Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

Sugarfree_Babe

bestpud wrote: »

Well FWIW, I have claimed DLA in the past. However, my question wasn't about what people spend their money on but rather why people claim mobility cars are not a 'perk' when they clearly are - otherwise people would not have them unless they needed them adapted in some way of course.

However, people with disabilities need to abide by the law too. I find this idea of leaving them to it 'as they have a difficult enough life' quite odd tbh. It is entirely wrong to argue we should turn a blind eye because they have a disability, or someone in their family does!

But tbh this thread is more about clearing up the ambiguity in the rules for mobility cars. I'm pretty sure these people wouldn't want some jobsworth traffic police officer to make an issue of it, and as it currently stands, they could, it seems!

So, whether or not you agree with the OP (I'm not sure whether I do or not), there is an issue here that needs clarifying. If I was using a motability car which was in my child's name to go to work and back every day, while my DH was using another one in his name to care for said child, I'd certainly want the rules clarified! Perhaps I'm odd in wanting to know I am 'legal' though?

We have a police force to enforce the law and I am perfectly capable of dealing with "jobsworths" myself. I do not need you to "protect" me from
them.

As for not breaking the law, your remarks may put you in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act so put your own house in order before judging others

asher3

vickiec70 wrote: »

Hi anyone out there who can answer this question...

My question is 'Is there a hole in the benefits system?'

The situation is...

11 year old boy able bodied, socialises well with Asberger's syndrome, receives DLA and qualifies for getting a car on mobility because he needs driving to school, clubs etc.
Mother has Lupus and arthritis, receives DLA and qualifies for a mobility car.
Father, fully able bodied, no disabilities, works full time.

So, boy has car that mother drives, mothers car is driven soley by father to go to work etc. Can this be right? Is there a hole in the benefits system that allows a family to have 2 mobility cars when 1 of the recipents is only 11 years old? Or can this only be done if there is 'underhandedness' going on?

Thanks

From angry/bewildered tax payer who sees able bodied father using mobility car inappropriately or am I bitter!

It is not easy to get higher rate DLA mobility.

Do you not think that you should maybe find something more constructive to do with your time than peeking through your curtains making life more difficult for sick and disabled people?

Is this your idea of entertainment?

Never mind the tax you are so concerned about loosing because these people are receiving DLA or getting free road tax.

What is your next project, reporting your neighbours for not recycling or putting their rubbish out before 9pm?

Shame on you

Try something fun like the MOC’s game or get your bank charges back and give us a break.

And to answer your last question... yes you maybe bitter

marvin

Hello all

Unless the rules have changed then no they cannot use a vehicle for anything they like under either the contact hire scheme. There used to be a rule in the contract with MBF prohibiting it. Cars either bought or hired through motability have significant tax advantages (they are VAT free) and are provided at a discount by the manufacturers because they are being provided to a charity to benefit the disabled. A couple of years ago a disabled chap was prosecuted for buying cars then selling them on to friends under the scheme because of the VAT avoidance on this.

The rule used to be something along the lines of having to be predomently used for the benefit of the disabled person. Its an open field though as to what qualifys as predomently.

cyclonebri1

marvin wrote: »

Hello all

Unless the rules have changed then no they cannot use a vehicle for anything they like under either the contact hire scheme. There used to be a rule in the contract with MBF prohibiting it. Cars either bought or hired through motability have significant tax advantages (they are VAT free) and are provided at a discount by the manufacturers because they are being provided to a charity to benefit the disabled. A couple of years ago a disabled chap was prosecuted for buying cars then selling them on to friends under the scheme because of the VAT avoidance on this.

The rule used to be something along the lines of having to be predomently used for the benefit of the disabled person. Its an open field though as to what qualifys as predomently.

Again the ambiguity of the wording means that there is no hard and fast answer to the original query;)

Penny-Pincher!!

We opted not to take on a Mobility car as there were so many rules and regulations. We decided to buy a brand new car and got it VAT free as we had an adaption done. We do receive the free car tax though.

PP
xx

bestpud

Sugarfree_Babe wrote: »

We have a police force to enforce the law and I am perfectly capable of dealing with "jobsworths" myself. I do not need you to "protect" me from
them.

As for not breaking the law, your remarks may put you in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act so put your own house in order before judging others

Pardon?

Are you suggesting people with disabilities be exempt from the law? Surely not?

Would you like to point out where I have even comeclode to being discriminatory please?

As I see it, banding the word 'discrimination' about without good cause is as damaging as discrimination itself.

Please justify your accusation, as I have justified my (non-discriminatory) comments!

bigturnip

bestpud wrote: »

Pardon?

Are you suggesting people with disabilities be exempt from the law? Surely not?

Would you like to point out where I have even comeclode to being discriminatory please?

As I see it, banding the word 'discrimination' about without good cause is as damaging as discrimination itself.

Please justify your accusation, as I have justified my (non-discriminatory) comments!

I agree your comments weren't discriminatory and I agree there is an ambiguity in the way the DVLA rules seemingly contradict the Motability rules and it would be useful to get clarification on the matter. However, since the disabled taxation became compulsory, some two or three years ago, there has been no deffinitive answer.

Basically both organisations are reading the same laws, but interpreting them slightly differently, the DVLA seem to think the car must be used for the direct benefit of the disabled person, ie their transportation, picking up prescriptions etc. Motability seem to interpret it as providing an indirect benefit, ie working to bring money into the household or to facilitate respite of a carer. It is not the DVLA or Motability that are ambiguous, it is the law that is ambiguous and until there is a test case the ambiguity will remain, because it's just one persons interpretation versus another's.

The actual law states:

(1) A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used, or kept for use, by or for the purposes of a disabled person who satisfies sub-paragraph (2) if— (a) the vehicle is registered under this Act in the name of the disabled person, and
(b) no other vehicle registered in his name under this Act is an exempt vehicle under this paragraph or paragraph 7 of Schedule 4.

(2) A disabled person satisfies this sub-paragraph if—
(a) he is in receipt of a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the higher rate,
(b) he is in receipt of a mobility supplement, or
(c) he has obtained, or is eligible for, a grant under—
(i) paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the [1977 c. 49.] National Health Service Act 1977,
(ii) section 46(3) of the [1978 c. 29.] National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or
(iii) Article 30(3) of the [S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14).] Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972,
in relation to the vehicle.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a vehicle is deemed to be registered under this Act in the name of a person in receipt of a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the higher rate, or of a mobility supplement, if it is so registered in the name of—
(a) an appointee, or
(b) a person nominated for the purposes of this paragraph by the person or an appointee.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3)“appointee” means—
(a) a person appointed pursuant to regulations made under (or having effect as if made under) the [1992 c. 5.] Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the [1992 c. 8.] Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to exercise any of the rights and powers of a person in receipt of a disability living allowance, or
(b) a person to whom a mobility supplement is paid for application for the benefit of another person in receipt of the supplement.

(5) In this paragraph“mobility supplement” means a mobility supplement under—
(a) a scheme under the [1939 c. 82.] Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939, or
(b) an Order in Council under section 12 of the [1977 c. 5.] Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977,
or a payment appearing to the Secretary of State to be of a similar kind and specified for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by him.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/Ukpga_19940022_en_8.htm (Section 19)

Make of it what you will, but it still doesn't seem to clear the matter up, if Motability and the DVLA can't sort out a clear definition, then what chance do we have?

As for your comment about motability being a 'perk' it shows a lot ignorance and is a very sad point of view to take, surely being able to walk is a slightly better 'perk'.

bestpud

bigturnip wrote: »

As for your comment about motability being a 'perk' it shows a lot ignorance and is a very sad point of view to take, surely being able to walk is a slightly better 'perk'.

My comment has been taken out of context somewhat.

My OP on this matter actually asks why people always say these cars are more expensive or somehow not a 'benefit' to people with disabilities. Look through the board and you will see it is a common response to anything about motability cars.

Now this would normally not matter at all, but in this context, the thread is about whether or not it is legal to drive a motability car to work and basically for the use of a non-disabled family member.

So, when people defended this (I don't have a firm opinion either way - as I clearly stated) by arguing they pay as much for the car as they would if they just bought one, I began to wonder why people have these cars then...

I did not say it was a perk in the way you have put it. I was musing that there must be some reason why people have them when they do not need an adapted car.

I did not comment on how people use their money, or suggest this should be dictated to them, in response to those who have incorrectly assumed that either.

People have since said the reason is lack of credit in many cases and thus have answered my question anyway.

It still stands though, that it is daft to argue these cars are not a benefit to those that have them - they clearly are and so they should be, so why deny it?

I do wish people would read posts properly before they comment! I simply have no idea why my question was twisted in the way it was and even less idea why people feel I am ignorant, discriminatory etc because I asked it? Bizarre!

bigturnip

bestpud wrote: »

My comment has been taken out of context somewhat.

My OP on this matter actually asks why people always say these cars are more expensive or somehow not a 'benefit' to people with disabilities. Look through the board and you will see it is a common response to anything about motability cars.

Now this would normally not matter at all, but in this context, the thread is about whether or not it is legal to drive a motability car to work and basically for the use of a non-disabled family member.

So, when people defended this (I don't have a firm opinion either way - as I clearly stated) by arguing they pay as much for the car as they would if they just bought one, I began to wonder why people have these cars then...

I did not say it was a perk in the way you have put it. I was musing that there must be some reason why people have them when they do not need an adapted car.

I did not comment on how people use their money, or suggest this should be dictated to them, in response to those who have incorrectly assumed that either.

People have since said the reason is lack of credit in many cases and thus have answered my question anyway.

It still stands though, that it is daft to argue these cars are not a benefit to those that have them - they clearly are and so they should be, so why deny it?

I do wish people would read posts properly before they comment! I simply have no idea why my question was twisted in the way it was and even less idea why people feel I am ignorant, discriminatory etc because I asked it? Bizarre!

I'm not entirely sure how you can take "people claim mobility cars are not a 'perk' when they clearly are" out of context, there is no question there, it is a statement, an ignorant one at that in my opinion.

Motability is just one option of a way to use your DLA to help your mobility, 80% of recipients choose not to use it, so evidently most people don't see it as much of a 'perk' otherwise the uptake would surely be much higher.

bestpud

bigturnip wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure how you can take "people claim mobility cars are not a 'perk' when they clearly are" out of context, there is no question there, it is a statement, an ignorant one at that in my opinion.

Motability is just one option of a way to use your DLA to help your mobility, 80% of recipients choose not to use it, so evidently most people don't see it as much of a 'perk' otherwise the uptake would surely be much higher.

Yes, ok, I can see what you are saying from that sentence alone. I guess 'benefit' may be a better word?

Because clearly they are a benefit to many? Would you agree?

This is not about me disagreeing with mobility cars (I certainly do not!) but about me questioning why people use this argument to defend having them. Do you see the difference?

As I said, my question was answered anyway - it is often about the lack of credit.

I am still wondering why the family mentioned in the OP would have two when only one is 'really' needed for the purpose if living with disabilities, if it were not cheaper for them though?

Back to making a distinction between normal family responsibilities and carer responsibilities, and as you, I and others can see, this is something even the govt is not sure about.

Really, if people with a disability have a motability car then they should feel no need to justify it by talking as if it were a financial drain and/or almost a rip off. If they need a car and choose this method then why be defensive about it? Few would argue they shouldn't have it.

The regulations need clarifying though, simple as! The other point I am clearly not explaining very well!