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

buzzarmstrong

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 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

A clear reluctance to answer valid questions that would serve to back up your views....lets leave that one "for all to read and decide" :rotfl:

dave030445

joebolton wrote: »

Pay for the taxi yourself out of the DLA.You could still work or go to Uni.

You really are a to--er I hope you never have to go through what the OP has been through. How dare you begrudge the OP a little extra help.

Richie-from-the-Boro

buzzarmstrong wrote: »

A clear reluctance to answer valid questions that would serve to back up your views....lets leave that one "for all to read and decide" :rotfl:

- ok ! - I'm happy with that - however .........

I'm wondering why a dormant 'nym' with a join date of four years ago [03-06-2008], make no posts in the last 12 months then pops up within days of Andy&Flo being banned for the 99th time ?

- do you have any ideas why that might be [STRIKE]Andy[/STRIKE] 'buzzarmstrong'

kingfisherblue

What's a nym?

Richie-from-the-Boro

kingfisherblue wrote: »

What's a nym?

HiYa - your 'nym' is kingfisherblue.

Before the internet a nym was from the word acronym simply meaning different classes of words as in antonyms / aptronyms / autonyms / toponyms / homonyms / hypernyms etc.

Since the advent of the internet a 'nym' is simply a pseudonym, or any name you wish to be known by as in - you are known as kingfisherblue.

Denny_Crane

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 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

Completrly incorrect in every way.
Constant fraud? no, look at the actual figures of those who have had their car removed or declined another car as a percentage of those with cars.
Blue badge same fraud and abuse? where ar5e your figures to back up this staement? You again fail to understand that the awarding of the Blue Badge is in the hands of teh Local authorities, not the DWP.
Again you make a statement that "most [by %] of this fraud and abuse has been perpetrated by the disabled themselves"
Where is your facts to back this up?.

Facts please, or actually state that these are your interpretations of what you think, not the actual situation.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Completrly incorrect in every way.
Constant fraud? no, look at the actual figures of those who have had their car removed or declined another car as a percentage of those with cars.
Blue badge same fraud and abuse? where ar5e your figures to back up this staement? You again fail to understand that the awarding of the Blue Badge is in the hands of teh Local authorities, not the DWP.
Again you make a statement that "most [by %] of this fraud and abuse has been perpetrated by the disabled themselves"
Where is your facts to back this up?.

Facts please, or actually state that these are your interpretations of what you think, not the actual situation.

- facts are posted by myself on this forum many times before and since the legislation was changed
- use the search button, do a little work for yourself, stop asking to be spoon fed
- alternatively pay me by paypal and I'll supply the 'links', there's nothing wrong with your keyboard fingers just your left foot

.. .. do a little bit of work for yourself Denny Crane the info [and evidence] is here on MSE .. .. its not as if you have to work hard to find it my friend. Come back when you are ready and we can debate, as we have done in other Motability threads, the efficacy of the evidence I've already provided.

NOTE1:

The line individuals use """ facts please, supply the evidence""" is a cop out for people who want to disagree but are too bone idle to spout anything other than subjective opinion.

For example when Denny Crane says """completely incorrect in every way""" I could say """ facts please, supply the evidence to refute my assertion""" .. .. .. but I wouldn't do that .. .. its a lazy cop out, and would make me as lazy as Denny Crane.

NOTE2:

The BB award is now a national scheme designed and governed by the DfT but merely administered by LA's to the stringent DfT's rules and has been since January 2012, I did not say it was run by the DWP. The scheme was redesigned / reformed in 2011 from the 40 year old model to the current one as a direct result of research into BB fraud and the then surprising discovery that the BB holder was complicit in the perpetration of the majority of BB fraud.

Denny_Crane

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- facts are posted by myself on this forum many times before and since the legislation was changed
- use the search button, do a little work for yourself, stop asking to be spoon fed
- alternatively pay me by paypal and I'll supply the 'links', there's nothing wrong with your keyboard fingers just your left foot

.. .. do a little bit of work for yourself Denny Crane the info [and evidence] is here on MSE .. .. its not as if you have to work hard to find it my friend. Come back when you are ready and we can debate, as we have done in other Motability threads, the efficacy of the evidence I've already provided.

NOTE1:

The line individuals use """ facts please, supply the evidence""" is a cop out for people who want to disagree but are too bone idle to spout anything other than subjective opinion.

For example when Denny Crane says """completely incorrect in every way""" I could say """ facts please, supply the evidence to refute my assertion""" .. .. .. but I wouldn't do that .. .. its a lazy cop out, and would make me as lazy as Denny Crane.

NOTE2:

The BB award is now a national scheme designed and governed by the DfT but merely administered by LA's to the stringent DfT's rules and has been since January 2012, I did not say it was run by the DWP. The scheme was redesigned / reformed in 2011 from the 40 year old model to the current one as a direct result of research into BB fraud and the then surprising discovery that the BB holder was complicit in the perpetration of the majority of BB fraud.

I dont need to as I havfe alrady questioned your "Facts" on Motability in olther threads, where I have quaoted DWP figures which have proved that your contention of large abuse of the Motability scheme is totally incorrect and not proven in the Governments figures 0.5% is no way a large amount of abuse.
The fact that your only argument is based totally on spurious comments from yourself prove you have no argument whatsoever and therefore your continuing anti disabilty comments should be taken in that context.

Your defense of "asking for facts is a cop out" is precisly that, however its YOUR cop out to fail to provide evidence of this massive abuse you believe is being carried out on the Motability scheme.

Why are you so determined to attack disabled people on this forum all the time?
How many are not posting I womder, because of the argumentative comments you come out with against the disabled?

NOTE 1
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/blue-badge-reform-enforcement-evidence-base/blue-badge-reform-enforcement-evidence-base.pdf

Fraud levels were assessed to be between 2% and 4% of badges on issue (see figure below)

Richie-from-the-Boro

Denny Crane.

You keep saying 0.5% when its between around £46+ million when you multiply the drill down figures from actual real time surveys, you conveniently forgot to mention in the pdf you posted that there was a disclaimer that only a few local authorities that were able to give the statistical information on [detection and prosecution rates] which to draw factual % conclusions.

The drill down figures which were never taken into account suggested that the overwhelming majority of that fraud was committed with the express knowledge of the BB holder. You are missing my point as you have done in so many other threads on the subject, the figure is irrelevant, of no importance whatsoever, what is important is almost 100% of the figure [any figure] was perpetrated by the disabled themselves.

It does not matter if its a hundred, a million or a trillion, it only matters that the disabled brought their own house down with their complicity in Blue Badge fraud. They, the disabled and no other group in society brought this about.

Yourself and others see #8 continue to conveniently misundertand the basic rules and openly encourage others to do the same and break the law - and as long as you continue to encourage others into risky interpretations of the law I will speak out. As for your childlike comments on my attacking the disabled, again I'll leave that for others to decide, it too juvenile an accusation for me to waste the alphabet on.

Multiply up these drill down costs in just one UK city exactly a year ago, and posted in MSE :

Birmingham issued over 50,000 Blue Badges

• 15,000 Stolen and lost Blue Badges Replaced.
• 1 in 20 people have blue badge. (50 per 1,000)
• National average 46 per 1,000
• 15 Misuse cases from one office block in 2 days.
• 75% vehicles in one street displaying blue badges – Following enforcement only 20% vehicles displaying blue badge

- Covered by Section 11 Fraud Act 2006 - Obtaining Services Dishonestly, and;
- Section 117 Road Traffic Regulation Act 2006 - Wrongful use of Disabled Persons Badge

L0RRY

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 !

motability have confirmed to myself & many others that a carer using a motability car to travel to work is perfectly acceptable because it is benefitting the disabled person is several ways, most importantly it means the carer is immediately available should they be needed to attend to the disabled person, unlike if they needed to rely on public transport to get them back home to pick up the motability car sat idle outside the house then drive to the disabled person...........THAT would fly in the face of "the spirit of what the vehicle was intended for" imo