To think this is a fair change to the Motability scheme...

No, of course nobody can force them to expand their remit but it's a nonsense to pretend that that the taxpayer isn't subsidising Motability beyond just paying the PIP payments.

Motability raises funding mainly because it has a guaranteed source of income (people's PIP payments paid by the government ). It's all smoke and mirrors but ultimately it all comes back to the government funding this and disabled people being able to access cars at preferential rates.

It’s a charity that doesn’t solely rely on government funding. They also have privately sourced funding too. Their charitable aims are specifically to disabled people so they probably have no wish to expand their remit. Maybe there’s a place for a similar scheme for this for low income families but you can’t insist that Motability pick this up

You are missing the point.

Lots of people on this thread are insistent that Motability doesn't cost the government any extra money because PIP would be paid to individuals at the same level irrespective of whether they were using the payment to fund a Motability car or not. This is factually untrue.

Motability receives indirect funding from the government through the tax concessions it offers Motability customers. The government couldn't afford to extend the scheme because they don't want to extend the tax relief. It would be hugely expensive.

Also a charity could always widen it's charitable purpose to providing cars to those on low incomes etc. There is no intrinsic reason they can't do that other than the funding problem which is because Motability is subsidised by the government beyond simply funding the PIP payments.

Indeed. The rush to deny advantages (often understandable anyway) to make it look less beneficial is ridiculous. Motability benefits from significant taxpayer support through zero-rated VAT, charitable grants for advance payments, included insurance and servicing costs and other tax break exemptions. Those subsidies only exist because it is a targeted disability scheme. It's fine to admit that.

Quite right to call out the exaggeration. The leap from one system to another doesn’t hold up. The Motability scheme is not about saving the NHS money or guaranteeing vehicles - luxury or not. It’s about functional impact and mobility limitation as defined in law.

Blurring separate budgets to make numbers look persuasive isn’t cost-benefit analysis. It’s misrepresentation - and ironically it proves the same accusation (lack of thinking and understanding) made against others.

On seizures, my point remains clear but I'm not going to argue further about it since it's really not the aim of this thread.

Because it's to help the disabled.

Charities have a specific charitable purpose. They have to seek funding and their income isn’t guaranteed. They’d be breaching their charitable aims if they opened it to everyone and where would the funding come from to expand their remit?

You can still extend it if its under a certain mileage we had my sons last mobility car for four and a half years.

I get PIP and I’m ok with it. However, it’s important to note that PIP claimants pay high upfront fees for these ‘luxury’ cars so it doesn’t really make any difference that they’re not available anymore. I chose my car based on the upfront fee I could afford, other people could afford more…that’s life 🤷‍♀️ Now choice has been taken away, for what? Because people are jealous? It’s not as though the PIP payments themselves are going to reduce so there’s no saving there but hey ho, if it appeased someone somewhere then whatever.

What an odd post!

Perceived fairness is absolutely fundamental to so much in our society. It's why we queue instead of all rush to the front, it's why we have a welfare system where many of us get less out than we pay in, it's why so many of us get up early to work jobs we don't enjoy in order to contribute our 'fair' share. Demeaning the idea of fairness does nobody any favours, especially vulnerable people who rely on people doing the right and fair thing.

There is a point though where the balance tips too far and we need to address this in a mature and sensible way. Not dismissing their concerns as being childish but actually looking at what is happening and why people feel the way that they do. Like it or not, many working people simply don't have access to some of the cars that people on disability benefits can access even when they're on a higher or similar income. They are essentially being taxed to subsidise someone's standard of living that will be higher than their's. Disability or no disability, this is a legitimate concern.

The issue of learning disability, life expectancy and the NHS is close to my heart as I too have a relative impacted by this. All I will say is that lots of people with learning disabilities have inherent vulnerabilities that are very difficult to tackle effectively. In our experience this will impact diet, exercise and health-care, not because the person isn't being treated fairly but sadly there is a lot of self sabotage. The amount of time, effort and money that has been spent to counteract this has been huge but ultimately it is extremely difficult to completely mitigate all of this and allow them some semblance of independence which they understandably cherish. For this reason I think it's a bad example of a lack of fairness in the system as effectively you are asking for the NHS to do the impossible in lots of cases.

You can't effectively treat someone who doesn't flag issues, doesn't turn up to appointments and won't enable treatment. You can't force someone to exercise. You can't stop an adult with learning disabilities from buying crap food and overeating.

I really don’t understand what the issue is with paying a bigger down payment at the beginning of a persons lease??? You don’t get more benefits to cover it. I’m far more irritated myself by the change in rules about how long you can keep the vehicle. (You used to be able to extend your lease now you have to renew every three years).

”It’s not fair” is what we’d expect a 3 year to say, when they see one of their siblings get something, they haven’t. IMO, it’s just a round about way of saying “I’m jealous!”

We have a National Health Service, but people with learning disabilities have a life expectancy 20 years less than able bodied people, because they tend to get a poorer diet, less exercise and worse health care:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c939311dpn1o

Is that fair? Would the able bodied population like to see their life expectancy cut by 20 years, and be told they won’t be treated for cancer, etc?

We have seen it for ourselves with regard to DD in the NHS (not her consultant neurologists, who are fantastic), especially in A & E and the follow up treatment!

Your question has been answered by @Arran2024 ; but this article on the Budget is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/29/how-motability-cuts-went-from-a-rightwing-online-campaign-to-rachel-reevess-budget?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

Apparently, Rachel Reeves was swayed to make the changes she did, in the Budget, by right wing posts in social media! She didn’t consult at all with disabled groups, such as Transport for All. Their view is people need a solid car to take the heft of a wheelchair hoist - which tend to be the higher end or premium brands.

Labour are no better than the Conservatives - during Covid, the Conservatives imposed harsh restrictions about visitors and isolation on disabled and/or elderly people in care homes, without consulting experts on dementia, learning disabilities, etc about the foreseeable effects; or stakeholders such as the care homes, residents or their families. Now we have Labour allowing themselves to be pushed around by right wing propaganda about cuts to disabled benefits, without bothering to inform themselves first about the impacts of these cuts!

Its always been my view, the Labour cabinet don’t have the business experience to run a sweet shop, never mind the economy; and now we have seen their true shallowness!

This was in response to a suggestion by another poster that seizures are more easily dealt with on public transport than in a car. So now we have people arguing for no car rather than just no luxury cars.

You literally said it's easier to handle a seizure on a bus than in the car and that is so far fetched, I can't honestly believe you even suggested it.

sorry but you are using your imagination without any real understanding.

Why not let those of us with direct experience tell you what we need.

Another one who thinks they know it all. Again, you know nothing about me, my experience or what I know. Please write your posts without making snide remarks or assuming you know someone else's life. It makes you out to be not as clever as you think you are and I don’t respond to belittling posts.

FWIW, I disagree with most of what you wrote but agree with some. I'll just leave it there.

We never travel on buses with DD, as neither of us could get her off a bus, after a seizure, at our stop.

According to the Kings Fund, calling out an ambulance costs £327 alone:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-nhs

If the ambulance takes a person to A & E as well, it’s £452.

If a person has seizures and travels by bus regularly, it’s a big saving to the NHS and potentially other people’s lives (who might be waiting for an ambulance), just to give the person a car for £77 per week!

It just goes to show how some posters don’t think, and don’t understand cost benefit analysis (including opportunity costs).

How do you think this is going to save the government money?

Is pretty sad isn’t it? That people walk around bleating complete rubbish about how the Motability scheme works without doing a single second of research.

anyone who thinks this is going to save money is going to be deeply disappointed - each person who qualifies for for Motability by virtue of the fact of their receipt of the correct benefit (because it’s more benefits than just PIP/DOA that qualify for use of the Motability scheme) will still get those qualifying benefits, they just won’t be able to have the vehicle they needed for their particular circumstances (not pay on top of their mobility allowance because frequently the allowance doesn’t cover the cost of the lease for the vehicle they need to meet their particular circumstances)

I see this thread is yet again full of mumsnetters who think they know how various different disabilities affect people’s lives and how it affects their individual circumstances.

Another parent of a child (adult now) with epilepsy here and sorry but you are using your imagination without any real understanding.

If I take my daughter to her social club in the car it takes 10 minutes as opposed to an hour getting two buses and the waiting at bus stops and getting to and from the bus stops. That's a 10 minute window for a seizure rather than an hour.

The club lasts for 3 hours - i have plenty of time to go home and do chores and then go back and pick her up In the car. If I had to get the bus back home then go back and pick her up, I would be spending 4 hours travelling per day. That's not a reasonable use of time.

But also, have you seen someone have a seizure in public? A lot of people find it extremely distressing. And of course the bus has to be stopped until emergency services arrive. They won't let the mother deal with it herself - the driver will call and ambulance. And if the person having the seizure has wet themselves, the bus will be out of service. I'm sure you wouldn't want the inconvenience.

If you are used to your child having seizures, a seizure in the car is no particularly big deal. You know what to do and are in familiar, comfortable surroundings. It is much harder to deal with in public, with anxious passers by and people trying to help.

Why not let those of us with direct experience tell you what we need.