Disabled parents and school

Oldernotwiser

Perhaps you could quote the information that you have been given in writing on the matter?

dori2o

My parents have gone through this when my Dad was working.

The car was primarily used for my Dad to get to work, but when at home he ferried my mum about. being self employed he could essentially pick and choose when he worked, so all my mums hospiutal/doctors/physio appointments he was available for.

When my mum first got DLA she phoned and asked about the car tax and was told that it matters not that my Dad used the car primarily for work. As long as the car is used for taking my mum to appointment as and when needed it was ok.

GlasweJen

I'm sure that given that Jetta has explained these rules are new (and i can find no test cases on these changes, a link would be nice) you'll find your parents were misadvised.

starchild1972

There has been no change in the law though so the rules cannot be adjusted unless there has been a legal change. As far as I can see the law has not changed. The car has to be used for, by, for the direct purpose of and made available for the use of the disabled person for whom the tax disc is issued at all times.

Glaswejen, the DVLA knew of no rule or law change on Friday. My husband is disabled as I am but even though HE is disabled he cannot use MY motability car for his own needs. He would have to get a second one as the tax disc is for a car that is contracted to ME. Even though I can't drive. I double checked that with motability on Friday too.

jetta_wales

The issue was not wether or not it can be used for your own needs it was wether or not in the case of a parent or spouse it is deemed to be in the benefit of the dissabled person if the parent/spouse were to use the car for work where by they are the main breadwinner and are finacialy supporting the dissabled person and can also thus be with the person in the capacity of their carer for signifigantlu more time each day with regard to a motability vehicle.

blue_monkey_2

So, let's say you can use the disc, hurrah. Let's get a nice new car.

But that is YOUR mobility money and you need the money for getting the kids to school, don't you? This is one of the things you 'need' mobility for? So it is not being used for your benefit because the car is elsewhere when you need it. Isn't it?

And you are expecting the state to drive them to school because you have used the money they have given you, on a car instead. Someone already said their husband can use it as long as he does what he needs to for her. I would have thought 'getting the kids to school' comes under that category.

And if you cannot drive the car then you need to use the mobility money you get to do the things you need to do, because you cannot drive a car. Paying for Taxis for example.

YOU are being given the money, from the state, because they recognise that YOU have a problem getting around. This means the money is there for YOU, to pay for things YOU need to do to fulfil the daily tasks you need to do but cannot do without help. For example: Getting the kids to school.

But as you have chosen to spend that money on a car because 'you cannot afford to run the car you already have' instead of getting the children to school.

Right now people say you need help in getting the kids to and from school. In a few months time they will tell you that you have the money to get your kids to and from school in the form of DLA and will wash their hands of you. You will have no-one else to blame but yourselves to be honest. They are giving you the help you need in the form of cash. YOU are the one choosing to spend it on a car, no-one else.

Get a new car, but they are going to tell you that you get an allowance to pay for getting your kids to and from school from the Government - they are not going to give it to you twice because you have your priorities all wrong.

You are getting your cake (DLA), you've eaten the cake (by buying a car) and now you want more cake (to get your kids to school). Don't you think that you are being a little bit greedy when the cake (governement money) is running out? Or should everyone else go without cake just so you can have double portions? Hmmmmm.

blue_monkey_2

jetta_wales wrote: »

The issue was not wether or not it can be used for your own needs it was wether or not in the case of a parent or spouse it is deemed to be in the benefit of the dissabled person if the parent/spouse were to use the car for work where by they are the main breadwinner and are finacialy supporting the dissabled person and can also thus be with the person in the capacity of their carer for signifigantlu more time each day with regard to a motability vehicle.

But you are STILL not getting it, are you?

'For your benefit' is that transport needed to get your kids to school.

The nominated driver and car - available for your benefit, using your benefit - is not available to take them. So the car is NOT being used for your benefit at all, is it? Financially supporting you or not, YOU need to get YOUR kids to school and the Government have now given you the money to do so as they recognise your problems.

How do you propose to get the kids to school when you have spent that money on a car that is not available to them or you, to get them there?

SS and AS might well be saying right now that they can see you need it - however, when you have the money to do it, what do you think they are going to say...... Surely it does not take a genius to work that one out?

jetta_wales

HRM is not enough to pay for my childrens needs to get to school and for me to get out at all other than taking them to school. Just as others in different circumstances have needs that are not covered by DLA have support with things like direct payments and this is not different. DLA HRM is not enough to pay for the children to get to school and back even regardless of any needs I might have that the HRM is actually intended for. If they can decide upon a cheaper solution than taxi's then that would be great of course.

Your opinions are just that 'opinions' they carry no weight and do not dictate what social services do regardless of wether or not you 'think' you are right.

jetta_wales

blue_monkey wrote: »

But you are STILL not getting it, are you?

'For your benefit' is that transport needed to get your kids to school.

The nominated driver and car - available for your benefit, using your benefit - is not available to take them. So the car is NOT being used for your benefit at all, is it? Financially supporting you or not, YOU need to get YOUR kids to school and the Government have now given you the money to do so as they recognise your problems.

How do you propose to get the kids to school when you have spent that money on a car that is not available to them or you, to get them there?

SS and AS might well be saying right now that they can see you need it - however, when you have the money to do it, what do you think they are going to say...... Surely it does not take a genius to work that one out?

They are aware of the coming changes and our current position with regard the car and agree that access to a vehicle is essential for my mobility needs. My social worker was very relieved when we got my CVI sorted so that would be one major concern off our shoulders.

lindos90

I dont really want to get into this argument, but out of my own curiosity I have googled around with this, and to be honest Ive found several sites where the same issue is being discussed at length.

As far as I can tell, there seems no clear guidance on this specific issue, its down to interpretation (ultimatley that of a court for example, if an accident happened whilst a spouse was driving in the car to work)

There have been several attempts to get a definative definition about 'for the purpose of financially supporting the person' and mobility customers have been given conflicting advice by the motorbility and the DVLA. It would perhaps depend who people happen to speek to, and historically how the law has been understood.

The law, and the interpretation is not as clear cut as it would seem, and it may well be that jetta has been given the information she says she has, I have honestly seen other forums where this information has aparently been given.

Im not saying one is right and the other is wrong, im just saying that people have been given conflicting information, and therefore believe what they have been told, and there misunderstandings/interpreations.

Here is an example where someone has tried to (allbeit not conclusively) to get definative written answers.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255436-new-to-claiming-motability-general-enquiries

There are two pages to the thread, it may send you to the second page for some reason.