Forum Replies Created
- Replies
Cheer JS, i’m trying not to be too argumentative or confrontational and Brydo I do (shock horror) agree with you on some things and also want the best for everyone on the scheme.
Without getting massively carried away with another wall of text I think the biggest thing is the blurred line between the needs of a business to make money, look after staff, consider public relations / image etc. and the charity side of things to do the best for all its customers, each with their own unique circumstances.
Probabaly one for a new topic but looking at the scheme from the outside in, I wonder what would happen if you selected a range of 500-1000 “Joe Public” drivers and asked them “for an optional one off payment and £60 a week for what the scheme offers can you find something that works for you?” Would image there’d be answers along the lines of
- “yes, more than happy so where do I sign?”
- “yes but was hoping for a better choice, cant argue with price though so worth the compromise”
- “no sorry, the car I want isn’t available so I’d rather carry on as I am”
The sticking point would be
- “Can’t find something suitable or that something is still too expensive”
This is what the scheme needs to work on, but overall not that different to us lot I guess lol except we get the ability to act upon that question and for all its faults we can probably agree that having that option is no bad thing.
Brydo, your right in the sense that I do like the scheme, also agree with those that say its not perfect as there are certainly things that could be improved but overall it works for a good number of people who would be far worse if it wasn’t there.
Maybe I’m just a cynic but personally haven’t come across that many situations where services being subcontracted out actually make things better for the end user. Adding specifications and minimum requirements is fine on paper but it doesn’t always work in practice, for example the Mrs had a stay in hospital and the food being supplied by a contract company was that bad that even the staff advised people to order in take-aways or that the local council has brought their repairs / maintenance service back in house due to the poor quality and cost cutting used by the contracted company. All companies are out to make money, they can and will cut costs as that is part and parcel of doing business. If Motability can make it work then great but if it doesn’t then everyone on the scheme suffers for it.
Leasing companies can offer a wider range of cars as they are not restricted by cost limitations, requirement to offer insurance, all inclusive maintenance etc. I browse another car related forum and some of the people there have found the best leasing prices are restricted by trim, colour, not being able to add options etc as the cars have already been ordered from the manufactures, at least on the scheme if the car is not in group stock you get one built to order.
Again with the pay more for insurance for high end cars you are just creating a two tier system, I keep saying this but the scheme (auto boxes aside) treats everyone the same with the only entry requirement being certain benefits. At what point does it stop becoming a way of helping the needy and start becoming a leasing company with added advantages for the wealthy.
Regarding the bonus’ I wasn’t aware it was management only, the frontline staff from my experience do a great job and it would be nice for them to get bonuses as they are the ones dealing with customers and without them doing such a good job the management wouldn’t get theirs, whether management deserve it or not is a different thing but that’s the case all over – of course its not right but singling out Motability isn’t going to change things either.
No i don’t have a pension but if the one provided by Motability is so far out of touch with most others then it needs looking at and some justification as to why its that way.
If I have to wait on the NHS for an op then that’s sadly what it is, if company X offered free healthcare to their workers then every time I buy their product I’m helping someone jump the waiting list when really they should stop doing it and lower the prices instead?
The scheme is already making large profits so why force people to choose between moving and having a job – as you said just beacuse other companies do it does it make it right? If the scheme had to save money or close then its a fair argument but that’s not the case.
Could be wrong but I remember seeing something in one of the quarterly magazines about who was on the board and sure some of them had disabilities.
Increasing the cap has a lot to do with the average wage / man on the street. The scheme is already making money and adding cars with a massive AP is not going to “help” anyone apart from the wealthy whilst at the same time upsetting the public as to why there is need for such expensive cars outside the reach of a lot of them are being offered at cut price amounts. If your in the market for a £60,000 car then its not really for a charity of provide it.
Same thing with the buying power argument, Motability will have more clout with the makes they sell more off but cant see Porsche bending over backwards to sell a handful of cars each year. Making it more affordable with regards to automatics and adaptions yes but the overall package is already attractive and cheaper for mainstream makes compared to leasing.
Some makes already offer front and rear sensors and standard but insisting on other things as standard is easier said than done, your example of auto boots is ok if its available on its own but what if its part of an expensive option or not an option on that model? Should the manufactures be forced to come up with a new model, give away option packs or does the car simply not appear on the scheme?
Fair point on the extensions, just thinking out aloud here but wouldn’t a five year contract result in a higher AP due to depreciation / higher miles?
Anyway Brydo, we may be miles away in views but honestly thanks for the replies – really enjoying our debate 🙂
Alfie, very nice 🙂 Think that’s the first time I’ve seen proper pictures of the silver interior on the Xcellence Lux, quite like the black on the other trims but it certainly brightens up the cabin.
Keep looking at all the photos and rave reviews makes the last week or so wait for ours feel like an age lol
Brydo, once again I think we are going to lock horns with completely opposite views….
What i would like to see happen:-
A – With Motability operations
1. A tender process allowing maybe five existing fleet providers to tender every 5-7 years for the contract
Motability will award it to the lowest bidder to maximise their profit and the winner will do the minimum required in order to dot the same… This really would result in a limited choice of older / not popular cars and we’d be stuck with this until the contract comes up for renewal where it will be exactly the same but provided by a different company.
2. Similar procedure for the insurance companies
As above, expect to pay an admin fee for adding temporary drivers and black boxes being required for younger drivers.
3. Failing the above the removal of all bonus related payments to employees
Bit harsh, the front line staff do a cracking job and can hardly been blamed for whatever management decide to impose upon them – assuming they even get a bonus.
4. Payment of senior staff to reflect the fact the company is a monopoly with no compitition.
Not sure what difference this makes, senior staff being paid more than their worth is an issue across all sectors – that aside if the company is doing well then everyone from the bottom up should be rewarded.
5. Removal of the existing 15% non contributory pension scheme
Can’t really comment on that as don’t know enough about it but if its way above what a typical company of that size offers then it may need looking at.
6. Removal of free health care
Again not 100%sure but get the impression that more and more larger companies are offering this,both as perk and the simple fact that the less time of people take due to illness the more efficient they are – for want of a better way of putting it, a case of spending £5 to save £10
7. The existing two offices moved to a cheaper area of the country and combined into one HQ
So not only are the workers expected to give up their perks / health care they are now forced to either give up their jobs or relocate, if the later how much would it cost Motability in covering the cost of people doing so?
8. At least two disabled members appointed to the board to keep an eye on what goes on.
Might be wrong but was thought this was already the case?
B – with the scheme
1. An increase to say £60,000 price cap.
Not going to happen. The average yearly wage is half this amount and whilst i’m all for people having a choice of cars its a charity not a way for the wealthy to get cut price luxury cars.
2. An agreement with all manufacturers wanting on the scheme to include all their cars up to this cap on the scheme for the entire year.
Again it wont happen, if certain models are in high demand there is no way a manufacturer is going to offer them to the scheme at a discount, they will simply opt out, remove all their cars and get rid of them via the leasing companies.
3. Replacement of the existing motability website with a more user friendly, current and accurate website.
The site isn’t that bad but improvements could be made to the search function or rather the results as sometimes the “same” car seems to show up twice but when you look closer its a different BHP or similar.
4. Standard equipment to be included on ALL cars a list of which would be established through contact with the members.
The risk here is you get rid of the whole idea of trim levels and could end up with a “disabled spec” car being offered with few other trims being offered. The manufacturers also want to make a profit and if Motability try to enforce two many options / upgrades on them they again could leave the scheme or jack up the prices with corresponding rise in APs
5. Five year contracts available on request.
This is already possible via extending the lease?
JS and WMC – cheers for checking, was sure it had posted and then started to think I was going mad when it hadn’t lol.
Garry, by “general public” I meant people not able to join the scheme, didn’t mean to imply that the disabled are different to your average Joe 🙂
I do see both yours and Brydo’s point of view and I’m all for there being a choice of cars covering a range of APs and have no issue with premium brand equivalents of typical cars car on the scheme with APs that are affordable to a good number of people.
Adding super luxury stuff like 60k Range Rovers with 10k+ APs completely goes against the idea of the scheme, you’d end up with a two tier system with the “poor” at one end who can’t run a car without Motability and the “rich” who’s high end cars and all the expensive costs associated are effectively subsidised by Motability.
I realise that is kind of the case with all the cars on the scheme, hence overall the leasing package is much cheaper than that available outside the scheme but there’s a big gap between helping someone into a car they need and helping someone save money on a very expensive car they want.
Suppose if the scheme was compulsory then there would be an argument for all sorts of cars adding but its not, for those that can afford to do so there is nothing stopping them going down the PCP route, the poor pick something on the scheme that works for them and those in-between can upgrade to a better equivalent by paying a reasonable AP.
Jamie, that is an epic shade of blue – some of the darker silvers also look good but see tons of silver cars around so its nice to see something different 🙂
Its no secret that I’m in the pro Motability camp, it may not be perfect on paper / have some issues with how the scheme is managed but the end result is people have access to a decent range of cars they otherwise wouldn’t have and that cant be a bad thing.
As said before the scheme cant be everything to everybody… I agree that there is an issue with APs on autos being higher than manuals but some autos are the same AP so depending on needs the higher price can be avoided although this wont be possible for everyone.
The lack of “premium” brands also seems to be a sticking point for some – whilst its true the full manufactures range may not be on the scheme there are things like the Merc A Class, Audi A1 and the BMW 2 series which badge aside are not all that different to your average Ford, Vauxhall, SEAT, VW and so on. As nice as it would to see Range Rovers, 5 Series BMW, Lexus etc they are going to be difficult to justify adding when such cars are beyond the reach of a good chunk of the general public.
We’re due to take delivery of Leon ST with the same engine / transmission very soon but did have a test drive in a manual 1.5TSi FR Sport and was really impressed with it. Compared to our current 1.4 turbo Vauxhall Astra with similar power it felt quicker and handled very nicely, this was probably due to the stiffer sports suspension setup. I was also quite taken with the digital dash and things like the auto hold for the brakes, the boot is also a good size and having full LED headlights will be a result come winter.
We were lucky enough to order ours last quarter so got the 2.0TSi Xcellence Lux ST but apart from a few tech bits the FR Sport is similar – the Xcellence Lux is geared towards comfort and kit whilst the FR Sport is more of a “drivers” car with sporty suspension, drive modes and paddle shifters.
There is a thread (https://forum.whichmobilitycar.co.uk/forums/topic/seat-use-of-the-2-0-tsi-discontinued/) about the Leon with the 2.0TSI, so far everyone who’s taken delivery has nothing but praise for the kit and rather rapid performance – 190PS and 320Nm of torque coupled with the 7 speed DSG seems to be quite a potent combination…
Cant comment on the Merc but hope some of the above helps – personally I think for the AP the Leon is a bit of steal, especially compared to some of the silly prices for a VW Golf this quarter.
Brydo, once again its me not wording things very well – what my brain thinks and what the fingers do don’t always end up the same lol
Very well put tj but splitting choice in to needs and wants is a tricky one. In doing so you really limit what SHOULD be on the scheme.
Was more getting at the idea of people having a list of needs and wants when looking at cars had having to weigh one against the other. I think the range of cars offered is good enough to meet the needs whilst also ticking a good number of the want boxes.
If everyone gets the car they need we would be looking at a basic trim car in the levels available on Motability’s website.
Do we NEED anything other than that, of course some need adaptations and they can be incorporated into a large basic SUV or mid size van.
True, that does blur the need and wants lines a little but Motability give us the choice of trim levels, rather than just going down the one size fits all route and only offering base spec models – that caters for both needs and wants as much as it can.
Do we need automatic lights, windscreen wipers etc, do we need height adjustable seats maybe, do we need reversing cameras, some might but what you are saying, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that you are happy with what is provided so your ok.
Some do some don’t. Someone with limited movement may put some of those on the need list, whilst some hate that kind of tech and others have it as a want – again having a choice of trims means this is possible.
What I’m saying is the choice of cars is good enough to meet our needs and wants so the scheme works for us but i do appreciate that it doesn’t for everyone. In our case our need was a car low enough for the Mrs to get in and out of with a boot big enough for her folding wheelchair and some shopping, the wants were things like auto lights, DAB radio, sat nav etc. We ended up with a top spec Vauxhall Astra Estate, the base model was £0 AP and would have covered all the needs but for £99 AP we got the top spec Elite Nav trim that also had the wants. There were a few other cars that would have also met both , some the AP was more than we wanted and others just didnt appeal but the choice was there despite the lack of premium brands – suppose this is the compramise, you can have both needs and wants meet but will probably have to settle for an “average” brand.
Just to be clear I am not one who would pay £5-6-7000 AP for a car so I am actually fighting the corner for those who would.
I wouldnt pay much over a couple of hundred but don’t have an issue with those that do pay more, their money and their choice. In all honesty I think the option to pay an AP and pick a better model / trim is a good thing, we paid a small AP and got a trim /spec worth thousends more so it was a great deal.
I believe opening up the scheme to more expensive cars would make money for the scheme and get more people onto it giving us more clout when dealing with manufacturers.
Maybe, would be interesting to know the average value of popular cars leased by the general public, against those via Motability, suspect the latter is higher. Higher end cars might sell for more after three years but insurance, servicing and maintenance are all going to be higher so it could end up that whilst the sum of the sale is higher once all the costs are involved the actual percentage returned is lower than typical cars on the scheme – only Motability know the answer to that one. Is only my opinion but for some premium brands / models part of their image is the perceived exclusivity and they may not even wish for some of their range to be on the scheme, not saying its right but that’s sadly may be the reality.
Suppose its not easy for Motability to juggle the wants / needs of their customers, the financials of such a range of cars and the public opinion of what is after all a charity.
Guess as ever its a case of needs against wants and depending on personal circumstance sometimes having to accept a compromise.
Motability are a charity and have to cater to the needs of the many rather than the wants of a few. I imagine that a good percentage of the people on the scheme are happy with it, for the most part it offers really good value for money and a very inclusive package where nothing more than fuel is required to run a brand new car. There may be a lack some makes and models but the selection is still decent and most people should be able to find a car that meets their needs but maybe not all their wants – some will be happy with this trade off and some not but as myself and others have said joining the scheme is optional and other routes to getting a car are available.
The PCP / private lease route gives unlimited choice so wants can take as much priority as needs but its down to the individual to sort out all the costs associated with running a car and for mainstream / everyday models would probably work out more expensive than leasing with Motabilty – for those who want something not on the scheme and can afford to do so then brilliant, its their money to spend as they see fit and don’t think anyone is going to begrudge them for doing so.
The “problem” for want of a better way of putting it is not finding something on the scheme but not being able to get it via PCP either. It would be nice to have a range of high end models back on the scheme but its not essential and will no doubt cause upset with the general public as it more or less goes back to the subsiding the well off argument.
I know this is going to be a hugely unpopular opinion but if the car you want isn’t on the scheme and you cant afford to fund it via PCP / private leasing that’s not really Motability’s fault, we all want stuff that for whatever reason we cant have and sadly sometimes have to make do with less than we’d like.
Having said that it would be nice if some types of car had lower APs so that people didn’t have to spend so much to get what they need and I agree that’s something Motability could and should improve.
Cheers Alfie, to be honest after you posted about yours being cancelled despite a confirmed build date I wasn’t 100% sure the factory would complete the order but now that its on the way the we’re really looking forward to it – Mrs T.J literally burst into tears when I passed on the good news.
Getting used to all they toys could take a while, downloaded the manual so have a rough idea on how a chunk of it works but as they say theory and practice are two different things…
Can imagine its not slow by any means, on paper the 0-60 time is 7.3secs for the ST but remember seeing reviews / posts about the Audi A3 with the same engine / transmission as the Leon doing it in 6.8s, both cars are a similar weight so it does make you wonder if SEAT are having to understate the performance in order not to upset the brand hierarchy.
WardyGTC, true but the FR Sport is showing on Motability’s website for the hatchback / ST and the 2.0TSi for the hatchback only – who knows what they they are up to, bet it would be interesting trying to order one…..
Nice 🙂 Its shame there isn’t a way for the condition bonus to be awarded on the spot during changeover, it could then effectively become £600 off the AP paid when collecting a new car – would be a great help to people who may not be able to find a large AP upfront but could manage a chunk of it with the GCB covering the short fall.
Suppose the issue with the above is no-one has a crystal ball and could end up causing tons of damage days before collecting a new car leaving them with a short fall on the AP.
Bit of an update…. Just found out this morning that our 2.0TSi Leon ST has been built, left the factory and is expected to land in the UK later this week – yay! From there it has to be transported to the dealership but can’t see that taking weeks and weeks, so all being well we should take delivery very soon 🙂
Just been looking at the new AP for this quarter and the 2.0TSi is only listed for the hatchback and not estate versions? Still nice to see the option for a hot(ish) and practical petrol car without a mad AP is back – other than the badge not sure why someone would pick the VW Golf over the Leon this quarter.
Brydo, don’t think a hidden price list would work as there would be a lack of transparency – they might not reveal the discounts given by car makers but the end results are there for all to see in form of a publicly available price list. Imagine it would be nightmare from an admin perspective and people would enquire about all sorts of weird and wonderful cars.
Nothing wrong with people avoiding the scheme, if the car you want isn’t available and you have the means to get one privately then go for it. PIP isn’t means tested so people going down that route are in a roundabout sort of way getting a 7.5k discount on a car of their choice, assuming they change it every three years.
Don’t think you’ll offend anyone, there are so many people on the scheme that opinions of it will vary. Personally the Mrs and I are happy as it works for us, would be nice to have more estate cars but the trend is towards suv so can’t really blame motability for that – of course if they could add a mental 700hp AMG wagon for £200ap I wouldn’t say no but as long as we can find something suitable then job done.
Realise some people have complex needs and for them the cost of suitable cars may be an issue, as mentioned in my last post perhaps some kind of grant would be a way of improving the choice by lowering the cost for those with a need for such options / features.
Callmejohn,
I wasn’t saying everybody should be forced into a “cheap run about” just that its easy to see in some situations why the general public could take exception to a charity providing high ends cars.
Sorry to hear of your health concerns and the impact they have on the choice of cars, the fact that a Kia is suitable and that your very happy with it somewhat reinforces what I’ve said in other threads that all the while peoples needs are being meet by the current range its quite hard to introduce high end cars back into the scheme without some negative press.
The tickets were not a great example, sometimes struggle to put things into words…
Might be better to use your holiday example, if someone wants to save hard for something then fair enough that’s their choice and they can reap the rewards of doing so by picking a nicer destination, but its not hard to understand why some people get miffed when they hear of a charity that offers holidays to the disabled is then sending them on luxury cruises with only a small portion of it being paid by the person going.
Probably still a rubbish example but I know what I mean lol
Having the option to pay an AP and get a better car is a good thing but there has to be a limit on what’s offered otherwise it would be easy to get into the situation of having high end Range Rovers at 10K AP on the scheme which only a select few could afford and probably even fewer actually need – at that point its not really a charity providing affordable motoring to the disabled but a very cost effective way for the well off to run high end cars.
Mitch, see what your getting at with modern cars as they certainly seem form over function in many cases…
Wondering if Motability would do well to introduce some kind of grant for optional extras that are needed for medical reasons? Something along the lines of model x with £500ap isn’t suitable without a £400 option pack so a quick form is completed with a covering letter from a GP and Motability then cover most / all of the cost of that option – that way people that really need such options are not having to find large amounts of extra money to get a suitable car and those that just “want” extra spec pay for it as they already do?
WreckitAnth, will admit that I don’t know the ins and outs of the cap reduction but can see why some people would take issue with high end cars being on the scheme as we get a much better car deal than the general public could. As I’ve said in some other threads the idea of the scheme is to get people into suitable, reliable new cars but things have to be kept reasonable and the scheme will always be under scrutiny simply because of its high profile and size. Struggling to word this but here’s a scenario or two
Someone wants to go to the theatre but for whatever reason they cant go alone, the theatre house provide a free ticket for that second person so that they are not disadvantaged.
Someone needs a car so Motability offer a mainstream mode typical of the cars most people drive or would be happy to drive at a very good price compared to leasing privately.
Compared with
Someone wants to go to the theatre but for whatever reason they cant go alone, the theatre house provide a free ticket for that second person so that they are not disadvantaged but then go one step further and provide a pre-dinner meal and hotel accommodation afterwards at no extra cost.
Someone needs a car so Motability offer a mainstream mode typical of the cars most people drive or would be happy to drive at a very good price compared to leasing privately, but for those that could realistically afford to run a car outside the scheme there is the opportunity to drive something beyond the reach of average Joe for a comparability small upfront outlay.
Cant see any reasonable person having a problem with the first situations as they simply put the disabled person in a position roughly equal to the majority of the “general public”, on the other hand its not hard to see people questioning the second as that puts the disabled person in a much better position without any “need” to do so.
I guess this is the issue Motability faced, people must have started to question if there is a “need” for a charity to be putting people in cars beyond the reach of a lot of the general public and whether they had strayed from their original aims / were more or less subsidising people who could afford to run cars privately by doing so.
Dave, my wife has has a range of mental health issues including Complex PTSD and Conversion Disorder and gets higher rate mobility, part of this is due to metal illness manifesting physically with stuff like poor balance, co-ordination, perception etc but she also has 6+ drop seizures a day that happen without warning.
She was awarded the higher rate partly due to how stressful public transport would be but mainly due to having to use a wheelchair down to the risk of injury caused by the poor balance and seizures – she can (very slowly) get around the house but we’ve lost count of the the number of times she’s had a seizure and face planted the floor, painful enough on carpet but would be a disaster if she was crossing a road….
As others said it is very possible to get high rate mobility through mental health but it is harder, my wife was “lucky” that she had tons of letters from different specialists as her circumstances are quite severe and uncommon – anyway enough life story but hope it gives a real example of how it can be award on mental health grounds.
Carmad, thanks – she’s happy that is all ordered etc but as it was the 2.0TSi model there is still some doubt over the factory actually supplying it as another member on here has there’s cancelled despite having a confirmed build week.
Know what you mean about checking the prices in the next quarter, so far we’ve been lucky that the AP has gone up every time and in the case of the Leon was discontinued about a week after we’d placed the order.
Some very nice looking cars and great to see some of them actually arriving at the dealerships. Ours (fingers crossed) should be in production as it was allocated a build week starting 17th June, our sales rep is away until the first week of July though so a little in the dark at the moment but they seem confident that all will go to plan.
Would imagine its no more than 120w or at a push 150w – all the inverters that I’ve seen with a cig lighter socket are limited to this by the fuse on the circuit.
Realise that the 5008 has one built in but not sure they would run much thicker cables / a new circuit for something that isn’t standard across the range, would make more sense for then to just to “piggyback” it onto the standard wiring harness which is already in place for USB ports, cig lighter socket on all models.
Carmad, we are the same as our order date has always been the last few days of June. We do a shortlist in Q1 and see what’s still available / affordable in Q2, I guess as a bit of a bonus if there is nothing appealing then we can wait and see what Q3 brings.
This year was a bit different as due to a last minute recall that delayed delivery of our current car our order date got shifted to the first few days on July – the Mrs had fallen in love with the Leon ST and due to mental health issues couldn’t deal with the changed of date / risk of missing out on it so we did an early termination so that she stayed within Q2… To their credit Motability did waive the £250 fee but of course we’ve forfeited the good condition bonus, the money would have been nice but small price to pay for the Mrs peace of mind.
Brydo, does this mean I’m (mostly) forgiven for being rather outspoken on the I3 thread lol? Hope you all have a great Sunday – it’s stopped raining here at last so might be might be beer and bbq time!
Brydo, likewise – our views at times are polar opposites but in all fairness a good debate never hurt anyone, and on that note….
We all want the best for the disabled,I’m sure we all agree on that, but the disabled come in all forms, physical, mental, partial sight, no sight, missing limbs, bad backs, disabilities from birth or from accidents or general wear and tear.
This is very true, in my wife’s case its severe mental health issues that also manifest physically and in fairness to Motability there does seem to be cars on the scheme that cover most although possibly not all combinations of the above.
They also come in rich and poor flavours. If you have money and want to spend it on an expensive car and stay within the motability scheme, the choice is limited. I see nothing wrong in getting the best choice for everyone and that includes high end cars
The scheme is intended to get people into cars they need to get about / improve quality of life that they may not be able to get without it. This is why there are cars with zero AP and some less than total allowance, the difference back each week could pay for fuel so even the extreme less well off can benefit from the scheme. Those in a better financial position can pay an AP to get a better car / higher spec trim but the line has to be drawn somewhere – I’d guess the majority of the “non disabled” population would be able to find something available on the scheme that they would be happy driving, perhaps even more so given the small(ish) outlay each week for such a comprehensive leasing agreement.
I don’t see it as unrealistic we can have all ranges and prices of cars on the scheme without causing any problems between those who can afford them and those who can’t
Probably not going to put this into words very well but as an example, if they added the Porsche Cayenne with an RRP starting at around 57k the advance payment would be would be well into the thousands maybe even 10/15k+, that would put it beyond the reach of most people apart from those that could more than likely afford to lease one outside of the scheme anyway – AP aside everyone pays the same weekly amount so your then getting into the situation that to a select few the scheme becomes a “financially advantageous” way of leasing high end cars with Motability covering all the (significant) running costs. All your then doing is just creating a huge divide between the “poor” going for zero or low AP / the “average” who can find a grand or two and a far smaller number of “wealthy” who can afford to run pretty much anything they want outside of the scheme anyway and in practical terms have no “need” for it beyond financial efficiency.
These cars are good business for the scheme as the AP could and will be high and the scheme will reap the benefits when selling at the end of the lease.
No idea on the depreciation / servicing costs on something like the above Porsche example but its not going to be cheap and even even if Motability could get the numbers to add up, a charity designed to help the disabled get into suitable cars that then starts offering super premium brands at prices only the wealthy can afford would cause outrage as it completely misses the point of the scheme – the small (on the grand scale of things) financial benefits would be far out weighed by negative publicly.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that wealthy people shouldn’t be on the scheme, it being open all is a good thing but if someone really wants a high end car instead of something currently available and are also lucky enough to be able to finance it then once again I think its unreasonable for Motability to provide for such a small minority
I have, many times, posted when in a bit of a mood or posted things that have been misinterpreted or misunderstood so I know how you feel.
Needless to say that I can agree with you on – hope the above is less blunt and better worded lol
On a side note is it possible for a mod to split this thread into a separate one so that the original subject is not completely hijacked?
