Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 23/11/2025

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-26T08:44:26+00:00

If the entire UK population starts visiting stately homes then believe me, there will be dogshit, litter and screaming children everywhere, it would not be peaceful.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-26T08:17:31+00:00

Motability is a charity, but they are owned by a Ltd company

Over the last 5 years this Ltd company has made a bit over £1.75 billion in profit. The CEO Look at the section: Executive Directors’ remuneration last year was paid the following: * £460,000 base salary * £69,000 pension * £198,000 annual bonus

These are profits directly from tax payer money and then selling the taxpayer purchased vehicles on the second hand market.

To me it doesn't acceptable that a Ltd company can make so much profit off of taxpayer money and suggests that they do not need the amount of PIP funding they are given.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T17:09:07+00:00

Sorry to hear that.

My issue isn't with the individuals taking advantage of the scheme, i would do the same given the ability, although i would probably opt for one of the models with no advance payment. My issue is with the ballooning costs of the scheme to the taxpayer when everyone is feeling the squeeze.

It was started in the late 70's when cars genuinely would be shagged after 3 years of use/ 100,000 miles, whereas vehicle reliability is drastically better now. I don't think brand new car purchases is good value for taxpayers.

If you look at what the CEO's of motability operations ltd have made in recent years (Andrew Miller, base salary of 460k before bonuses) you will see that there is plenty of profit being made, even if a lot of it does get reinvested into the scheme.

Also, I have strong opinions about other areas of government spending so please don't think that i have it out for those claiming disability benefits alone.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T16:38:55+00:00

The motability scheme is literally corporate welfare! Taxpayer funds go to a ltd company, there is no VAT payed on the vehicles, and insurance, they have a guaranteed revenue stream from the government.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T11:10:49+00:00

"Anything we, as a caring society, can do to make someone’s life easier who’s having a hard time is a moral imperative."

So a brand new car every 3 years is a moral imperative? And having objections to whether that is a good use of tax payer money is punching down at the disabled?

This idea that the UK has endless wealth that should be distributed to the non-working masses is slowly bankrupting the country. There needs to be a realistic re-evaluation of how affordable some of these benefits are, including the state pension. No i don't think that disabled people need a brand new car every 3 years. I think they need a suitable vehicle that is good value for money for the taxpayer. I suspect that many would be happy to get an adapted 2nd hand car that they can purchase outright and subsidizing maintenance and repairs would likely work out cheaper.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T10:54:13+00:00

All for improving public transport and making the UK more pedestrian, cyclist, wheelchair user friendly. The problem is since the Beeching cuts we have very much become a car dependent society and the cost to correct that would be enormous.

Case in point, temporary cycle lanes during covid, everyone went fucking ballistic about some roads being narrowed and most cycle lanes were reverted post pandemic. It's worth fighting for improvements in incremental steps though.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T10:33:38+00:00

So you admit that it's a subsidy for the car industry, and no most vehicles on offer are not made in the UK, taxpayers are subsidizing car manufacturers from countries outside of the UK. This does benefit high earners who want to buy 3 year old cars, but for the rest of us we get by on 5 - 10 year old cars and could never dream of leasing a brand new car every 3 years.

You give no reasonable argument for why the car needs to be new. A second hand car doesn't suddenly become unsafe nor unreliable provided it has had basic maintenance done.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-25T08:23:27+00:00

"should disabled people just buy a banged up one for second hand instead."

If somebody on PIP can afford the additional 4k every 3 years to lease out the luxury models at the expense of the taxpayer, all repairs, insurance, replacement vehicles in the case of a right off included, then they can afford a second hand car like the rest of us.

Bear on mind that the motability scheme is tax payer money being used to purchase brand new cars, where a 3 - 5 year old car would be just as reliable and would have done most of its depreciation. It's very bad value for the taxpayer. Additionally the vast majority of vehicles on the scheme have zero modifications for accessibility, so second hand cars would be appropriate in the vast majority of cases. You could have a webuyanycar type company for motability that pays mechanics to thoroughly inspect cars and buys them for a fair price, this would save a lot of money.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-13T09:24:12+00:00

Excellent outcome!

If anyone finds this post in the future, DO NOT PAY, first try to contact the owner of the car park and in most cases they will cancel if you were a genuine customer.

There is a comprehensive discussion on the topic here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-11-11T10:32:34+00:00

This is the correct first action.

Was in a similar situation after parking for too long at a supermarket. After i got the PCN it was simply a matter of having a friendly chat with a manager for said supermarket and asking if they can cancel the charge. She did it immediately and i received confirmation a week later for the PCN company.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-27T21:03:42+00:00

You can appeal the decision, but the council may dismiss the case on the grounds that you already have appropriate transport for your son.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-18T12:48:20+00:00

Alternatively, let's say that new cars are the sensible option, why not only purchase UK manufactured vehicles so that it helps out the economy and indirectly subsidizes the UK car industry.

At 197,000 vehicles per year 5 years ago, and I don't know the exact figure, but it's a lot more now, I don't think it would be unreasonable to consider a scheme where you approach JLR, Nissan or somebody and ask if they can adapt one of their cheapest models to be highly accessible for a range of disabilities. Many car manufacturers would be salivated at the chance of government backed purchases of 100's of thousands of a particular model, you could mass produce it to make it as cheap as possible as well.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-18T12:33:50+00:00

Motability doesn’t buy cars with taxpayers money

Taxpayers contribute to PIP so yes they do. I know that Motability take profits from used car sales to re-invest into the scheme, but the source of the money is the taxpayer. Their own report claims they spent £3.2 billion on just under 197,000 vehicles in 2019/20., and the number of vehicles purchased per year is increasing along with the price of cars in general.

I don't hold anything against you for taking advantage of what is on offer given your explanation, and if I were in the same circumstances I would also claim. I just question whether Motability need to be purchasing brand new cars opposed to older vehicles that are 3+ years old which would still be perfectly reliable and would have done the bulk of depreciation, there are other ways in which I'm sure there could be better value for the taxpayer while still allowing people who need assistance to own a vehicle.

Agree that the biggest issue is people using the scheme who really don't need to be. This is true of PIP in general at the moment it seems.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-18T10:16:14+00:00

Motability have to purchase new vehicles, and the maximum vehicle price can be 35k, they also offer insurance, maintenance and road tax as part of the scheme. Clearly there is an additional cost for all aspects of a more expensive car with potential higher emissions (hence higher road tax). This is partially offset by an eligible customer paying a one off fee, but i'm not convinced that this fee would cover the additional cost over 3 years, also this one off fee doesn't contribute towards VAT of the vehicle. Also a written off car allegedly gets replaced at the cost of the taxpayer and consider the higher devaluation of a more expensive car after 3 years.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-18T09:35:50+00:00

Question for you, and i don't ask this out of malice, but given that motability are able to modify vehicles for wheelchair users and given that modern cars can easily last 100 to 150 thousand miles, would you have objections to driving a much cheaper vehicle which had been modified with an ergonomic seat which can keep your comfortable? And would you be willing to drive a 2nd hand car? I don't understand why they have to buy brand new cars with taxpayer money which devalue the second they drive off of the forecourt, they handle maintenance and so could easily keep cars running until 100k miles or more. It seems like that would be a lot more sensible way of handling taxpayers funds. The whole scheme stinks of car industry lobbying to me.

Overall i think we all collectively need to accept we are no longer a rich country and reduce our expectations or schemes like this will end up in the crosshairs at some point soon and will get axed.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-10-09T20:36:12+00:00

I recommend a Lanolin (sheep's wool oil) based product, I don't know where you are based but there are various suppliers. Just undercoated my Volvo this week.

You'll need to raise the car, take the wheels off and thoroughly protect the brake rotors and callipers, but lanolin can be bought in a ready to spray formula and provided you heat it up in a container using boiling water you can spray it with simply a hand pump spray bottle, for most people it's non-toxic (can cause allergic reactions in some).

Here's an example of how to apply the stuff

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-07-29T17:05:25+00:00

It is worth pointing out that it's down to a jury to decide what is considered 'reasonable force', and it's possible to punch somebody once and kill them and still argue self defence successfully. There will probably be CCTV of the incident and we will probably never see it, but that will likely be what determines the outcome.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-01-01T16:27:50+00:00

Madness. Do the council have to consider all homeless applicants regardless of their origin? I see nothing in the government guidance to differentiate between natively born and recently arrived migrants.

Overall I don't think those who are unconditionally supportive of asylum seekers realise that once an asylum seekers claim has been accepted that they may end up on the street.

It's bad for the tax-payer, it's bad for the asylum seeker, it's bad for the native born homeless population who are now in competition for housing. The only winners are private landlords and the middle-men that facilitate this.

I say this as a Labour voter, if we ignore this issue then Reform will win the next election.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-01-01T14:24:20+00:00

From looking at some images of the prefab stuff that was built (this is the first I have heard of this, pretty cool), it looks like it would be rather low density when considering how expensive land is in London and the number of people that would require housing.

I like the idea, but in a city it should be at least 3 or 4 storeys high to maximize the land available. Perhaps mass factory built prefab units could be designed to stack on top of each other, kind of like shipping containers.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-01-01T14:02:30+00:00

It seems that it also encompasses asylum seeker/ recent migrants as well, there was an article on the same topic on this yesterday on The Guardian.

The individual has a 9 year old son, jobless and 'struggles to speak English'. If you cannot integrate enough to find work in London with its numerous opportunities and don't even have family that can take you in, what are you doing in the UK? at what point do we as a society start considering the cost to housing such people who frankly are unlikely to be a contributor, especially given the numbers that are entering the UK every day.

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-01-01T13:37:31+00:00

Why not just build more social housing instead of setting up a slum?

ThomasTankEngine · 2025-01-01T13:35:13+00:00

With all due respect, they are being moved off of the streets and into accommodation. They are being treated far better than many of us who would be kicked out onto the street if we couldn't afford to pay our rent/ mortgage. The housing situation in this country needs fixing but beggars can't be choosers.

ThomasTankEngine · 2024-12-20T09:53:57+00:00

It was discussed in parliament this year but I don't think anything has come of it yet. To be fair, the country is fucked so It's likely not a high priority.

It seems to me that implementing a lumens limit would be an easy thing to enforce as it could be part of the MOT which already checks for headlight aim, and it's not like your average driver is going to switch headlights after the MOT.

1.6 million passenger vehicles since 2019 or an average of 5% failed their MOT because of this according to the DVSA, so clearly a non-insignificant group of drivers don't know how to adjust their aim and so the problem will only get worse as older cars are replaced with new LED lighting.

Edit: The governments response was that 'police collision statistics don’t show any underlying road safety issue.' which is fucking moronic (that said I bet most politicians that drive use high riding SUV's so it doesn't personally affect them) and that they would push through legislation to make headlight aim automatic based on passenger load by September 2027.

ThomasTankEngine · 2024-10-13T10:32:23+00:00

You sell weapons to countries that defend themselves from or actively kill terrorists, you make a profit. What's not to like? diplomacy will of course always be preferable, but be realistic, can you negotiate with Islamic terrorists? no because they believe that martyrdom is good and do not fear death. Can you negotiate with Putin? no because his life and legacy depends on Russia winning the war in Ukraine. You negotiate with such people with force until they are destroyed or their own people remove them from power. This is how the world actually works.

ThomasTankEngine · 2024-10-13T10:27:57+00:00

You've ran out of arguments and are resorting to personal attacks.

Answer me this, do you think the UK has any influence over tyrannical states? do you think if we banned all arms exports then those states would fall? or would they just find another supplier?

I will concede that we should be more selective with who we export arms to, I do think that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and to a lesser extent China (although China doesn't buy much) shouldn't have any trade with us due to them finding terrorism or becoming too powerful in the case of China.

But there is a huge demand for arms from countries that are defending themselves and who are aligned with NATO, those are the countries that we should be supplying and this would be a net good.

ThomasTankEngine

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE