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!

Clearly you dont understand the purpose of a mobility car
So why are you on this thread making your own rules up🤔
.

But again your just believing what your reading online so when it says things like people are getting pip for things like bedwetting, depression etc what your not realising is them people will most likely have multiple other conditions. A lot of physically disabled people will suffer depression. Lots of physical disabilities will lead to bedwetting due to lack of mobility. When you fill in a pip form you write down all your medical conditions. For e.g. I would of wrote i have hypothyroidism it doesn't mean I get pip for hypothyroidism its just listed in my conditions. Adults don't just wet the bed without other physical conditions going on. Just actually think about things before believing everything you read

Exactly my son has chronic constipation and we have a mobility car for him but he doesn't get it for his constipation he guys it becsuse he's severely autistic with severe learning disabilities and was awarded under the severe mental impairment criteria
But yes the media could quite rightly say a person with chronic constipation gets HRM as its listed under all his other diagnoses.

And a diagnosis of ADHD or Autism alone doesn't mean someone is automatically eligible for HRM as both are very broad spectrum, s a person would still hsve to satisfy the very strict eligibility criteria.

Does the amount spent on pip include the amount wasted on tribunals?

6 years ago I had a tiny inheritance and used it as an advance payment for a Tiguan Rline tech pack. Cost me £2499. I then had to keep that car for 5 years as I couldn’t afford to replace it “like for like” . I ended up with a shitty Tcross that’s honestly not really that suitable, without half the features and it cost MORE than the Rline 🤷🏼‍♀️😂. Today the same car is almost £6k!! I don’t know anybody that has 6k a spend on a car. I certainly don’t.

I’d happily swap my ptsd from CSE , auto immune issues, connective tissue disorder, bipolar and sleep problems for being 100% healthy and able to hold down a full time job. I’d love to be fully self sufficient and have a decent career but the reality is that I’m a shell of a woman that’s barely able to function.

Of course the government 'runs' motability. Where do you think the money comes from, pots of gold at the end of a rainbow?

The government policy makers decide that such a benefit exists .
The government (taxpayer) funds it.
The government have currently chosen to have it running in its current form, they can choose to have it run in a different format.

Just because the government currently chooses for it to be administered in the 'motability' format, does not change where the policy or money originates from or who can initiate change.

No, the government does not run Motability. The Motability Scheme is run by Motability Operations Ltd, a private company, and is overseen by the Motability Foundation, which is a registered charity.

Now this would be an interesting figure to know.

I think this thread has achieved the very opposite to what the OP wanted with me. It's made me question, not just the mobility scheme that pays for completely normal cars that people would have had to buy anyway but the whole mobility element and wider disability benefits. I used to volunteer with a charity for disabled people (all mental health) back in the old DLA days, about 20+ years ago. It was in a poor area and although none of these people had initially faked anything, or continued to fake illness, benefits gave them more money than their working peers. It was more money than they would have earned in the sort of job they would have got, plus they had easier access to social housing (some talked about friends being jealous of council flats). This created a perverse incentive to stay sick. Getting better came with high risk of less money and long hours in a hard, boring job. I've always though we need to come at this from the other end, make work pay. Low paid jobs are never going to pay enough for a good life, one change I would make is build more council housing and prioritise working people so they get some benefit from working these jobs. Also stop looking down on people who do so called menial work. I remember on one of these threads a few years ago a disabled person arguing that she absolutely definitely should have more spare cash for life's pleasures than her carer (she did anyway). This was because her carer could just get a better paying job (iho) and she couldn't because of her disability. Others may disagree (and I await the hate towards me for this opinion) but people who work have to be better off than those who they are paying taxes to support. I know disability isn't fair and no, I wouldn't swap, not for all the money in the world. But money is a huge incentive, people kill for it, injure themselves for it, steal for it, stop smoking for cash payments, it's even been shown to increase breastfeeding rates if you give the mothers cash. If people see others not working and better off they're going to ask what's the point of me stacking shelves for 40 hours a week.

That is an interesting question. If there was a comprehensive breakdown, and it did, I would also be interested to know how many claims remained the same, after being appealed. A huge amount is being spent, having to have all these tribunals, due to the flaws in the assessments.

I received DLA until 2019, when after a lot of form filling, Dr's letters, and an awful interview experience, I was changed on to PIP. About 10 years ago, any completely new applications for DLA/PIP had to apply for PIP, but it took a very long time for existing DLA claimants to all be transferred to PIP!

What about those peoole who will never work
My son can't even speak he's,16 next year
He has the cognitive ability of a toddler this isn't something he chooses.

We also can't afford our massive defence bill, so let's just get rid of the MOD. We also can't afford our massive NHS bill, so let's get rid of the NHS. We probably can't afford to Educate our children, so let's stop teaching our children for 'free'. We also can't afford to run prison's anymore, so let's free all of our prisoners. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It’s amazing how many people on those threads do look down on the carers that they and their child are dependent upon. I really can’t understand it yet it’s surprisingly common for families of disabled people to feel this way, speaking from experience having been a professional and personal carer for family members. Others are bloody brilliant though I must add and very appreciative. And yes I know that it works the other way about too.

If you do not understand the law @mumsnit1 , do not try to make it up!

It is against the law for councils either to make children with SEN pay their DLA mobility towards their school transport, or force parents to use the child’s Motability car to drive them to school:

https://contact.org.uk/help-for-families/information-advice-services/education-learning/transport-to-school-and-college/transport-in-england/

My council tried to about 20 years ago - several parents got an education lawyer to start High Court action against the council. The council dropped the idea.

Parents usually have other children to take to school at the same time. The siblings rule exists to help parents, so they can take their children to one school, especially primary age children who are too young to go on their own. If parents choose to send their children to different schools, that’s up to them.

The director of education in my council abolished the siblings rule, saying only a handful of families would be affected. Way more suffered problems - he was sacked.

Disabled children may well be placed in a school miles away from home, and the parents get no say in it (unless they are up to a potentially expensive court battle).

Say a family has a five year old in the nearest primary school within walking distance and disabled seven year old, in a special school 10 miles away, the parent cannot take both to school at the same time.

This was us for years
My oldest was in a mainstream primary school
And my youngest in a special school
The schools were about five miles apart I couldn't physically be in the same place at the same time
LA,s understand this even if some random posters don't.

And he should be well looked after but I think it’s fair to question some aspects of how disability benefits are run because the current situation is not sustainable and I do think that it’s absolute madness for councils to be paying for transport to school if families have a Motability car and driver who can take them to school, unless exceptional circumstances apply such as the school is a very long way away, not just a few miles. And yes that may be the law as it stands but considering the current focus on that particular subject I could see that changing and I really think that it should. It is not an efficient use of money to effectively pay twice over. And yes it makes sense to allow families to use the Motability car for other purposes but the primary purpose should be imo to transport the person whom the car is intended for. And yes there absolutely are exceptions where it’s entirely justified but not in every case.

Local authorities including some near me, though not yet my council, are starting to change their criteria for this reason precisely because a considerable number do have a Motability vehicle available.

Well that's just your opinion.

They could find parents appeal to the High Court over it. Parents apply on behalf of their child, who gets legal aid. Councils don’t get legal aid, and usually give in, before the case gets to court, because they know they are going to lose and pay high legal costs.

The government does not run Motability. It does not fund it via grants or any money being given to it by the government. It is not “heavily subsidised”. It has VAT relief and tax breaks - like other charities that receive the same for being charities, VAT relief being because it supplies vehicles to disabled people. Google can help you here.
Why do people make things up?
If anyone wants to argue that tax relief to that charity should be cut, fine. But what that has to do with disabled people using cars for work (even if they are the child and it’s the parent) because that’s permitted (Google can help you here), or which car Motability selects to buy? Absolutely nothing.

If you Google how motability operations Ltd is run its actually an amazing way to run a company. They get tax exemptions from the government. Lease the cars out then sell them after 3 years. They don't pay dividends to share holders. A percentage of the profit is given back to the motability foundation charity.