Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

PolishBigSpender

I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. Personal needs are things that the disabled person directly needs - such as transport, picking up prescriptions, social and domestic pleasure and so on. It doesn't include the car being out of use all day by a person using it to go to work - as there's no possible way that you can define a disabled person's personal needs being met by a car being out of use for the majority of the day.

xpf

This maybe sligtly different but my my F-in-L passed away late last year. We phoned to ask them to collect the car and were told that we (as named drivers) could continue to use it as much as we wanted before it was collected

cyclonebri1

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it's a grey area. Personal needs are things that the disabled person directly needs - such as transport, picking up prescriptions, social and domestic pleasure and so on. It doesn't include the car being out of use all day by a person using it to go to work - as there's no possible way that you can define a disabled person's personal needs being met by a car being out of use for the majority of the day.

It is a grey area, which is why I, unlike you, are suggesting things change?

emweaver

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It's been said much earlier on that a mobility car is not a gift, it's paid for out of the benefit that the government pays. It is not the cheapest way to buy a car, infact it's simply a all inclusive 3 year lease package. Mileage is strictly controlled so where's the problem in an option to pay for tax to allow more flexible wider use.

I think the word charity in relation to the mobility car system is misleading.
The system does not run on donations, it merely means that when everyone in the chain has had there salaries, expences etc, the organisation does not show a profit

Im fully aware its not a gift as MIL had one! She had to pay £150 a month which included free insurance, road tax, mot, repairs, services need I go on.

Pete268

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It is a grey area, which is why I, unlike you, are suggesting things change?

A week or so back, whilst I was driving my Motability car down the A1, I was pulled in , by a Police Officer into a large layby for what they called a 'Multi Agency check.

Firstly as my car is diesel, a couple of Customs c haps dipped the tank to ensure I was not running on red diesel. Then a couple of chaps from VOSA checked all my lights, tyres and emmissions etc, the police also checked my insurance etc over the radio.

However also present were officials from both the DWP and the DVLA. Upon the police officer realising I had a disabled tax disc, the DVLA chap and DWP lady (complete with lap tops) also came across to check me.

I certainly confused the DWP lady as I do not caim any DWP benefits as I am a war pensioner (she said they could tell if I was claiming disability benefits, Incapacity, Job Seeker etc etc). Obviously looking for people who were working and claiming etc. The DVLA chap also wanted to check I correctly using the disabled tax exemption.

Once they were satisifed who I was and that I was using the vehicle legally, I got speaking to the DVLA chap who stated that two vehicles with disabled tax discs had been impounded that morning when it was found that the disabled exemption holder was not in the vehicle and the vehicle was not being used for the benefit of the disabled exemption holder. I asked what would happen to them and was told that the drivers would be prosecuted and would also have to pay back tax.

It is the second time in two years I have been pulled in for one of these checks and both times nothing worng was found (other than a rear fog light with a blown bulb - fixed the same day). So, it does prove that it is possible to be caiught if one is not using the car in accordance with the tax disc rules etc.

Peter

PolishBigSpender

Many thanks Peter for providing the physical evidence to back up the theoretical side of things.

cyclonebri1

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Many thanks Peter for providing the physical evidence to back up the theoretical side of things.

So can you tell me where it says the disabled cert and clock have to be in the vehicle?. Unless of course it was parked "illegally" without this?, but as said this guy was pulled over?

bigturnip

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

Many thanks Peter for providing the physical evidence to back up the theoretical side of things.

I wish you would stop spouting a load of nonsense that there is a definitive answer to this. If you look back at post #98 I have pasted the law from the HMSO website or OPSI or whatever they want to call themselves these days.

This is THE ONLY wording that matters, it's called the law. It is not at all clear as to what is for the benefit of the disabled person. The DVLA have an opinion, motability have an opinion, the directgov website have an opinion and the police have an opinion, but they are all just their interpretations of the law, none of them are definitive.

As far as I am aware this part of the law has never been tested in a court and therefore no precedent has been set. The only opinion that matters is that of the judge if somebody were to be taken to court over the 'alleged' misuse. But how confident can the DVLA or the CPS be of their interpretations if they have not once, in over 30 years of the disabled road tax exemption, taken anybody to court over this?

EDIT: For your benefit Polish I have quoted the law below, please tell me where there is a definitive answer as to whether or not you can indirectly use the car for a disabled persons benefit? ie working to bring in an income or using it for respite.

(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)

gregg1

bigturnip wrote: »

I wish you would stop spouting a load of nonsense that there is a definitive answer to this. If you look back at post #98 I have pasted the law from the HMSO website or OPSI or whatever they want to call themselves these days.

This is THE ONLY wording that matters, it's called the law. It is not at all clear as to what is for the benefit of the disabled person. The DVLA have an opinion, motability have an opinion, the directgov website have an opinion and the police have an opinion, but they are all just their interpretations of the law, none of them are definitive.

As far as I am aware this part of the law has never been tested in a court and therefore no precedent has been set. The only opinion that matters is that of the judge if somebody were to be taken to court over the 'alleged' misuse. But how confident can the DVLA or the CPS be of their interpretations if they have not once, in over 30 years of the disabled road tax exemption, taken anybody to court over this?

EDIT: For your benefit Polish I have quoted the law below, please tell me where there is a definitive answer as to whether or not you can indirectly use the car for a disabled persons benefit? ie working to bring in an income or using it for respite.

Thank you for explaining it so well. You are right regarding the various opinions held by the powers that be on this matter. It is indeed a very ambiguous area and certainly not as clear cut as some have said on here. On behalf of my brother I have questioned this with both mobility and the tax office and it is most certainly a "grey" area which really needs to be properly defined I think.

matelot123

I think the issue of motability vehicles along with blue badges and free tax discs is always going to be contentious no matter what the law says.people will either be jealous if they don't have it, trying their utmost to get it because they believe passionately that they are entitled to it or moaning about others getting it when they already have it because everyone else is a fraudulent claim except them its pathetic the amount of forum space these arguments take up on the internet.Live and let live and leave the fraud detection to the DWP the police and crimewatch staff.People need to stop playing at amateur slueth, butt out of other peoples lives and try getting lives of their own.How odd it seems to me that people can be incandescent with rage at the prospect of having to park two car widths further away from the doors of the supermarket because someone else took "their" space, but then stroll round the entire town and shopping centre without a care in the world.be thankful for what you have and don't worry about what others are doing and just get on with your life and try to stop being so bloody grasping all the time