@x2boys
We also have a "free"car@Rosscameasdoody, there was a thread on here a few weeks ago one poster felt mobility cars should be very basic old cars, as they are cheaper and more reliable than new cars go figure!
I’ve come across this too. It’s the same mindset that thinks the old three wheel blue invalid carriages were perfectly acceptable for the disabled. Sod the fact that you had to travel alone in them, which made you even more marginalised than you already were just by being disabled.
These people fail to understand that disabled people aren’t simply issued with cars. The mobility allowance replaced the invalid carriages because we’ve moved on to be a more inclusive society, and it’s the mobility allowance which is really at the heart of their problem. It’s paid to those who have issues moving around, regardless of whether they are because of MH or physical problems, and it’s only those with the most severe issues who will qualify for the top rate of mobility allowance, and therefore the motability scheme. The motability scheme itself doesn’t cost taxpayers a penny - it’s a charity and they work with car manufacturers to source vehicles for the scheme. The vehicles are then leased to disabled drivers for a three year period, for which they hand over the mobility allowance. Insurance costs are included - also no cost to the tax payer as it’s a deal with Royal and Sun Alliance.
So, to sum up, apart from the mobility allowance, which is paid regardless of the need for a car, zero cost to the taxpayer. So what’s the problem ? Glad you asked. It’s the perception that the disabled are undeserving of this privilege - the ‘I work hard and I can’t afford a car, so why should you have one’ brigade. When in fact keeping disabled people mobile is good for the economy - it’s easier to travel to and from work so you’re more likely to be able to find and keep a job, thereby saving money in other benefits which cost the taxpayer far more than mobility allowance. Win win, you’d think. Well, no, because evidently some people think it makes more economic sense to keep the disabled marginalised and stigmatised by sticking out like a sore thumb in a three wheel death trap. Either that or, as you referred to in you in your post, a disabled person should only get an old clapped out car which may be completely unsuitable for the type of disability they have, may not be suitable for conversion for a wheelchair user or someone who needs hand controls, and will definitely not be reliable, making life more difficult for the disabled person when it breaks down.
If you think it doesn’t make sense for us to have something like the motability scheme, google the statistics on how many disabled people lost their motability cars due to inept and inaccurate medical assessments when PIP replaced DLA. Then have a look at the repercussions of that when they lost their jobs as a result of no longer being able to travel. It’s mind boggling and as I said before, it’s part of the ‘adequate and not to a high standard’ mindset.