Claiming mobility allowance against tax

BLT_2

karanight wrote: »

I find all this fascinating. Before My wife got the car I was against it because I couldn't see the point of getting a car because I would only be ably to use it when she was with me. Because of this, we phoned the mobility office and we were both told (using a speaker phone) that if I go shopping my wife gets benefit from that and also therefore if I go to work my wife gets benefit from it. I pushed the point about me using the car for work and we were told again that I would not be breaking the rules using the car for work. I have used the car for these purposes but now I'm wondering If I was given bad advice. I never use the car for my own use if my wife isn't getting benefit from it.
Thank you woodbine for the advice, I'll be writing the disability office in the morning and I will post on here with a summery of there reply as soon as I get one.
As for sunnyone your not a very nice person are you, I've used the car innocently and you would like to see my and my wife punished because we received bad advice and then acted on it, shame on you. I don't tell lies, I was given the opportunity to not work and look after my wife permanently but I refused to live like that. As for leaving my wife for 35 hours at a time your assuming I go out to work, I never said that. I work mostly at home and that is the reason I'm on poor pay, and that is why I'm looking at way to lesson the burden by claiming all I can in tax allowances. Why are you such an unpleasant person. Don't assume anything about me and please don't respond to my post again if you can't be constructive.

Here's a radical idea, don't post on a public message if you are averse to receiving criticism. The general consensus of opinion is that what you are doing is illegal, but because that doesn't tie in with your view then everyone is being unconstructive.

However it gets even better, you want to use the car paid for by your wifes mobility allowance to evade taxes and then you go on to state that you work from home.

This whole scenario sound dodgier than Ben Johnsons' 100m world record

ShockingPink

BLT wrote: »

Here's a radical idea, don't post on a public message if you are averse to receiving criticism. The general consensus of opinion is that what you are doing is illegal, but because that doesn't tie in with your view then everyone is being unconstructive.

However it gets even better, you want to use the car paid for by your wifes mobility allowance to evade taxes and then you go on to state that you work from home.

This whole scenario sound dodgier than Ben Johnsons' 100m world record

Thats's because it's a load of made-up nonsense. I think "Kara" works on the "wind 'em up and watch 'em run" principle...

karanight

I came on this site to get some advice. What I got on the whole (apart from two contributors) was insults. These insults came from the uninformed!
BLT needs to check their dictionary.

constructive |kənˈstrəktiv|
adjective
1 serving a useful purpose; tending to build up : constructive criticism.
2 Law derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit : constructive liability.
3 Mathematics relating to, based on, or denoting mathematical proofs that show how an entity may in principle be constructed or arrived at in a finite number of steps.
|kənˈstrəktiv|
adjective
1 serving a useful purpose; tending to build up : constructive criticism.
2 Law derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit : constructive liability.
3 Mathematics relating to, based on, or denoting mathematical proofs that show how an entity may in principle be constructed or arrived at in a finite number of steps.

constructive
adjective
constructive criticism: useful, helpful, productive, positive, encouraging; practical, valuable, profitable, worthwhile.

constructive does not mean insults

I have news for you BTL. The general consensus of opinion is flawed and wrong. Just because the general consensus of opinion is that I'm breaking laws etc doesn't mean the general consensus of opinion is correct, it isn't

Also BLT you need to check the dictionary for the word mostly

mostly |ˈmōstlē|
adverb
as regards the greater part or number : I grow mostly annuals.
• usually : weekends spent mostly alone.

I stated that I do my work MOSTLY at home, implying I need to go out sometimes. When I go out on business I go and will continue to go in the mobility car,

I've been worried about using the car since I came on the site for advice because I received bad advice here and I'm very surprised that nobody came forward with the correct advice.
The only "advice" I received was nothing to do with my query.
I have today been online to the mobility website and on there one can ask questions. I asked the question


Can someone else use the vehicle tax

Mobility website came back with the answer:
The Motability car may only be used by, or for the benefit of the disabled person (our customer). The disabled person does not need to present when it is used.
The car may be used by any named driver without the disabled person, e.g.. the customers spouse may use the car to travel to work, go shopping and other routine activities from which the disabled person derives an identifiable benefit.

Therefor I wasn't given bad advice at the start, I only got that here.

When I went on the mobility website and asked the question I did a screen recording on my very expensive (tax deductible) laptop

Liquorice_Twirls

I am interested in this thread as my Dad has been disabled for many years and they never claimed the exempt tax disc ( ie they paid for it as everyone else does) as my Mum used the car to get to work and back etc and they were always told this was not allowed.

Although you seem to be suggesting otherwise, the Directgov website seems to suggest the tax disc can only be used for the disabled person's purposes:

"To claim exemption from paying vehicle tax, the vehicle must be registered in your name or registered in the name of someone you nominate to drive for you (a nominee).
The vehicle must only be used for your purposes, for example shopping or getting prescriptions.
If it is being used by the nominee or someone else for their own personal needs, then the exemption will be lost. If you no longer qualify for vehicle tax exemption, you will need to tax your car in the appropriate tax class and pay the correct rate of vehicle tax."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/MotoringAndTransport/Yourvehicleandlicence/DG_10028003

Could you give the link to where it says that the spouse can use it for purposes other than the disabled person's "own personal needs"?

Thanks

calleyw

Sadly to say this often crops up.

Mobility are a charity they say one thing. The DVLA that is gov. body say another.

I do wish this was cleared up once and for all for everyone. As the rules are very wishy washy.

I know what I would do but each to their own. At least I know I will not end up in court when push comes to shove.

Yours

Calley

ShockingPink

Actually the only issue here is the tax disc. The mobility element of DLA is paid to the claimant to spend any way they wish. So why not tax the car in the normal way and then claim it as a legitimate business expense? Obviously you can't get a car through the Motability scheme, but that's not the most cost-effective way of getting a car anyway.

pstuart

calleyw wrote: »

Sadly to say this often crops up.

Mobility are a charity they say one thing. The DVLA that is gov. body say another.

I do wish this was cleared up once and for all for everyone. As the rules are very wishy washy.

I know what I would do but each to their own. At least I know I will not end up in court when push comes to shove.

Yours

Calley

We had a right old ding dong on here some time ago about this very subject.

I seem to remember that the DVLA are correct in theory but Motabilty quote the real world and no one (don't believe the bitter one) has ever been prosecuted for this offence on its own (it has been added to other offences where the police have 'thrown the book at them').

If you were the only one to ever come to court for a single offence like this you would quote Motabilities comments then go and celebrate your win over the silly !!!!!!s who prosecuted it.

sunnyone

I will post on any thread I choose to and I am correct about the tax disc, we got a letter from Swansea warning us we would be prosicuted if my husband borrowed my car to go to work in again and that they would also inform the DWP that I was illegally using the tax disc and they would also take action against us, all because my bitter ex neighbour rang them the one and only time my husband used my car for work ( my car was bought and paid for by us, not motability).

troll off and find someone else to try and wind up, Im immune to purile idiots like you.

sunnyone

pstuart wrote: »

I seem to remember that the DVLA are correct in theory but Motabilty quote the real world and no one (don't believe the bitter one) has ever been prosecuted for this offence on its own (it has been added to other offences where the police have 'thrown the book at them').

Actually because so many people are fraudulently using the tax discs and councils are losing out on toll fees etc. more and more councils are looking at checking tax discs to make sure that only the disabled person recieves consessions.

The severn bridge has estimated they are losing @3 million a year in tolls because so many disabled classed vehicles are using it.

pstuart

sunnyone wrote: »

Actually because so many people are fraudulently using the tax discs and councils are losing out on toll fees etc. more and more councils are looking at checking tax discs to make sure that only the disabled person recieves consessions.

The severn bridge has estimated they are losing @3 million a year in tolls because so many disabled classed vehicles are using it.

The Severn Bridge works off the Blue Badge system and the toll operator identifies the disabled person from the photo ID.

It really is time to stop this thread now.