Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Motability’s fat cat bosses £1.7m pay! + £2b cash reserves
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5355225/Boss-car-scheme-disabled-1-7million.html
for the avoidance of doubt I was led to this story by the BBC website
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5355225/Boss-car-scheme-disabled-1-7million.html
for the avoidance of doubt I was led to this story by the BBC website
Yeah yeah :)
The Daily Mail said he gets 1.7m a year, and its YOUR money?
Ive never had 1.7 million in my life
utter twaddle :)
Annex – Charity Commission Statement (6th February 2018)
Motability Operations Group is not a charity and does not come under the Charity Commission’s jurisdiction as charity law regulator. The company provides a commercial service to the charity Motability, which in turn oversees the Motability Scheme. As many people have stated the Motability scheme provides an absolutely vital and important service to thousands of people across the UK.
The Charity Commission is aware of the issues reported in the media today and indeed recently undertook a detailed review of the charity’s financial accounts and of its relationship with the non-charitable company Motability Operations. That review did not identify regulatory concerns about the charity’s governance or its relationship with the commercial company. It is not for the Commission to comment on the pay of the CEO of a large non charitable commercial company. However, we have made clear to the trustees of the charity Motability that the pay of the CEO of its commercial partner Motability Operations may be considered excessive and may raise reputational issues for the charity. These reputational issues are for the trustees to manage.
We also made clear, following the conclusion of our review last year, that we consider the level of operating capital held by the company in order to guarantee the scheme to be conservative, and agreed with the charity, as part of its oversight of the scheme, that it would ensure this this matter is kept under continuous review.
There is no further role for the Commission as regulator at this time.
No doubt it will come as a relief to all to read the above statement from the Charity Commissioner.
Readers may also be reassured to know that a statement from the Motability Operations Group makes clear that:
“The remuneration of Motability Operations’ Directors is decided by the Motability Operations’ Board, based on the advice of their Remuneration Committee. Remuneration is reviewed against the market to ensure that it is both competitive over the long term, and to ensure that any rewards are related to performance especially in relation to the quality of service provided to customers.
I’m not sure what the issue is here? Maybe poor standards of journalism?
It’s a click bait story that give very little information on what the reported problem is.
I’ve scratched my head but it does seem to be that the ‘issue’ is “it’s a big salary” (compared to what other people may earn outside of the finance sector.)
Or am I wrong?
...and now this
Obscene especially in the light of how many physically disabled people have lost their high rate Mobility under PIP & can no longer qualify for a Motability vehicle. Am I alone in thinking this money could have funded a slightly more generous approach to the mobility descriptor ” Moving around” so that more people qualified for the higher rate of mobility ?
More poor journalism as MO is not the charity but the contractor. It’s a PLC.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06541091
Maybe this is a great way to destroy what is a very successful scheme and does actually help both the economy in general (possibly also subverting EU subsidy? rules) and disabled people in particular?
On first view I did think the salary was steep when you’re tasked with shifting brand new motors with a minimum discount of 20%.
However, there’s skills involved as it’s an asset and finance operation with substantial sums and liabilities involved.
If you simply divide the reserves between scheme users it’s around 12months of ERM for each user.
It is probably the kind of amount you could earn as a fat cat in the ‘outsourcing sector’ but that does not mean it isn’t obscene. Put next to the dismal amount of money young people in minimum wage jobs are expected to manage on and the inequality in Britain is stark. SNAFU
More poor journalism as MO is not the charity but the contractor. It’s a PLC.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06541091
Maybe this is a great way to destroy what is a very successful scheme and does actually help both the economy in general (possibly also subverting EU subsidy? rules) and disabled people in particular?
On first view I did think the salary was steep when you’re tasked with shifting brand new motors with a minimum discount of 20%.
However, there’s skills involved as it’s an asset and finance operation with substantial sums and liabilities involved.
If you simply divide the reserves between scheme users it’s around 12months of ERM for each user.
It’s indefensible to pay such a huge salary, but that simply reflects the obscene inequalities there are when it comes to senior salaries. Sadly it is used as a stick to hit a really good scheme and some of the louder right wingers have long been resentful about people with disabilities having a decent car and as you all know, the fact of driving a car is now routinely used by DWP to justify fewer points (often mistakenly in my view, but that’s something else).
I’m not so sure about the reserves point though. Given the huge number of Motability vehicles being withdrawn because of PIP, Motability must be very vulnerable given the penalties and costs they probably incur for early termination of leases, so it is probably prudent to have very large reserves.
I agree.
Sorry if my post wasn’t clear but I was not knocking the scheme but attempting to point out that the salary quoted is hardly unusual in the finance industry. So on that score the reporting about salaries is nothing more than platitudes and click bait.
Motability as a whole (in my experience) have acted very reasonably keeping people on the road where funding has been withdrawn - that can only be done where the scheme generates reserves.
I’ve had appeals taking place 24hours before the car was due to be returned. Extensions cannot go on indefinitely as they’re dealing with depreciating assets with continuing costs.
Why people are knocking the scheme I have no idea - maybe they prefered the Invacar that was the guvunmunt scheme Motability replaced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invacar
If the bandwagon gathers speed perhaps we’ll go back to the old ways?
I think the various attacks on Motability mostly by the right wind media, are part of the wider anti- claimant agenda. It encourages resentment in lots of ways and can only end in tears.
I would not be surprised if pressure was applied to only allow cheap, basic cars to be provided. While there may be a few people driving round in flash cars (which is their choice as they will be contributing more than their ER mobility), there are also quite a few folk who have chosen vehicles such as people carriers or SUVs because these are far easier for many people with a disability to get in and out of.
If you want a real proper explanation - search Youtube with the following key words - Bankers Irishman Abroad
I’d post the link but I’m sure it would be removed due to it being common sense. Which is not allowed. Obvs.
I think we can bang on about excessive salaries forever. It doesn’t change anything. We (should) all know that the argument that such high salaries attract better quality candidates has long been shown to me nonsense but, then what? Yes it’s obscene. Yes it shouldn’t happen. Anyone got a plan bar some good old Friday self-righteous anger?
The more interesting aspects of this have already been picked up.
1) Part of an agenda that on the one hand congratulates itself on “extending” the scheme after finally being compelled to restore an intent through legal action whilst simultaneously highlighting an apparent abuse and perpetuating the myth of widespread blue badge abuse.
2) Thinks it’s wrong that disabled people should have state funded transport. This is the same logic which is slowly being allowed to erode concessionary travel for anyone other than vote winners (see, for example, Andy Burnham and concessions for students).
4) Allows for a classic click bait contrast. Not between poor claimants and the “fat cat” but between the Daily Mail reader and the “fat cat”. We Brits don’t like success to go to anyone’s head 😊
Whatever we say or think here. None of the above are about to change.
The more immediate and concerning aspect for me is the contrast between the BBC allegation of excessive reserves and the Charity Commission comment re: sufficient operating capital. That smacks to me of the public beginning of a business case for “reform” to reduce eligibility.
Good to see she’s back on form after the RF blip 😊