Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

lighton

kpwll wrote: »

Please don't shout at me cos I'm only wondering, the car is to be used for the DLA recipient's benefit, therefore couldn't the husband, by going to work and providing for them, be seen as using it to benefit them?

Ive actually looked into this before i drive my son to school and then go to work i then pick him up after.I wouldnt be expected to drive him school get another car go to work pick him up in mobility car etc it would be ridiculous. Also drop him at respite walk home 15 miles back again and bring him back in car.If the father is using the vehicle to take his child wherever he wants or needs to go what is the problem.He has to go to work

Oldernotwiser

lighton wrote: »

Ive actually looked into this before i drive my son to school and then go to work i then pick him up after.I wouldnt be expected to drive him school get another car go to work pick him up in mobility car etc it would be ridiculous. Also drop him at respite walk home 15 miles back again and bring him back in car.If the father is using the vehicle to take his child wherever he wants or needs to go what is the problem.He has to go to work

Surely the whole point of the OP was that the boy is driven round by his mother in the Motability car that is paid for by his DLA.? The father goes to work in the car that the Mother's DLA pays for.

The fact that the father is using it to go work to keep his family doesn't really seem to be within the spirit of the scheme but it's obviously a grey area as I don't think that many families can be be in this situation.

You get some strange anomalies in the world of benefits; there was a recent post where a couple were each claiming Carers' Allowance to look after each other. This seemed weird to me but it appeared that this situation was actually allowed. You never seem to be able to apply common sense to receiving benefits!

seven-day-weekend

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely the whole point of the OP was that the boy is driven round by his mother in the Motability car that is paid for by his DLA.? The father goes to work in the car that the Mother's DLA pays for.

The fact that the father is using it to go work to keep his family doesn't really seem to be within the spirit of the scheme but it's obviously a grey area as I don't think that many families can be be in this situation.

You get some strange anomalies in the world of benefits; there was a recent post where a couple were each claiming Carers' Allowance to look after each other. This seemed weird to me but it appeared that this situation was actually allowed. You never seem to be able to apply common sense to receiving benefits!

I actually can see how this can make sense - a depressed person could , for example, do the cooking and cleaning that a person with physical disabilities could not do and the physically disabled person could do things like make telephone calls, fill in forms and deal with finances, that are quite often things a depressed person can't do.

Anyway, off-topic, but felt it was worth pointing out.

Back to the OP!

Conor_3

calleyw wrote: »

I have added another post making it clearer that is down to the tax disk that they can be done on.

No, you did that once it had been pointed out to you that you were wrong on the other items.

I don't know why don't just do away with mobility as it seems a strange scheme open to abuse.

Because someone like my SIL could never afford to get a wheelchair adapted vehicle so it would mean that her son was restricted to only being able to go as far as she could walk.

CarerQuie

I agree with you.My ds (10) has autism and we have a motability car.I'd far rather he didn't have autism and we had our own car.However,at least we have a reliable car.We only use the blue badge for him;that is where fraud can occur if you use the blue badge for anyone else.

They don't just give higher rate mobility willy nilly;a lot of people get lower rate mobility and they can't then get a car under the scheme.

Your taxes don't pay for the car:the recipient does by paying their higher rate component to motability operations.xx

mcspanna

Couple of things I might be able to help clear up as I have recently joined the motability scheme (as the recipient of HRDLA I hasten to add!):

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned not being able to get a motability car til age 16. I think you are confused with people on HRDLA being able to learn to drive age 16 rather than 17?

It's OK to have a motability car for a child but only if it is used for their benefit; i.e. I recently applied for business use on my motability car as my job contract is to work at various sites, the form gave the option to apply for business use for a named drive (the father in the OP) but if named driver applied for business use, then there was a supplementary question asking if the named driver provided main income for the HRDLA recipient.

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I actually can see how this can make sense - a depressed person could , for example, do the cooking and cleaning that a person with physical disabilities could not do and the physically disabled person could do things like make telephone calls, fill in forms and deal with finances, that are quite often things a depressed person can't do.

Anyway, off-topic, but felt it was worth pointing out.

Back to the OP!

Yes, I suppose that's a possibility.

terryw

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

<snip>

The fact that the father is using it to go work to keep his family doesn't really seem to be within the spirit of the scheme but it's obviously a grey area as I don't think that many families can be be in this situation.

Sorry, but it not a "grey area." It is not permissible in a car with disabled tax. Please see the link above.

the poster formerly known as
terryw

Oldernotwiser

terryw wrote: »

Sorry, but it not a "grey area." It is not permissible in a car with disabled tax. Please see the link above.

the poster formerly known as
terryw

Actually, I agree with you that this is wrong; I was just trying to be conciliatory!

calleyw

Conor wrote: »

Because someone like my SIL could never afford to get a wheelchair adapted vehicle so it would mean that her son was restricted to only being able to go as far as she could walk.

And no I was not wrong if all mobility cars have to have disabled car duty now.

Children are a different matter. As the parents who are legal guardians use the money to make both their lives and the child's life easier . Also people who are very disabled again someone else will be using the money to make the person life easier. And those are not the type of people I was referring to.

I am talking about someone like me. Who has a disabled husband and who pays and run my own car. I would like to change my car at the moment but can't afford it. So it is ok to make my husband sign over his benefit so I get a new car all paid for. Even though the DLA payments don't even cover the real costs of running a car and the tab is picked up by a charity.

Some people seem to think that going to work in it is ok. I personally don't as my interpretation is, they are talking about direct benefit not an indirect benefit in the use of the car. e.g I do all the housekeeping and all the shopping and most of the journeys for my husbands appointments. That to me is a direct benefit to my husband and even when I go shopping he comes with. Going to work is not direct benefit.

Even if my husband was not disabled I would still have to run a car to get too and from work. But now I need a car more than ever. As some of my husbands appointments are 50 mile round trip.

Personally if I had mobility car I not feel happy unless my husband was in the car doing any errands for him e.g collecting his post from the post office for example.Even though I knew it was legit. Unless I had dropped him off for a physio session for an hour and went home and then came back again later for him.

Seems Terryw has posted a link.

Yours


Calley