It sounds like there is robust enforcement then. So what is the issue? All Motability cars, as I understand it, are fitted with trackers, so misuse is easily identified (e.g. when somebody said that a car was being used as a taxi. Clearly it driving around all day would have been flagged, investigated, and the car removed: brilliant identification of benefit fraud). However, given the very large number of Motability cars (that some posters are apoplectic with rage about, and the very few instances of such behaviour that have been reported (which you can bet your house that there are Daily Mail journalists searching for every day, with great enthusiasm and commitment) it is quite clear, is it not, that 1) such cases are rare; and 2) when they do occur they are identified because systems are in place to ensure this happens, aside for the zealous journalists.
No system is perfect. That’s not possible. But quite clearly, there is no major problem here because - as has been explained multiple times - the existence of the Motability scheme makes no difference at all to the taxpayer.
If the idiots who used a Motability car as a taxi had any sense they could simply have taken the PIP payments the disabled partner was entitled to in cash, leased the same car themselves commercially for the same cost, and used it legally for both the benefit of the disabled person and for their business. In fact they could have done this more cheaply because the lease cost would have been tax deductible as a business expense. And not committed any fraud.
But some people are idiots. Sadly there’s no cure for that. However, it’s hardly a reason to deny the vast majority of people who use the Motability scheme access to such a scheme because they don’t have a partner who can work and subsidise them; or don’t have access to finance to be able to lease a car privately; or aren’t capable of arranging a lease themselves or have anyone to do it for them, or can’t afford a vehicle that they could actually use (but could if they weren’t disabled, either themselves or with family help) so use the Motability scheme to combine the money they could have used to buy/ lease an appropriate car as a non-disabled person with their PIP payments to lease one that they can use given their disabilities (the so-called “luxury” cars that so many posters seem to object to, not understanding that it’s about the specific features of certain cars that mitigate aspects of their particular disabilities, not the “brand” (sic) of the car which apparently causes such envy from certain posters); or need adaptions to the car which aren’t possible in most second-hand cars or allowable in privately leased cars; or aren’t able to obtain insurance at a manageable cost privately due to their disabilities but can do so through the pooled risk model of insurance through Motability… etc.
Instead, just because the green-eyed monster says “hey, this person who would otherwise be housebound can afford a car and I can’t, it’s not fair” or “hey, that person could afford a basic car (that they could not use) and instead they get extra money so they can lease a car they can use, but it’s got what I think is a “luxury” symbol on it and it’s not fair that I can’t have that one (even though I don’t need it).”
And want to stop people using their own money to “top up” their PIP payments to obtain a car that suits them through Motability simply because in their view someone else shouldn’t be able to have something they can’t afford, even if without it that person could not leave the house.
It’s the worst kind of grabbiness and entitlement, the worst of human nature, to be resentful of people more unfortunate than you and furious that the net contributors in our society are trying to ensure that the most disadvantaged can have some participation in society, while also funding services for the very same people who are complaining about this who don’t even pay for the services that they are using themselves, who contribute precisely nothing towards the cost of PIP. Yet they are almost always the ones expressing this rage about the cost of PIP to which they contribute nothing at all. In effect, you’re furious that those of us who do pay for this are giving severely disabled people slightly more than we give to you because they are disabled so they need extra help to try to live something vaguely resembling a normal life (it’s actually really insufficient to cover that, sadly). This is the very worst “keeping up with the Jones’s” mentality, motivated by the green-eyed monster only excusable in children under 3.
If you live in the UK in the 21st Century you are among the most privileged 0.1% of humans who have ever lived, with a higher living standard than 99.9% of humans who have ever walked the Earth, even if you are in the poorest decile of our society. I have been in that decile before, and it was hard. But taking it out through resentment of people even more vulnerable that you are and the small amount of comfort those of us who do make a net contribution to tax are able to provide for them to improve their life just a little bit because you are angry that they receive this extra help on top of the subsidies that we make to provide services to you, because your contributions don’t even cover your own costs even though you have options to improve your situation that disabled people do not, really is very low and so hypocritical and unpleasant.