This is a rebuttal to the many politicians who are playing fast and loose with language about the Motability scheme without thinking of its consequences.
I am referring to Richard Tice’s comments earlier this year on electric charging points; Lee Anderson’s comments on the return of the invalid carriages; and the City AM op-ed written by my MP, Jack Rankin, in late October, in which he called my lifeline, Motability, “an insult to tax payers”. In a cruel and unnecessary tweet last month, Simon Dudley, the former council leader of my local council of Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, described Motability as “low-hanging fruit”.
In all these cases, claimants have not been asked to comment or be involved in designing the alternatives proposed. No, we have just been insulted and left to rue. I’d like to tell these politicians, your words are echoed by bigots looking for excuses to abuse us. Your judgement and distaste fill me with horror.
Anderson’s calls for the return of invalid carriages are abhorrent. The very reasons the Motability scheme exists are because of the treatment disabled people were subjected to in those very vehicles and the safety concerns they brought about. Not to mention they were banned from the roads as deathtraps.
Are we returning to the days of invalid carriages being overturned for entertainment? This is unacceptable. Debate is welcome, but not like this. If opening a dialogue, both parties need to be present otherwise it fails to be constructive at the first hurdle.
Fuelling hate
Disability hate crimes may be falling, but intolerance and abuse feel worse than ever. While no individual is solely responsible for the rhetoric, its consequences are undeniable. It has made disabled people the new public enemy, alongside asylum seekers.
Many ask me and others in supermarket car parks whether we enjoy our free car. It is not free – not to the taxpayer nor to us. We pay £383.89 a month from our disability benefits to Motability for the car. This abuse has only started this year and is almost certainly a direct result of the way Motability has started to be spoken about by some in politics.
Bigots now excuse their behaviour by claiming they are “helping” to catch fraudsters. Just as they exclaim they are helping when they assault people taking down the flags or have barricades outside hotels accommodating asylum seekers.
Rising commentary and misinformation
There is a growing commentary about Personal Independence Payments (PIP), Motability, and disability benefits. Debate is not inherently bad, but how it is conducted matters. The misinformation circulating last year, when cuts were rumoured, created fear among claimants, and fuelled conspiracy theories.
Every day, stories appeared with little evidence about more cuts and denial of benefits, long before any official acknowledgement from Whitehall. This led to people asking me – because of my links to my local disability forum – whether their benefits were about to be cut. Some individuals with learning disabilities believed they would be made homeless virtually there and then.
On the other side, clickbait articles from outlets like Newsquest Media Group and Reach PLC told readers what illnesses could qualify for hundreds of pounds a month – from long Covid to back pain. This may have contributed to an upsurge in claims. Why would people not claim and try to get the benefit, if they believed themselves eligible?
The worst part? Google showing me articles suggesting how easy it is to claim PIP and painting disabled people as scroungers. In my experience, this is simply not true. Every system has fraudsters and people who abuse it and PIP and Motability are no different. Yet disabled people do face extra costs while trying to stay independent. That is a fact we seem to need to keep proving.
The reality of disability assessments
To have a vehicle on the Motability scheme as an adult, unless you are a war veteran or a pensioner, a successful Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claim with the enhanced mobility element is required.
Disabled claimants and carers are subjected to humiliating and harrowing assessments. Firstly, the How your disability affects you form is horrendously long and asks deeply personal questions. On first reading, many would refuse to answer. I know, because I have shown the form to several people who initially thought it could not be that bad – until they read the questions.
Then there are the medical assessments, not often done in person since the Covid-19 pandemic, but still an ordeal. These are conducted by ‘medics’ but they are not necessarily qualified to understand the impact of disabling conditions on claimants. Since claiming PIP, I have never been examined by a doctor or nurse at an assessment. This only happened when I claimed Disability Living Allowance in Wales.
During my eight years of claiming PIP, two physiotherapists and one paramedic have medically assessed me. These are medics, yes, but not experts in fields related to my conditions, nor are they GPs. They did not train for the length of time a GP does, so they were unlikely to provide the same level of generalised medical understanding.
Is it any wonder my first claim went to tribunal and was overturned? A tribunal usually includes a judge, a GP, and a layperson with lived experience of disability. This was very scary and worrying but much more accessible to myself than the phone line.
Once they have cleared all those hurdles then, and only then, may someone be eligible for the Motability scheme with PIP. And that’s only if they receive enough points for the enhanced mobility rate benefit. All of this money will then be given in exchange for the car. I have only been eligible for the Motability scheme for two years, due to the worsening nature of my physical conditions.
Robust systems to tackle fraud
Any organisation using public funds must act responsibly. Motability stated earlier this year:
“We have internal systems to recognise misuse and receive external claims. We work with UK police services through an established Memorandum of Understanding to investigate abuse claims. We remove thousands of people from the Motability Scheme every year thanks to this vital work.”
In 2024, they removed over 5,000 users for misuse or fraud. It seems they do not ignore fraud – far from it.
Premium cars on Motability have long been contentious, even among scheme users. While I could never afford the £10,000–£15,000 down payment for a BMW or Land Rover, the scheme is not means tested, so people (at present) have the right to choose. At the end of the lease, the car must be returned to keep the scheme sustainable.
The impact on disabled people
My dealings with the DWP made me question my worth as a living being. I have been left distraught, self-harming, suicidal, and have had police welfare checks after many phone calls with the PIP team. It doesn’t help that assessors cannot deviate from a script when talking to claimants, particularly when a mistake has been made. Things improved for me only after my husband became my appointee due to the distress I experience when speaking to the DWP. This still does not make my dealings seamless, just less problematic. We always plan a list of points to bring up before a call.
It is true that I have anxiety and receive PIP, but anxiety is not mentioned on my claim. I am also autistic, but the reason for the Motability car is mostly down to my physical needs. I have fibromyalgia and functional neurological disorder (FND). Some days, the pain and stiffness in my limbs make walking to the loo the most I can manage.
In many ways, I would love to say I was a fraud, pretending to claim PIP just to get a car. But that is not the case. From what I can tell, many parents, veterans, and pensioners who use the scheme feel the same.
I am grateful for the Motability car, without which I could not visit family and friends, go shopping, or volunteer with local groups. I am thankful I live somewhere that, until very recently, has understood why independence and personal freedom is so important.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
