Motability

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by pip08456

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car leases each year, 15,000 because of death, 12,000 because of changing health and 5,500 due to allowances being withdrawn by the Department for Work and Pensions, which provides mobility benefit."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 Enforcement action was taken in 5,299 cases, including 2,100 customers who had their cars withdrawn.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.

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

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

[alanbjames]

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.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Kursk

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

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

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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pip08456

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

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

Originally Posted by pip08456

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.

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

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Kursk

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.
I had none of the contra indications whilst taking Tramodol.


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

No, you were aggressive from the start!



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

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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Are you saying posters on here are abusers?

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?

Originally Posted by pip08456

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.

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

[techguyone]

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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by techguyone

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Kursk

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

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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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

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?

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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'.

Originally Posted by Kursk

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

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"

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'

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

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Kursk

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

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

[heero_yuy]

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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by martyh

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"

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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 .

Originally Posted by rogerdraig

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

£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?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

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

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!