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.

I agree it's not "unfortunate", it's an outrage and needs to be looked at asap. As you say the support should be going to those that really need it. I'm not suggesting for one minute that those in need (previous poster) should be sacrificed as collateral damage and I'm sorry if you interpreted my post in that way.
I'm going to completely disagree with you on the fact the "mythical" group don't exist though. They do. There in lies the issue. Weed them out and focus the scheme back to those it should be for.

I have a disability, I haven't always had it so to an extent I'm lucky I've been able to spend most of my life building a career that I am now continuing despite my disability. I don't claim any disability benefit. I could apply, but it takes all of my energy to continue working and tbh I can't face the application. Maybe one day I'll have to when I simply can't work any more. I have a car that I use when needed for work. I don't need a disability car. I also know someone else who could definitely claim, but doesn't. Degenerative disability, still works full-time.
Then there are other people who are highly disabled and REALLY need support. No chance of ever being able to work. They are being let down.
But in addition there are definitely other people in our society who jump at the chance to give up work/claim everything they can. If @Ohthatsabitshit you don't believe these people exist then you are in complete delusion. I have seen first hand that they do and I can assure you there's nothing vulnerable about them. They devote their time and energy to claiming and creating evidence, rather than working and improving their chances/mental health etc.

I'm going to completely disagree with you on the fact the "mythical" group don't exist though. They do. There in lies the issue. Weed them out and focus the scheme back to those it should be for.
What evidence do you have that they exist and have and do qualify fraudulently for enhanced rate mobility? If you know them and know they are defrauding the state why have you done nothing about it? It’s bollocks. The fact that you choose not to claim money that you should from the system you pay into is entirely your own choice and doesn’t make you better placed to judge someone else’s “needs” at all. Many people mismanage their financial affairs or choose to opt out of parts of the structure, we don’t force people to participate in many state offerings, state run schools, health visitors, vaccination programs, eye tests and hearing tests, ISAs, to name few common examples. I too know many many people who could claim DLA or PIP who don’t. I don’t see what relevance that has to weather the mobility scheme needs limiting for those that DO qualify and DO claim.

I've changed my mind as well on severe MH disabilities as well. I was thinking a lot about this the past few days. As PP said the brain is another organ which can at times not function properly.

Where is your evidence that they don't exist? What evidence do you expect people to provide to prove that claimants are scamming the system? It is very difficult to prove fraud of this nature. Think about what would be required to do this. In some cases it would need 24/7 surveillance to check that someone actually wasn't leaving the house due to anxiety and wasn't capable of cooking a meal on their own etc. It is also just ridiculous to put the onus on OP and other citizens to 'fix' the obviously flawed system by making constant reports of suspected fraud.

It is relevant because if everyone that could claim did claim then the system would be even more unsustainable. OP can afford to run a car and cope without PIP. Surely we need as many people as possible to do this so that the burden on the state is lessened and more is available to those that genuinely have no other option than to rely on the state.

It is relevant because if everyone that could claim did claim then the system would be even more unsustainable. OP can afford to run a car and cope without PIP. Surely we need as many people as possible to do this so that the burden on the state is lessened and more is available to those that genuinely have no other option than to rely on the state.
No, we need a system that works fairly and effectively NOT for already disadvantaged citizens to do the heavy lifting. Why is it unreasonable to ask honest citizens to report known fraud? Surely it’s your civic duty? And if it IS unreasonable and too much of an obligation for Joe Bloggs then why is it reasonable to expect disabled adults who would qualify for support (like OP) to pay into the system to provide a level of care but not use it?

The solution is to adjust the criteria of who is eligible (if it needs it though I would suggest it ISN’T easy to demonstrate that level of need without hefty medical evidence) and be brutally transparent about it, and then enforce that. My own position would be that on closer inspection it will be found that there aren’t huge numbers of fraudulent recipients.

I'm not expecting OP to pay into a system and not use it. Her point though was that she didn't actually need the money. She can cope without it. That is the attitude of lots of people who could claim but aren't. They are masking the scale of the problem that we have and giving the false impression that the current criteria and system we have is in any way sustainable. Ideally those that can cope without state assistance would do this. The system relies on this.

The onus should be on the state to make the system less open to fraud. It should also provide less incentive for people to defraud the system by making it less lucrative. You only need to look at the two child benefit cap to see that the difference between being able to claim literally tens of thousands of extra pounds in benefits is one person being deemed disabled in the household. Very few of us have perfect health and lots of us have ND traits, you can totally understand why someone who exists in the grey area between being disabled and completely well (like many of us do) would lean into their difficulties and make a claim if they possible can.

I do agree that the criteria needs to change and this needs to be clearly communicated.

As someone who’s disabled and has a motability car - it’s so hard to find cars to suit your needs, let alone without paying a high deposit (thousands for a car that’s not yours). I have a wheelchair, which is the ‘lightest’ on the nhs yet it doesn’t fit any ‘standard’ car boot. Which means I have to get a bigger car which ultimately costs more. It’s ridiculous how we’re being treated. People proposing the idea that mobility cars are ‘free’ or that we shouldn’t be allowed to exist normally because we’re disabled, so we have to have a ‘standard’ car. My disability benefits pays for a car each month, if I didn’t I would use it for another car as I cannot get around without one. But motability allows better ‘perks’ to accommodate my disability than if I went with a different company. WE PAY FOR THE CARS and then give them back at the end, I don’t understand why people think we get a free car lmao

The system shouldn’t rely on people who are eligible not claiming. It should be clear that you pay your taxes and for those taxes you get a level of support.

I agree that the system needs to be redesigned and the thresholds changed for when financial support is given. It would be clearer and fairer that way. All I'm arguing is that fundamentally the system redesign would aim to encourage those who can largely cope without the benefits to do this. The idea that we can ever pay disability benefits to every disabled person to mitigate the additional costs of their disability is an unrealistic and unsustainable idea. We can't afford the system we currently have and that's with people like OP not claiming what they are entitled to.

@BusyBumbling
Bybthre way (and thank you for your kind words) the information re WAVs not increasing on Motability Operations site is noted BUT (because I’m already searching for my next WAV) the model I currently lease (Peugeot Rifter) had a £4095 advance payment requirement in October 2025. Currently it’s £6,000 - £8,000. Guess they found a way to deal with the tax issue somehow.

@Marshmallow4545
Whatever any of think about the nuances of possible systemic changes to benefits, it won’t happen.
Political parties don’t seem to be interested or motivated to do anything remotely like due diligence in assessing any potential beneficial change and just bounce between keep it like it is, increase this benefit but not that one or “get rid of” whatever.
Id love to train some of them in the principles of continuous improvement.

I don’t think we do need a redesign but if people really don’t want to support those who fit the criteria for high rate mobility, I think they need to explain who it is they think should be bumped off that rate of benefit and why? They also need to explain how those people are going to manage without the level of support they have now. Personally I think this is exactly where I’d want to be providing more than bare minimum support, but I’d be interested to hear why people don’t want to do that.

Every disabled person doesn’t get benefits though.

When you talk of changing thresholds, to what?

The relevant fact for zero rating is not whether the car is adapted, it is whether the car is needed as a mobility aid. The same as walking sticks used by able bodied hikers are subject to 20% VAT in purchase but the same walking stick purchased by somebody disabled who needs it as a mobility aid is VAT zero rated. The walking stick the disabled person purchased hasn’t had any “adaptions”, it is zero rated because it was purchased for mobility purposes by someone who needs it as an aid to get around. Evidence, of course, has to be provided.

All cars leased through Motability meet the definition in law for zero rating because the Motability scheme is only available to those who the DWP has assessed as having a maximum difficulty with mobility and therefore will be unable to walk any significant distance and unable to use public transport. The application of the zero rating has therefore been screened already by the DWP and it saves them money not to have to assess a separate application for VAT reduction on each car purchase/ lease if people did that privately instead (if they do, the same zero rating applies per the law, so hopefully if people are driven out of the scheme by the sort of spite shown here they’ll lease privately instead and HMRC will spend billions having to process tens of thousands of separate VAT reductions for individual purchase/ leases and it’ll cost them more than they save with this disgusting victimisation of disabled people by people who clearly don’t understand tax law).

Yes, all the usual comments are “Oh, I’m all for supporting the severely disabled” and yet they’re attacking Motability which by definition is only for those with the most severe disabilities impacting their mobility to the point that without a car they’d be housebound.

You couldn’t make it up.

No, this isn't how the current rules work:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-relief-on-adapted-motor-vehicles-for-disabled-people-and-charities-notice-1002#:~:text=The%20adaptation%20to%20the%20vehicle,with%20them%20in%20the%20vehicle.

There are very specific criteria that must be met in order to qualify for a VAT exemption. It isn't that you are simply using the car as a mobility aid. The car has to be permanently adapted for a start.

@Marshmallow4545 I find your posts strange, but I don’t go on about it; and I find it strange how many posters clearly have no experience of disability, claiming PIP, the tax system nor how the economy works; but they still keep on posting on threads about disability? Even when people explain the facts to them, there are still countless ignorant posts subsequently.

Life is not fair, and nobody can make it fair. Personally, I’d be looking at how society favours the ultra rich, funnelling wealth, impoverishing the rest of the majority of the population, rather than complaining about what a disabled person gets, likely to be in the bottom 2/5ths by income! The chances are the people complaining about it are net beneficiaries, so their taxes are not even paying for what they get from the welfare state, never mind anybody else. You are lucky if you see queuing for buses where you live - we catch buses in London, and generally it’s a free for all to get on, ditto the commuter trains!

For instance, there was a loophole in tax law for years, where companies could get say £20,000 in profit in 4 months, and HMRC never chased them for the corporation tax, due on it. I don’t see posters complaining about that? Why. - because they don’t see it.

I’ve listened to two podcasts recently by the bigwigs from the HMRC. The facilitators asked both times, what HMRC was going to do about the £45 billion uncollected tax. How many posters say that is unfair on every one else, who pays their tax on time?

Or, how a sole trader could buy a Mercedes Sprinter van instead of a Ford Transit - they can claim back the input VAT and get 100% AIA (ie they can offset the full cost of the van against their profit for that year), which could be reducing their income tax at 45%; and then all the insurance, van repairs, fuel, etc are also allowable for tax. Whenever I see invoices from Mercedes garages, their charges for parts and labour are sky high imo. Basically, the sole trader is getting a Mercedes van for 65% of its cost and running costs (all net of VAT where applicable), when they could have a cheaper Ford Transit - yet, who on here posts about that?

My experience of learning disabilities is supported living and residential care. If anyone with learning disabilities is capable of living independently without support, then they can make whatever choices they like, same as everyone else. However, I have seen in supported living and residential care (this applies to the elderly too), that the food budget seems to be the lowest possible and the residents are fed the cheapest ultra processed junk. Imo, it’s a failure in the duty of care, and bleating about independence is just a cop out. I have also heard from careworkers, how in supported living, etc; if they are short staffed, taking residents out for exercise goes out of the window, and then the behaviour gets worse. As for medical care, I am not talking about people, who don’t turn up for appointments; but the fact people with learning disabilities get second class care from the NHS. See “Valuing People” and the annual LeDeR review findings - such as how half of people with learning disabilities die avoidable deaths, compared to less than a quarter in the general population; diagnostic overshadowing; poor communication, higher rates of chronic conditions, etc.

“The idea that we can pay disability benefits to every disabled person to mitigate the costs of their disability is an unrealistic and unsustainable idea”

Provide your evidence (not anecdotal )as to who thinks that? There are over 16 million disabled people in this country, and of those 3.7 million are entitled to Pip, according to gov.uk.

I have been disabled for 30 years, and despite being told by my consultant I am “considerably disabled”, it has never entered my head to try even to claim disability benefits. I don’t even have time to think about it, apart from occasionally, the pain killing injections are wearing off, and I need some more soon.

Ditto DH who has had 2 heart attacks, and can’t do a household task for 10 minutes (like washing up), without getting dizzy, breathless, left arm pain, etc - GTN sprays don’t work for him. Strictly speaking, he should go to A & E every time, but he won’t.

Then, there’s DD2 with severe mental health problems, and has been admitted to 2 inpatient units this year - she was turned down for PIP, despite being in a S 136 suite (taken there by the police for suicidal behaviour in a public place, probably about the 30th time then; now she’s on over 50 attempts) at the time of the first face to face assessment. How much does it cost society, to have all the police cars in the district zooming about looking for her; an ambulance to take her to A & E; then the police spending hours in A & E with her; not to mention emergency stops of trains on busy commuter networks, holding up the trains behind it for several hours; and £500 per night in an inpatient unit? Focusing on the cost of PIP for people with mental health problems like hers, even if she were to get it, is nonsensical in face of what I suspect all that costs?

None of us look at DD1 and think it’s unfair, she gets a Motability car. We all think she has a terrible life, and we don’t know how she copes with it!

@BlueandWhitePorcelain I find your post to be strange as well so I guess that makes two of us.

Firstly you call me ignorant directly after I have corrected someone with the correct information regarding VAT and private leases. There has been an awful lot of misinformation and misdirection on this thread but very little has come from me.

I am a net tax contributor so I don't know why you assume that people like me are net beneficiaries of the welfare state. It stands to reason that you will have more concerns regarding the spiralling costs of welfare if you are expected to foot the bill.

Misdirection about billionaires and sole traders isn't hugely helpful. They are separate discussions and we simply can't have threads about something specific like Motability hijacked to discuss vaguely related issues.

Remember lots of disabled people will be too old pr too young to be eligible for PIP. There are around 10 million disabled people that are currently of working age. Overa third currently claim PIP. When you consider that people with dyslexia, dyscalculia and what would have previously been considered Asperger's syndrome would all be included in the disability stats then it's obvious that not all disabled people would claim PIP. The numbers are high though and more worrying rising rapidly.

Regarding your specific family situation, of course I won't comment as that would be completely inappropriate. The only thing I would suggest though is perhaps you and your DH may well actually be eligible for PIP. I'm sure there would be a great many posters on this thread that would encourage you to do so and there will be people recieving PIP with potentially less challenges than you. If people like you did claim then what would this do to the stats? Would it then become clear that the system is even more unsustainable?

When you consider that people with dyslexia, dyscalculia and what would have previously been considered Asperger's syndrome would all be included in the disability stats then it's obvious that not all disabled people would claim PIP.

My DS has a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome. He isn’t ’high functioning’, but he is a genius. He could easily solve complex mathematical equations but wouldn’t eat unless he was promoted. He was given the diagnosis almost 30 years ago, when he was five.

He needs daily care and cannot live independently. He is claiming PIP and is severely disabled (will never work, have a relationship etc). He can’t go out alone. It’s somewhat ignorant to put his condition in the same category as dyslexia and dyscalculia.

Aspergers is now functionally the same as Level 1 Autism in relation to the DSM-5 model. This is the evel of Autism that typically requires the least amount of support. Realistically most high functioning people with Autism will be Level 1 or have previously been given a diagnosis on Aspergers. I wasn't suggesting that everyone with an Aspergers diagnosis is high functioning but just that those with Autism that don't qualify for PIP will probably be in the this group rather than the other two levels.