Quote:
Originally Posted by Funky Diver
Set up by Government and pretty much in the main funded by the DWP, from Tax, from the Government.
This will probably offend, so I'll just say it like I see it. Luxury cars - XC60 SE Lux for example, shouldn't even be appearing on the list IMHO.
Why? The DWP funded £18M last year to the charitable income tune of £3M. I'm rounding up.
It cost an additional £9M to adminster this process, of which £1M was stumped up by the DWP. The rest came from manufacturers I presume, the annual reports are a bit wooly on this point.
Now I am not wholly against the concept of Motability, far from it.
I am however, against the extravagance of the system.
Why?
My next door neighbour is currently totling about in a brand new Tiguan. And yes, I do know how DLA works... he's managed to get the higher rate DLA assessment because he has nightmares. All well and good, the walking stick he uses sees day light Monday to Friday 8-5... beyond that... staggering home from the pub late on, he appears to be miraculously cured... and he's not the only one!
I once got moaned at for being unsympathetic on this forum because someone on Motability needed a certain type of car to tow their new caravan and it was no longer available. If you can afford a new caravan, why is the State funding a car?
Now I appreciate that my view point may be skewed slightly due to these "experiences"... however, they are not isolated and the fact remains. Mobility is an abused system with decadence to boot. If a Tiguan was so necessary, why isn't a Ford Ka? (designed from the outset for folks with impaired mobility by Ford) If the higher seat is required, what's wrong with a Peugeot Bipper?
The facts herein are in the Motability annual reports... here |
Some people do abuse this, as well as other , schemes i have no doubt, and knowing one or two perhaps does skew our view of the scheme, but these 'abusers' are a tiny minority, and they along with people who base their opinion on the whole scheme just on their personal knowledge of this minority, put Motability and therefore the needs of genuinely disabled at risk.
So let's knock some of this nonsense on the head right now:
1/ Volvo Cars UK. Is not a charity, any more than Ford or Nissan or any of the others, it is a business, and it has taken a business decision to include some of it's 'better' cars in the Motability scheme, cars which it needs to sell anyway, some of which are attracting massive discounts in the showrooms.
2/ Vehicles offered on the scheme are already available to non disabled people on lease- contract hire terms not much different from Motability ( as an example Volvo XC60's are available ranging from around 3 to 9 x monthly payment up front & £219 - £295 per month over 3 years ) - it's not as simple as comparing retail list prices, or classing the vehicles as 'luxury'.
3/ Non Disabled people can therefore obtain the same cars if they chose to, or can afford to.
So, ' can afford to' - perhaps they can, perhaps they can"t , your argument appears to say ' well if non disabled people can't afford to, then why should the disabled be able to afford these cars'?
Well my argument is 'why not ' , why should the disabled be 'poor' ( in your terms ) they have every right to spend their income, inc. any benefits, on what they please, just like the non disabled.
Benefits are meant to assist them, because they perhaps can't earn as much through their disability --well a Motability car is assisting them?
There is no need for anyone who is disabled to feel guilty, it's not free, we have to find a substantial payment up front, just like any non disabled person on a lease deal, and we have to pay 36 payments just like on any normal lease deal.
I am now disabled, and like any of my fellow disabled, I would gladly swop any benefits I receive or I am entitled for full health again.
.