Motability
 

MOTABILITY

This scheme needs to be looked at very closely. In a full reception room at Kwikfit today, I was the only one actually handing over any cash.

The attendant members of the cottage industry that is Motability were having 4 new buckshee tyres fitted along with free tracking, coffee and discreet advice on all other options open to them. You can't do better than a Kwikfit motability fitter. It pays their wages.

The taxpayer just can't afford it.

Re: Motability
 

The Fail has had it in for Motability for ages. Sure, there are bound to be people abusing the system, but it helps far more than it "enriches for nothing".

Getting PIP/DLA at the level to be eligible for Motabilty is hard and getting harder every day. And don't forget there are many who are eligible due to "unseen" disabilties.

The mobility component of PIP/DLA can be used to enter a 3 year private hire agreement with Motability, it can be used to purchase a second hand car, or it can be used to pay for other forms of transport such as taxis.

Many rely on it for work, or finding work, especially since financial assisitance to travel to college or Uni was slashed to almost nothing (or indeed zero in some areas).

The rules for use are getting tougher and tougher, as the car must be "pristine" when returned with a set maximum mileage.

And Motability is a charity.

Re: Motability
 

I don't have an issue with motobility any more than i have an issue with people on the dole buying a tv subscription ,i only have an issue when the same people whinge about getting nothing from the government when they have a sky/virgin tv subscription or a brand new car .We ,as a society ,give people welfare benefits ,how they spend it is really up to them

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

It's their choice how they spend their money .All motobility is ,is a 3 yr lease on a vehicle paid for by benefits that the recipient is entitled to ,either way they will get the money to spend on bus fares ,taxi fares or any other mode of transport

Re: Motability
 

There are some abuses wherever you want to look in society and if people abuse the system then they should be brought to book in my opinion but what we need to remember its a tiny minority that generally abuse systems whether its benefits, taxes and whatever anything else you want to think of.

Re: Motability
 

There's a bloke near where I live with unseen disabilities. He has a new car every now and then plus his maintenance and insurance paid for. He climbs ladders, paints his house, goes hiking, gardens (shifting large pots) etc but has a bad back. Such suffering seems prevalent.

My arse hurts more than his back; where do I get my free car and reserved parking please?

Re: Motability
 

I rather think you are arguing against DLA/PIP payments rather than Motability.

Are you saying that people in receipt of PIP/DLA should not be allowed to spend the money on a car or are you saying that they should not get the money ,two completely different arguments

Re: Motability
 

free car hmm

well yes my DlA/PIP pays for the lease

Though i had to pay £2000 up front for the car i needed I also paid for the hoist £600 will have to pay to take out too were on it may or may not be usable on next car

and because i chose a car I have to pay for the Scooters ( i need one for shops and a larger one if i for some reason feel the need to keep up with the family on a day out ( i realize i should stay at home and be invisible but hey always a rebel me ;) )

there may be some who get those for free though only if they have no other income ( my wife works so we get no means tested benefits only disability ones )

there will always be people who fiddle the system just look at the Tax we should get into the Tax Exchequer

Re: Motability
 

I think we had this topic about a year ago.

Re: Motability
 

I am saying that people who don't warrant it should get neither a car nor PIP/DLA and that scrutiny cannot be very exacting if even casual observance reveals that abuse is rife. That said, even genuine recipients seem coy about this entitlement because it is a good deal that doesn't fit with the accusation that the government are targeting the disabled.

This is the crux.

The article was in today's DM and therefore qualifies for 'Current Affairs' I think.

Re: Motability
 

Perhaps if the benefit fraud hotline information was actually followed up there wouldnt be so many blatant abuses but too many reports made to it never result in action taken. I'm a claimant and fully support reform of the system if only it would happen as despite how the tories currently talk they are not reforming anything they are cost cutting short term and actually costing more in the mid term as claimants win their cases at tribunal. As for motability i am entitled to it but haven't used the service as my only trips are to the hospital and we have perfectly adequate public transport but abuse of the system much like dla is rare and isn't the common occurence some believe.

If you feel strongly about it do as i do and go see your mp and raise the issue.

Re: Motability
 

Fiddlers do annoy me. Fiddlers should annoy everyone perhaps especially the genuine claimants who can be besmirched by the action of the cheats.

Re: Motability
 

Yes they annoy me as well as they give the genuine claimants a bad name as the media when they report these stories try to make out that everybody on disability benefits is a cheat or a scrounger and that in my opinion is a severe distortion of the truth.

Re: Motability
 

Which goes without saying and applies to all forms of state aid

It could be said that abuse for PIP/DLA is rife but it is very hard to prove and i don't see how casual observance at a Kwik Fit garage shows that .Tyres and tracking ,indeed most servicing is included in the lease contract so they are not 'buckshee' or free

Re: Motability
 

I'm getting a bit sick of the blase and popularist statements regarding anything to do with any kind of benefit recipient and the demonisation thereforth of.

How the mod editanyone sitting in a Kwik Fit for an hour can come up with the idea that benefit scroungers are rife is pretty breathtaking. If they get motability, they have been subject to scrutiny and very likely deserve it. It's not free, it's hard to get and you get less than in times past.

Besides that, how does the OP know these aren't some kind of fleet contract arrangement. I can go into anywhere I like and get my Company car fitted with 'buckshee' tyres if it needs them, serviced too for that matter.

Unless you stopped each person and asked if they were on Motability and then could somehow analyse if they were legit or not, then frankly you're talking out of your bottom.


Still haters gonna hate I suppose.


Go get a job writing stuff for the Daily Mail - they'd like you.

please be reminded of the forum rules regarding language.

Re: Motability
 

My work van is a lease vehicle with a service plan attached to it(probably the same deal as any Motability contract) so i get 1 set of tyres a year and servicing included in the price so by the ops logic i would be a scrounger despite not getting a single penny in benefits of any description.

I would repeat my earlier question to the OP ,what are you actually complaining about ,Motability or the benefits that pay for it

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.

Re: Motability
 

One of the most hight rated comments from the "discussions" on this article:

Another classic:

This "newspaper" is a national disgrace: it panders to people's innate prejudices and at the same, peddling vacuous celebrity non-stories .. all in the name of journalism

Re: Motability
 

Maybe we could look at the way the cars are used ,is it actually financially viable for the person to use all or most of their mobility allowance on a car when they only need it perhaps once a week .Using taxis or public transport may be more financially efficient for some but given the cost of taxis and the complete and utter failure of bus companies to successfully cater for able bodied people let alone disabled people having a car may be the only viable option for some .Maybe the government should look at public transport as a whole and develop a policy specifically so disabled people can confidently use public transport instead of a car .
Back in 2011 Motability made some changes these included limiting the cars available ,no more BMW's or Audis .They also placed restrictions on the named drivers ,they must live within 5 miles of the customer and only 2 drivers as standard this reduces the risk of relatives using the car for personal use .

Re: Motability
 

Well done these guys in particular (showing as examples)

I could go on.

I don't know how reading the Mail & sitting in KwikFit makes the OP such a fricking expert on DLA/Motability & fraud, when there's people here who clearly are either on it or have relatives on it who just might be a little bit more qualified to speak about it than the trollbait first post.

I think I'm done here, I'm certainly done with people so gullible/bitter/naive? to fall for the bs that things like the D Mail propagate.

I could name plenty of other things that could well do with addressing than 0.5 of ONE percent.

Like circa 12 BILLION pounds/Yr on Foreign aid for a start.

Re: Motability
 

:clap:

Re: Motability
 

so you admit being a reader of this odious rag ,if not what do you base your ideas of its content on .

Re: Motability
 

I'd prefer a welfare system in which fraud is minimised so that those in genuine need receive the benefit. For £70m to go 'missing' is not acceptable to me.

You're a regular reader then?

You're a regular reader then?

Fair enough in the long term. What about the swindling in the shorter term though? Is it only me that thinks £70m is a lot of money?

But you haven't gone on? You've just quoted others; stuff already read.

It's not for me to say but I don't think the mods will be happy with that.

It's not for me to say but the mods might prefer that you stay on topic.

You're a regular reader then?

He's a regular reader, evidently. ;)

Re: Motability
 

isn't it amasing how many regular mail readers condemn its contents but still read it ;)

Re: Motability
 

They probably all have a friend who reads it and tells them about it (in quite a bit of detail it would seem). :)

I wonder if one day we will all be able to discuss things here without aggressive overtones and ad hominem attacks? Where information is provided to correct mistaken opinion rather than full on insult? When difference of opinion can just be accepted?

I suppose it just wouldn't be CF without a dose of irrationality.:sleep:

Re: Motability
 

l don't buy it as l prefer to read a more unbiased less distorted view of the world generally.

Re: Motability
 

i go here http://www.thebigproject.co.uk/news/#.Vzi6jPkrLcv and read all the uk papers

Re: Motability
 

I think at this point I'll just mute the troll, clearly he's got the bit between his teeth about this subject, despite there being many other far more worthy & pertinent ones.
Who know's. Perhaps someone ran over his cat in a Motability car or something.
This isn't a thread or a discussion its the OP posting something that's not even accurate and then arguing vivaciously with anyone who dares to disagree, regardless of the facts or not.

/Muted

Re: Motability
 

The thing with the mail is that with the smallest amount of research the claims it makes can be totally debunked .The journalists either grossly misrepresent the facts or simply lie to get a story .Probably the same with most of the papers these days but the Mail is renowned for it

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

What do you expect he read it in the Mail

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Of course it's a lot of money and fraud does get tackled when it's known about but there is only so much anyone can do because it's human nature to want stuff for free

Re: Motability
 

Kursk i tried to engage you in an adult and polite way and you clearly have no interest in that you want to attack something regardless of the facts and realities so we will now part ways. As for the mail no one has to actually read it to know the utter bilge it prints pick any subject and it's not long before an article from the mail is cited. I have found myself debunking the mail on numerous occasions while being involved in e-cigarette advocacy and how that paper is allowed to publish some of the articles it does in this day and age astounds me. I have never purchased it or any other paper in this country for decades because i always have a good supply of toilet paper and do not need more.

Re: Motability
 

/Muted?....aaahhhh, I never thought that silence might be such music to my ears.

You do realise that your contribution to the thread has been profane, dismissive, sarcastic, repetitive and vacuous and you're calling me a troll?

We all know the accuracy of the press is questionable. But there is no smoke without fire; Government figures show that fraud is significant. I think the situation is likely to become a little more urgent. Despite the superficial calm, there is a financial crisis and 'free stuff' is not something the UK can afford imho.

Yes you did engage and I feel that our exchanges as a sort of sub text in the melee have been worthwhile. I do have an interest in the subject but you seem to be misjudging me by responses made in kind to others who have been less than civil. I am well aware that this is a topic that many get very defensive about; I am also well aware there are recipients of the benefit amongst the forum membership. You would think this would make for ideal conditions to discuss the topic but there you go.

As it is the system is being defrauded of around £70m. I don't know why this loss of funding doesn't seem to overiy concern others especially genuine recipients and I am left to draw conclusion from the information provided in a 'nasty little rag' and from the churlish responses of a few indignant CF contributors. Sigh.

Not sure how reasonable it is to debunk a paper you never read but that's a different discussion. As is Godwin's Law :)

Re: Motability
 

Then why defend the indefensible?

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------

Repeating this childish retort doesn't help your argument to counter the view, seemingly held by most here, that the Daily Mail is a pernicious and morally bankrupt publication.

Re: Motability
 

Who's defending the indefensible? I have simply acknowledged that the press as a whole is not 100% accurate at all times. It might well be the DM report on this topic is accurate and that's why I thought an airing here might be useful.

Interestingly, the response has been very defensive.

I have asked the same question of individual posters none of whom have replied. That's not repeating a childish retort it is a valid, grown up question.

Either people don't read the Mail so are commenting blind or they do read the Mail but don't want to admit it because you might call them morally bankrupt.

Of course your main aim is to divert from the swindled £70m. So returning to topic, what is you view on that?

Re: Motability
 

divert i thought i gave you an easy way to report it ( prety sure the link was there)

what would i do about it NOTHING other than investigating reported information as
its below the rate worth bothering about and is costing more to chase than it gets back

This government feels the same see page 1020 DLA Fraud

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e-feb-2016.pdf

I don't want someone on it who is fit and well but i also don't want people being harassed because of the way the press especially goes after it

A friend of mine was verbally abused on two occasions in the last year by some random person who decided because they couldn't see her disability that it was fine to shout at her for using a disabled bay with out having a wheelchair. ( if you visit some of the disability forums you will find this is becoming more common )

that is what worrying about an insignificant figure is doing and yes i don't think £70 million is worth that sort if abuse

Re: Motability
 

70 million sounds a lot until you put it into context of government spending at which point like it or not it's a trivial amount. We would all prefer a zero fraud figure but that's not possible there will always be some who will fiddle just as some do with their taxes and that problem is costing us significantly more. Aggression towards claimants has increased and absolutely correct about disability forums many people are being attacked and intimidated by some because the media has made a mountain out of a molehill aided by certain politicians and the rhetoric they use.

As for how can I debunk a paper I don't read very easy when I see multiple articles quoted as saying e-cigarettes are more harmful and dangerous then tobacco or that e-cigarettes will renormalise tobacco smoking and nice flavours will encourage children to get into smoking. The daily mail has been one of the very worst in misinformation on e-cigarettes that's how I can debunk something I do not read.

Back to the topic there comes a point where what you expend outweighs what you can collect and fraud within some of our benefits has reached that point, numerous reports have clearly stated fraud within the welfare system is not high though what there is is undesirable and we compare favourably to many nations. Trouble is it's such a damn easy scapegoat for lazy and inept politicians and there are always media outlets happy to create a problem and get us at each other's throat.

Re: Motability
 

£70 million is a lot of money ,the problem is that relentlessly chasing all fraud can lead to genuine claimants being victimised ,assumptions being made that all claimants are fraudsters or lazy sods ,you yourself admit to sitting in Kwik Fit and making a judgement based purely on what you saw ,then you started a thread based on the assumption that the people you saw where somehow fiddling the system ,if i'm honest i've probably done that myself as have a lot of other people .It's ok to try to stop fraud but becoming fixated on stopping it leads to problems for genuine claimants

Re: Motability
 

At what point do you consider it worth bothering about? As £70m "isn't much in the grand scheme of things" when should the fraud be addressed? At £100m? £200m? Never? This is not a baiting question; I assume there is a point at which you would feel enough is enough?

And do you think that disabled people are being challenged more often because others perceive that abuse of the system is on the increase or reached an (unchecked and) unacceptable level? I agree that the verbal abuse experienced by your friend is unpleasant; could it be a collateral consequence of the relaxed attitude toward cheats?

If I don't pay my Council tax the system will eventually send me to jail. If I don't pay a speeding fine, the system will double my penalty and pursue me to the ends of the Earth until I pay or send me to jail. There are mechanisms for enforcing the law. Benefit cheats should be pursued as enthusiastically as people who won't pay their Council Tax or who speed imho.

As I mention above, unless the process of law is seen to be relentlessly promoted for all types of crime, attitudes to those perceived as getting away with it will harden and others will get caught in the crossfire. I understand the point you are making but, generally speaking, doing nothing when something is wrong has proved a soft option with wider ramifications.

Ok, you have mentioned Kwik fit again and for fun I googled kwikfit/motability/fraud (or something like that) and it threw back this:

It is an old report, I have no idea if it is true or not but, well, there you go.

The last 3 posts have been more constructive thank you. For my part, I do accept that my OP was lazily constructed. It was meant as a conversation starter not as some pre-planned, deeply considered, vindictive attack that seems to be the way it has been taken. After that the usual firing from the hip ensued.

Re: Motability
 

So what is your solution to the problem? and how much money do we throw at trying to recover this 70 mil that may be spread across thousands of people is it worth a 100 mil just so we are seen to be chasing the issue down. Also worth remembering very often the fraud figures also contain errors within the system itself so that 70mil may be way north of the true fraud figure once you take overpayment into account. No one is suggesting that fraud in any form is acceptable or that it should be ignored but the sheer scale of the beaurocracy involved here means money will disappear regardless of attention paid.

Re: Motability
 

Natalie and I are out this Thursday choosing a new car which will either be a skida yeti or a ford c max.

Do I feel somehow 'guilty' well as with all the disability benefits I claim I do indeed tend to think long and hard about claiming at all.

But then I've been accused of not being a genuine case before so maybe I'm not a good judge.

Re: Motability
 

at the point where you get more back by chasing it

or if it was so widespread that it affected the point of it

this would be far far higher than the rate it is which is low compared to most other countries and very low compared to fraud in other areas

no system is ever perfect and expecting it to be or even striving to hard for it to be is futility and as pointed it can cause far more harm than any good it could do

Re: Motability
 

A skida? Just be a little gentler with your right foot. :D ;)

Re: Motability
 

Laissez-faire is not something I go along with. It is no good having laws if they are not enforced. £70m may be way south of the true figure; we just won't know for sure until the law is rigorously applied. I can't see how improving the efficiency of the already existing admin systems would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Law-breaking can be contagious. The usually law-abiding can be tempted when they see others getting away with it. Or they get angry.

No-one is judging here. As a genuine claimant, do you feel more could/should be done about those who milk the system?

There are angry people in car parks who don't share your point of view.

And change your underpants more often :)

Re: Motability
 

So you don't have an idea how to cut fraud to zero, I highly doubt the level of fraud is higher then the government says given their agenda to benefits so it's a safe bet that figure is the max of fraud and overpayments. When people are caught they tend to be prosecuted more harshly then many other types of crime including violent crime so again not sure what it is you want done. I've said before and I'll repeat that the welfare system does need reform but it has to be proper reform not the cost cutting this current government is doing to make sure the system targets those who need the help and support.

Re: Motability
 

It's always the vulnerable, decent, genuine claimants that get hit by crack downs and cuts for those very reasons, the thieves and shysters will just carry on filling their boots at their expense, useless wastes of of space whose lack of ambition is only matched by their sense of entitlement

Re: Motability
 

I don't see what fraudsters have anything to do with hitting the genuine claimants. Other than sending out the usual propaganda that all claimants are faking so making any cuts to disability will be welcomed and accepted by the gullible mail readers etc.

Of course there are those that was put on IB and DLA in the past do need reassessing but now it is a cost cutting exercise from the start, where the genuine are no longer genuine because the tests are so flawed that people are being healed of their disability or illnesses within 45 minutes of seeing an assessor. But that seems perfectly acceptable as nothing is being done about it.

If you can pick up a coin, sit, stand, talk, walk 20 metres and put your hand in your top pocket, then regardless of whatever disability or illness you are deemed fit for work. And you wonder why people give up hope.

Re: Motability
 

Finally someone to talk sense into Kursk (good luck) he's on a 'mission' despite there being very many far more worthy objectives to choose from, saving potentially many more millions if not Billions - No.
Our man Kursk wants to pursue those motability people with religious fervour!
:nutter:

Re: Motability
 

Nope, and to be fair to me, I never claimed that I did. But nor do I think it requires anything innovative: the mechanism for tightening up is already in place.

You could drive an electric scooter through the supposition ;).

It's not a matter of what I want done; every taxpayer, every benefits beneficiary and everyone responsible for administering the system should want cheats stopped and made to repay everything they have stolen.

As if by magic, we agree :).

A more stringent system will possibly temporarily inconvenience some genuine claimants but this is what it will take to nail the thieves. Why should we put up with these people? It isn't ideal I know but better for the longer term health of the system and the awards that can be made to those in real need.


Presumably, the tests are designed to indicate a reasonable level of dexterity and mobility. You don't feel they truly test fitness for work so what needs to be adjusted? There are probably many 'able-bodied' full time working taxpayers who have enough aches and pains so as to struggle with some of those tests but that won't qualify them for motability.

Oh gawd, you're back :sleep:. There are many things to set right I agree and every journey starts with a single step.

You just don't want this subject mentioned do you?

Re: Motability
 

That paragraph alone shows just how ignorant you are. :td:

Re: Motability
 

The criteria for getting DLA and PIP has become much more stringent in these last few years as first of all you have to fill in a 35 page form which would even test Albert Einstein and after that there is usually a very tough assessment by Capita or Atos who then send their report to the DWP before a decision is then made by DWP decision makers on whether someone qualifies for disability benefits and the mobility part of it which has been tightened up considerably.

Re: Motability
 

Luckily I can't see his posts now - but I agree with Peanut, clearly he's got no clue.

Re: Motability
 

Maybe due to what he regards as his "source of truth"?

Re: Motability
 

No. I don't believe so, he's very obviously got a massive hard on with Motability for some reason, despite there being bigger/easier target to go for, Motability is his thing, maybe some bad experience or something, it's an overreaction for what is a very small subset of benefits.

Re: Motability
 

There's only so much in the pot to go round, people dipping into that shouldn't mean there's less to go round, sure it might not mean genuine claimants would get more but it'd mean they wouldn't get less. Abuse of invalidity was at absurd levels and I'm glad they cracked down hard on it, they've gone far to far with it though and I wonder why the alcoholics and drug addicts have yet to feel their wrath yet.

Re: Motability
 

Then enlighten me. Or would you prefer to hide behind an uninformative comment?

Yes, I am aware of that. Bearing in mind that the swindled £70m which has been referenced in this thread relates to 2014-2015 it might be we'll see an improvement in later Government figues. Good.

:dunce:

Your third post and once again nothing about the subject matter just a dig at the DM. I am not a mod but here's a message from someone who is:

:dunce:

Re: Motability
 

So this is just a rant then based on lousy media reporting and casual observation you don't care enough to actually investigate the real situation for yourself and gain a better understanding of the reality. That's why you have attracted hostility and that hostility is growing as claimants are getting fed up of witch-hunts that never hit the intended target but seem to have unnerving accuracy in hitting genuine claimants. Right now the wait for a tribunal hearing is between 18-24 months and the backlog is growing due to the numbers being deemed fit to work who clearly are not, the assessment is a ridiculously rigged affair criticised by everyone except the dwp.

As said able to walk 20 metres your fit because time taken to do it, manner in which you do it and if your in pain after doing it are not factors considered by the assessment just that you can do it. How many people are fortunate to be within 20 metres of an employment opportunity, I live across the road from a school and that is 35 metres away and pathetic as it sounds I'd be in pain getting there but hey I'm fit by assessment standards.

I used to be appreciative of my benefits and was happy while I worked to pay my contributions so that we had such a system though back then I never thought I'd be needing it anytime soon, now I'm not appreciative like a growing number I'm angry and fed up at constantly being made to feel bad because I receive benefits. Most genuine claimants are like me they don't need the media, politicians and lazy members of the public making us feel like wasters because that's one of the things we feel like all the time because we can't contribute we are worth less.

Get to know some claimants do some half decent research on the reality of things as they are now and then come back criticising the system that's if unlike many of us after you have done some research and gain an understanding your not venting at the politicians who have consistently abused the system more then any claimant ever could and are responsible for the state of it. Our biggest problem in the welfare state is as with many others politicians looking for quick easy fixes that have to be paid for later and all colours of politician have done it just happens at the minute that it's the blues making a complete pigs ear of the job.

Re: Motability
 

:clap: :clap:

Re: Motability
 

It's a bit rich describing this thread as a rant and then proceeding to deliver a rant of your own. :rolleyes:

I have always thought that a forum is a good way to acquire information where it is possible to seek and discuss issues with those directly affected; one would think that a forum with a number of beneficiaries might be a good place to start. But it seems not, several contributors have wet themselves in angst. How anyone could have the temerity to ask questions about Motability; really, the cheek of it all.
And you miss the salient point. The thread is about those who knowingly fiddle the system not about the experiences of genuine claimants.

Re: Motability
 

Not a rant an example of where your thinking leads and despite what you believe it leads to more misery for genuine claimants then money recovered from fraud you have zero understanding of the issue your complaining about. You keep saying what a problem this is and yet have clearly gone puddle deep looking into the issue taking the easy moral high ground so many take, if you bothered to actually dig a little you would realise how complicated and multi layered the issue is and why what your asking just isn't practically possible.

You have had people trying to explain the situation to you and because it doesn't fit for you your ignoring it responding in a way you know will increase hostility and then putting silly responses. You started a thread on something you know nothing about, criticising something you neither know about or have any proposals to solve the issue and then seem surprised when your not met with warmth and debate. You might be the latest on here but people saying the same things as you have been repeating it ad nauseum for the last decade and have managed to be very loud and vocal got the politicians to knee jerk react and then go on their merry way.

Those of us on benefits have no choice we get to suffer every time some media rag or uninformed person decides to wade in temporarily of course and stir the pot and we are served by politicians too lazy to actually do anything positive so they alter the assessment criteria declare job done and leave everyone in a bigger mess then before. This was an occasional casual observation that got you all worked up try living it with it everyday for years and then see how welcoming you are. Your getting insight here you just don't like it because it's not what you thought you would get and you've come across as another welfare basher as usual giving and offering nothing on the issue.

Re: Motability
 

The word you are looking for is a short one, but quite apt.

:Troll:

Someone who starts threads with the express purpose of peeing people off no matter what.

Solution: Don't feed or mute (like I did)

Re: Motability
 

Thank you for saying this. This is the sort of perspective that you would not see in the Daily Mail. If the OP had cited a reputable, authoritive news source and this would have possibly been a different discussion.

He chose his source deliberately as he seems to have an axe to grind and that is to make sure that the vast majority of deserving benefit claimants suffer due to emotive reporting of the minority who abuse the system.

Of course, the sums involved here are pathetic when compared to those involved in the tax avoidance scams, the monies made by big business at the public's expense, etc.

He does not rail against these sections of this society, only against the areas that his media sources are directing him to hate ..

You have got your priorities wrong mate ..

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:05 ----------

So don't pretend to be one then ..

Re: Motability
 

Feel better now?

Ok, for my benefit (no pun intended) let's focus on the plain, irrefutable and simple facts. It should keep things less emotive.

Fact 1 - The discussion is about Motability benefit fraud (and therefore not about you necessarily);

Fact 2 - You know everything about the system and I know nothing (this must be a fact as you repeat it ad nauseam);

Fact 3 - In a document entitled "Fraud and Error in the Benefit System: 2014/15 biannual National Statistics, Great Britain"
linked earlier in the thread the Department of Work and Pensions recorded that £70m was defrauded from the Motability scheme;

Fact 4 - Seventy million pounds is a lot of money to me but not a lot of money to you;

Fact 5 - There is room to improve the efficiency of the Motability Scheme.

Fact 6 - You are up in arms because that's always the best way to react if someone dares to mention a benefits scheme regardless of Fact 1.

Actually, that's the long and the short of it as far as I am concerned. Did I get the facts right?

:dunce:

I have no axe to grind. A discussion about Motability swindlers is perfectly legitimate.

You have quoted me as saying "I am not a mod" and commented "So don't pretend to be one then". English comprehension is not your strong point is it? :dozey:

Re: Motability
 

Having followed this thread from the start I think none of you (Iincluding the OP) have read the article fully as nonr of you have mentioned that "Motability terminates more than 60,000 car leases each year, 15,000 because of death, 12,000 because of changing health and 5,500 due to allowances being withdrawn by the Department for Work and Pensions, which provides mobility benefit."

And

But a significant number were terminated because of misuse. In the financial year to the end of March 2016, Motability dealt with 13,672 allegations relating to misuse of the scheme. Enforcement action was taken in 5,299 cases, including 2,100 customers who had their cars withdrawn. In addition to the 2,100 withdrawals, 824 more will not be allowed to take out a new lease when their term expires — this is, in effect, delayed confiscation and it's a signifiant number.

"Few, though, would argue against Motability having a place in the welfare system. It is policing the scheme that's the problem."

I think the above quotes from the article should put the OP's mind at rest as action is being taken. I will admit that the new tests are extreme and don't serve the genuine disabled as they should.

The rant about the DM by the responders on here does seem OTT to me.

I say this as a recipient of Mobility Allowance ( as it was) in the mid 80's - mid 90's following a serious RTA. Once I was able to return to work I informed them and surrendered it.

Re: Motability
 

I like a calm, rational, and informative post: it's nice to read one (that isn't one of my own :D). Thank you.

Referencing that article quickly became toxic here but I did read it all.

Re: Motability
 

I am able to get a motability car if if i wanted but choose not to because the car we have is shared between 3 of us and twice a week its taken to Bristol to visit my sons boyfriends family and that would be classed as misuse.

We are lucky to be able to afford a car which is not even 5 years old yet but some people are not that lucky and need the car to get around.

The one thing i always worry about which is a genuine concern some disabled drivers get behind the wheel after taking strong pain killers and they dont think it has an affect on them.

Re: Motability
 

I do still think you came across as too agressive on those who need and depend on it.

It is a helpline that albeit a minority need and depend upon and I would not like to see it withdrawn form them due to the actions of an even a lesser minority who abuse the system.

Yes the line needs to be drawn but not at the expense of those in need.

I was involved in another RTA recently and although I could have claimed didn't have to as I was lucky enough to have others who looked after my needs. I cannot thank them enough.

Re: Motability
 

Medication/Qualification for Motability and driving itself is subject matter that, in the interests of detente, my lips are sealed :). Perhaps someone with experience will comment.

It is true that I have had to aggressively defend my point of view in the face of overwhelming hostility.

When the penny drops with recipients that abuse potentially jeopardises their benefits, discussions such as the one here will follow a different course.

Re: Motability
 

Are you saying posters on here are abusers?

I was hoping to bring a sense of reality to this thread but I can see you are too set in your ways to realise the innateness of your posturing.

Re: Motability
 

No. You need to read the sentence again and concentrate on the 3 words you have highlighted; you appear to be misreading them. The use of the word 'abuse' refers to 'abuse of the system' it does not imply specific persons are 'abusers'. Geddit?

You're unlikely to be successful when you are quick to form an insult on the basis of a mistaken interpretation are you?:sleep:

Re: Motability
 

Pip, I can only see the trolls remarks from quotes (thankfully) but what pretty much everyone here who has participated can see is, if you don't agree wholeheartedly with every single point the OP made; including tone, and inclination, then you're one of the horde who is against him.

It's a hopeless position, and one to best just walk away from.

Re: Motability
 

Please, please, please follow your own advice and walk away.

It is obvious that you are following this thread closely (despite your proclaimed /mute) and desperately trying to stifle discussion on the subject matter.

You are not a mod; you shouldn't be trying to tell others what to do. :dunce:

Re: Motability
 

Yeah sadly it is time to let this thread die as there is no possibility of any form of adult debate.

Re: Motability
 

The reason for that would be because you appeared to base your view point on a hour sitting in Kwik Fit watching people getting "buckshee tyres" when in reality you had no clue what was actually happening relying on false assumptions is never wise

Re: Motability
 

I'm sorry you're so easily manipulated by the instruction of someone who professes not even to be following the discussion but you're not really sad are you? You don't want to discuss Motability in any shape or form, you want to divert onto other issues. You feel that any discussion at all about Motability may jeopardise its payment.

Motability is a good deal that you nevertheless like to moan about. I myself have no issue with the scheme; but I do have issue with those who defraud it and that is a discussion that is moving forward.

With a bit more determination, we'll see a reduction in Motability swindling but no genuine claimant has anything to worry about so all's good eh?

The discussion has moved on since then; I have already acknowledged my OP might have been differently worded.

Talking of Kwik Fit, you made no comment on the apparent mass Motability fraud North of the border which appears to give substance to my 'false assumptions'.

Re: Motability
 

Differently worded ,lazily constructed ,doesn't matter, the issue is that you and plenty of other people believe that most people are defrauding the benefits system with no evidence other than what they read in rags like the Mail or what they think they have seen.
Your OP doesn't actually mention fraud it simply says the "the tax payer can't afford it " presumably you mean Motability as a service given you refer to it as a "cottage industry"

since you failed to post a link there is no way of confirming the story but lets assume it's true and accurate,what point does that prove ? all it tells me is that criminals will defraud anything to make money ,it certainly does not give validity to any of your assertions that the tax payer cannot afford it

Re: Motability
 

so we go along with those who pick on the weak

they would be angry people talking to a policeman for intimidation if they tried it with me

the enforcement is rigorous already hence the extremely low fraud rate any who have been through the assessment procedure will know this

Re: Motability
 

I think part of the issue here is the people who park in disabled bays yet leap gazelle like from their cars.

Many then assume that these are motability provided on the state and thus resent it.

I don't think that the actual claimants are to blame but their relatives who then abuse the facility.

If members think the OP is breaching T&C then there's a perfectly good report button.

Re: Motability
 

Dog with a bone much? I certainly do not think that most people are defrauding benefits (which is off topic). You can't just make things up you know.:(

You forgot to mention the link posted in the OP. The link is 'disguised' like this - MOTABILITY - and it concerns motability fraud (which is on topic) and that is what the thread has been about for 6 pages.

If you really want to read more of the article that I quoted, simply use google. I didn't post a link because a short extract seemed to be enough information. The article gives loose credence to Motability abuse at Kwikfit albeit some years ago.

Now please, you're endangering my glass eye ;).

£70m does not equate to an 'extremely low fraud rate' in my book. I must be a real cheapskate if the general consensus is that taxpayers should just write off this loss in case its recovery is upsetting for genuine claimants. I'm sure you're made of much sterner stuff.

And it is right that the tests for qualification are rigorous surely?

The content of this thread is less controversial than, say, BBC's Question Time or an episode of The Simpsons. Can I be reported for bruising egos? Gulp! :D

Re: Motability
 

What you did was sit in Kwikfit for an hour and make stupid and totally ridiculous assumptions based purely on your own prejudices and the fact that you didn't see any *money change hands* and then run home to find an article to back up your assumptions from that poor excuse for a news source and now you keep saying other posters are "off topic" when they disagree with your view point.

The onus is on you to provide links to your quotes so other members can read the full text not just the bits chosen to back up a particular view point and taken out of context.

** because you didn't see any money change hands does not mean there was fraud and it certainly does not mean that the tyres were buckshee and the tracking was free ,it simply means you have not the first clue what you are talking about

Re: Motability
 

Perhaps the OP did not provide a link to any article regarding the "Motability tyre fraud" as it did not cost the motability scheme a penny. It was Kwik Fit who were defrauded by thier workers.

“They had already won the fleet contract and been paid for it, so it was simply a matter of logging it as a Motability job on the computer accounts. They were all earning between £180 and £200 each a month on top of their wages."

Source http://www.etyres.co.uk/news/kwik-fi...scam-4570.html

Re: Motability
 

I know it's wrong but I LOL'd a little bit.

Re: Motability
 

Quite the persistent little storyteller aren't you? :sleep:

What really happened was I read the Mail, which I have delivered every day to keep abreast of all the dodgers and swindlers, and was incensed by the Motability swindlers article. Apoplectic with rage, I knew only a discussion on CF could sort the whole mess out. I hadn't expected Aesop to be spinning his fables here.

Unfortunately, Motability swindlers are still swindling to this day. Luckily, you and I are keeping it in the public eye; you're being a lot sneakier about it than I am though you ol' Devil. :devsmoke:

Ok, ok, don't be embarrassed to ask for help with techy marty. Here's a link: Finding stuff on the Internet for Dummies.

Who said it did? Read the thread to understand the context there's a good chap, you've got it wrong again :sleep:. Motability was used as a vehicle (no pun intended) for the fraud. Does your neighbour know you abuse his internet connection by posting your half-baked contributions?

:dunce:

Re: Motability
 

Could you be anymore patronising and condescending which is ironic given the complete ignorance you have on the subject. People have tried to explain and be polite to you in this thread and it's a waste of time because your not interested in a debate you want to put your opinion out there and not have it questioned. Your attitude towards others absolutely stinks and everyone should just let this die and not bother anymore as it clearly isn't worth it.

Re: Motability
 

:tu:

Re: Motability
 

:tu::tu:

this sort of thing doesn't help [does she qualify for motability]

Benefits cheat caught HIKING after claiming she needed help getting out of bed
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672...ing-disability

Re: Motability
 

Do you not see the irony in referring to someone as ignorant whilst accusing them of being patronising and condescending? You underestimate what I know about the subject.

It is true that I am expressing an opinion and that opinion is open for debate. That is what happens on forums and, for that matter, in real life. Opinions will always differ; I accept that and perhaps so should you? It is not for me to tell others what to do though just as you're attempting in the next breath :dozey:.

If my 'attitude' stinks you have contributed to the smell. When insulted our options are to curl up in a darkened room and wish the World would go away, or to stand by our opinion and defend it. I chose the latter and have responded in kind.

My exchanges with you have been reasonably civil but I know that any discussion about Motability makes you jittery. I have repeatedly said it is only the swindlers that interest me because taxes should not subsidise the feckless. Several pages later we are at impasse: I think £70m of Motability swindling is too much and you don't; well, you do, but you don't want anything to be done about it just in case...

Well done for not mentioning the Daily Mail but a little sad that you're out of ideas and opt to hang onto the coat-tails of another poster.

Thank you Papa :tu:.

Another cheat nailed. Quite a few to go though....

Re: Motability
 

Of course any benefit cheat should be brought to book but when you say there is quite a few to go may we have a figure on that? as it would be nice to know what type of figure? you have in your mind when you say there are quite a few to go...

Re: Motability
 

how many cheats do you get for £70,000,000 ?