Mobility query can other family members HAVE the car

sunnyone

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe you would, but not every parent of a disabled child would be if their child wasn't disabled. I don't think it is fair to allocate benefits on the basis of what might be if the situation was different.

People go on about how these is little fraud going on with DLA. There might not be in terms of the rules or the enforcement, but there is plenty morally. How can anyone think is acceptable to get a brand new car just because they have a disabled parent they go and see once a fortnight, or get them a bag of shopping whilst they are shopping for themselves? It makes me sick to think that anyone could stoop so low just to get materialistic things. What happen to the notion of caring for one's family just because they are family? I dare to thing what those people's kids will be like....

There is a worse fraud going on and its the reason why the goverment mooted getting rid of HRM for people in care homes, their fmailies use that for a car yet rarely if ever even go and see the person which is a disgrace, and it includes the parents of severly disabled kids in group homes who have the casr but not the kids!

I know two parents of severly autistic kids, the kids do not live with them yet they have motability cars, one family never, ever visit the child from on year to the next, the other rarely visits yet they were utterly appaled about the proposed change and they both campaigned vigerously to fight the change and they have won!

So they will have the cars forever now (until the child passes or the rules change), I in my nievety assumed that the teams working with the kids would object when the child reaches adulthood but they dont, its not their place apparently according to the disgusting parents as they laugh at the normal people who have to buy, maintain and otherwise fund their vehicles.

24skins

sunnyone wrote: »

There are many nearly new WAVs available, motability sell them among others, I bought one last year as it was the only way I could afford a drive from powerchair Paravan.

Motability wouldn't be able to sell them if they had to use second-hand vehicles. I imagine availability would drop and costs would rise for people like yourself who want to buy a WAV outright rather than use the scheme.

sunnyone

24skins wrote: »

Motability wouldn't be able to sell them if they had to use second-hand vehicles. I imagine availability would drop and costs would rise for people like yourself who want to buy a WAV outright rather than use the scheme.

Wrong, motability brought in the nearly new WAV scheme two years ago, I was looking for a nearly new WAV from that time because I needed a family sized drive from wheelchair WAV which are very, very expensive (Paravans cost over £70k new).

WAVs on motability are way over priced when you compare the prices of the vehicles available to the people who can drive normal vehicles to those needing heavility adapted vehicles and you are in a 5 year contract instead of 3 years for the normal vehicles and so the nearly new WAV scheme was brought in.

24skins

sunnyone wrote: »

Wrong, motability brought in the nearly new WAV scheme two years ago, I was looking for a nearly new WAV from that time because I needed a family sized drive from wheelchair WAV which are very, very expensive (Paravans cost over £70k new).

WAVs on motability are way over priced when you compare the prices of the vehicles available to the people who can drive normal vehicles to those needing heavility adapted vehicles and you are in a 5 year contract instead of 3 years for the normal vehicles and so the nearly new WAV scheme was brought in.

Unless I've missed something the motability nearly new WAV scheme is a lease scheme rather than a purchase scheme?

If this is the case my point still stands, if not I stand corrected.

kingfisherblue

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe you would, but not every parent of a disabled child would be if their child wasn't disabled. I don't think it is fair to allocate benefits on the basis of what might be if the situation was different.

People go on about how these is little fraud going on with DLA. There might not be in terms of the rules or the enforcement, but there is plenty morally. How can anyone think is acceptable to get a brand new car just because they have a disabled parent they go and see once a fortnight, or get them a bag of shopping whilst they are shopping for themselves? It makes me sick to think that anyone could stoop so low just to get materialistic things. What happen to the notion of caring for one's family just because they are family? I dare to thing what those people's kids will be like....

I agree with you - it is a disgrace and should be stamped out. Then charges of fraud should be brought. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour.

As for working, yes, I would be. I had a job from leaving school (went from being a Saturday girl into full time employment with the same firm). I was very happy there, and went back after my son was born. Unfortunately, due to the level of his disabilities, and the amount of care that he needs, there was no childcare except for family. My dad developed dementia and my mum couldn't look after my dad and my son, and still get my daughter to and from school. I did try to find other options, but giving up work was the only one that worked at the time. I was still married then, but my (now ex) husband decided to start a new family elsewhere.

I hate claiming benefits and I hate not working. Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have much choice. However, I am hopeful about returning to the job market at some point, and have kept up my skills by volunteering (that fits in with my son's care needs), and by attending courses on everything from IT to sign language to empowering local communities.

sp1987

To lighten the mood, I have just spent a few minutes trying to think what model of car a 'WAV' is and how second hand ones exist when I have never heard of the release of this new model. Then it dawned on me you all meant wheelchair adapted vehicle. D'oh.

anguk

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Pug, I don't know how registered drivers can get away with not living near the person whom the car is for. I am glad that this loophole is being plugged - I wasn't aware that it was happening (or even that people would try it) until I saw a news report a few weeks ago. It makes sense that if the car is for a disabled person's use, the driver has to live nearby. It shouldn't just apply to new/re-leased cars, though, all current cars on the scheme should be checked (although this is probably too expensive).

Motability have also brought in a new rule that named drivers under 25 yr old must live at the same address as the disabled person who leases the car. This should hopefully stamp out the problem of youngsters driving granny's car unless of course the youngster changes their address on their driving licence.

My OH has a Motability car and it's his lifeline, it gives him so much more independence, no more waiting for hours for the ambulance to take him to hospital 3 times a week, he can just drive himself now. It's well worth his DLA money, I know you could buy your own car but we'd have problems getting a loan, insurance would be expensive for my OH because of his medical problems and we like the peace of mind Motability gives us, we don't have to worry about repairs, breakdowns, services etc.

I hope the scheme is never scrapped, I know it's abused and it makes me angry to hear of people abusing it but it can be a Godsend and independence for genuine claimants.

Morglin

You can ONLY use the car for the benefit of the disabled person - all else is abuse of the system..

And, the insurance won't be valid.

There was an ongoing problem, some years ago, because although you could use the car for 'the benefit of', the tax disc was only supposed to be used if the disabled person was actually in the car, but this was resolved.

However, at no point should the car be used for anything other than things connected to the disabled person.

If the OP's mum doesn't actually need the car, she should contact Moability and try to terminate the agreement - which means, she will get the £49 in cash.

Lin

rotoguys

Morglin wrote: »

You can ONLY use the car for the benefit of the disabled person - all else is abuse of the system..

And, the insurance won't be valid.

There was an ongoing problem, some years ago, because although you could use the car for 'the benefit of', the tax disc was only supposed to be used if the disabled person was actually in the car, but this was resolved.

However, at no point should the car be used for anything other than things connected to the disabled person.

If the OP's mum doesn't actually need the car, she should contact Moability and try to terminate the agreement - which means, she will get the £49 in cash.

Lin

'the benefit of' includes use of the car by a relative to go to and from his or her place of employment if going to work 'benefits the recipient of the DLA award'.

nad1611

livewire600 wrote: »

I am so very distraught about this as my mum will NOT understand it & knows nothing about it-she is VERY unwordly and will not know that she will be giving up her £49 a week so that her son gets a new car fully paid up in her name and he will then (he says) pay her the benefit back ie the £49 a week she is giving up.

You say she's unwordly and won't understand, I don't think there are many people who don't understand the word Fraud.

You can simply tell your brother it will be fraud and tell your mother the same,if your mother signs anything she'll be a party unless you can convince someone otherwise. Of course if you don't stop it you did have prior knowledge of it, so you could end up being a party to it too.

I think you have to be your mother's advocate here and do what you know is right. She could lose her benefit through no fault of her own, if this came to light.