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!

If you read mine and get off your high horse you'll see i noted if they are needed for adaptability issues etc then that's fair enough.

Yes, that's what the thread is about

There's no savings limit on pip

Why does no one ever lock their doors on MN? Even in a rural area you still get burglaries. A friend had her unlocked home entered by thieves and she and her husband were assaulted in her very quiet rural area. It was horrific for her.

All the cheaper car will do though is have a cheaper advanced payment which comes from their own money anyway. The lease cost is the same no matter what and if there's no car/lease for whatever reason, the person will get the mobility element of PIP/DLA anyway.

I'm failing to see what money would be saved?

Again... IT COSTS THE SAME NO MATTER WHICH CAR YOU CHOOSE!

A bmw or skoda...£77 a week.
A Volvo or a Kia...£77 a week.
A Mercedes or a mobility scooter....£77 a week.

It is the car companies that choose if they want to be a part of the scheme for that price and which models to include.

Oh, and if you decide not to use the motability scheme and use the money for taxis or train fair... It's STILL £77 a week at the higher rate.

Well what about you? It seems that given your child's levels of need and inability to use public transport it would be prudent for both of you to be able to drive.

I dont have a licence ,but even if I did we can't be in two places at once

How would it help keep costs down? I don’t really understand what you are suggesting here

Some people seem to be of the idea that it is disabled people demanding all of these 'luxurious cars' at their behest. It is nothing to do with disabled people, which vehicles are on offer! They can only choose, from what is available, and suits their needs.

That seems like something that maybe you should have thought about addressing given the fact that your child cannot travel on public transport. There are two of you so you wouldn't need to be in two places at once, just your husband would have to fund his commute same as everyone else. It does seem to beggar belief that you have a motability car purely because your child requires transportation, yet you decline to use it for the exact purpose it was designed for and instead a different council department is funding school transport at no doubt very significant cost.

pp has a motability car because her son was awarded the highest mobility rate of DLA which her son would've been awarded even if she lived next door to his school and didn't require a car to get there.

I live just around the corner from my son's school, we never use the motability car to get him there because it's within walking distance.

Its allowed to be used as a family car so pp's husband using it to go to work is absolutely fine because him going to work benefits the child.

I assume PPs objecting to motability cars also think disability benefits should be cut. They probably think the disabled should just stay home costing as little as possible to tax payers.

Like I said we've had it seven years and didn't buy new. It was the best price for a car he can get in and out of. Car wouldn't be much use if he couldn't.

Never thought Kia was a prestige brand like Audi or BMW. Much more just a work car. When I bought a Kia, little hatchback on the scrappage scheme, Kia was one of the cheapest cars, I think Hyundai was the other.

Interesting that you specified two prestige brands, Audi and BMW but never mentioned Kia.

According to the main arguments so far, they shouldn't receive money to pay for food because they'd be buying food anyway.
No money for rent, they'd be paying rent anyway.
No money for gas/electric, they'd be paying that anyway.
In fact, the whole of the UK can just abolish the benefits system because people have to pay living costs anyway. Crisis averted! Doesn't matter that it's complete nonsense. MNs know best.

But it would cost exactly the same so would make no difference to the tax payer

Don’t let the truth get in the way

Interesting read:
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-motability-scheme-is-taking-the-british-taxpayer-for-a-ride

As with anything, there are many people in this country who support the right to have all needs met.

Need a car due to disability? The public should pay. Need an adhd diagnosis? the public will pay for Right to Choose private providers so you get seen quicker. Need an EHCP? The public will pay a teaching assistant to be with your child full time.

and again, and again.

And don’t forget other benefits. And libraries and schools and roads and the NHS. Public swimming pools, bin collections, social care for the elderly, and adequate policing.

And we should take all migrants who want to come, too - we should be more compassionate all round.

The problem is - as they saying goes, you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. I don’t doubt there are many deserving cases, but where is the line drawn?

It’s convenient to believe that we are a wealthy country with endless resources but neither is particularly true, and while you’re spending everything you’ve got on ‘deserving cases’ then you’re not investing properly in education or health to ensure that coming generations are adequately educated and trained to allow them to carry the weight of all of this through a life of working and paying tax.

I really think people have reached the end of their rope on all of it, and the political parties know it.

@twosandwiches
Do you have any idea of the money spent by the government (as we have the kind of state (welfare that we have) on education, housing, Defence, PIP, state pension, pension credit, etc?
Do you think education is above or below spend on Defence?
Above or below total spending on disability benefits?
Above or below the state pension?

@twosandwiches
Government spends
£60 billion on Defence
£41 billion Education
£138 billion on State Pension
£7.8 billion on Attendance Allowance
£6 billion on pension credit
£14 billion on looked after children
£25 billion PIP
£7 billion DLA
at least if my searches are correct.

Ok - the purse is empty (allegedly) and let’s pump money into… that which has the highest, or the lowest costs… or none of the above?

@Marshmallow4545
You seem to have the issue back to front.
Your argument is, in essence, a car or transport is a regular cost. Therefore it is not an extra cost and therefore one, if disabled , rarely needs Motability vehicles.
The actual way things work, for qualifying PIP/DLA recipients is that you qualify under current regulations for a particular benefit. That is it.
The benefit is for additional costs of being disabled.
Whatever those costs are.
One does not need to show they had to drive 4 miles or have extra medical appointments - they prove to the DWP that they meet the qualifying conditions for that benefit.
Just as one does for universal credit or state pension or attendance allowance.
A charity that provides vehicles will permit a recipient of the required benefit to lease a vehicle from them if they have a particular level of those benefits to exchange at source (guaranteed income) if the recipient elects to use the charity.
One does not need to show that one incurs extra costs related to transportation to acquire a vehicle from Motability.
Your gripe is with the actual benefits and the purpose of those benefits.
Your acknowledge that PIP or DLA is awarded for “additional expenses” arising from disability.
You disagree that there are many such cases as you think disability involves just regular expenditure and that only a few people ever incur additional costs because of disability. You think that even if they do, it doesn’t warrant being able to lease a car from a charity, that has been set up to do precisely that one thing.
Be at least clear that you disagree with the UK giving benefits to people for incurring additional costs arising from disability and not that it is an inherent problem with how a charity (Motability) sees fit to run itself.

Even a fairly basic car now has a deposit, there are very few cars at nil deposit now. I had a Seat Leon a few years ago which the deposit was £99, the equivalent car now has a nearly £3500 deposit on it now. The deposits on electric & automatic cars are very high, having a motability car is no longer a cheap option especially when they have stopped customers extending their lease to 5 years, I kept my last car for 5 years, paid £3500 deposit & when it was returned at the end of the lease it had less than 2000 miles on the clock, it popped up on Autotrader at the dealership I got it from for £17,500, it originally would have cost £28,000 to buy. It was by no means a flashy car, just one that had features on it that helped me to be able to drive safely & comfortably with my disabilities, voice control for things like air-conditioning & heating, heated seats & steering wheel, electronic handbrake & park assist. As cars get more features added to them as standard, users will need less adaptions. If I hadn't had a car, I would have become housebound a lot faster as I can't walk far enough to get to & from the bus stop or get on & off the bus, motability cars are often a lifeline for disabled people enabling them to get to work, to appointments, to get medical treatment or even be able to have a life, since I gave up my car, my life has shrunk to being stuck inside 4 walls 24 hours a day, I gave it up because economically it was no longer cost effective to carry on paying for a car that wasn't getting used.

@Periperi2025
You say the government should buy cars for Motability to distribute (whatever fleet of cars)… erm.. missing the point?
The government does not run Motability any more than it runs the British Heart Foundation.

why do so many people think what a charity does is the direct responsibility or business of the government?

If Motability decided only to provide chariots to unicorns in possession of child benefit it could. The government has nothing to do with the make or models of vehicles Motability purchases.