Posted on 27/10/2011 8:49 AM
We have an open policy on our motabiltity WAV, it basically says anyone can drive it with my partners consent. We had to get the social work and the care agency to write to insurance provider(can't remember off hand who does it for motability). It was to show that my partner needed to be driven to and from work each day and that the care agency couldn't always guarantee that it would be the same carer or that we would any notice of a different one coming i.e. usual Carer phones in sick at 7.30am, complete stranger turns up at the door at 8am. There is no way we could change the named driver in these circumstances.
So hopefully the new rules could be worked around in a similar manner.
I agree that restricting the named drivers to within 5 miles is completely unworkable for many and is extremely unfair.
I don't know if I'm quite so sympathetic on the "luxury" car front. I guess it all comes down to numbers. Does the more expensive payment cover all the extra costs involved in a high end BMW for example. The higher initial cost of motability buying the car, the higher insurance, the higher cost of servicing/parts etc.
I can't seem to find any numbers on how that breaks down.
I certainly don't have a problem if someone pays £9000 up front for a fancy car and that large payment covers all the extra costs and it works out costing motability the same as say a Ford Focus. Then I don't see a problem at all. On the other hand if it is costing motability over and above what they would pay on, lets just say for arguments sake again, a Ford Focus then I don't think that's expectable.
I completely agree DLA should not be means tested and that if people have the money for a large up front payment and that covers the extra expense I don't see a problem. But if the more expensive cars are costing motability/tax payer more money than a cheaper car that suits their needs, well I think that's wrong.
I would really like to see the numbers to see if £25000 plus cars cost motability more or whether the advanced payment cancels out the higher cost.
Also read that WAVs are exempt from the £25000 rule. Also that thinks like 4x4 can be argued for if you live say on a farm. I would imaging that expensive adaptation that drive advancements up past the £2000 for non WAV vehicles would be exempt from this rule too.
Hopefully there will be wiggle room with the insurance too but the whole thing does stink.
I think there definitely needs to be a change in the way it's reported. There is no mention of the advance payment being completely lost to you, it's not like you sell the car on and recoup some of that money. You pay a large some of money every month for the car which seems to be forgotten about. Plus a car that has been serviced from the manufacturer every year and is only 3 years old when sold on by motabilty must still hold a lot of the original value, add in the advanced payment and the monthly payment they can't be coming off that bad from it.