Legal Challenge to Government Policy: Motability Scheme Reforms

This is not the first occasion on which I have taken legal action against the government. I now bring a further Judicial Review challenge in respect of recent policy changes affecting the Motability Scheme.

I do so as a litigant in person, and as an individual directly affected by the consequences of those changes.

Introduction

These proceedings concern the lawfulness of decisions taken by HM Treasury following the Autumn Budget 2025, specifically in relation to taxation measures impacting the Motability Scheme.

While framed as fiscal policy, the practical effect of these measures has been to alter the structure, accessibility, and affordability of a scheme upon which a significant number of disabled individuals rely for essential mobility.

The Measures in Issue

The impugned measures include:

The application of VAT to certain payments associated with Motability leases
The removal or restriction of Insurance Premium Tax exemptions

In consequence of these changes, Motability Operations Limited has implemented operational adjustments, including:

A reduction in annual mileage allowances from 20,000 miles to 10,000 miles
A substantial increase in excess mileage charges, to approximately £0.25 per mile

These changes are not merely incidental. They represent the foreseeable and direct consequence of the underlying policy framework.

Practical Impact

For many users, participation in the Motability Scheme is not discretionary. It is essential.

Mobility enables access to:

Medical treatment
Employment and education
Daily living activities

For individuals requiring higher-than-average mileage, the reduction in allowance and increase in associated costs creates a material and unavoidable burden.

The practical effect is to compel affected users either:

to curtail essential travel, or
to incur significantly increased financial costs

In many cases, neither outcome is realistic.

Grounds of Challenge

The claim is advanced on established public law grounds, including:

1. Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty

It is contended that the Defendant failed to discharge its duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

In particular, there is no evidence that adequate consideration was given to a distinct subgroup of disabled persons who, by reason of their circumstances, require higher levels of mobility for essential purposes.

2. Indirect Discrimination

The measures are said to impose a provision, criterion or practice which places disabled individuals requiring higher mileage at a particular disadvantage, without sufficient justification.

3. Failure to Take Relevant Considerations into Account

The Defendant is alleged to have failed properly to consider:

the cumulative financial impact of the measures
the essential (non-discretionary) nature of affected users’ travel
the interaction between cost increases and operational restrictions
4. Irrationality

It is further contended that the measures undermine the purpose of the scheme itself, namely the facilitation of independent mobility for disabled users.

5. Procedural Fairness

The adequacy of the decision-making process, including the extent of investigation and consultation, is also in issue.

Role of Motability Operations Limited

Motability Operations Limited has been served as an Interested Party.

This reflects the fact that, while the challenged decisions originate with HM Treasury, Motability is responsible for their implementation in practice and is directly affected by the outcome of these proceedings.

The claim is not brought against Motability itself.

Procedural Position

The claim has been issued and served.

The Defendant now has 21 days from service to file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence.

Following that stage, the Court will determine whether permission should be granted for the claim to proceed.

Wider Significance

This claim raises issues extending beyond the position of any single individual.

It concerns the extent to which policy decisions, particularly those with fiscal origins, adequately account for the practical realities faced by disabled persons.

Public law requires not only that decisions be made within the scope of lawful authority, but that they be made with proper regard to their impact.

Where a distinct and identifiable group is disproportionately affected, that impact must be properly understood and addressed.

Litigant in Person

These proceedings are brought without legal representation.

While this presents practical challenges, it does not diminish the importance of the issues raised.

Support

Those who wish to support this challenge may do so here:

https://gofund.me/6dc42641c

Conclusion

Judicial Review is not concerned with the merits of policy in the abstract, but with the lawfulness of the decision-making process.

This claim seeks to ensure that decisions with significant consequences for disabled individuals are subject to proper scrutiny, in accordance with established principles of public law.