To think this is a fair change to the Motability scheme...

[BusyBumbling]

BBC News - 'Premium' cars like BMW and Mercedes cut from Motability scheme
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9znkxq47xo

It's still supporting disabled people with the cost of owning a car whilst also supporting the British car industry. I think public opinion has been listened to on both sides and this seems very sensible.
It may also reduce some of the costs of the grants paid from the scheme which were helping fund the upfront cost for premium cars for poorer claimants.

All mobility aids are zero rated. Do you think the taxpayer is “subsidising” food because basic foods are zero rated?! Not taxing something isn’t the same as “subsidising” it and in any case, taxes should be used to incentivise public goods and discourage negative behaviour. Unless you believe disabled people being able to participate in society and go out or get to work is a negative thing then this is precisely the type of thing that should be subsidised. Look at what the Government is adding more tax to (positive behaviours such as saving/ investing, employing people, educating children…) and you’ll start to see the insanity of their policies and why they have resulted in forecast growth for the next few years (which was appalling anyway and allegedly their focus to fix per their pre-election lies) being cut by 75% as a result of this latest budget.

I suggest anybody who can’t now access a suitable vehicle via Motability leases or purchases it privately and then reclaims the VAT, ensuring that this costs the Government far more than it saves in processing thousands of individual applications. Everyone with such severe mobility issues is also exempt from road tax regardless of whether their car is privately owned/ leased or leased from Motability so again that’s totally irrelevant. Insurance costs are reflected in Motability leases because the price the lessor is paying is a price for the package that includes insurance, much like when you rent a car on holiday. The insurance and car purchase prices are a little cheaper because of economies of scale, which was the entire point of the scheme in the first place (alongside enabling those who could not access private finance to purchase/ lease a car individually but need one in order not to be housebound to do so). Obviously when someone negotiates a price for thousands of cars they can get a better deal than for one car. That is how transactions work throughout the economy. How do you think employer life insurance or health policies work? It’s precisely the same principle just in this case applied to help disabled people participate in society and be able to get to work or even leave the house at all (the horror!!).

Frankly, it’s pathetic to be making any kind of fuss over the zero rating of VAT for mobility aids - which applies regardless of whether they are leased/ purchased from Motability or anywhere else on a private basis per our tax law - given this is not even a rounding error in the UK’s annual expenditure.

Look!! A squirrel!!

Because in general we need fewer cars on the road, more people to cycle/ use public transport etc. Therefore, for the general population it makes perfect sense to tax cars to discourage people from owning them if they are not necessary and to pay for the transport network. The exemption from VAT for mobility aids is because the trade off is that this adds a tiny amount of pollution etc BUT it enables tens of thousands of disabled people to work who otherwise would not be able to do so, and enables many more to be able to participate in society and not be housebound. This reduces healthcare and social care costs, aside from being a matter of basic decency in a civilised society.

There are many examples of such things, e.g. children’s clothing being VAT exempt whereas adults’ clothing is not because for most people, by the time you are an adult you should have organised your life so you can afford basic necessary clothes. Whereas children grow fast and need new clothes regularly and can’t help the financial circumstances of the family into which they are born nor take any action to change their circumstances themselves therefore as a society we have judged that it is a social good to ensure children’s clothes are cheaper as it would have a negative effect (and be immoral) to tax people buying properly fitting shoes or warm coats etc for their children and is not something we want to tax and discourage. Whereas it’s perfectly reasonable for adults to pay the standard transaction tax on clothes for themselves which may last them many years if they buy only what they need and wisely. We know that the economic costs of NOT providing sufficiently for vulnerable groups in society far outweigh the short-term cost of doing so as is evidenced from decades of data from many countries around the world.

As a PP noted, equality is not the same as equity and the tax system should incentivise positive outcomes, which is why we have exemptions on taxes for things like basic food, medical supplies, mobility aids, children’s clothes. This is entirely appropriate and reasonable and economically beneficial.

It’s quite odd to ignore what’s clearly written just to go on a rant and throw digs.

I explicitly said “often understandable anyway” and repeatedly made clear in the thread that I support disabled people having any support they genuinely need, assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Cherrypicking ‘zero‑rated’ while ignoring the other advantages I mentioned is the same wanton distortion and denial I’ve already called out. Dismissing the point with random gifs and labeling it as a ‘squirrel’ doesn’t rebut it - it just sidesteps the fact that Motability operates within a protected tax and benefits framework that materially underpins its affordability.

Tax reliefs are subsidies in practice - they reduce the revenue the Exchequer would otherwise collect. Zero-rating is still a fiscal intervention. Whether it’s framed as a “subsidy” or as foregone revenue, the economic effect is the same: the taxpayer is deliberately supporting affordability through the tax system. That is precisely why it exists for disability aids. The scale of the cost doesn’t negate the principle that public money is being used to support access.

Of course it’s right that society supports participation, but denying these supports exist is misleading. The scheme isn’t just “economies of scale” - it’s economies of scale plus targeted tax breaks. Again, it's okay to admit that.

There is nothing to “admit”. The “tax breaks” are zero rating of VAT and exemption from road tax, both of which I have explained the rationale for very clearly in my responses to you. These tax laws exist because they serve a social purpose and decrease overall Government costs by improving outcomes, reducing health and social care costs and raising tax revenue by enabling disabled people to work. It is also the case that both tax exemption exist, as I said, regardless of the existence of the Motability scheme, they just happen to apply to it as well as to private purchases so it’s unclear what your point is. Something not being subject to tax or to lower rates of tax is not “public money”, unless you take the view that there is no such thing as private property and everything belongs to the state, which is an extreme left wing communist position.

Private leases are subject to VAT unless very specific conditions are met. All Motability leases are zero rated for VAT whether you need adaptions or not.

Do you think the government charging VAT on private school fees was a left wing Communist position? Lots of people with Motability cars don't work and/or could afford a car without Motability so the social and economic functions you suggest aren't necessarily true even in the majority of cases.

@MarbleHunt you've completely missed the point. I'm not saying we SHOULD open the Motability scheme up to everyone. It was a reply to people who are saying the scheme doesn't cost taxpayers anything apart from the £77 PIP. As you have elaborately explained it is highly subsidised!
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the social benefit of giving a disabled person a car so they can work or get out of the house, more that it doesn't need to have a prestige badge on it. To quote RR "The Motability scheme was set up to protect the most vulnerable, not to subsidise the lease on a Mercedes Benz."
Anyway it's done now and according to this poll 65% of people agree with the decision.

The cost to the taxpayer won’t change no matter what they do. We pay what we pay. Tax won’t lower because disabled people have less choice. There are plenty of areas where the ‘taxpayers money’ could be better appropriated but none of them will offer any benefit or saving to the actual tax payer. I don’t know why so many people think targeting the disabled people of our country is ok when so much money is wasted elsewhere.

Well, as per the changes made or due to be made next year on VAT relief, this is from the horse’s mouth (Motability Operations) (below).

It appears a lease will now be £400 extra per year for the customer, maybe more.

That’s me done with Motability. No idea what I am supposed to do because of the immense difficulty in getting adaptations done as well as getting insurance because most insurance providers won’t insure the WAV I need (with adaptations and a wheelchair user.

Perhaps the figure that Motability says it contributes to the economy should have been as publically emphasised as the range of cars it offers.

I feel saddened for my daughter and the many who will suffer because of the jealousy towards disabled people.

”Disabled people who use the Scheme:

• 860,000 disabled people exchange their enhanced mobility allowance to lease cars, wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) or scooters on the Scheme
• Median income is £18,400 – around half the UK average.
• The average age of people who use the Scheme is 52 and around 60% are female.
• 56% of customers use, or have used, a wheelchair to be mobile. 35,000 people use WAVs (converted vehicles) and a further 60,000 have adapted vehicles.
• Not all of our customers choose to drive the vehicle themselves. A fifth (20%) do not drive and 43% rely on another driver - typically a family member or carer.

Addressing barriers to mobility:

• 87% of disabled customers on the Motability Scheme believe they would face barriers to getting car finance without the Scheme.
• Almost half (48%) of those who have tried to access insurance privately have been priced out - quoted premiums they could not afford.

Impact of the Scheme:

• Contributes £4.3 billion to the Uk economy, meaning for every £1 of disabled peoples’ allowances, £1.50 of economic benefit is generated.
• Scheme supports 34,000 jobs in communities across the UK.
• One in five people say their Scheme vehicle improved their job opportunities, and it allowed them to work two more days a week on average.
• Tax reliefs: all tax reliefs are passed through to customers, pound for pound, and are factored into the total cost of the lease over three or five years.

Also from Motability website:

What’s included
With most other leases or car finance options, you’ll usually need to arrange and pay for insurance, servicing, breakdown cover, and maintenance separately. On the Motability Scheme, we simplify this by building the costs into our all-inclusive package, helping to make budgeting more straightforward.

Many adaptations are also available at no extra cost, helping make driving or access easier if you need it.

How it compares to other ways of getting a car
If you’re thinking about leasing or buying privately, it’s worth looking at the total cost over the same three-year period. With a Personal Contract Hire (PCH) agreement, you lease the car and hand it back at the end, similar to the Scheme, but you’ll usually still need to pay for insurance, servicing, and maintenance separately, up-front.

A Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) plan gives you the option to buy the car at the end, but the up-front cost and the monthly payments can be higher, and you’ll still have the same running costs to cover.

Buying a car outright can work if you plan to keep it for many years, but you’ll need to budget for all your motoring expenses along the way.

The Scheme keeps things simple by wrapping most costs into one regular payment in exchange for your allowance.

Cars for every budget
There’s a wide choice of cars on the Scheme, so you can find something that fits your needs and your budget. Cars fall into three main groups:

Cars that cost less than your allowance, so you keep the difference
Cars that cost the same as your allowance
Cars that cost more than your allowance, with a one-off Advance Payment at the start of your lease.

Also from Motability website:

Vehicle choice and removed brands
Why have premium brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi and Lexus been removed?
These cars tend to be higher cost vehicles that sit outside the Scheme’s focus on essential, practical mobility.

There has been no change to the WAVs available on the Motability Scheme. Essential vehicles like the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter are still available, these are commercial vehicles adapted for wheelchair access.
Will premium brands return to the Scheme?
No. We’re confident we can offer a strong range of good-value cars that meet your needs without premium brands.

Will there still be enough car choice for me on the Scheme?
Yes. We still have a wide choice of cars on the Scheme, including:

more than 840 vehicles from around 30 manufacturers
around 40 cars with no Advance Payment
nearly 100 vehicles with an Advance Payment under £500
Statistics correct at time of publication in December 2025.

I need a 7-seat car, are these still available on the Scheme?
Yes. The number of 7-seat cars has not changed with the removal of premium brands. We still have 18 different models to choose from, from 10 different manufacturers. View all 7-seat cars on the Scheme.
Which vehicles are available on the Scheme?
You can see the full, up-to-date range using our Find a vehicle tool. We update our website as soon as vehicles are added or removed from the Scheme.

Which cars are British built?
Some of the manufacturers building cars in the UK are:
Nissan models, built in Sunderland
Stellantis models, built in Ellesmere Port
MINI models, built in Oxford
Toyota models, built in the Midlands

Seems like it's still offering a very good way for a disabled person to drive a new car at no cost to them by using the PIP payment.

Omg, we have told you over and over again that disabled people use the mobility element of their pip to pay for the car each month. My sister paid £4k upfront for a Skoda Kodiak. It isn't free.

@BusyBumbling
The entirely depends doesn’t it?
My daughter needs a WAV. Nothing else suits her because she requires a wheelchair to be in the car, with her in it. 4 years ago the adaptations cost me over £2,000.

The advance payment was around £4,000.

Motability is now re-designing and re- costing the scheme. It says £400 on the 2-3 leases (that is cars as WAVs are 5 year leases).

I very much doubt I will be able to afford to pump the same £6,000 upfront (before the increases they plan) into a car I will never own.

Not sure how I’ll find an insurer to insure the WAV I’ll have to try to find secondhand. not sure how I’ll add it either.

Exciting times to have a young disabled child.

@BusyBumbling
Motability Operations statement following the budget says:

“We negotiate with manufacturers and partners to provide users of the Scheme with affordability and choice. On average, the Scheme is cheaper than alternative options, and includes insurance, breakdown, tyres and servicing. “

“The tax changes will increase the cost of a lease on the Scheme and we anticipate the average Advance Payment (upfront cost) of a vehicle, will increase by around £400 over the three-year package” (ps that’s cars not WAVs, the more expensive types of vehicles).

• “87% of disabled customers on the Motability Scheme believe they would face barriers to getting car finance without the Scheme.
• Almost half (48%) of those who have tried to access insurance privately have been priced out - quoted premiums they could not afford. “

On average it’s cheaper… on average , apparently, far from ALWAYS cheaper - and it’s a pretty expensive option if you need a WAV but you have fuck all other choice BUT to use Motability.

@IDidntSayThatSorry

• Just to speak to the point re VAT Motability Operations state the following “Contributes £4.3 billion to the Uk economy, meaning for every £1 of disabled peoples’ allowances, £1.50 of economic benefit is generated.
• Scheme supports 34,000 jobs in communities across the UK.
• One in five people say their Scheme vehicle improved their job opportunities, and it allowed them to work two more days a week on average.
• Tax reliefs: all tax reliefs are passed through to customers, pound for pound, and are factored into the total cost of the lease over three or five years.

The final point is the one people are referring to, I presume. It’s not a case of denying the benefit, but rather that it’s not being subsidised by the government directly (people mean putting money directly into the charity when they speak of subsidising, rather than VAT relief which many many kinds of goods have, not just Motability).
It’s been a benefit to the end user as it’s kept cost down having zero VAT, but that’s changing now anyway - as per the next year changes being made to the scheme.

Joy to the world.

@Overthemhills I take your point about WAVs being more expensive but it also states:
(WAVs) and adaptations will continue to be exempt from VAT and Insurance Premium Tax (IPT).
So is the increase you quoted also on a WAV as their post appears to suggest not.

Also I get £6000 is a lot to pay upfront, but if you keep the WAV for 5 years it's £100 a month. Do you not think this is a fair price for a car including insurance, tax, servicing, repairs? The PIP is money that is given to you, it's not money you have to find.

If I were driving a regular car with a regular child at my age I’d be paying about £450-£600 insurance per year.
I could buy a car for the £6,000 downpayment I gave Motability.
Add on the £20,000 DLA my daughter has (in effect) paid and that’s £26,000 that could have been spent on a regular car… if she could stand or walk and “just” had her other disabilities like being non verbal and not being able to eat that is.
because she is more severely disabled I have had no choice but to lease a WAV. I don’t intend to from next year when the lease is up but fuck know ms what I will do.
Insurance for a WAV is estimated to be twice what I’d pay on a regular car.

@BusyBumbling
In what sense do I not have to find the money?
I had to leave full time employment 8 years ago when she was born. I can’t magically produce money I don’t have any more.

That £26,000 is gone and I need ANOTHER downpayment for a new lease next summer. And again in another 5 years.

If you mean her DLA is “money I don’t have to find” - well that’s the £20,000. Not the £6,000.
Her WAV therefore costs, before petrol. £433 a month, not £100 if the £6000 was spread out.

plus citing the website isn’t much assistance when the ONLY option I was given was X upfront and take the first WAV we find you. I wasn’t offered a BMW for money I didn’t have to find.

Petrol costs me £150 a month on average.

She has incontinence pads and other disability related costs NOT covered by DLA entirely - like I’m supposed to find £18,00 for a wheelchair. And £10,000 for adaptive technology if I can ever get a company to do a trial for her.

When people crow about taxpayers spending money on disabled people.. well it’s people like her who get precisely the same amount of DLA as a child without mobility issues that do not involve wheelchairs (eg where safety/comprehension are the main issues).

She costs ME (.or us as my husband is also here, working and paying taxes) a significant amount more than a disabled child who can walk at all.

And as for her future care… well, let’s say I’m not like people on UC who can’t save for their child. Motability helps to ensure THAT doesn’t happen (I hate Motability in case that isn’t evident).

£18,000 for a wheelchair I meant.

Sounds like you have a severely disabled child and I'm sorry people like you will be caught up in this as your child is exactly who the scheme should be helping. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any distinction between severe physical disabilities and those people with mild disabilities but who are managing to still claim higher mobility pip.

@BusyBumbling

What I’m trying to convey to you is that Motability has failed to help children like my child - it helps in that it holds and owns what she needs but that’s literally IT.

Motability is problematic - not because of VAT relief or it’s enormous profit or buying BMWs - but because it worked SO well, from 1977, that its expansion and domination of the market means there are not even private alternatives to WAVs and adaptations to cars or indeed insurance.

Imagine if if you had heart failure and had the choice of giving half your income (let’s keep it to benefits for the consistency) to a charity called Heartright which provided whatever medication you needed ( regardless of the expense of that medication privately) and a nurse to speak to once a week to check that medication. Imagine that 60% of people with heart failure had almost identical needs to you and needed nothing beyond that service.

Imagine further, if you will, a different 25% of people with heart failure were eligible for medication that improved heart function and therefore life functions dramatically so those people could go to work and earn more than just the benefits.

Imagine only 10% of heart failure patients get the exact same deal BUT are forced to spend more than the other half of their remaining income/benefits to have defibrillators in their homes and other whatever else you can imagine, and that can only be given by Heartright or external providers that charge triple the entire income, for more or less the same services.

Heartright keeps telling the nation it exists to support the 10%. But by its own structure it makes it so that the 10% are actually much worse off than if Heartright had a varied pricing scheme and offered varying schemes accordingly.

In this imagined company analogy - it’s the 25% with the increased life expectations and experiences who were the PIP workers and earners who could afford the beamers. … they can go to work and earn and afford large downpayments.

This makes headlines and now the rest of the Heartright users are viewed through the lense of the 25% and become the butt of the (utterly pointless) arguments such as isn’t medication (in the analogy scenario/a car in Motability world “just a REGULAR expense”.

Sure, I could never have a WAV at all.

But my daughter can’t fly to appointments. She can’t fly to school.

My husband pays for and taxes and insures the regular car he needs to go to his job.

I can’t do what he does because I have to transport my daughter. I can’t do the transportation of her competitively priced or independently because Motability has the fucking monopoly on WAVs and insurance.

Im forced into a corner, a very expensive one. Motability would be brilliant- if she could walk.

Friends WAV.

£5800 advanced payment, £3200 in adaptations. Powerchair £12,350 (thats cheap and it doesn’t really meet his needs, but he can’t afford £26,000). Carers £75 a day, cleaner £100 a week. Ah but he gets an entire £77 a week in mobility allowance, lucky him.

@Overthemhills thank you for that analogy, I do understand that the scheme is clearly letting people like you down and you are getting tarnished with the same brush. Unfortunately it seems like the expansion of the scheme and the growing numbers claiming Mobility needs, are partly to blame. I'm guessing the whole scheme needs a good overhaul and to focus back on who really needs a Mobility car to function and support them properly. I think if this was the case public support would be very much behind it.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any distinction between severe physical disabilities and those people with mild disabilities but who are managing to still claim higher mobility pip.
Just who the heck ARE these “mildly disabled” people who receive the higher mobility part of PIP? Do they even exist?????? It’s not an “unfortunate” thing at all if it’s even happening. Surely the logical response would be to stop the people you don’t want to receive higher level mobility pip from getting it NOT take anything away from those who need it. You seem to be suggesting they are just unavoidable collateral damage 😱.
Of course the real reason they aren’t filtering out the mythical group who somehow qualify but don’t need the benefit is they don’t exist.

Actually listening to disabled people here has completely changed my mind. I can't believe all the nonsense I spewed.