Thank you to everybody who spoke out about this, your voices really matter.
🥂🍾
Good news, for a change:
STATEMENT REGARDING MOTABILITY’S DECISION TO PAUSE DRIVE SMART
Today’s announcement by Motability that Drive Smart is being paused is a very significant development.
For months, disabled people, carers, families, campaigners — and crucially this ongoing High Court legal challenge — have raised serious concerns regarding telematics-style monitoring, behavioural scoring, fairness, transparency, privacy, and the real-world impact these systems could have on disabled users with complex mobility needs.
It is important to say clearly:
This reversal did not happen in a vacuum.
The timing matters.
Over recent weeks:
• a litigant-led Judicial Review was issued in the High Court;
• detailed legal grounds were advanced concerning equality obligations, proportionality and disability impacts;
• evidence was gathered from disabled users across the country;
• media scrutiny began increasing;
• urgent expedition proceedings were formally initiated before the Administrative Court.
Shortly afterwards, Motability announced the suspension of Drive Smart.
People can draw their own conclusions from that sequence of events.
Motability has now publicly acknowledged that:
• the experience “has not been as it should be”;
• the system “has caused concern”;
• it must ensure the scheme feels “fair, clear and right for customers.”
That acknowledgment matters.
It demonstrates that the concerns raised by disabled people were real, substantial, and could not simply be dismissed as isolated objections or misunderstanding.
Importantly, Motability has now moved from presenting Drive Smart as a settled rollout to:
• pausing the scheme;
• removing customers unless they actively opt to remain;
• undertaking further customer consultation;
• reconsidering how the system operates moving forward.
That represents a significant shift in position.
The wider Judicial Review remains ongoing and continues to concern broader issues including:
• equality obligations;
• proportionality;
• procedural fairness;
• telematics-related impacts;
• whether the foreseeable consequences of these reforms upon disabled people were properly assessed before implementation.
But today is still an important moment.
Because it shows that disabled people do not have to simply accept decisions affecting their independence without challenge.
This legal challenge has forced scrutiny.
It has forced questions to be answered.
And it has forced powerful institutions to respond publicly to concerns they initially appeared content to minimise.
There is still a long way to go.
But today demonstrates that organised, evidence-based legal action and public pressure can produce real movement.
That matters.
And everybody who supported this challenge should recognise that they helped make that happen.