Forum Replies Created
@bigdave In answer to your question yes I am a WP with a Tucson. Are you the pilot who flew over to France? Mike
Er, yes – last year.
Great. I thought it was your good self who posted on here about your trip. I also read your TR on Pprune and put two and two together.
I know it maybe off topic here, but I really need to pick your brains about disability adaptions for PA28/30 as I understand your aircraft is so adapted.
Who designed and installed the adaptions and who did the certification? We have a LAA Inspector in our FC but he has no experience of adaptions.
Sorry to contact you via this means, but I couldn’t think of any other way to contact as you are no longer active on Pprune GA forum.
In answer to your question yes I am a WP with a Tucson.
Are you the pilot who flew over to France?
Well said Ian
What was the need for that?
Obviously you believe anyone who wants/needs/likes a diesel powered vehicle is the devil incarnate. To be shot down with snidey asides from yourself. Then big up anyone who has gone electric.
It is probably why I hardly post on here anymore. I find I cannot speak openly about my choice of vehicle or fuel without being shot down by the likes of yourself – the Electric Mafia!
MikeJuly 6, 2019 at 3:35 pm in reply to: Let me cost this car out for you to see the injustice! #82131
Of the two Jeep Renergades, the Trailhawk is definitely the one to go for.
Two quarters ago, this was around £1600 AP, but dropped down to £893 when the facelift models became available last quarter.
If you enjoy off-roading or live in the sticks it is a great car and decently equipped.
I think JS, that to be equitable to both sets of customers (WPMS and DLA/PIP/AFIP) and not cause confusion, it would need as Peter suggests, a parallel list.
When I search on the Motability website I only ever look at the WPMS prices, and I am sure there are DLA/PIP/AFIP customers who only look at their respective prices. The prices quoted on the forum often catch me out if they are the DLA/PIP/AFIP ones.
I noticed in the July Prices thread, a war pensioner quoted his price for the Renault Koleos. This caused to DLA/PIP customer to contact Renault about the price. Probably leading to disappointment
There does seem to be an increasing number of both new War Pensioners and new DLA/PIP/AFIP customers using the site/forum. So to avoid confusing new members in particular, and longer established members, both budgets really need publishing.
Mike.July 2, 2019 at 10:03 am in reply to: Back against the wall why wont Motabilty treat us fairly? #81442
Nice one Dave.
Do you happen to know if it has also increased correspondingly for those on extended 4 & 5 year leases?
Are u sure the Renault Koleos gt version is down on price to £895 just after ringing them they said it had not changed
It is £893 for WPs – down from over £2k.
MikeApril 23, 2019 at 3:59 pm in reply to: Over a quarter of car charging points broken in York…………. #75368
Looking on the ZAP map, I would say the total of 40 charging points include those at hotels and at Waitrose, as well as the ones on council run car parks.
Infact playing on Zapmap, some of those mentioned in the article are shown as working, and some not mentioned in the article are shown on zapmap as not working!
Just rang motability to discuss the possibility of changing my car (currently in year 4 of a lease extension) and as advised that there’s a cancellation fee of up to £250. Must admit I wasn’t expecting that….anyone else come across this?
I extended my 3yr lease by upto two further years last Autumn.
At the time, I specifically asked about changing the vehicle during the extended lease period and I was told that I would not have to pay anything and that I would receive the GCB commensurate with how long I had kept my current vehicle.
It maybe worth contacting Motability again and ensure that they know that you are in an ‘extended lease’ situation.
I am sorry but I am a bit confused by your complaint regarding the colour.
You say in your opening post that the vehicle was on the forecourt when you went to order the vehicle. Surely you had a look at it, particularly as it was that exact vehicle you were ordering?
In any case, looking at the Capture palette, there is no other colour remotely similar to it. Hence both looking at your photograph and the image Paul has posted above, they are the same colour – Desert Orange.
In any case, I fear Motability will charge you the ‘early exchange’ fee of £250 for changing your current Captur. Ironically, this is more than the cost of the camera fitted to the one you wanted. Thus, albeit you will get a pro-rata refund of paid AP on your current car, if you then order a Captur GT Line diesel auto, you will actually have ended up paying more than if you had just paid for the camera equipped vehicle in the first place!
The GCB’s are as follows – taken from the original information about it increasing:
The Good Condition Bonus for a standard 3-year lease will increase from £250 to £500. Other periods as follows:
3+ years lease – £500
4+ years lease – £600
5+ years lease – £800
6+ years lease – £1000
So, if you have had the vehicle for 4 years (but less than 5) then the GCB will be £600.
MikeApril 5, 2019 at 12:56 pm in reply to: New car sales 2019 – Why are AP`s rising when sales are falling? #74291
I think you can also add in the fact that the allowances used to fund a Motability vehicle now only rise by CPI annually.
This is less than the true rate of annual inflation, which was better matched when the allowances used to rise by RPI (it was changed to CPI when Osborne was chancellor).
Thus as years pass, the gap widens between ones buying power using the allowance and the actual cost of the vehicles which will have risen by much more than the annual CPI rises.
Hence the increase in Advance Payments.
MikeApril 5, 2019 at 11:47 am in reply to: New car sales 2019 – Why are AP`s rising when sales are falling? #74275
You would think that with car sales falling that motability would have manufacturers kicking down their door to take their cars, so why are APs not falling? Some 3.4 per cent fewer new cars were registered in March 2019 compared to last year; business sales tumble by 44.8 per cent The number of new cars registered in March 2019 dropped by 3.4 per cent compared to the same period last year, with industry chiefs warning March’s number-plate change makes the month a “key barometer” for industry health. Some 458,054 new cars were registered last month, down from 474,069 in March 2018. As well as an overall picture of gloom, delving further into the figures reveals concerning individual pockets of worry. Sales to businesses – companies running up to 24 vehicles – collapsed by 44.8 per cent, from 22,932 registrations in March 2018, to 12,651 last month. https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/105893/new-car-sales-2019-march-sees-registrations-fall-in-key-barometer-month
I suppose overall, that as volumes (sales) fall the cost per unit (car) increases.
For example a production line is most efficient at a high volume rate of production. Slow it down and the unit cost rises as it is not so efficient.
Then factor in for example, space on the car carrying ships is booked a year in advance. If they then ship less cars in that space again the unit cost per car rises to cover the empty spaces.
Add in all these sorts of factors and they incrementally increase the ‘per unit’ cost which ultimately is passed down the chain. Motability being in the chain, with us (the customer) at the end.
Unless a manufacturer wishes to ‘kick start’ sales with special offers (and cover incremental cost increases themselves) then it is quite a linear upward increase on unit prices.
I see there a four Tarraco Autos now available:
Sorry, cannot post link as it is too long and link shortener not working!
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Mike. Reason: link not working
Why no longer interested Mike? Seems cheap at that AP .
I extended my current vehicle for up to a further 2 years. I know I can change within this period, however I rather like getting the £7.00 per week rebate (to save towards the next AP in two years). I really do like my Tucson AWD in anycase.
Plus with potentially moving abroad for a year, I would rather keep this vehicle that I know rather than take a new one on.
I looked at the Jeep 4×4 Trailhawk 2.0 Diesel Auto late last year but thought it was somewhat overpriced at around £1800 AP.
Just has my Jeep local dealer ring me to say it has now come down by £900 – now £893 AP ‘if I was still interested’.
I thanked him but told him I was no longer interested!
Is there no Motability Quarterly Price guide pdf being produced this quarter? It is usually the first thing Motability make available, before they update the searchable price list etc.
Just about every link to it on the Motability website seems to have been removed.
Does this move bode for another quarter of cars going on and off the ‘available list’ at the drop of a hat?
Don’t forget that the Veterans UK grants aren’t just limited to the automatic transmission grant.
If you require any other aids or adaptions in the vehicle, such as a boot/person hoist, swivel seats etc which are not free of charge on the scheme, then there are also grants available for these from Veterans UK. The grants are upto quite generous limits and can in a lot of cases completely cover the cost of the aid/adaption.
They are not means tested in any way. They just need to be required because of your War Pensionable condition(s).
You are missing the fundamental point though.
A dealership can give a ‘full set of terms’ to the customer paying a ‘deposit’, but if the dealership goes into administration/liquidation/bankruptcy, those t&c’s are not worth beans. The customer becomes just A.N.other unsecured creditor, who probably would be lucky to get pennies back per pound. As I said above, not all Motability customers have credit/debit cards to pay this ‘deposit’, so there is no protection what-so-ever in the cases where the ‘deposit’ is paid in cash, by cheque or by bank transfer etc.
I agree with your second post that no customer should pay a ‘deposit’ and should hold out as such no to pay any ‘deposit’. However this can result in a stand-off between with the dealership not ordering the car and the customer not paying the deposit.
None of this is helped or aided by Motability’s rather vague paragraph on its customer website, where it mentions ‘deposits’ in a paragraph headed ‘Advance Payments’. It doesn’t fully clarify what a deposit is, nor the fact that it is a ‘private matter’ between dealer and customer’ of which Motability have no part what-so-ever. Hence no protection of monies paid if the dealership does go belly up.
Clarity is certainly lacking!
This situation is only explained in your ‘internal document’ to which you say you cannot reveal the origin. However, if it is an internal Motability document, how have you come into possession of it? May I ask if you are an employee or former employee of Motability? Or a relative/friend of a Motability employee?
Turning it to a way forward, have you any objection to the wording of your quoted ‘internal document’ being forwarded to a Member of Parliament who has a specific interest in Motability (a member of the Select Committee looking into Motability’s workings)?
As until the question of the status of ‘deposits’ is fully stated on the customer website, it does leave customers in a potentially vulnerable situation.
p.s. just to add, thisd post keeps disappearing after posting. Have you locked the thread or something?
Your.right Mike deposits do have nothing to do with Motability it’s a contract between the dealership and the customer hence it has to be clearly set out and in some cases a deposit is none returnable if cancelled and again this is nothing to do with Motability. Unfortunately I’m not allowed link the origin however I can confirm it is the official internal statement , I don’t think the two statement contradicts each other but do confirm that a dealership is entitled to ask for a Deposit if they so wish as long as the terms are clearly set out.
Hello again JS.
I agree what you say, that ‘a deposit’ is solely a matter between the dealer and customer and is nothing at all to do with Motability (your quoted statement qualifies this – basically Motability have absolved themselves from all responsibility) nor does it form part of any Advance Payment due. The problem is that Motability’s customer website, which I quoted above, does not say this, or indeed make any reference to, a deposit being at risk should the dealer go into administration (or worse) between the time of payment and the actual day of delivery. Not does it clearly say that a ‘deposit’ is not part of an advance payment.
With the current depressed state of the UK car sales market it is not inconceivable that one or more dealers could topple at any time. Remember not all disabled people have credit cards to pay the deposit and get S75 cover. Some don’t even have debit cards and would pay the deposit in cash.
The average disabled customer (not those on this forum) would probably just pay a deposit thinking their money forms part of the AP, because the dealer asked for it and on the Motability customer website it says this can happen. Hence to this customer it looks as if Motability are ‘involved’.
Your ‘Official Internal Statement’ does clearly explain the situation, quite starkly. However if it is not brought to the attention of the disabled motoring public (who don’t all read this forum), how are they to know? Hence it really does need to be made public, including its origin. Anything less looks rather like collusion.
How would the forum look, if the next poster is brand new to this forum and says ‘I read on the Motability website a dealer can ask for a deposit, so I paid one. Now the dealer has suddenly ceased trading and gone into liquidation’. Motability say it is nothing to do with them. Help?
As dragonfly has said call Motability if they are asking for the AP in advance. The following is official wording from Motability in answering the scenario
Can I take a deposit from the customer? We neither encourage or discourage dealers to hold deposits for Scheme Customers. Requesting a deposit from a customer to secure a vehicle order is normal practice within the dealer network and commonly applied to retail transactions. Therefore it is not unreasonable to apply this practice to Scheme customers. However, it must be clearly understood that a holding deposit is not an advance payment. An advance payment should not be taken as a deposit.
Have you got the origin for the above please JS?.
I cannot find it on the Motability website. All I can find is:
”If your car has an Advance Payment it will need to be paid in full to your dealer either before or on the day you collect your new car. In some cases, according to individual dealership policies, your dealer may ask for a deposit to be paid when you are ordering your new car. Any deposit paid will be deducted from the Advance Payment you need to pay when collecting your car”.
Direct quote from the ‘Advance Payments’ part of:
Which is at quite at odds with your quote over the actual status of the monies paid in advance of collecting the car. I.e. When is a deposit not a deposit nor Advance Payment?
It could be very important as your quote implies it is a deposit not forming part (or all of) the Advance Payment. Thus, if one has paid this to a dealer and the dealer goes into Administration (or even liquidation) prior to delivery of the vehicle to the customer, there is every chance this money would not be recoverable from Motability as it is not forming part of an Advance Payment (ie the money is not actually Motability’s money at this stage, not until such time as it becomes the Advance Payment on car handover).
Your ‘Motability Quote’ really needs to be challenged and put into context with the one I quoted above (and gave the origin) else potentially vulnerable customers could stand to lose their ‘deposit’ in a worst case scenario.
MikeMarch 17, 2019 at 1:41 pm in reply to: Issues with brand new car and built in hoist….any advice please? #72607
Hi again Smoo,
From reading your posts above, I do get the idea you really like the CX5 (it is after all, a great car) and I hope your situation can be resolved with it.
If it cannot and another vehicle is the only solution, then Motability should return your Advance Payment to you on a pro-rata basis. As you have only just got the car then it should be most of the Advance Payment.
They can also waive the normal £250 ‘Early Termination fee’ and probably waive any costs associated with the hoist (albeit I am not 100% sure about this part, but it is worth asking if needs be).
As I said I hope it can be resolved with the CX5, but it is worth knowing what can happen if the CX5 cannot be suitably adapted.
MikeMarch 17, 2019 at 9:57 am in reply to: Issues with brand new car and built in hoist….any advice please? #72588
As JS says above, one for Motability! Hopefully they maybe able to solve it to your satisfaction.
I think where part of the problem may lie is that the CX5 is a relatively new model. As such, experience of fitting hoists and which combination of scooters/chairs/hoists fit in this vehicle could be lacking. This is in comparison with car models that have been knocking around for quite a while where the hoist manufacturers will have built up experience of what fits into what, with what and how it fits.
I made the mistake a few years ago of setting my heart on as particular ‘new to market’ car, only then to find my power-chair and a hoist (in any combination) would not fit (albeit at first glance, and crudely using a tape measure, the boot did seem big enough). Also despite what both the car dealer and hoist installer also ‘thought’!
Thus, I had to tackle the problem from the other way around.
I had ‘X’ power chair, which was yy X yy X yy dimensions and weighed almost 110kg. Thus I contacted the hoist manufacturers (Autochair, Elap, Brig-Ayd etc etc) and asked each of them which specific vehicles they had fitted my make/model of chair into. Which hoist they had used and how it fitted (rear seats up/down etc, chair dismantled/part dismantled/seat folded, transverse or lengthwise etc).
I was also told hoists often can only be fitted onto one particular side of a vehicle and are often not interchangeable, either due to their construction, or if there is something fitted into one particular side of a vehicle by the manufacturer which blocks access to ‘hard points’ to which the hoist needs to installed (for example, the internal bits of the fuel filler pipe may bar the use of ‘hard points’ on one side of the vehicle).
Only once I had this information, could I make a choice of vehicle, safe in the knowledge the chair/hoist combination would fit to my satisfaction.
Your situation is even more acute bearing in mind the need to be able to transport both a scooter and wheelchair yet retain rear seat usage.
One point I feel is worth making, is that a lot of modern SUV’s rooflines slope downwards towards the rear. This in turn limits the height of the aperture through which the chair/scooter, complete with its associated hoist and balance bar above can be swung through. Thus the need to break down the chair/scooter is often a necessity.
It is not an easy predicament to solve, but not totally unachievable. It may just mean that the actual choice of vehicle could be somewhat limited. As the chap from one hoist manufacturer told me ‘Car manufacturers consider a whole host of things when designing vehicles. Sadly, fitting a wheelchair hoist is not one of them’.
I was bequeathed some (well, less than 100) shares in the parent company of a national UK ‘multi franchise’ motor dealer group (albeit I have never bought a car from them). As such I get the usual investor bumph from them a couple of times a year, and the odd (now very odd) dividend share cheque, usually for a couple of pounds.
Out of idle curiosity, I today had a read of their recent bumph I received a few weeks ago. It basically mirrors what Brydo has posted above regarding the new car market (so probably no share dividend again this year!). The forecast ahead is more doom and gloom in this market.
The part I did find very interesting though, was their results and forecasts regarding ‘pre-owned’ cars at the allegedly ‘crucial’ 3-year-old point.
It seems whilst sales of new diesels have slumped, the values of larger pre-owned diesels including SUV’s and ‘executive’ models are rising sharply – mainly due to less supply and very much increased demand from the public.
Small diesel cars (the 1.0’s of this world) values have dropped like a stone though.
Pre-owned petrol cars are holding their own, although executive and larger SUV’ sales are declining as petrol prices have risen recently. Smaller car petrol values are forecast to be static.
The shocker was with regards to pre-owned electric/Phev and Hybrids where there is both very little demand and limited supply. The result however is that values have dropped, and this is expected to continue.
The main concern of prospective private buyers of pre-owned electric/Phev/hybrids is the perceived life of the battery packs, and whether they are going to end up with a seemingly high replacement cost. Apparently, private buyers are wanting ‘chapter and verse’ about how these vehicles have been used since new and are shying away from ex-fleet vehicles, where it is perceived the batteries may have been abused (or completely ignored as per a story in the media a few months ago)! As a result, private buyers are in general avoiding them.
The forthcoming London Congestion Charge applying to hybrids is also having an adverse effect in the south east of England, driving hybrid values even lower apparently.
I just found it all quite fascinating, as I had never thought about values and demand ‘further down the line’.
By the way, the bumph I am extrapolating this from had already been released to the stock market (and the share price went down accordingly), so I am not giving away any ‘privileged’ information.