Motability - Can I use my 'sons' car to go to Uni?

Richie-from-the-Boro

beth.stephenson2009 wrote: »

I got my motability car 14 months before i passed my driving test. Obviously I was learning to drive in it, but mainly my Dad used it for work. I don't see the problem- your insured, your covered. Why go stir a big pot when there is no need to?

I would say it was wrong/selfish to use it solely for journeys that benefit yourself, but your obviously not doing that.

- if I knew who you were
- I would have reported you without compunction
- you should, then and now have had the Motability agreement reviewed, or cancelled
- and all costs, including the additional extra driver training costs recovered from your DLAHRM

The nation provides for your independent mobility needs, not a buckshee new motor for your dad to go to work in. Most people who bring the scheme [Daily RedTops EtAl] into disrepute are innocents and in no way complicit, they simply made bad or ill informed judgements. You intended to misuse the award.

Pot stirred - the disabled need to keep their own house in order .. .. .. first !

24skins

tiamai_d wrote: »

The rules are very hazy when the car is for a child. But do call them and speak to them, they were nice on the phone to me.

Thanks, I will do

Have managed without a car for years but cuts have made our Council's Taxicard scheme a lot less generous in recent years & I'm spending upwards of £70 a week on taxis...

Soapn

beth.stephenson2009 wrote: »

I got my motability car 14 months before i passed my driving test. Obviously i was learning to drive in it, but mainly my Dad used it for work. I don't see the problem- your insured, your covered. Why go stir a big pot when there is no need to?

I would say it was wrong/selfish to use it solely for journeys that benefit yourself, but your obviously not doing that.

your father used the car mainly for work? seriously?:eek:

Denny_Crane

beth.stephenson2009 wrote: »

I got my motability car 14 months before i passed my driving test. Obviously i was learning to drive in it, but mainly my Dad used it for work. I don't see the problem- your insured, your covered. Why go stir a big pot when there is no need to?

I would say it was wrong/selfish to use it solely for journeys that benefit yourself, but your obviously not doing that.

Was you father dropping you off at uni/work/school before going to work in the car?

If not, this was a breach of the rules and if hehad been in an accident, your Motability insurance would have been invalid.

Remember for the benefit of the disabled person, not the family.

buzzarmstrong

"For the benefit of the disabled person" is a very loose term and is not the area of abuse that Motability are primarily concerned with unless it is a blatant abuse of the system whereby the hirer does not benefit from the vehicle whatsoever. If Motability wished to be specific they would make clear statements such as "The hirer must be in the vehicle at all times"

"For the benefit" is open to interpretation and once something is open to interpretation it becomes very difficult to police and therefore quite often becomes a moral issue rather than any clear breaking of rules.

From January 2012 Motability introduced new rules with the aim of tightening up in certain areas of concern. One area of concern was with the vehicle not being kept at the hirer's address. Another related concern was named drivers living within a 5 mile radius and another tightening of the rules involved any named drivers under 21 now being required to live at the hirer's address. This is the area of abuse that they wish to address.

The first few replies to the OP were largely correct but unfortunately once Joe Bolton got involved it descended into chaos thanks to his ill informed opinionated comments.

A subsequent phone call from the OP to Motability customer services proved that there was no real issue and the OP had nothing to worry about. Motability are not there to make things difficult for genuine hirer's who quite often already have difficult enough lives.

The later attack on the comments beth.stephenson2009 made regarding her own vehicle all also ill informed and based on opinionated assumption. Nobody bothered to ask the facts in this particular instance and just weighed in with the size 12's.

She quite clearly stated that she was a provisional driver at the time the contract began. She may also have been still at school, as young as 16 years old and therefore in need of her father to provide a wage. Is this not of "benefit" to her? She quite clearly thought so because she would not have followed it up with the comment...."I would say it was wrong/selfish to use it solely for journeys that benefit yourself, but your obviously not doing that"

What followed was once again was a series of ill thought out comments.

Richie-from-the-Boro

I assert that using the vehicle "in need of her father to provide a wage for the benefit of the disabled person" in either BB terms and / or / Motability terms is blatant moral and legal misuse of the provision.

Its precisely this conveniently vague way of dressing up a subjective view so that it conveniently circumnavigates the spirit of what the vehicle was intended for that brings the disabled into disrepute.

Put objectively, in reference to beth.stephenson2009, if Motability, their insurers, HMRC and a BB issuing authority were asked whether the terms of reference would allow her father to use the vehicle for his personal transport because it "provided her father with a wage which would benefit the disabled person" I'm confident this convenient interpretation / malpractice where it exists would also be immediately stopped.

Then the daily RedTops EtAl would have yet a~n~other excuse to vilify the 'fiddling disabled' and they would be right to do so, because this example from beth.stephenson2009 was is a blatant misuse of a supplied vehicle and its associated BB benefits / free Road Tax / Insurance, and beth.stephenson2009 was complicit in perpetrating the fraud.

- buzzarmstrong's ill thought out comments seem to support the fraud against the nation

- the disabled need to keep their own house in order .. .. .. first !

melbury

Is the Motability scheme being phased out soon, or something is happening to it?

buzzarmstrong

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

I assert that using the vehicle "in need of her father to provide a wage for the benefit of the disabled person" in either BB terms and / or / Motability terms is blatant moral and legal misuse of the provision.

Its precisely this conveniently vague way of dressing up a subjective view so that it conveniently circumnavigates the spirit of what the vehicle was intended for that brings the disabled into disrepute.

Put objectively, in reference to beth.stephenson2009, if Motability, their insurers, HMRC and a BB issuing authority were asked whether the terms of reference would allow her father to use the vehicle for his personal transport because it "provided her father with a wage which would benefit the disabled person" I'm confident this convenient interpretation / malpractice where it exists would also be immediately stopped.

Then the daily RedTops EtAl would have yet a~n~other excuse to vilify the 'fiddling disabled' and they would be right to do so, because this example from beth.stephenson2009 was is a blatant misuse of a supplied vehicle and its associated BB benefits / free Road Tax / Insurance, and beth.stephenson2009 was complicit in perpetrating the fraud.

- buzzarmstrong's ill thought out comments seem to support the fraud against the nation

- the disabled need to keep their own house in order .. .. .. first !

Blue badge is a parking issue and there is nothing in the post to suggest that a blue badge was ever used by beth.stephensons father and therefore yet more assumption.

What makes you think that her father using the vehicle in this way is against Motability's rules? Are you in any way accredited by Motability? Or is it just your own personal moral view? I did not debate any moral issue. I merely stated that your comments are not born of any fact and not having entered into a more detailed analysis of events therefore also ill thought out.

As far as my comments being ill thought out and supporting a fraud against the nation I would like to know what qualifies you to assume I am not personally familiar with Motability's rules?

Are you in possession of a Motability contract hire terms and conditions document that backs up your claim of misuse? Or is it like I stated, your own moral view?

Richie-from-the-Boro

melbury wrote: »

Is the Motability scheme being phased out soon, or something is happening to it?

- no my friend .. .. not being phased out
- constant fraud and abuse have led to some changes to the scheme
- the same fraud and abuse has led to changes to reforms to the Blue Badge scheme
- most [by %] of this fraud and abuse has been perpetrated by the disabled themselves

So none of the above should give you cause for concern, its only those who previously chose to liberally interpret the rules that will be unhappy with the changes. . It is always the case that designing a 'tighter' system leads to unforeseen consequences fo some and unfortunately like all systems designed to catch thieves some innocents are caught up in the rule changes such as the distance rule with the BB scheme

Richie-from-the-Boro

buzzarmstrong wrote: »

Blue badge is a parking issue and there is nothing in the post to suggest that a blue badge was ever used by beth.stephensons father and therefore yet more assumption.

What makes you think that her father using the vehicle in this way is against Motability's rules? Are you in any way accredited by Motability? Or is it just your own personal moral view? I did not debate any moral issue. I merely stated that your comments are not born of any fact and not having entered into a more detailed analysis of events therefore also ill thought out.

As far as my comments being ill thought out and supporting a fraud against the nation I would like to know what qualifies you to assume I am not personally familiar with Motability's rules?

Are you in possession of a Motability contract hire terms and conditions document that backs up your claim of misuse? Or is it like I stated, your own moral view?

- accredited by Mobility ? - mind your own business
- fraud against the nation ? - your own utterances .. .. for all to read and decide
- in possession of a Motability contract ? - mind your own business