Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

lighton

kpwll wrote: »

I know, I meant that even without a mobility car you can have the tax disc and the car is not limited to only 2 drivers, therefore the car itself is not classed as being solely for the benefit of the recipient of the HRM allowance.

I see what you mean. I think it will take some on here alot of convincing.Anyone would think we had easy life with disabled children

3onitsway

robbiet27 wrote: »

NOTHING is wrong here.

The husband uses the vehicle to travel to and from work to earn a living for his family - thereby benefitting his family and disabled son. In fact the insurance policy permits this and as you do not have to be the person receiving DLA to drive the car, who else could drive it legally (if not on policy) to and from work! With special arrangements through the insurance company you can even use the car for business use. Would you rather the father not work and claim benefits too? - he is capable of work and rightly so goes to work many others dont.

You can have as many cars as long as each person qualifies for the High Rate Mobility DLA. Its not as if there getting the cars for nothing - they are entitled to the money but have chosen to pay over most if not all for a car.

Yes, we recently had a similar situation. Our car is in my 11 year old sons name (severe autism and learning difficulties).
I use it for work, which i've been told i'm allowed to, as it benefits my son (and the families) life.
OH was recently sent to work at an office 60 miles away for 3 weeks, and had to claim fuel expenses through work, which meant having to show insurance docs to work showing car can be used for business use.
I phoned DLA about it, and had to fill in a form confirming OH was the main earner contributing to sons household. Then they sent a new insurance form out, covering us for business use for the 3 weeks.

terryw

As previous posters have suggested this whole thing is quite odd. The Gov site is definite about the car not being used in such circumstances but the Motobility site states it is ok and this is borne out by phone calls to DLA.

I am just wondering if it depends upon whether a motobility car is provided in which case it looks to be ok, or if the cash is taken instead and someone obtains their own car then it is not permissible? If this is the case then it is not logical.

Either way though I would like to see an official website or written proof giving the official view.

the poster formerly known as
terryw

lauren_1

The father could well be dropping the boy off at school on his way to work, there would be no point in returning 'his' car home just to get to work by other means.

Also by his working could be seen as benefitting the family.

terryw

lauren_1 wrote: »

The father could well be dropping the boy off at school on his way to work, there would be no point in returning 'his' car home just to get to work by other means.

Also by his working could be seen as benefitting the family.

I have to agree with you but this is not the point in discussion. According to the the govt site already quoted, this is not allowable but according to the motobility site it is allowable. I think that this illogical issue of information is the area that needs to be clarified. Can anyone solve the conundrum?

the poster formerly known as
terryw

space_rider

So if you can only use the car for the needs of the disabled child then tell me who would seriously take their child to school, leave the car outside school. Then take a bus or taxi home pick up another car drive to work park it then do the reverse to pick the child up from school. That`s what I would need to do with my child. There is no direct bus from my childs school or my home that would take me to work.

lighton

this post just goes round in circles

bigturnip

The basic problem here seems to be that the new Motability system which handily automates everything (DVLA checks, DWP checks, insurance, eligibility, tax renewal, etc.) so there is less paperwork means that Motability customers no longer have the option to privately tax their cars.

Motability customers currently pay around £7,000 over a 3 year contract to hire their cars and will often need to make an upfront payment to get a larger or higher spec car. This is money that they could have spent in any way they saw fit, so not giving them the option to tax a car privately for the use of a family member or friend seems a little unfair to me.

Don't forget Motability Operations the private business behind Motability is a profitable, multi-billion pound company. Don't think for one minute disabled people are getting handouts here, they are generating Motability Operations a nice amount of money. Being the largest purchaser and seller of cars in the UK, Motability Operations buy their cars at massive discounts from manufacturers and this is why the scheme is such good value, not because it is subsidised in any way.

chopperharris

now if they put the blue cars back as the only option i think there would be a lot less traffic.

maybe they could now only use a tata nano , or a lada on motability?

Could have rescued rover to make more of them thar city cars , or tuttuks.

bigturnip

chopperharris wrote: »

now if they put the blue cars back as the only option i think there would be a lot less traffic.

maybe they could now only use a tata nano , or a lada on motability?

Could have rescued rover to make more of them thar city cars , or tuttuks.

If you don't mind towing you're wheelchair along and tying the kids to the roof.