Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
It is not the Motability car leasing scheme that needs reforming Neil it is the government department that hands out the Disability Living Allowance to anyone with athletes foot and worse.
|
Yep that's what I meant, I know people who have received it when they should not. Ie a woman who supposedly could not walk very far who worked behind a bar in a pub
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
The car is not replaced after 4,500 miles or any mileage. Now that is a stupid conclusion to come to Neil. The lease lasts for 3 years although there is a total mileage limit of 60,000 miles, I think it is.
|
I now you meant 3 years, it just seems a waste of money to be replacing it after so little use. Pushing the lease to 6 years or 60,000 miles would make the lease cheaper and cost the government less money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
Maybe you are getting confused in that if an insured car does not have a current valid MOT and a claim is made against it the insurance becomes invalid. The same would apply if it isn’t taxed.
|
It means the same thing, no MOT or tax = no insurance.
When people are fined for not having tax or a valid MOT, they should also be fined for having no insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
However your argument that all cars should have an MOT after one year has some merit, although I would base the criterion for needing an MOT to be based on mileage AND time. I would suggest that a new car would need an MOT after 50,000 miles or three years whichever come first and thereafter at 10,000 miles intervals or one year, again whichever comes first.
|
Your 3 year old car could have as many defects as my 9 year old car. Lamps could be blown, tyres damaged, premature bearing failure etc etc etc.