceing nasty oily sooty desels knocking the socks of stinky diesels for the evironment like 2 birds wi one stone. Whats dem mines you on about so i can check?
Ski mask it’s well documented however it does require a certain amount of awareness and the ability to read and understand there is plenty of information out there for you to find I wish you well in your journey of understanding and empathy good luck
There is a darkside to mining Rare Earth Elements, which you choose to ignore and liken to communities of European coal mines!
An electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and a wind plant requires nine times more minerals than a gas-fired plant. With current estimates, demand for REEs could increase six-fold by 2040. Lithium and cobalt demand could increase ten to twenty times by 2050 because of electric cars. Demand for dysprosium and neodymium is estimated to increase seven to twenty-six times over the next 25 years as a result of electric vehicles and wind turbines. But REEs also have grim prospects: the way companies extract REEs largely damages communities and contaminates surrounding areas.
Methods used to mine REE’s produce mountains of toxic waste, with high risk of environmental and health hazards. For every ton of rare earth produced, the mining process yields 13kg of dust, 9,600-12,000 cubic meters of waste gas, 75 cubic meters of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue. Rare earth element ores have metals that, when mixed with leaching pond chemicals, contaminate air, water, and soil. Even more worrying is that rare earth ores are often laced with radioactive thorium and uranium, which result in especially detrimental health effects. Overall, for every ton of rare earth, 2,000 tons of toxic waste are produced.
China dominates REE mining, mainly because of lax environmental regulations. Low cost, high pollution methods enabled China to outpace competitors and create a strong foothold in the international REE market. Processing plants in China and, more than two decades ago, in Malaysia itself, who’s plant lies in an industrial zone atop reclaimed swampland, just 12 miles from Kuantan, a city of 600,000 Mine workers and communities around these mines exposure to mineral deposits and radioactivity have been linked to an increased risk of developing lung, pancreatic, and other cancers.
Theese markets are now booming, China alone increased its outputs for the first half of 2021 alone by more than 27 percent, hitting record levels of REE extraction as demand increases.
China’s most infamous REE mine Bayan-Obo, the largest REE mine in the world. Even more infamous than the mine itself is the tailing pond it has produced: there are over 70,000 tons of radioactive thorium stored in the area. As a result, its contents have been seeping into groundwater and will eventually hit the Yellow River, a key source of drinking water. Currently, the sludge is moving at a pace of 20-30 meters per year, a dangerously rapid rate.
There are plenty more examples of unsafe mines throughout China. The village of Lingbeizhen in the Southern Jiangxi province has leaching ponds and wastewater pools exposed to open air. Txic chemicals spilling into groundwater or waterways since they are left unmonitored and vulnerable to all around. In another mine, so much wastewater was created that China had to build a treatment facility to clean 40,000 tons of wastewater per day before letting the water flow back into the river.
Workers along with communities are also suffering from health complications due to exposure to these toxic chemicals. Worker safety is not prioritized or monitored in these mines, resulting in skin irritation and disruptions to their respiratory, nervous, and cardiovascular systems. Human rights abuses have been reported throughout mines in these areas.
China has taken some steps to address issues arising from REE mining, but not nearly enough. China estimates US$5.5 billion in damage from caused by both official and illegal mining that needs to be cleaned.
The Chinese government has also acknowledged the existence of so-called “cancer villages” where a disproportionately large number of people have fallen ill with cancer due to mining-based pollution.
China officials have shut down some smaller illegal mining operations such as the mine north of the village of Lingbeizhen in southern Jiangxi. Officials are looking to consolidate mining under six state-owned groups that the Chinese government claims will maintain better practices surrounding toxic waste management, but farmers claim state-owned companies are just as bad. Some argue state-owned companies are worse because they poison communities with governmental support. For example, in Zhongshan, a company claimed it was extracting resources before the government built a highway in the area, but after the highway was finished, it refused to leave. People in the area began noticing wastewater seeping into their farms, and they were forced to inhale sulfur every time they went outside. Farmers from Yulin, an area with REE mining, have a similar story.
China understands the value of its monopoly and wants to maintain the status quo. It appears as though China is now moving its operations to Africa, where it can contaminate outside communities instead of exposing its citizens at home to the risks of REE mining. Though some of these operations are conducted by private companies, the six major mining companies are all state-owned enterprises. China has achieved exclusive rights to the REE deposits in a handful of African countries in return for infrastructure building. For example, China obtained the rights to lithium mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in return for building national roads, highways, and hospitals. Human rights issues are ripe in areas of REE ming in Democratic Republic of the Congo. Similarly, China obtained commercial licenses for REE mines in Kenya by agreeing to build a US$666 million data center. More deals are surfacing in Cameroon, Angola, Tanzania, and elsewhere, where there’s similar stories of Human rights abuse surrounding minining communities. Though African nations accept these deals now, some worry that this is a long-term strategy for China to lock African nations into a cycle of debt.
the United States has restarted some of its older REE mining operations in various states, in order to counter Chinese influence. The government wants to ensure that critical US industries can remain separate from China in the event of a larger dispute. Unfortunately the United States nor Europe have enough REE to cope with the ever increasing demand for electric vehicles and wind turbines ontop of the already demand for everyday items that use REE and more importantly to protect human rights.
This dirty secret will continue, so no I do not except your comment, that our children and grandchildren will breath more easily, when children in other parts of the world carry on suffering to suit western government whims or those that are gullable enouth to think electric cars are the clean machine of the future but, I guess ou can say, were allright Jack so sod whats out of sght out of mind!
I can understand and fully get those choosing an electric car for cheaper running running costs but, their proclaimed green credentials sorry I don’t agree with 🙂
The misconception here i believe is that some people seem to think that Motability Operations is owned by the Government/Taxpayer, and therefore they/ we have a say in how the business is run, whereas in truth, it is owned by four banks and it is a business, which exclusively provides services for the disabled.
It is basically the delivery vehicle for the National Motability Scheme, and its performance is overseen by Motability Foundation, a charity, & Just like it is with any other business , it is prudent to make a profit , to ensure the future and to cover the present, including the unexpected!
However, unlike other businesses, it has ‘some ‘ advantages regarding VAT and other business related taxes, due to it’s customer base, but it is not funded by the Taxpayer, nor does it have shareholders to distribute profits to, and nor does it have to hand profits over to Central Government to be wasted on some pet political project?
But it is obliged to hand over some profit to the Motability Foundation, the Charity , which does invest some of these receipts into other charities dedicated to the disabled?
The mobility portion of DLA or PiP, by agreement , is paid direct to MO to meet monthly payment costs of Contract Hiring a vehicle, therefore there is certainty of payment, eliminating the possibility of payment delinquencies, and therefore the need for credit assessment.
DLA & PiP is a taxpayer funded allowance paid to qualifying individuals and is theirs to spend how they chose, whether that be in Tesco, or anywhere else in the High Street, or on a motor vehicle, maybe via Motability, or another Contract Hire or Lease provider!
Would any of us truly expect Tesco to reduce prices because we chose to spend our DLA in their stores?
Most of the profit is pumped back into the business, which gives the business strength and staff the ability to negotiate new car deals from that strong position, and some has been returned to us anyway – £ 750 new car payment etc. etc.
Staff-As a former Manager of a team of nearly 200 staff, I would much ratgher have a top quality , highly paid and motivated team working on my behalf, rather than the opposite!
I wonder how much higher AP’s would be, or how much further restrictions on available vehicles would go, if negotiations were carried out by lesser motivated negotiators, with much lower salaries?,
Banks are very well know for their trust and Honesty Like Libor rate fixing and paying big bonuses to staff and shareholders not to mention tax reduction programs and also bailouts from the tax payer so I feel safe that they have our best interests at heart they could of course do it with more transparency and have a panel of Disabled people on the board
Richard. I fill up my ICE car and it costs upwards of £60 now and get about 350 miles so EVs are still cheaper (I think)
The misconception here i believe is that some people seem to think that Motability Operations is owned by the Government/Taxpayer, and therefore they/ we have a say in how the business is run, whereas in truth, it is owned by four banks and it is a business, which exclusively provides services for the disabled. It is basically the delivery vehicle for the National Motability Scheme, and its performance is overseen by Motability Foundation, a charity, & Just like it is with any other business , it is prudent to make a profit , to ensure the future and to cover the present, including the unexpected! However, unlike other businesses, it has ‘some ‘ advantages regarding VAT and other business related taxes, due to it’s customer base, but it is not funded by the Taxpayer, nor does it have shareholders to distribute profits to, and nor does it have to hand profits over to Central Government to be wasted on some pet political project? But it is obliged to hand over some profit to the Motability Foundation, the Charity , which does invest some of these receipts into other charities dedicated to the disabled? The mobility portion of DLA or PiP, by agreement , is paid direct to MO to meet monthly payment costs of Contract Hiring a vehicle, therefore there is certainty of payment, eliminating the possibility of payment delinquencies, and therefore the need for credit assessment. DLA & PiP is a taxpayer funded allowance paid to qualifying individuals and is theirs to spend how they chose, whether that be in Tesco, or anywhere else in the High Street, or on a motor vehicle, maybe via Motability, or another Contract Hire or Lease provider! Would any of us truly expect Tesco to reduce prices because we chose to spend our DLA in their stores? Most of the profit is pumped back into the business, which gives the business strength and staff the ability to negotiate new car deals from that strong position, and some has been returned to us anyway – £ 750 new car payment etc. etc. Staff-As a former Manager of a team of nearly 200 staff, I would much ratgher have a top quality , highly paid and motivated team working on my behalf, rather than the opposite! I wonder how much higher AP’s would be, or how much further restrictions on available vehicles would go, if negotiations were carried out by lesser motivated negotiators, with much lower salaries?,
Absolutely no misconceptions here whatsoever Mike!
I agree with almost everything that you are saying about how MO works and is financed, but I believe that there are fundamental reasons why we should not assess them in the same way as we would any other business. Whilst Motability Operations is a commercial business, it exists purely to provide a service to Motabilty the charity and, in turn, to disabled customers. They are inextricably linked. You cannot look at them in isolation as one funds the other and they Co-exist for a common purpose. They also have no competition, being in the unique position of being a monopoly and, whichever way we dress it up, they are funded by the surrendered benefits of disabled people.
With all of that taken into consideration, I just feel that it is fundamentally wrong to assess them against normal business metrics. You’ve kindly shared your business experience and whilst I don’t want this to turn into ‘business experience Top Trumps’, I was a director of a very large business and, whilst I had a high salary, even at that level I did not have some of the benefits that even the most junior employees at Motabilty Operations staff enjoy. The 5,500 staff that I was ultimately responsible for certainly did not have anything remotely like the benefits package that MO staff enjoy and yet we did not have any difficulty in employing and retaining motivated employees. More importantly, we existed in a competitive commercial world!
I maintain that as MO are ultimately funded by the surrendered benefits of disabled people (many of whom are on very low incomes), operate in a monopoly situation and do not have to fight for business like a normal commercial organisation does, there is no way that they should be positioning their pay and benefits in the upper quartile. I just feel that’s immoral. If the Motability market was opened up to other providers you can bet your life that a new entrant into the market would not offer remuneration packages that are anywhere near the same level and their APs could be a lot lower as a result.
The contract with Motability, the Charity, to supply oease xars does cone up for renewal and I’m not on about Scottish motability.
Morability Operatiobs have won that contact each tine.
I have to say, I also don’t beluve that the majority of the car and ancillary is funded from the PIP grant, rather from buying and ultimate selling of the xars.
I would also say, having 200 people working for soneone on minimum wage vs those who had Engineers working for them, with excellent benefits, including company cars, healthcare, discounted services are two very different things.
I also disagree that the majority on PIP are just living on benefits, clearly not the case.
The misconception here i believe is that some people seem to think that Motability Operations is owned by the Government/Taxpayer, and therefore they/ we have a say in how the business is run, whereas in truth, it is owned by four banks and it is a business, which exclusively provides services for the disabled. It is basically the delivery vehicle for the National Motability Scheme, and its performance is overseen by Motability Foundation, a charity, & Just like it is with any other business , it is prudent to make a profit , to ensure the future and to cover the present, including the unexpected! However, unlike other businesses, it has ‘some ‘ advantages regarding VAT and other business related taxes, due to it’s customer base, but it is not funded by the Taxpayer, nor does it have shareholders to distribute profits to, and nor does it have to hand profits over to Central Government to be wasted on some pet political project? But it is obliged to hand over some profit to the Motability Foundation, the Charity , which does invest some of these receipts into other charities dedicated to the disabled? The mobility portion of DLA or PiP, by agreement , is paid direct to MO to meet monthly payment costs of Contract Hiring a vehicle, therefore there is certainty of payment, eliminating the possibility of payment delinquencies, and therefore the need for credit assessment. DLA & PiP is a taxpayer funded allowance paid to qualifying individuals and is theirs to spend how they chose, whether that be in Tesco, or anywhere else in the High Street, or on a motor vehicle, maybe via Motability, or another Contract Hire or Lease provider! Would any of us truly expect Tesco to reduce prices because we chose to spend our DLA in their stores? Most of the profit is pumped back into the business, which gives the business strength and staff the ability to negotiate new car deals from that strong position, and some has been returned to us anyway – £ 750 new car payment etc. etc. Staff-As a former Manager of a team of nearly 200 staff, I would much ratgher have a top quality , highly paid and motivated team working on my behalf, rather than the opposite! I wonder how much higher AP’s would be, or how much further restrictions on available vehicles would go, if negotiations were carried out by lesser motivated negotiators, with much lower salaries?,
Absolutely no misconceptions here whatsoever Mike! I agree with almost everything that you are saying about how MO works and is financed, but I believe that there are fundamental reasons why we should not assess them in the same way as we would any other business. Whilst Motability Operations is a commercial business, it exists purely to provide a service to Motabilty the charity and, in turn, to disabled customers. They are inextricably linked. You cannot look at them in isolation as one funds the other and they Co-exist for a common purpose. They also have no competition, being in the unique position of being a monopoly and, whichever way we dress it up, they are funded by the surrendered benefits of disabled people. With all of that taken into consideration, I just feel that it is fundamentally wrong to assess them against normal business metrics. You’ve kindly shared your business experience and whilst I don’t want this to turn into ‘business experience Top Trumps’, I was a director of a very large business and, whilst I had a high salary, even at that level I did not have some of the benefits that even the most junior employees at Motabilty Operations staff enjoy. The 5,500 staff that I was ultimately responsible for certainly did not have anything remotely like the benefits package that MO staff enjoy and yet we did not have any difficulty in employing and retaining motivated employees. More importantly, we existed in a competitive commercial world! I maintain that as MO are ultimately funded by the surrendered benefits of disabled people (many of whom are on very low incomes), operate in a monopoly situation and do not have to fight for business like a normal commercial organisation does, there is no way that they should be positioning their pay and benefits in the upper quartile. I just feel that’s immoral. If the Motability market was opened up to other providers you can bet your life that a new entrant into the market would not offer remuneration packages that are anywhere near the same level and their APs could be a lot lower as a result.
Spot on.
Hey GG, I was careful to include the word ‘some’ in my opening sentence , as in my honest (and now ever so humble) opinion (from reading some of the posts, not only on this forum ) ‘some’ are clearly under a ‘misconception’ about Motability, it’s purpose , it’s responsibility and it’s governance?
MO is indeed a ‘ commercial’ operation , not owned by the taxpayer as some seem to think, nor does it distribute profits to fat cat shareholders, as others think, but ‘on reflection’ due to the advantage it certainly gains over other businesses, perhaps it should, as you suggest ,be viewed in a different light?
However, as with any other commercial operation it is imperative that it makes a profit ( perhaps we should refer to it as a surplus as it is not distributed? ) for the reasons previously outlined, and as I see it, the annual surplus’ is not excessive given the turnover, but I do agree that the reserves are unnecessarily high ( without necessarily being excessive?) now that the potential for Covid/ Lockdown additional expenditure does not need to be covered ?
These high reserves are already being ‘ whittled down’ in that MO has been refunding monies to MOTABILITY users, presumably with the agreement of, or instructed by Motability ( the Charity) which is the Governing /controlling body- £750 comes to mind, and I have heard rumours , that there may be more initiatives in the future, which may reduce the reserves to a more acceptable level?
You have suggested lowering AP’s and others have suggested alternatives, and I happily support the principle of making the overall costs less for Motability users, but not by weakening the business as a result ?
Many disabled people do not work, and are on low incomes, and may, through no fault of their own, have a bad credit history, and simply could not obtain a private lease ‘of any description’ , but can obtain new ,decent ,motor vehicles via Motability , and we must be careful not to weaken this position!
This is where Motability stands head and shoulders above the others, in that it offers an easy route to disabled, and often disadvantaged people to a new car, which many would not be able to access without the Motability scheme
We must therefore not lightly compare costs , AP’s ( deposits) with full commercial leasing companies , as these clearly are not the only consideration!
As I have already stated, Motability is a Godsend for many people , especially those without the choices that some others are lucky to have.
Staff- well, according to Reed employment, in 2021, the average UK salary for a Customer Service operative was £22,003 , with a low of £20400 and a high of £24500, and for a call centre operative was some £25500 with the ability to earn into the late £30,000’s.
The salaries paid by Motability Operations as reported are an average of £24640 which includes any bonuses , for Customer Services and £25408 in a Call centre.
It seems to me, that these incomes , albeit towards the top end of the scale, are not excessive, especially as they are averages and inclusive of premiums for working in London and Edinburgh.
Reducing staff costs is worth looking at within any business and I had to address this regularly, as I know you will have done, but not necessarily by reducing individual rewards – a different business model I know, but my approach was ‘ not to cut costs, but to increase profits to cover these costs.
We clearly differ in some areas, but I think that, broadly speaking, we are on the same page , and want the scheme to prosper
All very good points @Glos Guy @Mike 700
All very good points @Glos Guy @Mike 700
Also agree
@Mike 700 As you say, I think we agree on far more than we disagree.
As an example, whilst Motability don’t have to worry about defaults, they do have to deal with an awful lot of early redemptions. They also make a lot of grants to those on very low incomes. These are both extremely expensive and ALL APs for all customers will be uplifted beyond their actual cost to pay for this. I would argue, however, that a lot of this cost is offset by the extremely profit generative lease extensions that many users do ?
Where we won’t agree I’m afraid is the subject of remuneration. When comparing against call centres it is worth remembering that Motability Operations are somewhat unique in that their staff are not subject to very challenging sales targets, which the majority of call centre workers are. Their KPIs are extremely soft in comparison. Whilst the stats you have quoted include bonuses, they don’t include the value of benefits. These are worth many thousands of pounds per annum for even the most junior employee (not least thanks to their overly generous pension scheme). Motability Operations staff also don’t have to work unsocial hours that many call centre staff do. When you take all of that into consideration they are top of the pack in terms of rewards yet at the lower end in terms of pressure of work. I happen to know someone who works there and what they get paid and the value of their benefits and bonuses is frankly an outlier in relation to what they actually do, even allowing for where they work.
Finally, should the monopoly ever be broken and new entrants allowed into the market, I doubt that they would choose three of the most expensive locations in the U.K. to site their offices. Whoever came up with that idea?
Finally, should the monopoly ever be broken and new entrants allowed into the market, I doubt that they would choose three of the most expensive locations in the U.K. to site their offices. Whoever came up with that idea?
If only there were a competitor or even if manufacturers could come up with a scheme without getting burn’t!
Monopoly is never a good thing for any business 🙂
GG
There is no doubt, that siting MO in three expensive locations , considering that very nearly all business is conducted on the telephone and on line, is a waste of resources, which could ,potentially ,be put to better use!
A small office only, with skeleton staffing, but with the right address,would suffice for representation in each of these cities, with a Call / Admin Centre sited in a much cheaper central location , with well paid but stretch targeted staff, would seem to be called for?
The would likely fit with my philosophy regarding increasing profits, as well as yours regarding cutting costs ?
Regards
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.