Mobility Car Rules - is this genuine?

Idgy

We too have a mobility car because there are two disabled people in our family.

I rolled up in our brand new car and somebody said, “Ooo, very nice , I would do anything for a car like that!”
I just replied, “would you really?”


Getting back on topic, it is my belief through reading the documentation of the mobility scheme that the car is to be used for the disabled person’s needs but the carer can also use it for their needs.

All I would say to those with malicious thoughts who wish they had a car like that - be very careful what you wish for.

calleyw

Idgy wrote: »

We too have a mobility car because there are two disabled people in our family.

I rolled up in our brand new car and somebody said, “Ooo, very nice , I would do anything for a car like that!”
I just replied, “would you really?”


Getting back on topic, it is my belief through reading the documentation of the mobility scheme that the car is to be used for the disabled person’s needs but the carer can also use it for their needs.

All I would say to those with malicious thoughts who wish they had a car like that - be very careful what you wish for.

I don't think any would wish to be disabled to get a new car. I have a disabled husband and would move heaven and earth and this may sound extreme but I would even starve myself to have my husband back the way he was.

To me 7K would buy me a second hand car and pay for almost all the fuel and road tax and RAC cover and MOT's for 3 years and I own the car. Where you have paid 7K for a car but still have to find the money to put the fuel in and give it back after 3 years. And not being funny bearing in mind that most people would have car anyway is there really a point apart from specially adapated cars. I would rather my husband spent the money on things for himself, to make his life easier or more fun.

We do have a car and did have a car before he become disabled it is 10 years old and came flying through the MOT and all I had to pay was 94p for a new sidelight bulb. So a mobility car is rather a moot point for us and cars really don't hold that much sway to me. Really couldn't careless. As long as it gets me from A to B and all the bits work on it who cares.

You have missed the point it is not so much the mobility car that is the issue it is the disabled car tax entitlement that is the sticking point here. Mobility say fine you can do what you want with the car back and forwards to work etc. But the DVLA say with the disabled car tax you can't.

Personally taking a mobility car to and from work would not feel right, as someone else is paying for that car and then not getting any use out of it because it is stuck at my works all day. But that is just me I would feel guilty. As I have disabled adult my husband I don't think it would be fair to dangle a carrot of a nice new shiney car under his nose which he is paying for. Only for me to snatch it away by taking it to work everyday even though he might fancy a day out he when he can get a nominated driver to take him out.

To me if mobility have said it is fine then it is fine and I have asked them that question. I have not spoken to the DVLA.

I can't believe that the DVLA have different rules as it does not mention it on there web site. It does not say that mobility cars are excluded. I feel that the mobility don't really understand about the DLVA disabled car tax rules and DLVA are not aware of what mobility are saying.

Yours


Calley

bestpud

What I wonder about these threads is why people argue they are paying for the car and therefore suggest it is not the big perk it seems.

Why then do people have them? Unless of course, they need an adapted car - obviously that is different.

I can see it is sensible to use one as a family car, whoever it is for, as it will undoubtedly benefit the person.

But, I fail to see why a family needs two of them and more so when one is being used as the 'commuting car' and the other for the child.

Yes, I can see he is the main earner and therefore benefiting the family - but isn't that the case for every family? And, surely every family can argue they need a car to pick their child up if they are ill, or whatever? Again, this is different if the car needs to be wheelchair friendly or adapted in some way - but if any car will do, why does it need to be a motability car and have reduced tax?

I guess I'm wondering where the distinction is between 'normal' family responsibilities and caring responsibilities? This example seems to be blurring the boundaries somehow - and clearly the authorities cannot decide which side it falls on either!

Sherrie

I really think that some people need to get a life, does it really matter what someone uses their DLA for???? The whole point of DLA is to use it as you see fit to help assist with care/mobility needs.

I support people with applications for DLA and for those that have never filled one in you should think yourselves eternally grateful that you don't need to, and hope to god that you never have to. Leave these people alone to get on with their lives as best as possible.

This whole tax disc business seems like it's motability's problem, and I doubt very much someone would get fined or action taken against, as there seems to be confliction between DVLA and Motability which is not the service users responsibility.

cyclonebri1

lighton wrote: »

this post just goes round in circles

It does because the wording of the GOV advice is ambiguous(SP)

What the hell does "should not be used for work use" mean?. Millions of us use our cars every day to get to and from work, but there is a clear distinction between this and using a car in the course of a buisiness or "work"

my_two_cents

lighton wrote: »

this post just goes round in circles

I would really like someone to answer the question you raised about the option of having three brand new gleaming cars :eek: parked in your driveway, since they feel you should not use your disabled son and hubby's cars to ferry yourself to work.

my_two_cents

calleyw wrote: »

. . . To me 7K would buy me a second hand car and pay for almost all the fuel and road tax and RAC cover and MOT's for 3 years and I own the car. Where you have paid 7K for a car but still have to find the money to put the fuel in and give it back after 3 years.

Apart from the fact that you don't need to have a good credit to go on the Motability scheme, why run the risk of the "money laundering brigade" for tendering a sum over £3000 or fall foul of the DWP law regards having savings.

Besides, you can choose not to lease the car, but apply to buy it instead.;)

calleyw wrote: »

. . . You have missed the point it is not so much the mobility car that is the issue it is the disabled car tax entitlement that is the sticking point here. . .

Calley

All these hullabaloo over a grand princely sum of £90-£200 road tax rebate for a disabled person.:shocked: :shocked:

TGM

This mobility lark is really simple, my wife has one and it's really straight forward.

Wife's car, me named driver, car used for wife's benefit means free tax.

If I intended to use car for my purposes like work, I have to pay road tax

cyclonebri1

TGM wrote: »

This mobility lark is really simple, my wife has one and it's really straight forward.

Wife's car, me named driver, car used for wife's benefit means free tax.

If I intended to use car for my purposes like work, I have to pay road tax

But if above posters are correct you cannot tax a mobility car other than disabled class?

And again define work use.

PS, not aimed at you in particular, but nothing has been cleared up yet

bestpud

Sherrie wrote: »

I really think that some people need to get a life, does it really matter what someone uses their DLA for???? The whole point of DLA is to use it as you see fit to help assist with care/mobility needs.

I support people with applications for DLA and for those that have never filled one in you should think yourselves eternally grateful that you don't need to, and hope to god that you never have to. Leave these people alone to get on with their lives as best as possible.

This whole tax disc business seems like it's motability's problem, and I doubt very much someone would get fined or action taken against, as there seems to be confliction between DVLA and Motability which is not the service users responsibility.

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?