Accessible Vehicles and Equipment Scheme evaluation - devolved disability benefits: research

8. Conclusions and areas for consideration

Introduction

Overall, feedback about the AVE Scheme from providers, dealers, members and non-members was positive. This chapter summarises their views and identifies areas for the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland to consider that could further enhance the Scheme.

Providers’ experiences

Providers who applied for accreditation described the process as straightforward and praised the Scottish Government for its supportive approach and speed in replying to queries. Others, however, found the scale of the application form off-putting.

Overall, organisations’ perceptions of the process were influenced by their experience and capacity – those with resources and personnel with experience in similar applications found it easier, and the smaller operators without that background found it more challenging.

Factors which deterred potential applicants centred on concerns about the commercial viability of the Scheme, and their capacity to meet the required volume and terms. A few were worried about their ability to compete with such a large and well-established organisation as Motability.

Areas for consideration – encouraging more providers to apply

Some found the application straightforward, but there were also points for potential improvement.

1. Providing more information about the Scheme could help prospective providers to plan for the application and delivery.

2. A shorter application form length could encourage more applicants. Still, we note the form has already been simplified, and it may not be possible to remove anything else.

3. The scale of the application deterred a few from applying. Providing more support or information sessions focused on the application form and how to provide the requested information could help address this.

4. Clarifying issues around credit checks and why they are not required could address concerns around that issue.

Concerns around commercial viability were the main reason for not applying for accreditation.

5. More flexibility or less stringent requirements (volume, breakdown recovery, etc) could encourage more providers to apply.

6. The option to take part in a pilot phase to allow providers to experience the Scheme and see what is involved could encourage more applicants.

7. Providing reassurance or information for potential providers about the process if a client returns a damaged vehicle or equipment could also help. .

Applicants were positive about the Scheme’s aim to offer more choice and the opportunity to reach more new clients.

8. Emphasising this to other potential applicants might encourage more applications.

Involving additional providers

Dealers and Scheme members expressed mixed views about whether additional providers should be involved in the Scheme alongside Motability. Support for this proposal was evenly balanced with those who opposed it, and some were unsure. Potential benefits identified by interviewees included potentially increased competition and choice. Possible drawbacks included detracting from the Scheme’s simple ‘one stop shop’ nature and concerns around whether and how quickly additional providers could achieve Motability’s customer service standards, which were described as high by research participants, and economies of scale.

Areas for consideration – involving additional providers

9. We suggest continued consideration of how additional providers could be involved without detracting from aspects of the Scheme that are working well.

10. If additional providers are involved, it will be important to monitor their impact on the Scheme.

Dealers’ experiences

Dealers reported positive experiences of working with Motability to provide vehicles and equipment for their clients. They noted the commercial opportunities, appreciated Motability’s support, and highlighted benefits for clients.

However, dealers also put forward points for improvement. These related to eligibility-checking processes, cases where the end of an individual’s lease and transferring their benefits to Social Security Scotland do not align, and instances where leases have been cancelled.

Importantly, dealers have been unable to comment on any differences between the AVE and pre-AVE Schemes because they said the processes and systems are the same for clients and dealers regardless of which Scheme the client is accessing. They were not aware of any differences between the two Schemes.

Areas for consideration - dealers’ experiences

Dealers were not aware of any differences between the AVE and pre-AVE Schemes.

11. This is positive because it evidences a seamless transition between the Schemes but also indicates that dealers may benefit from further information about the Schemes so they understand the differences. Most notably, interviewees described challenges in confirming a client’s eligibility when the client does not have their certificate of entitlement. However, for AVE Scheme clients, the Social Security Scotland system requires only the client’s National Insurance number and date of birth to check their eligibility. The Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland may wish to explore with Motability Operations what action Motability can take to raise awareness of the Scheme amongst dealers.

Feedback from dealers around the eligibility-checking processes and the experience of case transfer clients is discussed in more detail below, alongside members’ and non-members’ views and experiences of those issues.

Members’ and non-members’ experiences

Members were satisfied with their experience of the Scheme and feel it offers value for money while treating clients with dignity, fairness and respect.

Outcomes for members included the ability to afford a vehicle or equipment that meets their needs more effectively than alternatives they could access without the Scheme. As a result, members reported enhanced independence and mobility, and improved wellbeing and quality of life.

Accessing a vehicle or equipment through the Scheme improves members’ abilities to make journeys, and this has many small positive impacts each day, which, overall, can make life less challenging and more fulfilling. Members highlighted that the Scheme had enabled them to undertake journeys that would otherwise be difficult or impossible, including essential everyday journeys such as getting to work, school and medical appointments. The Scheme also gives members greater freedom to pursue activities that are beneficial for wellbeing and quality of life, such as holidays, day trips and hobbies.

Appendix 4 includes a summary of the outcomes listed in the AVE Scheme logic model and evidence of progress towards these. It also includes discussion of the risk factors identified in the logic model.

Transferring from DWP to Social Security Scotland appears to have been well-managed. Members reported a smooth transition and no challenges related to their lease, although dealers highlighted a couple of issues.

Generally, members could not comment on the differences between the AVE and pre-AVE Schemes. However, there were positive comments about the Scheme and praise for Social Security Scotland’s approach.

Awareness of the AVE Scheme among respondents to the non-members’ survey was low. However, follow-up interviews indicate that awareness is greater than survey responses suggest. Some interviewees who had written in their survey response that they were not familiar with the AVE Scheme were, in fact, aware they could lease a vehicle or equipment through Motability, but they did not know this was called the AVE Scheme in Scotland. Similarly, members unaware of the AVE Scheme brand thought their Scheme was known as Motability.

In general, interviewees who knew of the AVE Scheme understood it reasonably well but were not always aware of the technicalities and details of how the Scheme works. Some misunderstandings and misconceptions were apparent, such as the view that the Scheme was only for older people or those with physical disabilities.

Non-members provided insight into their reasons for not using the Scheme; most commonly mentioned was a lack of awareness. Uncertainty about how to access the Scheme, concerns about affordability, a need to use benefits for other things like bills and living expenses, an inability to drive, and a preference for their own vehicle were other barriers.

However, just over half (52%) of non-members who responded to the online survey would be interested in using the Scheme in the future.

Areas for consideration – members’ and non-members’ experiences

Findings indicate raising awareness of the AVE Scheme, what it includes (i.e. the types of vehicle and equipment available and the support with insurance, road tax, insurance, servicing, repairs and breakdown cover), who is eligible and how to access it among non-members would be beneficial.

12. Ideas from CDP and ADP clients for raising awareness include continuing to send information to clients with their award letter, providing details about the Scheme in other Social Security Scotland letters, emails or phone calls, and publishing more prominent information on Social Security Scotland’s website and social media channels. A few suggested disseminating details via professionals who work with disabled people.

13. Increasing awareness of the Scheme’s benefits for members could help non-members to understand the Scheme and how it could help them, and encourage them to use the Scheme.

The Scheme’s affordability was another concern among research participants. Survey respondents and interviewees acknowledged that there are vehicles and equipment that require no advance payment and that do not cost the entire higher or enhanced rate of the mobility component, but these options were not always suitable for individuals. This was a common reason for non-members not using the Scheme. Members viewed the Scheme as value for money, but also raised issues around finances, especially advance payments.

14. Raising awareness of the full package of services included in the Scheme, including a vehicle or piece of equipment, road tax, insurance, servicing, repairs, and breakdown cover, could help potential members perceive the Scheme as more affordable.

15. Motability Foundation and other organisations may be able to provide financial assistance and it may be worth exploring how to signpost disabled people to these organisations.

An inability to drive or disqualification from driving on medical grounds was another common reason for not using the Scheme, therefore the following could be considered to maximise use of the Scheme:

16. Improving awareness of the other types of equipment, in addition to cars, available in the Scheme could help to make it more attractive to people who do not drive.

17. Highlighting that a family member or friend can drive the vehicle could also make the Scheme more relevant to clients who do not drive.

18. Some non-members called for support to help clients access driving lessons. We understand the Motability Foundation already provides this. Still, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland, perhaps working with the Motability Foundation, could consider how to raise awareness of the provision offered by the Motability Foundation or other ways to support people with this important aspect of access to accessible vehicles.

Members generally recounted positive experiences of liaising with dealers through the Scheme, with examples of helpful and considerate service. However, there were also examples of less helpful service, including instances where clients reported dealers had not returned their calls.

19. The Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland may wish to explore with individual providers how best those providers and their dealerships can further promote high service standards through training or awareness raising.

Members who had transferred from DWP disability benefits to Social Security Scotland reported a seamless transition with no disruption to their lease. A few who had renewed their lease since moving described a positive process.

20. This is positive, but it is important to continue to monitor the experience of case transfer clients to ensure the process remains seamless, particularly as more members reach the point of lease renewal.

Dealers highlighted two instances where clients were transferring to ADP or CDP from DWP benefits, but the transition did not align with the end of their Motability lease. These dealers were concerned the clients may not have been able to arrange a new lease while waiting for the transfer.

21. The AVE Scheme includes provisions for situations like this to ensure clients can continue to access vehicles and equipment without interruption while their case is being transferred to Social Security Scotland. However, this suggests that dealers may need more information or support when working with these cases to ensure they follow the correct process.

Members did not report any challenges with the eligibility-checking process, and one case transfer client who had renewed their lease described a smoother process with the AVE Scheme. However, a handful of dealers highlighted difficulties confirming a client’s eligibility for the Scheme.

22. These appear to relate to pre-AVE Scheme cases, but we propose continuing to monitor this with dealers to ensure the eligibility check process works efficiently.

Many non-members called for a more comprehensive range of vehicles and equipment to encourage them to use the Scheme. Members had mixed views, with some reporting a good range to choose from but some others describing an inadequate range.

23. A wide range of vehicles and equipment can be accessed through the Scheme, and it may be that raising awareness of all the options could help to improve members' and non-members’ perceptions of the range available.

24. Further research, focused on the types of vehicles and equipment that members or potential members would value, and comparing this with what is available in the Scheme, could be beneficial. Interviewees requested a wider range of differently-sized cars, and other types of equipment such as e-bikes.

25. Involving additional providers could help to enhance the range of vehicles and equipment available.

Several interviewees reported waiting a long time between ordering and receiving their vehicle. This was frustrating for some members, and a few said their choice was influenced by which options would be available the quickest.

Supply chain challenges affect the global motor industry and other sectors, and are not in the AVE Scheme’s, Motability’s or other providers’ control.

26. However, steps could be taken to reduce clients’ concerns about long lead times. For example, giving members plenty of time to choose a new vehicle before their current lease expires could help.

Experiences of servicing, repairs and breakdown cover were generally good. However, a few interviewees identified some issues. These include challenges around accessing suitable courtesy cars or replacement transport.

27. Again, this issue is related to global supply chain challenges. Still, anything that could be done to improve this experience for members could be beneficial.

Final thoughts

This research has provided valuable and insightful information about providers’, dealers’, members’ and non-members’ experiences of the AVE Scheme.

Overall, feedback was positive, but also identified areas for consideration, as outlined above. We suggest the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland take these into account to help further improve the Scheme and ensure it can support as many people as possible.