Fancy cars for disabled people

[LemaxObsessive]

Motability.

I am sick to absolute death of seeing people saying on various threads, that Motability vehicles are “given” to us disabled people “for free”.

PIP is awarded in 2 separate elements.

1. Daily Living (day to day care needs etc)
2. Mobility

Each element is paid at different rates depending on how affected by your disability you are (and yes, medical evidence is required). However, to be eligible for Motability, you need to be getting the highest rate of the Mobility element. This is currently £77.05 per week (which works out at £308.20 per 4 weeks or £333.88 per month).

When you join Motability you agree for the DWP to give Motability that £77.05 per week instead of it being paid to your bank. If you also receive the Daily Living element of PIP then you will still receive that directly.

You ALSO, in most cases, have to pay an advance payment (AP) for the vehicle. The better the vehicle, the higher the AP. You do not get the AP back.
The £77.05 per week pays for the lease of the car, insurance, roadside assistance, tyres & windshield cover. Disabled people in receipt of the highest rate of the PIP mobility element are already exempt from road tax.

With regards to the ‘fancy’ cars such as BMW, Audi & Mercedes, as you can imagine all of these have a whopping great AP in the multiple thousands of pounds; Which as I said, you don’t get back.
The taxpayer is not paying a penny towards these vehicles besides the fact that Motability don’t currently pay VAT which I believe is up for discussion.

I think a really important point to make here is that PIP is categorically not means tested (even millionaires can claim it, provided their health meets the criteria) and is not paid to replace a disabled person’s income! In other words, people do not live off PIP instead of working, it is paid to cover the added costs associated with being disabled. Costs non-disabled people likely have never even considered, such as cleaners when we can’t do it, basic gardening when we can’t do it, extra electricity for when medical equipment is used at home, ready meals when we’re bed-bound, delivery charges for every single thing we buy because click & collect isn't possible, taxis to work because the bus always already has a wheelchair user on it, along with lots of other small but mounting costs we have zero choice but to pay because the alternative isn’t an option for us. The lowest rate of PIP is just £29.20 per week so we’re not talking big money!

Millions of PIP claimants work full time but crucially, couldn’t do so without PIP and in many cases, without Motability!

As I said above, even wealthy people are eligible to claim PIP to cover the added costs associated with their disability and they can, if they receive the highest rate of the Mobility Component of PIP choose to use Motability. If they want to spend £7,999 plus £77.05 per week to lease an Audi Q4 for 3 years then they can but not many do because it’s a lot of money to have nothing to show for it after 3 years.

So no, nobody is being ‘given free BMWs, Audis or Mercedes’ regardless of what’s being said by anyone!

@Octavia64 I’ve worked in schools for years and this sounds par for the course. Awful.

Can you not see how someone who doesn't need a wheelchair, but doesn't have full strength might struggle with public transport and is safer driving? How someone who has lived in a rural village all their lives and managed perfectly fine walking to local shops and services might need a car when they are suddenly faced with multiple hospital visits miles away? How someone who has managed fine with public transport now needs a car because they have heavy medical equipment to lug around? Someone rural who used to cycle everywhere and now can't because of their disability needs a car to access the world. Someone whose disability is made worse in the cold and can make their body seize up needs to use a car in winter to keep warm. A child who is physically able but has no sense of danger and will run across the road to see an interesting poster, the parent might quite like them to not be run over and killed so need a car to stay safe. A couple who managed years with 1 car when both working, needing a second because of hospital appointments when the other uses the main car for commuting? Parents who were happy to walk their child to school, now needing a car because their child has been placed 2.9miles away and the cut off for council transport is 3 miles but their child can't physically manage a 2.9 mile walk. A person who used to use public transport to commute to work, disability has got worse and their exhaustion level from commuting would render them unable to work so choice is a car or give up work.

Those are just top-of-my-head reasons why a person's disability might need a non-adapted car. As in the disability is the direct link to needing a car. They wouldn't need a car without the disability. I don't doubt there are hundreds more examples.

But the chances are that the family would already have to fund a car even if the child wasn't disabled. It is pretty much a standard cost for families now outside of major cities.

So whilst the car would undoubtedly be helpful, is it an additional living cost that PIP is supposed to be used for? I would argue in a lot of cases it isn't.

If their child wasn't disabled chances are both parents are able to work full time

It may not always be an additional cost and it is optional, if your child is awarded HRM, you can receive the payment in cash instead and that can go towards other additional costs.

There will always be people like me too who wouldn't have had a car otherwise. Even if a minority, I'm very grateful it wasn't just assumed I'd have a car anyway.

It just isn't realistic to assume that most people that are eligible for Motability were somehow happily living without a car before they became disabled. The statistics just don't support this at all. The reality is that more than 95% of rural households have a car. The cycling and walking everywhere examples that you are using will be a tiny minority of people. Have you ever lived rurally? Do you know how difficult it would be to live a full life attempting to do that?

Over 80% of households have cars outside of major cities. 17% of the population use public transport to commute to work. Lots of these people will drive to stations and use a car for part of their commute so still use a car for part of the journey. 11% of the population can walk to work.

The school commute argument again is applicable to lots of parents who couldn't walk 2 9 miles with their children. I certainly couldn't. I simply don't have time on the morning to do this get my other child to school and get to work. Most working parents will be the same.

We have to be realistic when thinking about what the actual additional cost of a disability is. Yes, the disability may make the car more useful and you may rely on it more but if you were always going to have to pay for a car then it isn't an additional cost. If I had another child now who was disabled then I already have a car so that wouldn't be an additional cost of their disability unless I needed it adapted or a specific model for whatever reason.

It is not for getting people into work. It is for getting people independence.
Otherwise why do children need DLA? Or pensioners get PIP (if they were claimants before retirement age)?

Most families don't have two parents working FT.

Some families with a disabled child can have two parents working FT. Are they any less entitled to PIP in your mind?

And out of those 20% that don't have a car, how many are out of choice? And how many are because they can't afford it? Which demographic is most likely to be out of work and less likely to be able to afford to run a car?
See the connection....

The school example is perfectly valid when non-disabled children have a choice of school. Disabled children get no real say in where they go. If you choose a school 2.9 miles away because you know you can drive or your child can use public transport, that's a choice. You don't get to choose your child's school if they're disabled. Your stuck with whatever the council decide (even if it's completely unsuitable).

For all those who are saying how difficult it is to get the benefit, the forms that needed to be filled in etc. How can they explain the rocketing number of claims that are increasing hugly on say 5 years ago?

For those of us on the outside - how has this happened? Are we seriously saying that 25% of people now register as disabled. That is a shocking figure and completely unlike anywhere else in the world. Why?

What was your councillor’s response?

There's no register of disabled people unless you're hearing or sight impaired

Some of rocketing numbers of claims are because people are transferring from DLA to pip

My nearest school is over 2 miles away. I don't live rurally. Statistics show that on average children live 2.6 miles from their school. The idea that people can pick and choose their school and can find one super close to where they live is just not a reality for lots of people. Some schools are oversubscribed and you can live less than half a mile away and not get in and get allocated a school miles away. Some areas don't have that many schools. This is why we must benchmark additional cost using what real life families are experiencing as a guide. Not some idea that everyone is surrounded by loads of schools and can walk their kids to them and then walk to work.

Actually statistics show that those without a car are more likely to live in more built up areas with better transport links (rural areas have more deprivation). There are also regional trends. Poorer households are less likely to run a car. Disability is an interesting statistic as whilst the disabled are less likely to be in households with a car, disability is massively skewed towards the elderly and the elderly are much less likely to own a car irrespective of whether they are disabled or not.

Not all of the claims will be the highest rate though and to be eligible for a Motability car, you need to be awarded the highest mobility rate.

Again, I can only go from my personal experience of DLA as I don't have any experience with PIP yet but I had to provide so much evidence from various medical professionals. I truly don't understand having gone through it myself how a parent could lie about their child's needs without medical professionals also lying for them which is highly unlikely.

So are you arguing that a non adapted car is an additional cost disabled people have and they wouldn't have a car if they weren't disabled?

Name change for this- what an awful attitude some people have!
Motability is a charity first of all

I'd happily give up all my child's disabilities for her to live like an able- bodied child.
She would be taking herself about, using public transport without assistance, possibly driving herself about. As a child, she'd talk about wanting to drive.
She'd be working, possibly having been to university.
Out having fun with friends.
She can't do any of this.
A Motability car makes a huge difference, but I'd give it away if her disabilities magically disappeared.

Thanks OP for posting but I doubt you've had an impact on the entrenched attitude displayed here. Sadly
And to people living with disabilities and those who have lost loved ones 💔

I'm in my 50s, when I was a kid my mum told doctors I had epilepsy. I'd didn't have epilepsy, she did it because she got more money from the social for me. She never gave me the tablets prescribed apart from one time when I went away with the school and had to take them. She did it for the money but also loved all the attention she got having a sick child.
It was difficult for me to get a driving licence as an adult because of her lies.

I know I'm sharing far too much but she also used threats of suicide to manipulate and control .

And if you choose to live in an area where there is no walkable school, that's your perogative. You don't choose to have a disabled child who can only access an education at a school miles away. Hence the disability being the direct cause for needing a car.

PIP doesn't = free car anyway. PIP mobility payments help to cover the additional transport costs of being disabled. That can include the cost of driving to the local shop instead of walking. Saying the motability scheme shouldn't cater for non-adapted cars/WAVs won't save anything. The recipients will receive the cash instead as part of their PIP award. If the high rate mobility payments help fund a car for someone who would need a car regardless, what difference does it make if they get it through motability instead of the money going to their bank account and then to the car dealership?

and the doctors just took her word for it? I'm really sorry that you went through that.

My son had cancer and is now disabled as a result. I didn't just write in his forms that he had cancer and now can't walk so please give me a car and they said, sure Audi or BMW? I had to provide evidence....15 pages of evidence to be exact.

The forms are also overwhelming and long and require so much detail right down to how many times a day you assist your child to wash if they require assistance to wash and how long does it take.

If they weren't disabled, they are more likely to be able to make do without a car, yes. Is that really difficult to understand?

If you can't afford a car and you are able bodied, you make do with public transport whether it's convenient or not. If you can't afford a car and your disabled and struggle with public transport, life is very difficult.

I completely agree. This is a very serious problem that is not currently being addressed adequately. These young people need a purpose and to feel like then can do things. This will massively help their confidence. They mustn't be written off and I really don't think it's just down to the parents to sort this out. It's a societal problem.

See, this is when I get very cross. Everything that annon disabled person does is presented as a complete free choice. Everything a disabled person does or a parent of a disabled person does is viewed as something that is completely out of their control. That just isn't how the world works.

I have seen people on this thread argue that those that having a child isn't comparable to having a disability as having a child is a choice. When I asked what about those parents who have knowingly chosen to have a disabled child following medical testing I was met with radio silence.

The fact is that lots of people ostensibly have 'choice' but very few people have free choice. The parent of the disabled child could move closer to the school that was allocated for their child. Is this reasonable though? By the same token is it reasonable to suggest that all the families that can't walk to school should move to live near a school and then probably move again when their children reach the next stage of education. It's ridiculous isn't it? So why suggest it?

Ultimately it boils down to this, did the family need the car only because of the disability. Would they be happily living without a car if their child wasn't disabled? A poster on this thread suggested this was the case for them and that is absolutely fair enough but it certainly won't be for the vast majority of families.

I would tighten the criteria for PIP and would ensure that awards were linked to actual extra costs incurred. It wouldn't be able to use to offset the costs of a family car that the family would be buying anyway.

Ok.

i do think that there are things driving this but I also think it’s important to have actual data not made up statistics.

the population of the uk is about 69 million. I’m going to round to 70 million for ease to calculation.
link to back this up:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

there are five benefits for disabled people in the U.K.

dla Which is for under 16s not in Scotland
cdp which is child disability payment and is for under 16s in Scotland
attendance allowance which is for people who have become disabled after 65 (and in practice this is mostly elderly people with Alzheimer’s/parkinsons/dementia etc.)
pip Which is personal independence payment for over 16s in England wales and I think Northern Ireland
adp such is the Scottish version of pip.

attendance allowance is currently paid to 1.7 million people as at Feb 2025. Link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025

attendance allowance stayed pretty steady at about 1.4 million from about 2014 to 2020 and has risen each year since.

so - of the five benefits, attendance allowance has increased. Most observers put that down to ageing population - the number of people of pension age has increased each year for about the last two decades and this population is increasingly ill.

DLA is for children under 16 who live in the U.K. but not Scotland. It is currently at 1.2 million. This is really hard to look at whether it’s grown or not because Scotland has changed it’s system and now has it’s own under 16s benefit (so they all stopped claiming it) and also this used to be what everyone was on before they moved to pip. So the numbers have been going down as they slowly moved everyone over to pip, a process which started in 2013 and finished about a year ago.

other research evidence does seem to show that there are more disabled children, this is being partly put down to the better neonatal healthcare that’s kept premature babies alive.

https://councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/news-opinion/numbers-children-complex-needs-50-2004

adp which is the Scottish benefit for disabled adults is at 476,295 so call it 0.5 million.
reference: https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/asset-storage/production/downloads/Adult-Disability-Payment-to-30-April-2025-Publication.pdf
obviously this has been increasing because they only started it in 2022 and are moving people over from pip.

cdp which is Scottish under 16s is currently at
57,546
https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/asset-storage/production/downloads/Adult-Disability-Payment-to-30-April-2025-Publication.pdf

So adding it all up you have

1.7 + 1.2 + 0.5 + 0.05 plus 3.1 on pip gives
6.55 million disabled.

6.55 div 70 is 9.3% disabled,

a lot of people don’t consider the people who get attendance allowance disabled in the sense that it is a normal part of the life cycle of a human to need support as they get old and this is a normal part of life (in the same way that all small children need supervision and support) so if you take the 1.7 out you get

1.2 + 0.5 + 0.05 +3.1 gives 4.85

which gives

4.85 div 70 is 6.9% disabled.

@Octavia64
You can be disabled and not be eligible for those benefits. 25% of the population are disabled.

You also can't ignore AA allowance as disability skews towards the elderly. They are factually disabled. It is even more misleading to take the elderly's AA claims out of the stats but keep them in the population figure to work out the prevalance of disability amongst the population.