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!

@MarieAntoinetteQueenOfFrance did you read my previous post from the 19th? I gave a couple of examples of why a vehicle not being adapted doesn’t mean it isn’t a disability related cost/necessity.

For example, some families with disabled children need two cars when they would otherwise make do with one. Another example, some families need a bigger car, which therefore costs more, than they otherwise would because of disability related reasons. For example, they may need space for a wheelchair/SN buggy/other mobility equipment/medical equipment or they need 3 full separate seats across the second row because their 3 DC can’t cope with the more bench like seats or the smaller middle seat or they may need a 7 seater because their DC needs to be sat on the third row further away from the driver for safety reasons. Some people need to use a car when others would walk or use public transport. There are other reasons too.

Teen DS1 has a motabilty vehicle. He has a wheelchair he could travel in so we could have a WAV. However, he prefers to travel in a specialist carseat and to use his SN buggy, so we don’t have a WAV. Our current motabilty vehicle has adaptations, including a hoist and a swivel seat that comes out of the car, but previous vehicles didn’t have adaptations. That doesn’t mean the previous cars (and the open insurance policies) weren’t disability related requirements. They were - we just made do with lifting, which has taken a toll on my physical health with all the lifting/carrying. Without DS’s disability, we would only need a single smaller car. We wouldn’t need two vehicles. We wouldn’t need an extremely large vehicle. We wouldn’t need an open insurance policy.

The family would still be receiving the mobility component of benefits even if they weren’t using it to fund a motability car.

Do you think disabled children only go to school?

I don't use the car to get my son to school either but I do use it to get to his bazillion appointments, one which is often at 9am over 20 miles away.

To transport her safely in the community
Also she physically doesnt have to be in the car for it to benefit her
Her parents may or may not work but those that do are allowed to drive the car to and from work as it benefits the child having a parent/ parents in stable employment
The car is allowed to be used as a family car, mobility expect the car to be used as a family car
In fact when my sons last car was in the garage and they couldn't provide a courtesy car
They set up a taxi account to enable my dh to get to and from work

Because a disabled child needs to be a full part of their family and have more in their life than going to school or a day center and back.

They cant just be kept separately from the rest of the family with low quality of life, just because they are disabled any more. We no longer say disabled children can have only survival met. We say they should be able to have vaguely comparative lives to able bodied people's lives.
As a society we decided not to treat them as lesser any more.

You ask what the need for a car is. If they didn't have a disabled child they wouldn't need a car at all. They could reasonably be car free and use public transport, coaches, trains etc efficiently and without issues either to their child or the public as a consequence, and not have to deal with all that car ownership or leasing brings.

They will have been awarded the PIP mobility allowance (the bit taxes pay for) based on need. The family could spend the same money they're using to lease a car from a charity, on the whole family being able to go shopping together as a family unit, to church, to the park, or to visit granny etc, and on needing to attend medical appointments etc, on traveling by mini cabs instead, and it would cost the same or often actually more.

However if they and all like them decided to do that, mini cab drivers (who where prepared to take them- not a given) would have more trade, but the business side of the Motability charity would quickly become unable to supply free adaptations to those who need them,* and disappear, potentially forcing the government and our taxes to step in, and the 2nd hand motor industry would be severely affected as the non disabled would cease to benefit, forcing prices for pre owned cars for (all upwards.

• (back in the days when Motability charity cars only offered adapted cars, the range of adaptations was far fewer, and costs considerably lower as it was basically just hand controls being offered, and the number of disabled people then enabled to drive by smaller adaptations, very limited. Today's business model pays for itself and benefits the whole economy.)

It’s not really your business. The criteria for HRM are stringently set and if someone qualifies they can choose to use that element for a car. Who are you to question, over and above the medics, assessors and criteria setters, whether someone’s car is necessary?

This attitude is utterly appalling. It’s also one you would not hold if you were in the same situation.

It reminds me of being a disabled child in the convent care system.
We didn't do well for calories from food anyway. Two meals a day (often one or none if you got something wrong) An awful lot of pretty thin soup and bread as meals, but then the question of whether those of us being trained for useful work, needed pudding to be able to do the work.

I think it's odd that people know so much about their neighbours. Sure (because she told me) I know my neighbour has PTSD and has carers in but I rightly know nothing more

How do you know they don't work from home?

@Kirbert2 @x2boys & @Elleherd all the things you mentioned could be achieved with any car. There isn't a need for a mobility car that is heavily subsided by the taxpayer.

@2x4greenbrick - I'm not questioning the meed for a bigger car because of equipment and space for say a specific car seat or a car that needs to be wheelchair adapted.

I'm trying to make a point of need v entitlement. Of course anyone receiving a mobility element is entitled to spend it on a car. But I question if everyone needs that heavily subsided car. Driving children & adults to appointments for example can be done in a normal family car - if no wheelchair or other heavy or bulky equipment is involved.

And if they can't work because of their child's disabilities?

Driving children & adults to appointments for example can be done in a normal family car

Well no, for many it can’t. For example, they may need a seven seater so the disabled person has further distance between them and the driver. Many wouldn’t have a 7 seater as a normal family car. They may need 3 separate full-size seats across the second row because the disabled person can’t tolerate the bench seats. Many wouldn’t have a car with 3 full size seats across the back. Some need the open insurance policy some motabilty leases have. That wouldn’t be possible outwith the motability scheme without a huge price tag. Some wouldn’t have a ‘normal family car’ because if it wasn’t for the disabled person they would make do with public transport.

If you remove the motabilty scheme, more will turn to hospital transport or the HTCS.

If you stopped the motabilty scheme, claimants would still receive the mobility component payments. The state would still be funding that. Just like they do now for those who choose not to use their HRM DLA/enhanced mobility PIP/any of the other eligible benefits for the motabilty scheme.

If they don't get a car, they still get the money anyway because they've been awarded the HRM element of DLA so what difference does it actually make?

Not everyone decides to use it for a car but the option is there.

If they don't get a car, they still get the money anyway because they've been awarded the HRM element of DLA so what difference does it actually make?
Not everyone decides to use it for a car but the option is there.

This. Not for the last time, no doubt!

What would you have done? I owned a car outright (69 plate VW Golf, low mileage) and then got the higher rate PIP, both components so I sold my car and have a motability car in exchange for the mobility element.

Same as what you would have done without the mobility element. Keep the Golf if its still suitable for your needs.

Your example is exactly the point I am trying to make, at that moment in time, you probably didn't need a new car. But with the enhanced mobility payment getting a new car was an option. Because you could, you did. But it doesn't make financial sense for the taxpayer to replace a perfectly good & suitable car with one paid for through benefits.

I work, we need two cars, one for me and one for DS who is disabled.

so even with a perfectly good car we use my sons HRM to lease another vehicle.

But pp was getting the mobility element either way. If she had kept her car, the money just would've gone in her bank every month instead.

Thr OP would still get that benefit no matter what she chose to do with it. The mobility element would still be there.

It’s very frustrating being accused of lying when you’re telling the truth. I have no reason to lie in a completely anonymous forum?

I sat for a couple of hours each time filling out those forms with him, and nothing I included was dishonest.

Thats all I have to say, believe me or don’t.

What do you feel would be an appropriate use of the money for those on high rate mobility instead?

I certainly didn’t add any info like that. I can see his dad, my brother adding on that he can’t go out unsupervised which isn’t true.
surely you’d have to provide some evidence of that though?
I also presume if that’s the case it’s benefit fraud which he could get into legal trouble for and have to pay back.

Alright. Your Nephew would still not have been awarded anything if he had no medical evidence to back whatever was put on the form. That is how it works.

A totally different way of thinking: don't take it if you don't need it.

And yes, I know in reality this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons. We do need a different approach and mindset when it comes to benefits.

A car isn’t the only way to help with mobility needs though which is why you can opt for the cash instead.

Some of the attitudes on here are shameful. Unless you are living with a disability or have a disabled family member, you don’t have a clue what challenges they face. I can’t understand why posters keep having to remind others that whether the money is used towards a car or something else is completely irrelevant. It’s not going to cost the taxpayer any more money! Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. Public transport is generally unreliable but not an option for many disabled people so of course a reliable car is essential. Motability cars are serviced regularly to ensure that they are reliable. Someone claiming motability for the first time can trade in their existing car for a new motability car. This is no different to most of us when we trade our cars in. It’s of no more cost to the tax payer either if someone gets a Honda Jazz or an electric Audi. Disabled people may work but in many cases their disability has affected them reaching their full earning potential. If they have £8K from trading in their non motability car then why the hell shouldn’t they put that towards the advance payment of an electric Audi?

Totally this. This thread and the handful of awful posters have just made me feel even more isolated. My daughters mobility car is a huge life line for her, without it we wouldn’t go anywhere, we wouldn’t be able to attend appointments, have trips away (which is rare) and her respite carers would not be able to take her out. We have the cheapest mobility car…the one that required the smallest upfront payment. I don’t know anyone that’s driving a BMW mobility car or anything fancy unless they need a bigger adapted vehicle and I wouldn’t really call them fancy, they are a necessity for wheelchair users. Living in a disabled household is isolating, restrictive and money is very tight. Family members are often providing a high level of care (sometimes that of a nurse) to their loved ones for very little money (carers allowance), getting PIP isn’t easy, high rate mobility isn’t just awarded to anyone, you need a huge amount of evidence.

I would happily swap my life and the mobility car for one of the persons here who think we should not have a mobility car.