I lost my Motability car despite being disabled – I had to fight to get it back

Robert Lewis, a 36-year-old man living with multiple sclerosis (MS), lost access to his Motability car after a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) reassessment in 2022. The loss left him stranded, unable to attend university at St Mary’s in west London, where he studied sports rehabilitation. His condition, diagnosed in 2016, has led to severe mobility challenges, requiring ongoing support to navigate daily life. Despite managing to walk unaided following rehabilitation, his symptoms fluctuate, making independent travel difficult. The Motability car, funded through his PIP, was essential for his studies and work as a former personal trainer and security guard. Lewis described the reassessment process as “dreadful.” Conducted over the phone, he felt unheard and dismissed. He was forced to take his case to a tribunal, where he ultimately regained access to his vehicle. However, the ordeal highlighted systemic flaws in the PIP reassessment process. The timing of his reassessment coincided with the release of an interim report from the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payments, sparking renewed scrutiny of the program. The review, initiated by Minister for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms, aims to address concerns raised by disabled individuals about the dehumanizing nature of assessments. Indu Karana, a 63-year-old psychotherapist also living with MS, shared a similar experience. After completing an online reassessment, she was denied the enhanced rate of PIP and saw her standard rate revoked. She described the experience as “traumatic” and felt “invisible.” Although she later succeeded in having her PIP reinstated, she expressed reluctance to seek further increases, fearing potential revocation. Her story underscores the emotional toll of navigating the PIP system, particularly for those with chronic conditions like MS. Both Lewis and Karana participated in a roundtable discussion hosted by the MS Society, where they spoke about their experiences. During the session, Timms acknowledged the “degrading” and “dehumanising” encounters many disabled people face during reassessments. He emphasized that such experiences have turned PIP into a “barrier” to participation in society. According to Timms, the current points-based assessment system fails to account for the diverse needs of disabled individuals, leading to inconsistent outcomes and unnecessary stress. Timms stated that the findings of the Timms Review could lead to a “completely different” approach to determining eligibility for PIP. This would mark a departure from previous reforms, including those proposed by former Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall in 2025. Those proposals faced widespread criticism, not only from within the Labour Party but also from disabled communities and advocacy groups. The backlash highlighted the deep-seated concerns about how PIP assessments impact the lives of disabled people. The government plans to allocate £23 billion to PIP this financial year, with projections indicating the figure could reach £41.5 billion by 2031—without accounting for inflation. Timms argued that the high costs reflect the growing complexity of the system and the increasing number of applicants. He suggested that the current structure discourages participation in work or social activities due to fears of losing benefits. As a result, he concluded that Labour must develop a “radically different” method for assessing eligibility, one that better supports disabled individuals rather than penalizing them. The interim report from the Timms Review also notes that the current system struggles to accommodate the varied conditions and needs of disabled people. Co-chairs Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson CBE pointed out that the points-based model often overlooks the nuances of individual circumstances, as seen in cases like Lewis’. Their findings suggest that a more flexible and personalized approach is necessary to ensure fair and effective support for disabled people.