Social Security Experience Panels: Accessible Vehicles and Equipment Scheme

Summary

Three quarters (75 per cent) of survey respondents had used the Motability scheme. Of those who had not used the scheme the most common reasons given were that they needed their disability allowance to pay for other things (28 per cent), or that they didn’t qualify (28 per cent). Around a quarter (23 per cent) gave their own reason other than the options provided in the survey and one in eight (12 per cent) said that they preferred to use their own vehicle.

Respondents were asked about their experiences of the AVE scheme. Almost nine in ten (89 per cent) described their experience as “very good” or “good”. Respondents were then asked to give more detail about their answer. Many respondents described the positive impact the scheme had on their lives, including increased independence and mobility. Respondents described the scheme as allowing them to access essential vehicles and equipment that would otherwise have been unaffordable to them.

Experiences of the service were often described very positively – be that through Motability, or in their contact with dealerships, garages, insurance companies or breakdown cover. Particular positives included “helpful”, “caring” staff, and simple processes. Others described an appreciation for how comprehensive the service is, where running costs, other than fuel, are all included in the package.

Experiences of servicing and repair were dependent on the individual garages or dealerships involved. These ranged from finding staff “caring” and helpful, to feeling that the service from staff was poor and the quality of work done was not acceptable. Respondents living in rural areas described the specific challenges of accessing an approved service provider in their local area.

Many respondents described their communications with the service very positively, finding it quick and easy to access the help and support needed. A few, however, expressed frustrations and described longer waiting times to speak to staff on the phone.

Many respondents raised the associated costs of accessing AVE scheme vehicles – specifically the advanced payments required for some vehicles and costs of adaptations. Some felt these were too high, and had increased in recent years. Others objected to having to pay large sums for car adaptations required for them to be able to drive. The higher cost of advanced payments required for larger WAVs and automatic cars were mentioned by a number of respondents.

Some respondents had received grant funding to help with the upfront costs of their vehicles or adaptations. This was described as a “lifeline” which had allowed them to access vehicles that would otherwise have been unaffordable. A small number said that their choice of vehicles was restricted due to the grant funding. Some respondents did not support profits from the scheme being put into the charity providing these grants. A small number of respondents queried the ongoing payment of the full mobility element of their qualifying benefit being continued to be paid into the scheme in the longer term.

Many respondents felt that there was a good range of vehicles and equipment on offer. However, some felt that once their specific requirements were taken into consideration, the options available to them were much more limited and not always affordable for them.

A final theme was respondents’ experiences in relation to losing their vehicles if their qualifying benefit were stopped. A few described how helpful the service had been in supporting them when this happened, however others found the experience stressful and felt that the vehicle should not have to be returned before the appeal process was completed.