Crazy benefits system need an overhaul

Nah! I doubt it mcem. Sounded more like a Nu-Kipper to me.

I really wish I could believe it was a one-off t** post but some of the stuff I've read here recently makes me think it represents the view of a significant chunk of GN these days!

I agree with you mcem. I find GN an interesting observational exercise more than anything, apart from a handful of posters.

durhamjen
Shouldn't that be 'to' be eligible. And before anyone jumps on me for being picky I'm sure many remember me being pulled up over spelling Gaurdian wrong.

Yes, you are right, petra. Don't crow about it, though. I copied and pasted that from Galen's post further up, as I said.
Are you going to criticise Galen? I didn't.

I assume your misspelling of Guardian was on purpose?

SueDonim I agree with you that because you have a disability you should not be denied choice. By the same token having a disability does not exclude you from the responsibilities of life. If belts have to be tightened then we all have to do our bit. I would add that I worked with people with disabilities for all my working life so I am not unsympathetic.

The government wants people with disabilities to go to work, then takes away the Motability cars of 50,000 of them?
That's not just doing their bit.
They then lose their jobs

Poly seems to have disappeared when she didn't get the 'benefit scrounger' support she was obviously seeking.

poly asked "who pays your monthly mobility allowance...the tax payer. So the car to you is free." But that same £58 a week is paid to people who don't use it as part of the cost of a motability allowance, too. Whether they use it to partly fund a car or to take a taxi for £58 worth of journeys is up to them. The rest of the cost of renting the car comes from the disabled person themselves (or their partner, if they are not able to earn)

I wonder whether poly resents that £58 a week for all disabled?

Yes. A bit suspicious that. I didn't contribute as I wouldn't be saying more than those with direct experience of mobility issues have already said. That '£47,000 Volvo'? Didn't add up at all.

My now adult son has had motability cars since he was 5 years old. There is a lot of misunderstanding here about them - esp from the OP.

Having a motability can is not like owning a car it is equivalent to leasing one. That's why you have the car for 3 years. The advance payments are set by the dealers & depend on how many cars they need to shift. So for 12 years we had scenic. The first lease was a basic model with a £500 advance payment, then a slightly better model for £50 advance payment and then a really top of the range one for zero advance payment. I went back to renew and he advance payment for the basic model was 2.5k so we had to switch cars. But those rates are set by the manufacturers and depend on how much they can sell the car for at the end of the lease and whether or not they want their cars to be visible on the road.

It's market forces that set e cars available - not the government giving lots of money to disabled people to drive Posh cars. It costs the government exactly the same whether someone drives a Ford Fiesta or a BMW on motability or doesn't even get a motability vehicle. Bloody disabled eh? Daring to have manufacturers treating them as people.

In terms of why there is choice - because the manufacturers choose to offer whichever cars they are offering. We struggled to find a suitable car for my son this time as he needs to sit far enough from the he driver that he cannot reach them (I.e a 7 seater) and the car needs to be able to take his harness (so that was the c-max out). Most fitting those criteria had massive advance payments this time round which we/he couldn't afford (& no he can't work a bit harder - he can't speak, probably can't read, can't write and requires 24 hour 2:1 care.)

What I find sad is that someone posts their opinion on something and is then feels has to leave the discussion because she feels she is being insulted. By all means disagree with her post but there is no need to descend to name calling. She has been described as boasting, called a troll and a "Nu-Kipper". As I posted on another thread the person who resorts to insults has lost the argument

The depth of knowledge on Gransnet always amazes me and allows us to see the reality of issues and not just the surface and judgemental view.

Thank you Nezumi65 for insight into the broader truth of this situation.

Nezumi65 I was trying to make just that point - All that is being "given" to the OP's friend is the same £58 a week that they would receive if they didn't choose to put it towards the cost of renting a car. I repeat the word TOWARDS the cost, they still have to pay a deposit, unless they choose certain models with a zero deposit.

It is a pity she didn't hang around long enough to discover that she was talking absolute rubbish & her top of the range cars cost the taxpayer the same as the basic models.

After years of hearing about 'free cars' and being 'lucky' it does become pretty tedious. It's usually from people who wouldn't last 5 minutes with my son and certainly wouldn't swap. Believe me a Renault scenic doesn't make up for a lifetime of severe disability.

Yes quite elegran

My son would be dangerous to other road users stuffed in a Nissan micra. The OP should be very grateful there are 7 sweaters on the scheme that allow him to be driven around far from the driver!

Lol sweaters - sweaters!

I give up! Darn autocorrect.

I agree mcmem. It is very depressing sometimes.
poly no one has insulted you which I think shows considerable restraint.
I know a disabled couple who went on holiday once. How very dare they.
It is state funding by the way. Most but not all of it originates from taxpayers (more since the great Tory asset sale). It was Thatcher who changed 'state funding' to 'taxpayer funding' for obvious propagandist reasons.

And travelling with him in a small bottom-of-the-range car would probably be impossible! So it could be that without it you would be reduced to letting him be looked after by the state, at a cost of vastly more rthan £58 a week.

nezumi Was you reply at 09:47:57 posted by telepathy, before I had even pressed send on my previous post?

This thread has just been highlighted in the daily GNHQ newsletter email. I wonder whether that will bring a rush of posts from people with strong opinions on the subject (in one direction or other) ?

A small percentage of posts are vitriolic towards anyone that doesn't share their opinions. £47.000.00 for a Volvo, for tax payers to pick up the bill is taking the mickey, if it's true. I cannot the government sanctioning it, but I have never studied the rules, but whatever they are at the moment. Poly is as entitled to her opinions as anyone else. I would urge people not to post unless they have the narrow mind set of the attackers. She has probably gone away, like me not to look at the post again.

Having just caught the start of this..I don't think pensioners are dying of the cold because of the fuel allowance being taken away from them, my mother in law gets the fuel allowance and she really doesn't need it, neither do my parents, but they have to have it, it should have been means tested years ago, child benefit should be means tested too, all benefits should be mean tested

Oh dear - it's the green eyed monster rearing its ugly head. The car is not owned by your friend, neither is it 'given by the state'. The car is obtained by using the Motability scheme. Are you sure it is £47k ? To everyone who displays the attitude that you have I'd say 'Great! Wouldn't YOU like to be disabled so you can have a car?' Because I can assure you that every single disabled person trying to cope with 24/7 pain, and the restrictions that disability causes, would gladly give up that car to be able-bodied.