(17-04-2012 04:07pm)wavey.dave Wrote:  It looks like the OP might be trolling, but....


Can I just ask why you hold this opinion?

BTW, tax payers don't fund any part of motability, its a charity.

---

What about people who need big cars because of the requirements of their disability?

(17-04-2012 10:23pm)David Cameron Wrote:  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!

(17-04-2012 11:54pm)wavey.dave Wrote:  Ok

I'm new around here, and I don't want to become embroiled in some bitter war of words regarding disabilities. I'll clear up a couple of misconceptions -

A motability car costs "the taxpayer" the same, no matter which car you get, its costs exactly the same, and that is circa £55 per week. If I went out and bought a Bentley or a Kia, it costs the same. The big difference comes from the Advanced Payment (i.e. the deposit). When motability calculate their prices, its exactly the same as any other leasing company -

purchase cost - depreciation = future value

Next they calculate the income earned during that period by the disabled person contributing their DLA (circa £55 per week) they deduct this from the depreciation which arrives at the shortfall between contribution and GMFV, this then becomes the advanced payment. This works exactly the same as any leasing agreement, except instead of increasing the monthly contribution, the cost is loaded onto the deposit.

The government, you, I, the taxpayer aren't paying any more, not a penny.

I too would like to save on the VAT of my car, and I'm not very familiar with that aspect of it, so can't really comment. This may be a reasonable area for people to feel aggrieved about. All I'm trying to do is put a bit of perspective on this skewed view that disabled people are scroungers and get a free top of the range car every 3 years - quite simply they don't. If they want a nice car, it costs them - in cash, up front.

FYI ysthome, the rules now stipulate that if a named driver is under 21, they must share the same address as the claimant. You are also now unable to use a named driver that doesn't live within 5 miles. AFAIK motability have never had super cars on their list, so I doubt the M3 is a motability car in the traditional sense.

Regarding the means testing, as I've said, DLA exists to assist disabled people with the additional costs involved with having a disability. There are always extremes, and always people who abuse the system - did you know that David Cameron (our millionaire Prime Minister) claimed DLA for the extra burden of caring for his disabled son (who has since unfortunately passed away)? How do you define means?

There seems to be general consensus that "the taxpayer" should not fund a luxury item, it should be basic needs - to take this to an extreme; do we take benefits away from people who claim other benefits like job seekers if they smoke or buy alcohol, what about buying unhealthy food?

As with everything in life, the few spoil it for the many. Its the same mentality of people who avoid tax, thieves, scammers etc etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, not everyone that is disabled and wants a nicer life is a scrounger and out to defraud you, me or the rest of the world. Perhaps none of us should be so quick to judge.

(18-04-2012 09:41am)ytshome Wrote:  I agree with lots that you've said and totally agree that as a society it's perfectly right to do the right thing by those who have genuine mobility issues. I am actually aware of the changes that you highlight above because they were in no small way instituted because of issues like I have raised with you. Frankly I think that it's a little naive to believe that the charity is self supporting out of normal DLA payments, just look at the CEO's wage bill and this too might shock considering its charity status.

As for the M3, you can believe me or not but I'm not inclined to exaggeration and should you feel the urge you could confirm this with a data protection request to the charity. And remember that in that particular case the 20 year old drivers insurance costs were picked up by the charity under their group policy with the Royal Sunalliance. Finally, I genuinely mean no offence to you or your other half and wish you well with your mobility needs in the future as I do for the majority of other motability customers.

(17-04-2012 04:07pm)wavey.dave Wrote:  It looks like the OP might be trolling, but....


Can I just ask why you hold this opinion?

BTW, tax payers don't fund any part of motability, its a charity.

---

What about people who need big cars because of the requirements of their disability?

(18-04-2012 11:08am)WorldTraveler Wrote:  I thinik you will find that the Tax PAyer contributes at least 20% towars the cost of the vehicle on the Mobility Scheme, FACT !!