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

2. Providers and the accreditation process

Introduction

This chapter explores providers’ feedback about applying for accreditation under the following headings:

• What worked well?
• What could be improved?
• Reasons for not applying.
• Motives to take part or apply.

We also consider members’ and dealers’ views of involving other providers in addition to Motability in the Scheme.

What worked well?

Overall, interviewees reported the Scottish Government team was approachable and supportive, and they found the application process straightforward.

Approachable team

There was positive feedback from all applicants about the Scottish Government team, who were described as approachable, willing to help and prompt when replying to queries.

“Any questions I had, the guys were all available.” (Provider)

“What made a really big difference is… you never felt you were too much of a trouble to them if you needed to clarify things. They were very open, very supportive.” (Provider)

Two interviewees attended information sessions, which they found helpful although one decided not to apply. The person who applied said the session was “very transparent and very open”.

Experiences of participation in user research, where the Scottish Government engaged with potential providers to gather their views of the Scheme, were shared by two interviewees. They said this experience increased their understanding of the Scheme and what was involved in the application, and both decided not to apply. Reasons for not applying are discussed later in this chapter.

Straightforward application

Some applicants who had applied found it a straightforward process which compared favourably to other similar experiences.

“I genuinely feel it was one of the most straightforward ones. These things can be almost written in different languages… we thought this one was fairly straightforward and very applicable to what we were trying to achieve.” (Provider)

What could be improved?

Feedback about the accreditation process was, in general, positive. However, some potential improvements were suggested by providers.

More information about the Scheme

One applicant suggested it would have been helpful to receive more “facts and figures” about the Scheme (such as the number of people involved, and the volume of equipment required) to help them forecast and plan capacity.

“We probably could have done with a little bit more information about the Scheme itself… I would have hoped they could have included a few more figures in the documentation… for us to allow for staffing levels… Our concern is there are very strict guidelines in terms of providing replacement equipment and things. So we've put measures in place to support that. But because we haven't been provided with figures for, for example, the number of customers who've needed to have a replacement scooter or replacement battery, we are going in a little bit blind.” (Provider)

Simplified terminology

Another applicant felt some terminology used in the application materials, particularly around data security, could have been simplified. This person said their team was able to help but it could have been off-putting for people who did not have that expertise in their team.

“You could have been put off with some of the terminology used if it wasn't your world.” (Provider)

Feedback on application

One unsuccessful applicant said they did not receive feedback but would have liked to.

“I didn't really get a great deal of feedback once we had applied… Some feedback would have been better I think.” (Provider)

A small number also mentioned a delay in informing applicants about the outcome of their application.

Reasons for not applying

Providers who did not apply to the Scheme described a range of reasons for their decision, spanning:

• Concerns around the Scheme’s commercial viability for their business.
• Challenges of scaling up to meet the demand involved with the Scheme.
• Responding to clients’ changing circumstances.
• Worries about damaged vehicles and equipment.
• Competing with Motability.
• The scale of the application.
• Uncertainty around credit checks.

This section is based on interviews with five organisations that opted not to apply to the most recent accreditation process.

Commercial viability

The main deterrent for providers was the Scheme's commercial viability. For example, two highlighted that the financial outlay required at the start of the Scheme and the beginning of individual leases would lengthen the time before they could make a profit on the Scheme, which was not viable. One noted they received half the money upfront under the pre-AVE Scheme, which helped mitigate financial risk.

“I don't think it's commercially viable for any business.” (Provider)

“I reckon it's going to be year three in this Scheme before we can turn a profit. So to give you an idea how it works, you come to me and you want this particular mobility scooter. It’s going to cost you £18 a week. But because I've got to provide the scooter brand new and I need to give you three years’ parts labour warranty, insurance, breakdown, I've got to pay upfront for all these things... So I reckon the first two years would cost me £1,500. So year three is when I would make any profit.” (Provider)

“I'm surprised any businesses are talking about running the Scheme because when they look into the detail, you're like, ‘well, where can you make money?’ I'm pretty sure most companies that would sign up to that would probably put their whole business in jeopardy.” (Provider)

Challenges of scaling up

A few others identified challenges of scaling up to meet the volumes required by the Scheme, and there were concerns about being able to satisfy requirements around breakdown cover, servicing and customer support. One, for instance, said there are few organisations or individuals qualified to maintain the equipment they provide, and they felt the requirements around servicing and maintenance would be difficult to deliver consistently, especially in rural areas. Another was concerned that they would not be able to resource the required breakdown cover across large areas.

“It would be wonderful to allow people to use their benefits to purchase or lease [our equipment], but some of the requirements like 24-hour breakdown cover anywhere in the country and the prohibitive Scheme participation fee of £150,000 make it impossible for small companies to even consider it.” (Provider)

“I think they're really going to struggle for people to enter the Scheme because all the risk is on me. I've got to pay for every single thing, I've got to make sure that I've got the right staff and we need to be available 24/7 for breakdowns. All that type of stuff.” (Provider)

Two raised issues around the quality and availability of parts. One prefers to order parts in small volumes, noting there are often faults that need modifying. Another said the availability of parts was limited.

“If it was the kind of orders that you're looking at I think you're talking into the thousands… if you start taking orders on these and get those [items] produced, then if even a hundred of them show up wrong it's a nightmare… It's going to cost me money, it's going to cost me time and if I was to do that to hundreds, I mean it just scales up, it’s just a nightmare… Hopefully the criteria will be toned down about the volume… The real problem about joining the Scheme was being able to ramp up.” (Provider)

One potential provider advocated for a Scheme trial period, to allow organisations to familiarise themselves with the Scheme, monitor the level of demand, and test how their processes would work before committing for a longer term. They suggested this could encourage more providers to apply.

“If you were able to do just a small test with a small group of people and you would maybe run that for three months to see… if you can iron out all the supply chain and the production then it wouldn't be an issue to actually ramp up.” (Provider)

Responding to changes in clients’ circumstances

Clients’ changing circumstances were also raised as a deterrent to potential applicants, who expressed concerns the provider could be left with expensive equipment if a client had to return it due to changes in their condition. One provider gave an example where they had ordered a bespoke powered wheelchair for a client, but the client had a stroke shortly after submitting the order and could not use the equipment. This did not happen under the AVE Scheme, but the provider was anxious a similar issue could arise with the Scheme and leave their organisation exposed to financial risk.

“The Ts and Cs make it very difficult. You have to offer a minimum three-year lease period. A lot of our clients have pre-existing terminal illnesses. Now commercially it makes no sense to put someone on a three-year agreement if they've been diagnosed and given 12 months to live. As horrible as that sounds, the reality is that's what happens.” (Provider)

“They sign up for it and that's fine, they might have it for six months, then they change their mind actually, do you know what, my condition has deteriorated or I'm not using it as much as they wanted and we've based it all around what they've told us… So if we have above the average amount terminations in the UK in that quarter, we can lose about £2,000.” (Provider)

Damaged vehicles and equipment

A few were worried that damage to equipment by a client would not be covered by insurance and expose the provider to financial risk. Similarly, a small number shared concerns about the risk of people returning equipment with damage and the potential cost for providers.

“People can cancel willy-nilly and there's no penalty if the vehicles are collected and they're trashed which quite often happens on these types of schemes… yet you expect the supplier to carry all that cost. That's an additional cost they have to factor in.” (Provider)

Competing with Motability

One provider doubted that their organisation could compete with a large provider like Motability, and confusion about the relationship with Motability was an issue for a few. These interviewees were unsure if the Scheme offered the opportunity to be a provider in their own right, or a supplier to Motability.

“I just felt it wasn't communicated at all exactly what it was.” (Provider)

Scale of the application

A few providers mentioned the scale of the application, and the extent of information and expertise required as a reason for not applying. This was not the main deterrent but was a factor in their decision.

“I would have to reach out to a lot of people… I've got one that's in the motor trade so the vehicle compliance side of things he knew, the financial side of things, the financial advisor knew, and I have my accountant and stuff like that but it really just was the scale of the application.” (Provider)

This contrasts with feedback from applicants who found the process straightforward. However, it indicates that organisations with experience in similar processes and resources to support applications like this are perhaps better placed to apply than those with less experience or resources.

Uncertainty around credit checks

One interviewee queried why the Scottish Government asks providers not to carry out credit checks. They said this contradicts legislation requiring credit checks when creating a finance agreement with an individual. This provider said this issue deterred them from applying.

However, the Scottish Government confirmed that Scheme clients are not subject to credit checks because Social Security Scotland pays the client’s higher or enhanced rate of the mobility component directly to the provider, so no credit is involved. This is an important part of the Scheme, to ensure it remains affordable and accessible for clients.

Motives to take part or apply

Applicants also reflected on the factors that encouraged them to apply. They described commercial reasons – the opportunity to reach and help more or new clients – but there was also praise for the AVE Scheme more widely. Interviewees saw it as more equitable than the previous pre-AVE Scheme and praised its aim to offer more personalisation and choice regarding providers and equipment.

“I had everything in place to join the Scottish Government's Scheme, which suited me better, because I felt we could quite simply give a better deal in the pocket for the customers on the Scheme.” (Provider)

“I think everybody wants to start giving a little bit more choice and that's what we're going to set out to do.” (Provider)

One provider noted the opportunities afforded by the AVE Scheme because it includes equipment which is not part of the pre-AVE Scheme.

“It's just hitting customers we've not been able to access before… The [pre-AVE] Motability Scheme hasn't accepted [the products we offer]… So the people in Scotland who depend on disability assistance to access this equipment, we're really excited to be able to offer this to them. That is a really big thing for us.” (Provider)

Views among dealers and Scheme members about involving providers in addition to Motability

As mentioned earlier, at the point this research was carried out, Motability Operations was the only accredited provider. However, the Scheme is designed to include more than one provider and therefore dealers and Scheme members were asked their views on this aspect of the Scheme.

Dealers and Scheme members expressed mixed views about whether additional providers should be involved in the Scheme alongside Motability. Those who supported the proposal were evenly balanced with those who opposed it, and some were unsure.

Benefits of involving additional providers

While interviewees, in general, reported positive experiences of Motability, the main benefit of involving additional providers, identified by members and dealers, would be an increase in competition and choice. Members would be able to shop around and compare different providers’ offerings before selecting the one that best met their needs if additional providers were involved.

“You can never complain about more options.” (Member)

“It can only be good because obviously they’ll be competing against each other. Things would be better. Don’t get me wrong, I think Motability is a superb scheme but they’ve got a monopoly on it. Somebody else doing it as well, maybe we'd have a healthy competition, it may be good.” (Member)

“I think there'd be more choice, wouldn't there, but also, if that means there'd be more availability, then that's a good thing.” (Member)

One dealer wondered whether enhanced competition could reduce the cost of the Scheme for members.

“Would that then allow the customer to benefit from a lower price point? For example, rather than pay £20 a week, pay £16 a week for their product.” (Dealer)

Ensuring continued high standards

Some members would support additional providers being involved but emphasised that any additional providers would have to achieve the same high service standards they have experienced with Motabillity.

“[Involving additional providers] would be absolutely fine, yeah. As long as they're up to the standards that Motability provides, then yeah, no problem.” (Member)

“I would hope that any other organisation that took it on would understand the needs of those people who would be accessing the Scheme. And so I feel that currently Motability do have that level of understanding.” (Member)

One dealer expressed concern about how quickly any additional providers could achieve the same standard as Motability.

“I think [Motability] are pretty slick at what they do... The concern on that, if it was another provider, is how quickly could they get up to the standard of Motability of that?” (Dealer)

Drawbacks of involving additional providers

The main drawback of involving additional providers is that it could make the Scheme more complicated. The value of having a single provider as a ‘one stop shop’ for members and dealers was a recurring theme. Some dealers and members feared that introducing additional providers could make it more difficult to find information, access support and advice, and compare the different products on offer.

“I would think it's been working well with a sole provider because I've been doing it for many years and actually when you phone the contact centre I always find they're very helpful, they're very knowledgeable and they're always good to the salespeople here and the customers as well.” (Dealer)

“I think for us the cons would be if the way the Scheme worked was very different, that would mean yet another channel and another load of processes that might make it a bit more complex.” (Dealer)

“What I like about Motability at the moment is it's one phone number so if you have a problem you phone that one agency. I think it could muddy the waters a bit if there were lots of different agents.” (Member)

One member also expressed concern about potential difficulties if they wanted to change from one provider to another when renewing their lease.

A few members felt their satisfaction with Motability demonstrated there is no need to involve other providers. Some dealers commented on Motability’s high levels of awareness and trust among clients and were unsure if other providers could achieve the same.

“From my perspective, Motability really know what they're doing… and they've done it for years. So I've got a lot of respect for them.” (Member)

In addition, a dealer questioned whether other providers could achieve the same economies of scale as Motability. Another feared that involving additional providers could cause regional disparities in the range and types of vehicles and equipment available if some providers operated in some localities but not others.

Chapter summary

Interviewees praised the Scottish Government team for its support during accreditation; some described the process as straightforward overall. Others, however, found it less clear and suggested potential improvements. These included providing more information about the Scheme (such as the number of people involved and volume of equipment required) to help potential providers forecast and plan capacity. Another called for simplified terminology, particularly around data security, and one said they did not receive feedback on their application.

Providers who did not apply discussed a range of reasons for their decision:

• Concerns around the Scheme’s commercial viability for their business.
• Challenges of scaling up to meet the demand involved with the Scheme.
• Responding to clients’ changing circumstances.
• Worries about damaged vehicles and equipment.
• Concerns around competing with Motability.
• The scale of the application.
• Uncertainty around credit checks.

There were mixed views among members and dealers about involving providers additional to Motability. Potential benefits include enhanced choice and flexibility for members, but drawbacks could include over-complicating the Scheme.