Motability Cars

[securespark]

There is some confusion over your 'what does?' remark, copied above??

Sounds like a con...
What does?

 

[aveatry]

Sounds like a con...
What does?

For heavens sake read through the posts again and it will all make sense.

 

[securespark]

That's a bit patronising.

I read it through twice and I didn't understand it. That's why I asked.

But don't bother. It's clear you'd rather go to all that effort to be unhelpful than be helpful.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's a bit patronising.

I read it through twice and I didn't understand it. That's why I asked.

But don't bother. It's clear you'd rather go to all that effort to be unhelpful than be helpful.

Can you quote, the post you seem unable to understand, which would then allow the OP of the item, to explain a little more?

 

[aveatry]

That's a bit patronising.

I read it through twice and I didn't understand it. That's why I asked.

But don't bother. It's clear you'd rather go to all that effort to be unhelpful than be helpful.

Look
Harry said he has to pay inflated prices when buying disabled adaptions from official outlets compared to elsewhere.
My post directly after that said ‐- sounds like a con.
Then later you said "what does"

 

[securespark]

Thank you.

I've got it now.

 

[securespark]

Look
Harry said he has to pay inflated prices when buying disabled adaptions from official outlets compared to elsewhere.
My post directly after that said ‐- sounds like a con.
Then later you said "what does"

Thank you.
I've got it now.

What confused me was the official outlets compared to elsewhere. What makes "elsewhere" unofficial? Or, what makes the official outlets so?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Look
Harry said he has to pay inflated prices when buying disabled adaptions from official outlets compared to elsewhere.
My post directly after that said ‐- sounds like a con.
Then later you said "what does"

Oh, right! It seems the confusion arose, simply because you failed to quote any of the posting, you were replying to.

Yes, it certainly is a first class con. When taken to task, for their excessive charges, they respond by claiming they offer a more tailored, caring service, but even that seems largely untrue - I hear lots of stories of customers buying new scooters, from these shops, the scooter proving to be faulty, then the purchaser being left for weeks, with no means of getting out, whilst the scooter is 'waiting for parts'.

 

[morqthana]

I wonder why aveatry can't answer this - is it because he has no logic, or because the numbers in the example are too complicated for him to grasp?

Let's invent two hypothetical people, Jack, and Jill, and use some hypothetical amounts of money (which are not meant to be realistic - we just need something to plug into your model to see how it works).

Jack and Jill each receive £500 per month in disability benefits.

Jack and Jill each receive £1,000 per month state pension.

Jack and Jill each have savings of £10,000.

Jack and Jill each want to get a new car.

Jack and Jill each make a down payment of £5,000 for a leased car.

Jack elects to pay the lease costs of £300 per month out of his disability benefit.

Jill elects to pay the lease costs of £300 per month out of her pension.

Jack ends up with a new car, £5,000 in savings, and a net income of £1,200 per month.

Jill ends up with a new car, £5,000 in savings, and a net income of £1,200 per month.


Which of them should be prevented from doing what they did, and why?

 

[morqthana]

My whole point is not that I am against the benefit but if you can afford the extra dosh for a range rover or £115k bmw then you don not need any hand out in the first place, unless you need things fitted to enable you to drive.

In the scenario I posted, both Jack and Jill could afford "the extra dosh" for a car.

Which of them should have been forbidden to pay the extra dosh, and why?

Or which of them should have been given a £300 per month reduction in their benefit payments, and why?

 

[aveatry]

In the scenario I posted, both Jack and Jill could afford "the extra dosh" for a car.

Which of them should have been forbidden to pay the extra dosh, and why?

Or which of them should have been given a £300 per month reduction in their benefit payments, and why?

Take it up with Rachael -- she has made the change yesterday

 

[Highway Man]

In the scenario I posted, both Jack and Jill could afford "the extra dosh" for a car.

Which of them should have been forbidden to pay the extra dosh, and why?

Or which of them should have been given a £300 per month reduction in their benefit payments, and why?

Jeeesus christ. WTF

 

[pete01]

Jack and Jill might need a motability car as they both went tumbling over

 

[aveatry]

Jack and Jill might need a motability car as they both went tumbling over

No actually jack fell down and it was only jill that tumbled

 

[pete01]

No actually jack fell down and it was only jill that tumbled

Oh