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.

YABU because it is not saving the tax payer any money and is just a way to appease the people that hate seeing disabled people have nice things.
Also, some non-premium make cars cost more in advance payments than BMW etc anyway.

All the people rubbing their hands in glee at this - what is going to change for you? Nothing.

@Marshmallow4545
Do you think the State is going to intervene if someone uses universal credit to buy a bottle of champagne?
Or buys a Mercedes?

Thank you for that. That sounds very sensible use of the grants then.

Yes, this sums it up well.

Lots of people will think it’s great to deprive those spongers of a bit of luxury without having any fundamental understanding.

A friend requires a WAV where he can remain in his powerchair, his wife earns NMW, he doesn’t work anymore, they have applied for advanced payment assistance and been turned down. The minimum advanced payment for a WAV is £4,000. Thats a lot of money every 3-5 years.

Because they are entitled to higher rate mobility because of the severity of their disability.

They could just as easily keep that part of the payment and then use it to buy a car anyway. The cost to the tax payer would be exactly the same either way!

@BusyBumbling
You said yourself the following..
“Each year, we provide a small number of means-tested grants to people most in need of financial help to use the Scheme.”
Means-tested ..

Actually it's trying to support the British car industry so the money is going back into our own economy and jobs which seems a very good idea!

Means testing can be done at a household level fairly in the same way we means test CB. Perhaps the threshold should be different when it comes to DLA but that doesn't mean it isn't possible to introduce.

There could be additional money available to the minority that require WAVs or adapted cars. Most cars on Motability are neither.

@BusyBumblingits to do with the height and width of the axel and how they can be adapted for a ramp and seated electric wheelchair user etc. It’s a case of this could potentially penalise those most in need of a mobility car.

In general I have no issue of the list of brands being restricted but there will always be exceptions so I wouldn’t support a complete ban on any brand.

There are people on here that think the state should intervene in those cases.

Many ofbth

Because i couldn’t care less what car someone else drives. To get a notability car you have to be on higher rate pip, which is ridiculously hard to get. It’s the same payment monthly whether you have a robin reliant or a Range Rover.

Huge thread here already -
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5449828-luxury-cars-removed-from-the-motability-scheme?page=30

@CalliopePlantain
Not quite because severely disabled children getting other rate DLA also qualify

I have to admit, I've been surprised to learn (today) that people with disabilities that don't require any modifications to the vehicle also qualify.

Maybe that's what needs to change? For adapted vehicles they shoukd be able to have what they can afford IMO.

Because the ban is on the marque of the car, not on the type of car AFAIK.

So its silly to ban Audi yet allow VW.

Also AFAIK the lease includes road tax, insurance, and servicing costs which are probably the higher proportion of the costs.

I think the motability scheme is great but I don't understand why it covers cars that don't need adaptation (which would presumably devalue them for resale) and why the standard 3 year renewal is still used.

I don't change my car every 3 years... what's wrong with running the lease over 5-7 years instead - everyone should gain surely??

Have all your cars been British then?

@BusyBumbling
Please tell the British car manufacturers to get their arses in gear and make vehicles that can be adapted then … please!!!

Looks like relatively inconsequential change, done just to appease the masses.

No relevant money will be saved.
Very small numbers will be influenced.
It strengthens the concept that disabled should be grateful and know their place as opposite to disabled should be seen as any other people.

In the end it might be a short term positive, masses will have a feeling that the government took action against benefits "misuse" and won't kick into things which would influence more people more.

One of my colleagues had a notability car. For the life of me I can’t see how she qualifies.

Universal Credit is available to all of us equally if we meet certain criteria. They are simply paid to assist with the general cost of living. You could buy a bottle of champagne or Mercedes and that could be a cost of living.

Disability benefits aren't available to everyone but are much more lucrative. They are meant to be for a specific purpose of meeting the additional costs associated with a disability. I don't think a Mercedes (unless very specific circumstances apply) or champagne obviously aren't an additional cost associated with a disability. 10% of cars are adapted and the minority are WAV. Most Mercedes leased through Motability are chosen due to preference for a luxury car.

This again! Will happily trade my disability for the car any takers. Also we don’t all have luxury I can’t afford a down payment. And it’s only a very small number of people that can get a grant. And it’s for an actual need not because they want a fancy car. So fed up of focusing on disbabled people. Let’s talk about the tax avoiders that are earning millions.

I’m not saying I agree with means testing, but “means testing would cost more than it saves” is just a nonsensical statement. There is no way to determine that without knowing what level you’d be means testing to, and therefore what amount it would save.

As an extreme example, if you means tested it exclude anyone who lives in an household with total income of over £1,000 a year, you would obviously save more than it cost because you would save almost everything. If you means tested it to exclude anyone earning over £1m a year, you would not.

Look at Child Benefit and how that's means tested. Factually means testing CB raises saves a lot of money. I don't know how anyone can seriously suggest that means testing is prohibitively expensive when we know it isn't.