3K a month benefits

[applecrumble03]

I had made a previous post which I believe had been taken down over a lady giving me £10 for no reason, in no way was that post to brag about my benefits I had stated how much I get a month to show I’m not struggling for money so the only reason can be I was judged on my appearance and then someone had asked if this is benefits which I said yes as I have no reason to lie. I have read a few notifications on my drop down and people saying I’m doing this to wind people up and there is no way I get 3K a month benefits, I was asking a genuine question. Some comments were quite rude. So here is how -

Universal credit for me and 2 kids plus LCWRA
£1775 - my rent gets taken straight from this I get paid £1225
high rate adult disability payment £734
Child disability payment x2 £868
Child benefit £42 a week
Scottish child payment £213

minus rent £3208 paid directly to me per month.

Now no this is not fair to people who have to work. However they are able bodied people and it’s not my fault I would much rather be healthy and live a normal life.

Why were you pleased that Mercedes has been withdrawn from the scheme? What difference do you think that it makes to anyone? It does not make any financial difference to the taxpayer, at all.

Personally I’d like the available vehicles to be restricted to only those manufactured in the UK.

That might include premium brands like Range Rover and Jaguar. So those would need to be beyond the scheme.

The scheme should only permit modest plain vehicles. Nothing fancy. Why? Because motability is out of control and making it less attractive will help save costs.

I see. What does modest plain vehicles, look like in your eyes?

A Toyoya Corolla, Suzuki Swace, or Nissan Qashqai. Something like that.

Sounds reasonable.

And for those who such ‘modest plain vehicles’ don’t meet the needs of?

Even if you limit the vehicle choice on the motabilty scheme the mobility element will still be paid either to motabilty for another care, to the claimant or part and part. It won’t save money on that.

Most motability vehicles are unmodified and not for wheelchair users. If a few larger vehicles are needed then several vans are made up in Ellesmere Port.

I suspect providing only modest - as opposed to luxury - motability options would reduce sales. Especially if the vehicles were in a themed paint colour and with prominent motability signage.

Given one in five new cars is bought through motability - the scheme is completely out control - something significant needs to change.

Why do Motability vehicles need to be a certain colour and have signage on?
What purpose does that serve?
This is why people are saying your posts are goady. You are just wanting to be offensive for the sake of it. Get a new hobby.

Just because they are unmodified doesn’t mean those cars would be suitable. For example, not all who use wheelchairs have WAVs or other adaptations but they still need a boot big enough to fit their wheelchair in. Another example, some DC who are eligible for a motabilty vehicle use SN buggies and again don’t have WAVs or other adaptations but still need s boot big enough to fit their DC’s SN buggy in. Another example, some use frames/walkers but don’t need WAVs or adaptations to a normal vehicle but still need a bigger boot than those you listed. There are other reasons too. It isn’t just a few people who need bigger vehicles.

Again, why would they need to be a specific prominent paint colour and have signage?

The scheme should only permit modest plain vehicles. Nothing fancy. Why? Because motability is out of control and making it less attractive will help save costs.

it is attractive to users, as it is providing a service that is of some use to them. Nothing to do with 'fancy cars' at all, and more to do with accessibility, and reliability, for many, many users. Thankfully the people who are responsible for running the scheme know all of this, thank goodness! The harping on from some quarters about 'fancy cars' and being pleased that such, and such has been removed from the scheme, with no sensible reasons to back up what they are saying, says a lot about them, imo.

Good. I’m not the only one who sees huge abuse of the scheme. Any moves to discourage abuse is to be welcomed.

I am not sure where you see an abuse. A person who is eligible chooses a car, wav, or wheel chair/scooter that best meets their needs. Where abuse comes into it, I can not fathom.

Well motability has just launched a serious investigation unit. They wouldn’t have done that if the scheme was squeaky clean.

www.motaclarity.co.uk/news/motability-announces-new-special-investigations-unit-to-curb-scheme-misuse

That is about people breaching the terms and conditions of the scheme, including things like people not taking good care of the cars.

From the site you posted...

Some examples of misuse listed by Motability include::

• Not using the vehicle for the disabled person’s benefit (it needs to primarily serve the needs of the disabled person)
• Driving while not named on the Direct Line Motability policy of insurance, or while banned or disqualified from driving
• Using the car in illegal or criminal activities
• Lending, sub-leasing, or selling the vehicle. This includes using it for business reasons that hasn't been agreed with Motability, like as a taxi or for deliveries
• Not taking good care of the vehicle

What is your point?

So, you’re getting a good living from taxpayers. You’ve obviously been assessed as being entitled to it, so jog on with it.

If you feel guilty, then cancel some of the clsims.

Other than that, I don't get the point of your post. 🤷‍♀️

There is also much criticism within the media that Motability is given to some very minor aliments. I hope not, but with one in five new cars sold via motability the data doesn’t look good. I am keen the scheme supports those who need it, and protects against those who don’t.

My husband couldn’t walk further than about 5 feet because of an NHS foul up which paralysed his throat and vocal cords.

Why would he have been told to use a bus or whatever?

He couldn’t walk hardly anywhere. 🙄

We needed a larger car to get the mobility scooter in. We paid large deposits, so what difference does it make to you if we needed a bigger lease car that had to go back after 3 Years?

No one gets full rate PIP for minor ailments.
The media rarely get their facts right when reporting stuff about benefits.
There was an article circulating last week about a lady who claims £900pm in PIP. That is impossible.

That does sound nasty. :-(

I can see a bus service would be impractical.

however a taxi could deliver door-to-door and the driver is another pair of hands to offer assistance?

In order to be eligible for the motabilty scheme you need it be eligible for high rate mobility DLA, enhanced mobility component of PIP, the Scottish equivalents CDP/ADP or some other benefits such as War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement. You don’t get these for minor ailments. If people believe everything they read in the media, more fool them.

If you limit access to the scheme, other costs to the state will increase. For example, more will turn to hospital transport or the HTCS and some parents who drive their DC to school will turn to school transport.

Taxis are expensive.
Taxi drivers don't tend to want to be responsible for the health needs of their passengers.

Some examples of where taxis aren’t appropriate even if a WAV isn’t necessary.

• Those who display VCB. Taxis wouldn’t be suitable unless you want to put everyone at risk. Many wouldn’t accept such passengers anyway.
• Epilepsy where seizures cause incontinence. Taxis would charge for cleaning.
• Those who need emergency access to a vehicle. Taxis aren’t always available at short notice, especially in some areas of the country.
• Those who need to take bulky medical equipment which is a nightmare cart around.
• Those who may need to return to a vehicle for treatment or changing. A taxi doesn’t remain at the venue, so you can’t go back whenever needed.
• Those needing harnesses or specialist car seats which can only be fitted to certain vehicles &/or take time to fit. Some taxis aren’t suitable for such harnesses/seats, some taxis don’t allow you to fit them, and even when they do, they often charge for the time it takes when it takes a while.
• Those who live in certain rural areas where taxis are rare.
• Those who are overwhelmed around other people &/or people they don’t know.
• Those who have SPD where smells, noise, etc. need to be tightly controlled. Taxis and community buses don’t allow that.
• Some in SN buggies/wheelchairs or who use other mobility equipment such as frames or walkers. Not all use WAVs. Some are fine to put their wheelchair in the boot without a hoist (so no adaptations). Many taxis would not be big enough. And many drivers will not assist.
• some who need transport at school times. Taxis are often unavailable at this time because they are doing school runs.
• some are unable to cope if the taxi or bus doesn’t turn up or is late.

Not to mention for many taxis will be more expensive.

The problem with the media is that they twist things ,you need to read what is actually written very carefully
So when they report something outrageous that a person with say acne is entitled to a mobility vehicle they ommit, the fact that whilst yes a person with acne qualifies for a mobility car ,it's not the acne thst qualifies them its another condition that makes them eligible, when filling out the form you hsve to list all your conditions
So for example my son has a mobility car and one of his conditions is chronic constipation, so the media coukd report that somone with chronic constipation is in receipt of a mobility car and they wouldn't be lieing
But obviously having chronic constipation isn't the condition that makes him eligible, its the fact he has severe mental impairment that makes him eligible, hes 15 but has the cognitive ability of a toddler.

I still struggle to reconcile that one in five of all new cars bought in the UK are through motability. I appreciate around a quarter of the population are disabled (myself included), however as many posts have explained above, many of these are not entitled to motability.