Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on November 7, 2011 at 16:05

How very, very petty.

Where oh where is the common sense in this latest attack on the disabled?

I confess that I am one of the "spongers" who is running round in an expensive "luxury" car funded by the DWP.

I have a Motabilty vahicle - a Ford Galaxy whose list price certainly exceeds the new £25,000 ceiling - its list price is some £32,000 BEFORE the adaptations I need were added to it. The car was not "given" to me. I paid a £3,300 'contribution' to its price - and a further £2,700 towards the adaptations necessary to enable me to drive it and get my powered wheelchair lifted in and out of the back. Oh yes - Motability also take the entire amount of HRMC component of my DLA award for three years. After three years I have to give the vehicle back as Motability is a leasing scheme - not a purchase scheme.

Free it's not. The overall cost comparison - against buying a vehicle outright for myself - is actually mighty thin. However, in a year when I became wheelchair-bound, having faced some £18,000 of other unplanned expenditure to deal with my disabilities (NOT funded by the public purse, Daily Mail please note) the availability of a vehicle that did not require a large capital expense came as quite a relief - and has made a HUGE difference to me. Surely the raison d'etre of the Motability scheme?

The lowest priced Ford Galaxy (a petrol fuelled example with huge running costs) costs more than £25,000 - once the automatic gearbox I have to have is added.

It took me four months of research to determine that the Galaxy I have is the CHEAPEST vehicle that meets my needs - carry my wheelchair, allow me to drive independently while retaining room for a couple of passengers in modest comfort.

At present, Motability define 'Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles' (WAVs) quite stringently. Most are designed to carry the wheelchair user as a passenger. Those that aren't lose most of the passenger seats in allowing the wheelchair user access to the driver's seat. Being based for the most part on commercial vehicle chassis they are larger, heavy fuel inefficient vehicles, or are based on small vans.

Motability doesn't classify my car as a WAV even though its clear and sole purpose (in my hands) is to house the large tail-lift that lifts the 160Kg of my powered wheelchair in and out. Their distinction seems to be that the vehicle was not delivered as a WAV (ie; one having been already converted by a recognised WAV manufacturer) but was converted by one of their specialist conversion companies after they leased it to me. A procedural and bureaucratic distinction that also means that, as a result, I also picked up most of the conversion costs.

If you understand that distinction, I'd be pleased to hear from you. As I don't understand it!

Still, I have a vehicle that suits me and my circumstances. My alternative - and the one now left to me, should I decide to replace my Motability vehicle with another when its lease comes to an end - would be a larger, very much more expensive  WAV. Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute MY MONEY toward a vehicle that *I* choose?

Without my Motability vehicle I would be completely housebound. Certainly unable to contribute to David Cameron's "Big Society". Still, at least I was able to work long enough (and hard enough) before becoming disabled to gain the funds to allow me some choice in the matter.

Well done, Daily Mail.

Thanks to your tireless campaigning, it looks like I'll be forced in future to choose a massive, MORE expensive vehicle that uses more fuel and costs more to run.

Very well done indeed. NOT!

This kind of cheap journalism looks like a win-win for the paper. On the one hand it appeals to a readership who seem only too happy to see "the disabled" as spongers, for ever getting handouts ... including expensive new cars that the paper's readership struggle to buy themselves. On the other hand, those who are the target of this shortsighted and jealous bullying campaign don't have enough of a voice to effectively shout back.

I see that the knuckle-heads who came up with these "cost-saving" measures also intend to disadvantage younger drivers by making them wait until they are 21 years old so as to save on insurance costs. Perhaps they can explain how this measure marries with demands that disabled people should get off their backsides and get into paid employment. If they can't get out of the house, how are they supposed to get to work? Are younger disabled people not entitled to a social life? Or do their own shopping? Get to the doctors?

When did a Daily Mail journallist last try to get to work by bus or train ... with a wheelchair or some other mobility problem?

Obviously, the solution is to ensure tha youngsters remain dependent on others, thus ensuring that two people get to miss out on contributing to Dave's Big Society.

[sigh]

The facts are that Motability operates the largest fleet of leashold cars in the UK - some 570,000 vehicles. This equates to very nice business for car manufacturers, thank you very much. These manufacturers aren't involved in supplying vehicles to Motability for love, or the thought of all the warm and cuddly PR they'll get from Daily Mail readers. They do it out of pure business sense. The Motability scheme puts a lot of new cars into the market - a single customer who buys nearly 200,000 cars a year is a BIG CUSTOMER!  And three years later Motability puts those same cars into the second hand chain, as valuable, fully serviced, and mostly low mileage, highly cherished examples.

Rather than defending ourselves against these petty complaints from trumped-up, self-appointed 'little Englanders' whose only motive is to sell more newspapers we should be demanding better value from Motabilty and expecting the manufacturers who take a very nice profit from the 570,000 vehicles that WE are paying for to shout back at the Daily Mail for us.

Dare I suggest they might start by withdrawing their advertising from the rag?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Esther Leighton on December 2, 2012 at 21:28

The reason your vehicle isn't a WAV is because it isn't designed for you/anyone to get in and out of the vehicle in your/their/a wheelchair; it's designed for the wheelchair to be transported as 'luggage'. So,  it is an adapted vehicle, but it isn't a WAV.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on December 3, 2012 at 9:30

And that matters why?

The point is my vehicle cost more than the arbitrarily imposed limit *BECAUSE* I needed something I could adapt to carry my very heavy powered wheelchair. Had I (say) still been able to use crutches and not needed an expensive adaptation, under Motability's new rules I could have easily chosen a "luxury" Audi/BMW or large 4x4 that still fits inside the cost cap.

Because I need to carry a large wheelchair, I need a particular vehicle. Under the scheme I am now supposed to put up with a converted commercial van. That's not equality - it's a petty response to an ill-informed campaign motivated by bigotry and jealousy.

And it's not going to stop disabled people driving round in "luxury" vehicles if their disabilities allow (say, someone who needs hand controls).

Of course the scheme should place some financial limit on the cost of vehicles it provides in return for our DLA money - it would be plain daft to say that we should all get the equivalent of a Rolls Royce. But ... recall that I said I paid a hefty contribution (in return for the equipment level I wanted). That's fair and right - my DLA money only buys so much - my disability doesn't require the sunroof I wanted - I paid for it. No problem.

The scheme as it stood before had its inequalities but was nowhere near as bad as this politically driven nonsense. As it stands right now, the scheme wouldn't provide me with a BASE trim level Galaxy with the automatic gearbox I *NEED* and the diesel engine I can afford to run. And I have no choice to pay towards something better.

As for my wheelchair being 'luggage' - I don't need to carry it containing my belongings - I need it to carry *ME*. If you or anyone else would like to pick it up and load it into the luggage compartment of a standard car, be my guest. You'll soon enough understand the difference.

And, by the way, the tail-lift in my car occupies the whole of what used to be the luggage area and the rear row of seats, which had to be removed as part of the installation. I now have the choice of carrying passenger OR luggage - as my wheelchair occupies every cubic centimetre (and more) of what was the luggage compartment.

The acronym "WAV" stands for Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (see the Motability website and literature).It does NOT stand for wheelchair-USER accessible vehicle. A point that Motability has recently started to accept given the number of requests they have had from people (I suspect like me) who, having invested many thousands of pounds in their vehicle's conversion, are reluctant to give it back (and be forced to incur the costs again) when their perfectly serviceable vehicles are still capable of giving years more reliable service. Motability will now "consider sympathetically" requests for vehicles like mine to have their leases extended to 5 years - ie, the same as "WAVs". Hooray for a bit of common sense.

I say again, there's no practical difference between a vehicle that uses a powered ramp to allow the wheelchair to access the vehicle and one that use a taili-lift to do the same job.

Other than the fact that those of us who can still drive and want to carry passengers occasionally are forced by Motability's rules to pay for our own conversions AND are now restricted to a choice of commercial vans.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Esther Leighton on December 3, 2012 at 18:54

I wasn't responding to your wider political point - just to your incredulity at the distinction Motability makes between the two. I wasn't either saying I disagree, or that I agree; I'm not entirely sure I understand. For the record, I currently drive a similarly large car which is similarly adapted to carry a similarly large wheelchair, although I had to choose to not have any rear passenger seats as I couldn't afford one large enough to have passenger seats, and so my PA and assistance dog share the one front seat. I'm in the process of transferring to a WAV, as I can't manage the transfers and getting my chair in/out myself, anymore, and I need much more extensive and also expensive driving adaptations.

As far as I'm aware Motability provides grants, means tested, towards people getting the cheapest solution that meets their needs - whether that is a WAV, or a heavily adapted non-WAV, or whatever. People can ungrade to things they don't need (like your sunroof) or to things that they are not deemed to need but do (Motability usually only allows one seat, plus one driver seat, in their complex drive-from-wheelchair vehicles, for instance, as one 'carer' and the driver is all that they deem to be 'needed', and I know sometimes they are understanding of people needing control of heating/aircon for disability reasons and sometimes are not so understanding etc). I don't see what the definition of a WAV has to do with it, except perhaps that the adaptations for WAV's need quite different regulation, for example about crash safety, as travelling in a wheelchair is a modification to the original manufacturer design, and I do think that it's really disturbing that many of them aren't crash tested, wheelchairs can fail when they're deemed 'transport ready' and all in it's the sort of thing that would be totally unaccepted in the mass car market where NCAP stuff is one of the primary considerations. I've got no problem with them including your vehicle in the definition of a WAV, but they would still then need something to call a vehicle for people travelling in the wheelchair; another acronym. I think your set-up (and mine, currently) is fairly well served by 'adapted vehicle' and the distinction is clear; I don't see what widening the definition of WAV would do, except require a new definition for what used to be called a WAV?

I'm sorry that you are having to pay over the odds for a vehicle that meets your needs. I entirely agree that Motability has, essentially, a monopoly on a large section of the market, and the vast majority of 'us' (by which I mean us people who can't use a standard car, be it new or second hand) are forced to go through them and abide by whatever rules/regs are put on them. I hope that you can find a good solution, including changing Motability rules, but I just don't see how defining your vehicle a WAV would achieve that.

Having reread it several times - are you making the simple point that vehicles with a high level of adaptation would be well served by a five year lease, like Motability do with their WAV's? Would you like a five year lease and feel that got you a better deal (I'm not sure if it would, esepcially as ime adaptations start failing more the longer they're in for... )? Motability also do three year lease nearly-new WAV's. Sometimes they'll allow extension of the lease; might that be worth negotiating or have you tried that already? You can also offer to purchase the vehicle, which might be a good option as the adaptations etc are already there? It is a mighty expensive business being disabled; my empathy and shared anger with you there - and they do 'pull a lot of strings' that we have little chance of getting hold of...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on December 4, 2012 at 9:49

Esther - thanks for the further reply. My original post was written a year ago in response to David's article reporting the changes Motability introduced late last year - without warning - that in future they would only offer vehicles with a list price no greater than £25,000 for which they would expect a £2,000 cash contribution - before any conversion costs are added.

I don't think I have expressed any "incredulity" over the distinction that Motability make between a WAV that is a car with a ramp allowing a wheelchair to be driven in and a WAV that is a vehicle with a tail-lift or other adaptation that allows the wheelchair to be assisted on-board without the occupant. I think I have expressed my opinion that the distinction drawn is arbitrary and stupid.

The fact that the disabled person NEEDS a wheelchair in the first place suggests to my logical mind that no sensible distinction exists. I FULLY understand there are degrees of disability and that some people (and it sounds as if you may be one) cannot walk at all. I am fortunate in being able to stagger a few steps from back to front of my vehicle while leaning on it for support. I risk falling every time I do this (and I have fallen many times) but I put up with the risk because I did NOT want a vehicle which was almost entirely given over to my wheelchair. It is important to my sense of independence that when I occasionally go out for the day with my sons or friends we can all travel together - not as two cars with the able bodied in one and the disabled in another - just because I need to carry a wheelchair.

It sounds as if you have had to accept a vehicle converted entirely around your wheelchair - hence your remarks that your PA and dog have to sit on the only single passenger seat that is left inside your equally large (and largely empty) vehicle.

Both our vehicles are designed for the exact same purpose - ie; to carry a wheelchair and a disabled person. The ONLY difference is the means of getting the wheelchair on-board. I don't see that this makes any meaningful distinction. However, Motability DO make a distinction between the two.

So, where someone uses a ramp to drive their wheelchair into the vehicle, Motability describes that conversion as a "WAV" and pays for the conversion (although expecting the user to get 5 years use out of it) - including such things as automatic tailgate openers and the like.

Where somebody chooses a tail-lift conversion, Motability arbitrarily describes that as an adapted vehicle and PAYS NOTHING toward the conversion costs - including things like automatic tailgate openers etc ... that would be included if the disabled motorist had only accepted he/she would never carry any other passengers, luggage or whatever.

That is the entirely arbitrary way Motability interprets and enacts its rules. As I said, there are plenty of inequalities in the way Motability works.

Now ... we come to the point.

Before November last year when Motability, responding to a bigoted "anti-disabled" campaign run by the Daily Mail, imposed its arbitrary cap on vehicle cost someone like me (who already fell on the wrong side of Motability's "is it a WAV" rule) could at least choose a vehicle that suited his/her needs - albeit at the cost of paying a hefty up-front payment toward the cost of the vehicle AND for all of the adaptations.

NOW, thanks to the Daily Mail and its campaign against disabled spongers being given free cars, Motability no longer even gives that choice - the list price of my car is beyond the new cap - hence it became unavailable - I couldn't choose it even if I'm prepared to pay the up-front contribution Motability ask and pay the conversion costs again.

So .. if I wanted another Motability car again when mine is due for renewal in a year's time, my choice is to accept a vehicle like yours (that has only one passenger seat...) or take a huge converted van that has room for a few passenger seats to remain after the wheelchair route is installed.

Believe me when I say (because I have done the research) that any choice open to me that gave me equivalent functionality would leave me with a more expensive, heavier, less fuel efficient, more polluting vehicle that actually does LESS for me than my current vehicle. AND I will have no choice in the matter - Motability demands that (its definition of) WAVs are leased for 5 years.

So taking your point about the durability of conversions, the conversions in the vehicle also have to last 5 years.

Now - I have no problem with a 5 year old vehicle. Given regular servicing and a little care in their use (eg; you don't let your dog rip the seats) modern cars are designed for 100s of thousand of miles of reliability and can still look as new even after extreme high mileages.

But ... your point about conversions is well made. My tail-lift is starting to show signs of unreliability after less than 2 years use and has already failed completely once.

Now - let's talk about the elephant in the room - ie, where I'm coming from in all this.

I made the point early on that years of hard work have at least allowed me the financial ability to make the choices I've described. Others may not be so fortunate (I became disabled in my mid 50s, for example) but I happen to believe that everyone should have the choice of a vehicle that suits them. As do Motability if you read their blurb.

By implementing a crude cost cap, Motability removed those choices from a section of the population that most needs their support - ie; those with the greatest mobility problems. The effect of the cap is, as I have explained, to force more disabled drivers into larger, more expensive, fuel-gulping vehicles that deliver less functionality. I can't see how this is good for either Motability or the disabled person.

The combination of Motability's narrow definition of what is and isn't a "WAV" and the new, entirely arbitrary cost cap is to disadvantage the very people Motability was set up to serve.

Yes, that fact makes me very angry indeed. Not because they've taken my toys away, but because they have removed choice and independence from thousands of other wheelchair reliant people the organisation is meant to serve.

By implementing a crude cost cap, Motability have ensured that an inclined disabled driver can still choose a 122BHP Audi A1 Sport model (sure to get up the noses of Daily Mail readers - "a tearwaway's pocket-rocket danger" if ever there was) or a large SUV type vehicle (BMW X1 anyone? - bound to get the neighbours envious, that one) so doing nothing to respond to the original bigotry that started all this while at the same time doing a very real disservice to people they are supposed to be helping.

Hence my sarcastic "very well done, indeed" comment.

That is the top and bottom of my argument. Hope it helps.

PS. Thanks to complaints from thousands of others like me, Motability has "renegotiated" with its suppliers and reached a compromise so that vehicles like the Ford Galaxy diesel automatic are still offered - albeit still at an almost £3,000 up-front payment and you can no longer obtain the higher trim level models - so while someone who can still get into a low, slinky sports model can have the top trim option (and set the neighbours' jealousy sirens shrieking at maximum), wheelchair users can't. D'erhhh! There's still no assistance offered toward conversion costs to carry a wheelchair - people choosing such a vehicle are still expected to foot the (roughly) £3,000 cost and see that money lost after 3 years when they insist the vehicle is given back.

As you say, being disabled is expensive. Being in a wheelchair is even more expensive - and now (arbitrarily) gives even less choice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Esther Leighton on December 4, 2012 at 10:47

Sorry about replying so late - I hadn't realised how old the thread was when I replied (was browsing here for something else entirely). 

It is a very restricted scheme, and increasingly so. However, Motability doesn't 'pay for the adaptation' as far as I'm aware, on a WAV, as you say (if I understand you right). They'll contribute, but that's means tested, and they'll also contribute towards downpayments/adaptations for people who meet their (stringent) means test, but don't need a WAV. They certainly don't 'pay for the conversion' of WAV's. For folk who don't qualify under the means test etc, there isn't help for either; a potentially large payment for adaptations and downpayment is required whether it's a WAV or not. For people who have to have a WAV, there is even less choice - no 'excess' seating, conversion likely to be based on a commercial van etc. It has seemed unfair to a lot of people with higher level needs (i.e. needing a WAV) that they are forced to have relatively unsafe, loud and unspeced vehicles which are based on vans; there is basically no choice on that for many/most if a WAV is required. Until now, people who have needed a vehicle of potentially similar cost, have had very varied 'choice' - folks who don't need a WAV previously had quite a lot of choice, like you did when you started your lease, while those who needed a WAV had very little, even when it was about the same money being talked about (it does depend - some WAV's and adaptations cost up to 100k, others compare favourably to the sort of vehicle you have - it varies a lot, as I know you know.) I would sooner extend choice to people who need WAV's, than limit it for people who can get away without a WAV but have large disability related car needs. I'm glad some negotiation/concession has been made to the original proposals. If someone in your situation was getting financial help from Motability, then I guess as they say they do the cheapest suitable solution, it would be reasonable to require them to get a WAV if it were cheaper. Of course, it would have all the downsides you listed, but if they have rules and apply them fairly, I guess that'd be the result. I think what would be much better would be to have something which offered more choice and space for 'real lives' in both the vehicle class of 'WAV' and the vehicle class of adapted vehicle for a wheelchair user. If people aren't asking or needing financial help, and like you are willing and able to pay the difference, then it does seem pretty unreasonable and reactive to stick on the arbitrary limit. The Daily Fail etc have a lot to answer for - a free car would be mighty nice. The reason I didn't get one until now (!) was that when I first needed a WAV (over 5 years ago) I couldn't afford to give up the whole of my mobility DLA and then pay the much greater fuel costs. Now, I'm in a slightly different position, and while it will be a struggle and at least double my fuel costs, I think the freedom will be worth it. The idea that it's a 'free' car, though, is a total misnomer, and that's even with getting means tested grant help towards (not covering all) the adaptions/down payment. I assume you have looked at the non-motability options? If you aren't entitled to any financial help from them, which presumably means you have income or savings, could you get a lease or something elsewhere, and pay for the adaptations as you would Motability? That might be more competitive, as in the rest of the market cars are a competitive product! 

Anyway - sorry that you're having all this grief with cars etc - I hope you find a solution that works(ish) and maybe one day the press will start representing 'us' more fairly....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on December 4, 2012 at 13:12

Hi Esther,

I think you may be confusing what Motability does in regard to (its current definition of) WAVs and its scheme of financial support to those in need of help.

Looking first at Motability's most simplistic modus operandi (ie; the way it issues most of the 570,000 odd cars in its fleet which are only lightly adapted - if at all as the majority, I believe, are completely standard with no adaptations at all):

• As such a huge "buyer" of vehicles, Motability does not pay "list price" for the cars it buys - it actually gets the cars at a very substantial discount
• Manufacturers and their dealers are VERY keen to work with Motability (that's why, wherever you are, there's a Motability specialist sitting in a dealership near you just waiting for you to call).
• The Motability scheme cycles approximately 200,000, mostly lightly used, fully serviced, low mileage cars back into the second hand trade each year - which is where motor dealers actually make most of their profits - NOT in selling new cars where their margins can actually be quite slim.
• Dealers also get the profitable service work for 3 years guaranteed.

So - manufacturers get to keep dealers sweet and shift lots of cars reliably, year after year.

If we look at the finances taking my car as an example. It has a list price of £32,000 (pre adaptations) but I believe Motability get about 30% discount as a fleet buyer. So ...

Cost of car to Motability: £22,000

Less payments from user (3 years of higher rate DLA mobility component) = £2,810 p/a x 3 = £8,431

Less the £3,000 "contribution" to the vehicle's cost they took from me up-front.

Assume £1,000 cost for average servicing and tyres (road tax is free as the vehicles are registered in the disabled tax category) plus insurance of £1,000 for three years.

Which means, when I give it back, the car will "owe" Motability £22,000 + £2,000 - £3,000 - £8431 = £12,568

A Ford Galaxy (in line with most new cars) will retain roughly 35% of its new price after 3 years.  To illustrate the point, a quick search of AutoTrader shows 3 year old Galaxys offered retail at about £17,500. I believe Motability will get somewhere between £12,000 for my car when they come to sell it to the trade.

The above calculations contain nothing for Motability's own operating costs etc. so you can see that however you play the figures, Motability may subsidise the cars it provides a little - before adaptation. It does this from the charitable funds it raises.

Personally, I believe that in the murky world of motor trading (a few years ago, big manufacturers were competing with each other to do deals that gave a brand new car to bank managers, accountants and other big fleet "buyers" AND their wives, daughters and sons ... provided they were changed every 3 months so as to drive a stock of one-owner, low mileage "nearly new" cars back into the trade where they could be sold without the manufacturers appearing to lower the list price of new cars) Motability probably pay less than I have estimated for its cars and makes a small profit on resale of the majority of cars in its fleet. This profit is recycled, of course for the benefit of the users it supports who need far greater subsidy from it.

Let me make plain - I am NOT suggesting any impropriety on the part of Motability here - they do a wonderful job of providing cars to disabled people at a cost to the individual far lower than the individual could obtain in the retail market. I'm merely explaining how the scheme works.

My belief is that for the majority of cars it provides, Motability acts as a "non-profit" finance house. Not much more.

If people thought about it, their DLA mobility money could probably buy them a better deal if they looked elsewhere. But then Motability wouldn't be able to help as many people who DO need greater financial support.

Turning to WAVs

The cheapest WAV offered by Motability today is the Fiat Doblo 1.4 Mylife. If we  look at its list price (£13,410) and do the same maths I just applied to my Ford Galaxy, we can see that after five years (the WAV lease period set by Motability) they have to recover £3,991 on resale  - a figure I think they would struggle to achieve.

This, of course, is before the cost of the conversion to a WAV.

In the case of this small car, the conversion cost is equally small (and FIAT's list prices are an ambition their dealers rarely achieve). A look at the conversion company's website (at http://www.bristolstreetversa.com/) shows them offering the vehicle retail at £14,695 - so a conversion cost of just £1,285.

This makes the Motability offer a poor deal even once the road insurance and service costs are taken into account over 5 years as long as you can afford the up-front cost as the residual value after 5 years is just £976 - a figure I'm pretty sure you would be able to recover and easily exceed if the vehicle was sold privately.

Moving up into "mid-range" WAVs, looking for the first with a powered rear ramp you get a Peugeot Bipper TePee 1.3 for a £9,995 contribution plus the whole of your DLA mobility allowance. This deal makes no financial sense to me at all if you can afford the purchase price as the convertor's web site offers the car in automatic form for just £17,995 and by my reckoning, Motability stand to make a profit of £8,452 plus whatever they sell the car for after 5 years.

"Running the numbers" across the range shows the same sort of result each time: Motability is a reasonable to good financial deal IF you can't afford the initial outlay AND you want a new car.

In all cases, pretty much you could do much better by buying a second hand version of whatever you need. Even through the conversion companies, already adapted cars follow (maybe after a bit of haggling) the rough & ready "worth a third of new price after 3 years" rule. So even £36,000 worth of vehicle (as I currently drive) could be picked up for about £12-13,000 if you get one privately or £15-16,000 through a dealer.

The BIG advantage of Motability comes to those on low incomes with little to no capital to buy even a second hand car to keep them mobile. This is where the charity's "means tested" financial support kicks in - to help those who CANNOT afford the enormous "contributions" asked for most WAVs (basically the whole of the conversion cost plus the capitalised cost of the diffference between the vehicles cost and what can be paid for with you DLA money) to get a vehicle they need to give them mobility and independence.

... which is a very long-winded way of explaining that Motability does a great and good service to disabled people who otherwise couldn't afford to run a car - and therefore would be denied in all practical terms employment, socialisation etc - but the scheme needs to be judged very carefully to see if it offers good value for money to those who can afford to fund any kind of purchase out of their own pockets.

Got it? :>)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Esther Leighton on December 4, 2012 at 13:28

I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with your (rough, of course) figures. 

I'm not sure Motability (the business) which is entirely separate from the charity arm, does offer a good deal usually. I think a better scenario would be grants where people need them, but with choice as to where they use them (i.e. it doesn't have to be through Motability the business) but that's by-the-by and isn't going to happen. 

I'm not sure your comparison entirely works - I don't know what chair you have, or if you've tried the WAV's. If you need a Galaxy to have your chair behind it, though, it's highly highly likely that certainly the Doblo wouldn't be available to you and that the Bipper almost certainly wouldn't either. I guess either would be likely compatible with a similar set up to what you have now - a platform lift to load your chair as boot luggage, but not to get in/travel in it, and then walking round the side. It's likely that due to your height and chair you would need a much bigger WAV, if you (theoretically) took that route. You can't really compare your current vehicle and a vehicle where you could only be a passenger; that doesn't work. If you ever got a WAV, it would be one you transferred internally or drove from your wheelchair (not saying you ever will, but in theory...). In all likelihood, Motability would probably look at you having a converted Mercedes Sprinter. The numbers are quite different, particularly for folks like you and I who don't need/want to travel 'just' as a passenger, but to load and unload ourselves and our mobility equipment, and drive, ourselves. I'm not sure you're right about the vast majority being truly unadapted either. I susepect most people using the scheme make decisions based on if they can get in/out, whether it has the right features (e.g. aircon if they can't control their temperature or electric windows back in the day when they weren't standard, if they couldn't use the manual handle etc) on grounds of their disability, as well as factors about their lifestyle and personal preferences. Many people go automatic for disability related reasons, too, or have bolt on minor adaptations. I guess Motability has the figures somewhere, but that's an interesting one. It'd be especially interesting to know how much people are severely limited in their vehicle choice because of essential disability related requirements, meaning that few, one or even no cars on the scheme are suitable. In general, mind, I entirely agree with your figures, and know that they vary a lot both throughout the car and the WAV classes. 

Ah well; all we can do is make the best decisions based on the rules and regs that other people made for us, eh?!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on December 4, 2012 at 14:02

Esther - I'm not looking at the Peugeot or Fiat vehicles I gave as examples for my use - I agree they would be entirely unsuitable. I was just using them to illustrate my understanding of how the scheme works.

Personally, when my current car comes up for renewal in about 14 months time I will ask Motability at what price they might sell it me. But my condition may well determine the need for something I can drive the wheelchair into - I hurt my hip quite badly last time I fell while making my way to the driver's door. Either a "drive from wheelchair" type or something I can drive through then fold the seats back. A Sprinter or VW Caravelle look like the options I might have in that case. Yuk! (I used to drive and race historic Maseratis before my strokes so any of these vans is a downward move in my eyes, despite the passing of the years)

I'll be visiting NAIDEX next year and the various mobility roadshows to see what options are available.

Anyway ... all this chat aside, I wouldn't want you to get the idea I'm having "grief" with cars as the truth is far from that position. My Galaxy has kept me mobile and independent - my wife and I have taken it on several holidays across Europe and it enables me to get out and get involved in the voluntary work I do.

And as for putting up with what we're given ... well, I've never been one to accept that when I was able bodied and I haven't changed just because I'm in a wheelchair. This web site aims to give us all a voice to effect positive change. I hope you'll stay engaged here and fight for change as and where we can.