+- babyRR.com - The Range Rover Evoque Forum (https://babyrr.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Marketplace (/Forum-Marketplace)
+--- Forum: Finance & Insurance (/Forum-Finance-Insurance)
+--- Thread: Motorbility (/Thread-Motorbility)
RE: Motorbility - David Cameron - 17-04-2012 04:49pm
There was nothing sinister in the post, just some information that may be of interest to those in receipt of DLA.
I am aware some people have strong feelings about Motorbility, but they are misplaced. To start with you have to be in receipt of the highest Mobility allowance, presently, £54.05 per week. This has to be given up in that you sign it over to Motorbility if you elect to have a Motorbility car. If you don't have a car, then it's money in your bank. No amount of prejudice towards disabled qualifiers will alter this.
Then depending on the make and model of car, you may have to pay a non returnable deposit.
In the car of an Evoke, you can multiply the figures up and for a three year lease, it will cost you a total of £18,671.80
If I hung onto my lets say my Ford Fiesta, then I'd be quids in. It's not a cheap way of having an Evoque, far from it, but it does give disabled people a choice. That said, going on some comments on here, no doubt you'd see disabled people back in the light blue three wheelers. All I'd say is I hope your never in the predicament of suffering from ill health and disability. I've paid into the state system over the years and if I now am in the position of being able to claim DLA, I make no excuse for it. There are very strict criteria applied, believe me. I accept some disabled people do not appear to be visibly suffering, but you never know what they are suffering from, if it's one of their good days or wether they are the driver for someone disabled. Don't judge too quick. I know one Disco driver who gets the filthies on a regular basis, due to his disabled badge dispalyed, that is until he wheels out the wheelchair for his 6 year old daughter!
(17-04-2012 04:44pm)normangt Wrote: The Government have reigned this in. A maximum of £2000 advance payment is now maximum. Hence, no LR products are now available or listed on Motorbilty website.
Norman, you are right, it ended for LRs in December 2011, but this initiative is Land Rovers! Works the same way, so the effect is the same.
RE: Motorbility - doug - 17-04-2012 05:12pm
The question is. if someone can afford to give up there £55 disability to have a new car, than should they have the money in the first place.
I'm all for payments made to people who really need it. but for a top end car, I hope you can see why Jo public feels put out.
RE: Motorbility - xxxx5 - 17-04-2012 05:29pm
(17-04-2012 01:48pm)ED209 Wrote: I might hold a controversial opinion but i think if the motobility scheme is truely about mobility then the only cars that it provides should be basic spec cars to get people from a to b or cars with adaptions suited to peoples needs. I appreciate you pay more deposit if you want something flash but i totally disagree with taxpayers part funding luxury cars for people.
Abuse of the system is also widespread.
Totaly agree. This really gets my blood boiling. Someone at my works drives her dads megane to work everyday and this is on the motobility scheme.
RE: Motorbility - David Cameron - 17-04-2012 05:30pm
No really, it smacks of elitism! The DLA Mobility element is after all for mobility. The allowance isn't means tested, it's one of the few things that isn't, along with things like the Family Allowance. I wonder how many on here have been on a decent salary and still claimed that? I suppose they could save it up over the year and spend that on say a family holiday! Many, many people do that.
Look, the system is what it is and if your only grip is the make and model of vehicle it's spent on, then you have no arguement, just an abiding resentment.
Ed if the girl at your work is abusing the system, report her! The vehicle will be taken away. If you don't, then you do all people on DLA a disservice and have no reason to complain.
RE: Motorbility - wavey.dave - 17-04-2012 05:32pm
(17-04-2012 05:12pm)doug Wrote: The question is. if someone can afford to give up there £55 disability to have a new car, than should they have the money in the first place.
I'm all for payments made to people who really need it. but for a top end car, I hope you can see why Jo public feels put out.
Disability living allowance is not a means tested benefit. It is intended to alleviate some of the additional costs that disabled people incur as a result of their disability. Let's say someone with a disability earns 50k, their disability will still put them at a disadvantage in comparison to an able bodied person. The fact that they are perhaps better placed to absorb that cost than others is irrelevant. Disabled people lose out in other areas of life without being financially disadvantaged too.
(17-04-2012 05:29pm)xxxx5 Wrote: Totaly agree. This really gets my blood boiling. Someone at my works drives her dads megane to work everyday and this is on the motobility scheme.
Report her, it's an abuse of the system and people like this are the ones that affect the public's perception of disabled people - resulting in them being labelled scroungers.
(17-04-2012 04:44pm)normangt Wrote: The Government have reigned this in. A maximum of £2000 advance payment is now maximum. Hence, no LR products are now available or listed on Motorbilty website.
The government have no say in the matter. The more expensive cars were dropped as a result of public perception and ignorance. The result is that there are now significantly less automatic cars available to disabled people - kind of defeating the point of enabling disabled people to drive.
RE: Motorbility - LDT - 17-04-2012 09:09pm
wavey.dave - I would be interested to learn where the stats originated re the less than 5% fraud.
I have no problem in charities or the benefits system assisting genuine cases, and am sorry to hear of your wife's illness. However, I draw the line at charitable or benefit payments being made to part fund luxury cars.
My view is that all such payments should be means tested. How is it fair that we, the general public, part fund luxury car purchases (which we do, either by way of charitable donations or statutory deductions, or the loss of VAT revenue which has to be made up somewhere)? Some workers bordering on the poverty in the country can ill afford any car, and many RRE owners have made lifestyle sacrifices in order to purchase one, and there are the millions of people who fall in between these two categories who will never own a luxury car.
I cannot believe that more modest cars could not be adapted to suit. As above, IMO all charitable donations and benefit payments should be means tested. If claimants are fortunate enough to afford the likes of a RRE then the best of luck to them, but please don't expect everyone to agree that part funding of same is acceptable.
RE: Motorbility - J77 - 17-04-2012 10:16pm
My opinion is that you should get a car that suits your needs, for example a small car if it is just to get you from A to B and maybe a base saloon/estate if you need to carry a wheelchair or other mobility aids.
RE: Motorbility - THEMACS - 17-04-2012 10:21pm
Somewhere someone has stated that this is to do with Charity, sure the motability scheme is a charity, but the people who qualify, get their motability funds through benefits, ie Government/Treasury, ie from Tax Payers.
The whole system probably needs reforming. In my opinion there shouldn't be much choice and there should be a list of a dozen cars or so to suit a broad range of needs.
From what I have noticed the Qashqai seems to be the vehicle of choice for those who qualify, well certainly round my neck of the woods anyway
RE: Motorbility - David Cameron - 17-04-2012 10:23pm
LDT, I just don't think your getting the point. Maybe your preconceived prejudices have effected your reasoning.
No ones gets DLA for turning up at the Drs with a cough! Even if you have Cancer or Heart Disease, it's highly debatable if you'll get it, so I can't see how you can make a sweeping statement that infers dishonesty on the part of claimants. I think you've got carried away with the odd case in the newspapers. If you look at the small print it normally refers to what was the old Incapacity Benefit, totally different matter and one the government is tackling.
The point is, like it or not, it doesn't matter if it's a Fiesta or an Evoque, the loss of Mobility benefit is exactly the same. If you don't take a car on Mobility, the money will still get paid to you to help or assist your mobility. Therefore, the difference between the two cars is the deposit required, from nil for a Fiesta to over 10k for an Evoque. If the latter, the deposit is lost and won't be returned after the term.
Plenty of Disabled people have made lifestyle changes after they were diagnosed with their illness or disease, many more to make the deposit. I don't think it's right that people sit in judgement over those less fortunate than them on a health front. The thing is life can change in a second and you never know what will happen to you!
RE: Motorbility - LDT - 17-04-2012 10:36pm
With respect, I believe your prejudices have affected your reasoning!
In a nutshell, my view is that all benefits should be means tested. End of. I don't sit in judgement and am entitled to my opinion. I cannot see any inference/sweeping statement in relation to dishonesty in my previous post, I simply was interested as to where the -5% stat was published.
And you are wrong - DLA is very often an automatic entitlement for cancer sufferers. Again, what I have a problem with is directly or indirectly part funding luxury purchases. That was my point.