Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

calleyw

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

It's a discussion for elsewhere, but this unfortunately seems to be one of the major abuses of the Motability scheme.

I also believe that Motability cars are supplied free of VAT - and there may be restrictions on this benefit.

I agree but just it annoying when people trot out that line but me working helps the disabled the person. And I really wanted colin13 who trots out this old chestnut to explain it to me.

The problem is that mobility gives out the stock answer that it is ok to use the car as seen fit. I even linked in the webpage from the DVLA when I contacted them only for them to trot out the answer it is ok.

I really don't think that they understand the legal position they are putting there customers in. As the DVLA is law and that means you can be fined. And I really don't see how people even when they have had it pointed out to them a million times seem to to think because mobility told them it is still ok to do. Ignorance is no defence in a court of law.

But all we do on this thread is go around in circles.


Yours


Calley

cyclonebri1

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

The problem is that the situation is not open to interpretation. The disabled taxation class, as stated on the direct.gov.uk website amongst others, says this.



This isn't open to interpretation at all.

It is clear that by using the car to drive to/from a place of work that isn't the disabled person's workplace, then the exemption does not apply and consequently the car is being driven without appropriate payment of the tax.

Unless someone can provide proof from Motability that there is an exemption for a family member to use the car to/from a workplace,



It's a discussion for elsewhere, but this unfortunately seems to be one of the major abuses of the Motability scheme.

I also believe that Motability cars are supplied free of VAT - and there may be restrictions on this benefit.

I've also found this from Motability.



Page 8 is of interest.



Essentially, the argument can be summed up as thus. Motability do not provide a definition of what 'benefit of the disabled customer' means, but the DVLA provide a clear definition. Therefore, as all Contract Hire vehicles are supplied with the disabled taxation class, the car cannot be used for personal needs.

Using it to commute to/from a place of work unconnected with the disabled person would thus fall foul of the rules.

But their is no mechanism in place to allow a mobility vehicle to be taxed to allow legitimate dual use?????
Isn't this the issue? We seem to be arguing about the taxation class, not whether the car can be used for other reasons? Whats the answer, 2 cars? or some legitimate compromise or solution?

If it's not open to compromise then it is wide open to abuse?


Yes I know, more questions than answers, who sang that?;)

PolishBigSpender

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But their is no mechanism in place to allow a mobility vehicle to be taxed to allow legitimate dual use?????
Isn't this the issue? We seem to be arguing about the taxation class, not whether the car can be used for other reasons? Whats the answer, 2 cars? or some legitimate compromise or solution?

You're correct, there is no mechanism in place to allow dual use. This may be because Motability themselves do not object to the dual use of the car, but the Government does not wish to allow such use.

The answer is that a second car is needed. The moral argument should be held elsewhere - but as far as the law is concerned, you cannot use the disabled taxation class for your own personal needs.

As Caroline says, Motability seem confused as to the purpose of the car. For this reason, I would suggest that compliance with the law is the sensible option. Certainly, the DVLA (who are responsible for the administration of the taxation class) would be a far more reliable source than Motability themselves.

Of course, if a person wishes to have a car that isn't subject to these restrictions, then they are free to organise their own car at their own cost. Motability isn't the 'only' option for those receiving mobility benefits.

cyclonebri1

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

You're correct, there is no mechanism in place to allow dual use. This may be because Motability themselves do not object to the dual use of the car, but the Government does not wish to allow such use.

The answer is that a second car is needed. The moral argument should be held elsewhere - but as far as the law is concerned, you cannot use the disabled taxation class for your own personal needs.

As Caroline says, Motability seem confused as to the purpose of the car. For this reason, I would suggest that compliance with the law is the sensible option. Certainly, the DVLA (who are responsible for the administration of the taxation class) would be a far more reliable source than Motability themselves.

Of course, if a person wishes to have a car that isn't subject to these restrictions, then they are free to organise their own car at their own cost. Motability isn't the 'only' option for those receiving mobility benefits.

Morals aside, economics dictate that often a 2nd car is not an option????

So where does that leave us?, where we where before, confused, trying not to break the "rules", I don't think the law applies here.

Can anyone quote an instance of a person with access to a mobility car/disabled tax, being prosecuted for secondary use?

terryw

Here's a link from a fairly authoritative site




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Road Tax Exemption for People
with Disabilities
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Last update 05/02/09[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Return to the Fact Sheet Contents Page[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exemption from Road Tax (VED)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Who can get exemption[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All vehicles on the road are liable to Vehicle Excise Duty, better known as road tax. However, exemption from VED (including the £50 first Registration Fee) for one car only, is given to some disabled people:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mobility component.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you get the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or War Pensioners' mobility suplement you, or your appointee, or someone you choose to nominate in your place, can apply for exemption from VED. Long stay hospital patients with transitional protection can still get the exemption.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, technically the vehicle is only exempt whilst it is being used "solely by or for the purposes of the disabled person". Neither the DWP nor the Department of Transport have defined exactly what this means. The disabled person does not necessarily have to be in the car, instead, it could be used to do their shopping or running errands: However, the use of an exempt car for purposes totally unconnected with the disabled person is technically illegal. The probability of being prosecuted is low and is only likely to occur where there is flagrant abuse of the exemption, for example where a non-disabled person uses the vehicle to drive to work. The DWP have implied that, where the car is used substantially for the purposes of the disabled person, there is nothing to worry about. But note these dangers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Anyone receiving higher rate mobility component (or war pensioners mobility supplement) should automatically have been sent a VED exemption by the DWP.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can then use the certificate issued by the DWP as proof of exemption when applying for a 'tax exempt disc' from the Vehicle Licensing Centre. If you are getting higher rate mobility component and have not been sent an application form, or want guidance on it, write to or telephone, the Disability Contact and Processing Unit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The above information is an extract taken from the Disability Rights Handbook, 33rd Edition,Chapter 23, Help with Mobility needs, Section 2.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But unfortunately it only tells us that the risk of prosecution is low.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]terryw
[/FONT]

PolishBigSpender

I personally wouldn't recommend relying on the advice contained there - either a law is being broken or it isn't, and it is clear that the DVLA regard the exemption as being automatically lost if the car isn't being used for the disabled person's needs.

cyclonebri wrote:

Morals aside, economics dictate that often a 2nd car is not an option????

Then there is public transport. If this isn't an option, then the person should get a job where a car is provided, or get a job that can be accessed by bicycle/lift share/etc. Simply put - there is no question of morals or economics in this. The only matter is that the DVLA have ruled clearly that the disabled taxation class is not for the use of someone else's personal needs.

So where does that leave us?, where we where before, confused, trying not to break the "rules", I don't think the law applies here.

The law clearly applies here, and this forum cannot advocate a course of illegal action. If someone wishes to risk using a Motability car for their own needs, they run the risk of being caught and prosecuted, along with the potential risk of the DWP finding out and withdrawing the Mobility component as it was being missued. There's also the risk that the insurance may or may not be invalidated by such use - would you really want to run these risks, just so you have a car to run to/from work from?

Therefore, the definitive answer to this thread is that you cannot use the disabled taxation class to go to/from a place of work if it is not for the disabled person's personal needs. Personal needs isn't subjective - the law would interpret the disabled person as receiving benefits to pay for their needs.

cyclonebri1

terryw wrote: »

Here's a link from a fairly authoritative site





[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But unfortunately it only tells us that the risk of prosecution is low.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]terryw[/FONT]

Thanks Terry, as I thought

cyclonebri1

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Then there is public transport. If this isn't an option, then the person should get a job where a car is provided, or get a job that can be accessed by bicycle/lift share/etc.



.

Sorry, but back in the real world we can't all get jobs where cars are provided, we can't all even get any job. You also know public transport is a joke/ only suited to oaps, and please don't take that as ageism, but they are the only folk that can waste the biggest part of the day waiting for the bus??

PolishBigSpender

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Sorry, but back in the real world we can't all get jobs where cars are provided, we can't all even get any job. You also know public transport is a joke/ only suited to oaps, and please don't take that as ageism, but they are the only folk that can waste the biggest part of the day waiting for the bus??

In the real world, we accept that when the 'Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency' tells us that we cannot do something, we cannot do it. It's not something optional to comply with - the law says that you lose the exemption if you use the vehicle for something other than the disabled person's needs. Therefore, you cannot use the car to go to work, no matter how bad and cruel 'the real world' is.

I certainly wouldn't rely on a third party website to tell me that the risk of prosecution is low - it might very well be, but it's still against the law.

black_paw

well said PBS