Talk:Motability

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723074007/http://www.motability.co.uk/documents/website/Mot/Annual%20Reports/Annual_Report_2006-2007.pdf to http://www.motability.co.uk/documents/website/Mot/Annual%20Reports/Annual_Report_2006-2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

'Multiple Issues' What were they and are they still there?

17 years ago and 5 years ago respectively, this article was marked "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (June 2008) This article contains promotional content. (March 2020)"

I don't see any talk about it since. In what way does the style not match the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia? What is the promotional content?

Shall I just delete this warning or does anyone want to talk about it? Amble123 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that the author of the 2005 'cleanup tone' message User:RHaworth has sadly passed away. I note that it was was the 3rd edit and there have been a few hundred since then so it is probably fair to assume the tone has changed, a lot. ~~ Amble123 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Have now asked User_talk:MarioGom whether they want to keep the warning. Looking at the article I assume the promotion is of the scheme itself as I can't identify any 3rd party promo. Amble123 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

OK I haven't heard back from the original posters, it was all a long time ago, I think the article has changed so much that the issues no longer apply. So i have removed the warning from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amble123 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed addition to “Controversy” section: Proctor v HM Treasury litigation

I have an interest in disability rights, welfare rights, and Motability-related legal issues, so I am putting this forward here rather than adding it directly to the article.

Would another editor consider whether the following short addition would be suitable for the “Controversy” section?

Suggested wording:

In April 2026, Disability News Service reported that Motability customer Charlie Proctor had launched legal action against HM Treasury over tax measures affecting the Motability Scheme. The report said the challenge concerned the application of VAT to most advance payments and the removal of an Insurance Premium Tax exemption. Motability Operations said the changes had contributed to revised scheme terms, including lower mileage allowances and higher excess-mileage charges for new leases. Proctor alleged that the measures could disproportionately affect disabled people with higher essential travel needs. HM Treasury said it had received the pre-action letter but would not comment on potential litigation.

I have tried to keep the wording neutral by attributing the legal allegations rather than stating them as fact. I think the matter may be relevant because it concerns reported litigation about changes to the Motability Scheme, but I would welcome other editors’ views on due weight and wording.

Kirbylegal (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Having "an interest" can mean two things: either you're interested in those subjects (which means you wouldn't have a COI) or you have interests in those subjects (meaning your financially/relationally tied to either the publications or organizations mentioned in your proposal, in which case you would have a COI). Could you clarify which? When ready to proceed, kindly switch the answer parameter of the request template to 'not answered' or 'no'. Regards,  Spintendo  06:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo,

I am relationally and financially tied to motability in 2 ways, I refer my clients to them and I also have a scheme vehicle myself.

I will switch the answer parameter of the request template to not answered.

Regards,

K. Irby. Kirbylegal (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)