Re: Motability
 

1. Read the rules with regard to profanity;

2. Read the article and bear in mind that anecdotal comment is intended to supplement and initiate discussion;

3. Drink less Red Bull during school time;

4. Develop a more mature discussion approach.

Perverse thinking. Your van isn't funded by the benefits system.

I would repeat my earlier answer but you could just read it again. Let me give you a clue: the article is about abuse of the Motability system. You do know there's a link in the OP don't you?

Re: Motability
 

abuse of mobility (dla including those who choose not to get a car ) is at 0.5% according to governments own statistics and they don't have a reason to underestimate seeing as they are the propagators of the idea that wide scale abuse was going on compared to those getting something by not paying taxes due it is insignificant

look at Apenix 1
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...fy-2014-15.pdf

Re: Motability
 

£70m is not an insignificant figure; the comparison with unpaid tax isn't really relevant.

Re: Motability
 

it is in the great scheme of thing very insignificant
http://www.consultancy.uk/news/955/d...t-2043-billion

we spend a inordinate amount of effort and money chasing a very small amount of fraud while spending little time and money on stopping major fraud ( tax )

we also allow harassment of those least able to cope with it

no system is perfect chasing this causes far more harm than it will ever stop

see

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-investigators

All that effort if they put half of that into chasing tax evasion we would not have to worry about deficits at all as they would disappear rather quickly

there are plenty of ways to report something if you are sure of your facts

https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/

Re: Motability
 

Yes i read the link ,it is quite simply an article about a woman suspected of falsely claiming disability benefits.It has absolutely nothing to do with Motability.The Daily Mail have simply used the Motability angle to create a slightly different way to attack anyone on benefits .

The lack of understanding of how Motability works both in the article and in your OP is quite simply breathtaking
Here's an example from the article
It does not in any way come with free servicing ,breakdown cover or insurance ,all are added to the lease agreements cost as are special requirements ,road tax,tyres and windscreens ,all are added to the cost of the agreement by the owner of the vehicle which is the lease company not the driver.

After 3 yrs the vehicle is then returned to the lease company who will charge (at a very high rate ) for damage or extra mileage above the agreed limit,this also applies to people who have been reassessed unsuccessfully in the middle of a hire period ,they will not be allowed to take out a lease agreement for a car ,scooter or any other mobility aid

The article then continues to cite examples of more "Motability fraud" which upon reading are simply cases of benefit fraud and nothing to do Motability ,the people have simply used their benefits to buy a Motability agreement in the same way thousands of other fraudsters use their ill gotten gains to buy things they could not normally afford .

Maybe in your next post you will apologise to the Kwik Fit fitters you suggested in your op where aiding in the fraud.

Re: Motability
 

No need, they are the boys to trust after all

Re: Motability
 

OP clearly has an agenda and very little understanding of the issue.

I stand by my original post - I don't think the first post encourages 'discussion' it's trying to (yet again) demonise a segment of society with clearly no understanding of the truth , despite I might add, by the 'truth' being posted at various points during the thread. Even from various Gov sources.

Haters gotta hate.

I'll add as an aside as I just noticed. Isn't it funny how these proponents of the Truth & Justice & fair play etc.
Why do they always have their rating system turned off?
Funny that.

Re: Motability
 

May I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? This thread is about a specific type of fraud.

Returning to that topic, I have to say that I do not regard £70m as 'insignificant'. If the Government announced an additional £70m toward motability would it be rejected by beneficiaries as "insignificant"? Rhetorical question. :sleep:

No, because that is not what I said. Glad to see you have now read the link. ;)

:D

Could somebody take the broken record off the player please?

For your personal enjoyment I have temporarily turned on my ratings which don't look that much different to your own. Funny that. We appear to be equal proponents of Truth and Justice :sleep:

Btw, I think it is hilarious that you looked for my 'rating' so that you could (see how others) judge my value as a contributor. Please don't feel anguished by anything I might say just repeat the mantra: haters gotta hate; haters gotta hate; haters gotta hate etc and suck your thumb. It will help you during the dark times :)

Re: Motability
 

It is quite clear what you said and and what you insinuated ,the article you linked is just non-factual rubbish designed to appeal to people like you,typical Daily Mail garbage .I suggest that in future if you want a real discussion about a topic you read more mature and less discriminatory material ,it's also worth finding out some facts about the subject you wish to discuss because at the moment you just look like an idiot with a big chip on your shoulder about disabled people .

There are things that need to change in the benefits system ,including Motability but when people like you start spouting that kind of rubbish all that happens is sensible debate gets smothered by discrimination and hatred .

Re: Motability
 

What he said :clap:

As for 'my personal enjoyment'

LOL wut.
I'm not keeping score, I do find it a bit odd that you'd turn off your rating at all - if only temporarily.

Is that to ensure your more volatile, and not very well thought out posts don't attract negative scoring? :doh:

Re: Motability
 

Please be reminded that you are not a mod. Stop trying to tell other users what to do.

Also stick to the topic please.

Re: Motability
 

Um. Respectfully......he is the OP who is trying to make a point, so it seems reasonable that he's anxious that the thread stays on topic. It seems a bit harsh that a mod (you) tells him off for doing something that a mod (you) should have been doing......and then tells him to stick to the topic, which is what he would probably like to do. Just saying......seems odd :confused:

Re: Motability
 

If you really want to debate the welfare system in the uk your first action should be avoiding the daily mail it's a hateful little rag pandering to a fortunately dying group and absolutely cannot be trusted to present the facts. There is no perfect system never has and never will be there are always ways to abuse if that is the type of person you are, fact is the vast majority of claimants are decent, honest and play by the rules and don't deserve to be tarnished with the brush of a tiny minority which is happening all too often. As for the op nothing about your observation shouts abuse or fraud and certainly doesn't give credence to widespread abuse, did you think just perhaps that was the husband/wife of the person entitled.

If your on disability benefits for any length of time i can assure you your not a fraud both medical technology and understanding of physiology have made it near impossible to commit fraud longterm by claiming medical problems. I only know the one way to get disability benefits while pretending to have an issue, you make the claim which will go through a GP's letter will suffice for an initial application you will get benefits for a few months then as your nearing the six month period you cease the disability claim and go back to JSA. Claiming disability benefits for longer then six months gets you on the assessment list and after six months most GP's will refer you to a consultant.

So if you meet people who have constantly been on disability benefits for two years or more despite what you might think they are legit. Generally i have found the people criticising or claiming how easy benefits are have never actually gone through the system they have just read about it in a paper and accepted it as correct and never delve much deeper.

Re: Motability
 

This sort of fraud needs to be kept in the public eye. In our small way we are helping to sustain awareness. Two idiots with 2 big chips it seems but thanks for helping.

You say there are things that need to change with Motability, what do you suggest?

Turning off rating does not prevent negative rep. Turning off rating is just a personal choice. Sigh...

Thanks Ramrod. I'm confused too. There is nothing in Stephen's post that I understand:

I know I'm not a mod (I don't dress as a French Maid for a start)
I am not telling others what to do (I politely asked a member to refrain from going off topic); and
I am staying on topic.

Exactly where did I go wrong Stephen?

The Mail is a National newspaper with circulation figures that would seem to suggest it reflects a popular view. That said, the article referenced is available free online so you don't need to subscribe to view and to discuss the topic. You're not getting your hands dirty on a 'hateful little rag' that is frequently referenced on this forum.

You have cited a benefits workaround. Are you content with that fraud then? And how does anyone reliably disprove the infamous "bad back"?

Re: Motability
 

No i don't support it i think i'm pretty clear on that but there is no perfect system the best we can do is to have a system where the good far outweighs the bad and whether you or many others think so that's what we have. Are there reforms that could be done yes there are i've voiced my views on that with my personal ideald a few times on this forum. The only way to have no fraud is to have no welfare system is that what you'd prefer?.

As for the mail numbers of readers doesn't mean it's good mein kampf and the little red book being two examples and the mail has an unpleasant agenda and viewpoint that has more in common with the ideology of the nazi's which given it's past owner i suppose shouldn't be surprising.