Motability and HRDLA...?

mamabuddah

In conversation last night this anomaly cropped up and it's had me thinking about it non stop.

We all know how the decision makers mess up, but what about this one.

Chat is, if you have insulin based diabetes and have had hypos in the last period that have been reported to GP, diabetic nurses, clinics etc there is a possibility that you may have your driving licence removed therefore no insurance = no car and we know you can't get HRDLA for diabetes anyway.

How come then you can get HRDLA for heart problems, asthma etc, both of which can AND do result in people having heart attacks at the wheel or passing out due to an asthma attack and carreering off the road or worse still, driving into an innocent bystander.

The moneymakers from Motability will happily allow you to have a car if you get HRDLA and fall into those categories.

Is it not irresponsible to let people with severe conditions as those drive? Surely in cases like those a nominated driver should be used in the interests of safety? Many of us "taxi" (my kids call me taxi mam) our children our elderly parents, our spouses and our loved ones so why does the DVLA? Government, Health Authorities allow those with a real possibility of collapsing with those ailments the right to drive? and not classing them the same as diabetics?

Anyone else been able t work this out?

Richie-from-the-Boro

mamabuddah wrote: »

In conversation last night this anomaly cropped up and it's had me thinking about it non stop.

We all know how the decision makers mess up, but what about this one.

Chat is, if you have insulin based diabetes and have had hypos in the last period that have been reported to GP, diabetic nurses, clinics etc there is a possibility that you may have your driving licence removed therefore no insurance = no car and we know you can't get HRDLA for diabetes anyway.

How come then you can get HRDLA for heart problems, asthma etc, both of which can AND do result in people having heart attacks at the wheel or passing out due to an asthma attack and carreering off the road or worse still, driving into an innocent bystander.

The moneymakers from Motability will happily allow you to have a car if you get HRDLA and fall into those categories.

Is it not irresponsible to let people with severe conditions as those drive? Surely in cases like those a nominated driver should be used in the interests of safety? Many of us "taxi" (my kids call me taxi mam) our children our elderly parents, our spouses and our loved ones so why does the DVLA? Government, Health Authorities allow those with a real possibility of collapsing with those ailments the right to drive? and not classing them the same as diabetics?

Anyone else been able t work this out?

- what evidence do you have for any of the extreme scenarios you have invented ?
- conversely precisely the same groups of people would have the same driving issues and outcomes in a non-Motability car
- pi$$ heads & druggies and totally sober under 25's have these outcomes every day and crash / kill and maim more than any other group
- they don't have heart problems / asthma etc / or pass out at the wheel
- BTW - Motability is a non-profit making charity

sizzler1893

You can hold a licence with almost all conditions as long as they are controlled. Epilepsy - licence suspended, if you have a seizure, heart problems - faint or have a heart attck - licence suspended.

With a Diabetes the new guidence is that if you have a hypo where you have NEEDED ASSISTANCE then your licence may be suspended. This included night time hypos (which I beleive Diabetes UK may be campaigning against)

I must admit that i do feel aggrieved that despite my numerous check ups I can only hold a 3 year licence but them is the rules though.

schrodie

mamabuddah wrote: »

In conversation last night this anomaly cropped up and it's had me thinking about it non stop.

We all know how the decision makers mess up, but what about this one.

Chat is, if you have insulin based diabetes and have had hypos in the last period that have been reported to GP, diabetic nurses, clinics etc there is a possibility that you may have your driving licence removed therefore no insurance = no car and we know you can't get HRDLA for diabetes anyway.

How come then you can get HRDLA for heart problems, asthma etc, both of which can AND do result in people having heart attacks at the wheel or passing out due to an asthma attack and carreering off the road or worse still, driving into an innocent bystander.

The moneymakers from Motability will happily allow you to have a car if you get HRDLA and fall into those categories.

Is it not irresponsible to let people with severe conditions as those drive? Surely in cases like those a nominated driver should be used in the interests of safety? Many of us "taxi" (my kids call me taxi mam) our children our elderly parents, our spouses and our loved ones so why does the DVLA? Government, Health Authorities allow those with a real possibility of collapsing with those ailments the right to drive? and not classing them the same as diabetics?

Anyone else been able t work this out?

Many Motability customers are themselves not the drivers because they have decided that their condition prevents them from driving in a safe and responsible manner. It's just a shame that the same level of consideration isn't shown by drivers who reach "a certain age" where the level of danger to other road users is far greater than someone with asthma or a heart condition because at least medication can be taken to control those conditions!

Here

bored_at_home

there are no moneymakers at motablity its a charity. you can have your licence taken for several things not just diabetes. you dont get hrdla for any particular condition, you get mobility section because you have problems getting around or care because have care needs. how does diabetes stop you getting around?
sorry, but i think you need tothink it through some more.

bigbulldog

sizzler1893 wrote: »

I must admit that i do feel aggrieved that despite my numerous check ups I can only hold a 3 year licence but them is the rules though.

My wife suffers from parkinson's ,but the DVLA only allows to hold her licence for 3 years as well and have done ever since she diagnosed at the age of 40.

mysterywoman10

To be honest I didn't really understand the point of the first post?

As has been said you can have your licence revoked on medical grounds for numerous reasons.

What does this have to do with HRM? Or Motabiity? You are awarded it based on need, not on whether you can drive! On that basis no one with a severely disabled child would get it because clearly the severely disabled person or a child can't drive can they?

Motability operate a scheme to meet the needs of various different groups, specially adapted for people to drive themselves, wheelchair accessible and to be frank I have issues with people who can just jump in a normal car, drive off being on the scheme in the first place! I welcome the way they are tightening up on use because it will allow more funding to be directed to those who do need adapted vehicles.

I do however recognise many people who do have a need do only need a non adapted car (so don't jump on me!)

Motability will allow two named drivers on the policy (this does not have to be the HRM receipient)

They will also on receipt of medical evidence or a letter from a Social Worker grant an open policy for those who have a need i.e. they have many different carers etc.

Parva

mamabuddah wrote: »

The moneymakers from Motability will happily allow you to have a car if you get HRDLA and fall into those categories.

As was touched upon by an earlier poster, there are no 'moneymakers' there, it is a charity that relies on government AND public support. Still, PiP seems to be removing 33% of the cars, let's just remove all of them because it's obviously a scam eh mamabuddah? Please start researching and understanding the bigger picture before you go pointing fingers.

SEE

Reading on this board what is going on with ATOS and benefit removals and reductions, what happens if they lower some ones DLA so they no longer get the motability component. Do they lose their cars as I thought they were on 3 year binding contracts?

only_mee

SEE wrote: »

Do they lose their cars?

Yes.
.............

Richie-from-the-Boro

SEE wrote: »

Reading on this board what is going on with ATOS and benefit removals and reductions, what happens if they lower some ones DLA so they no longer get the motability component. Do they lose their cars as I thought they were on 3 year binding contracts?

They are on a 3/5 [WAV] year contract via Motability's Contract Hire agreement, throughout the agreement term the legal owner is and remains Motability Operations. Depending on the length of the agreement the Good Condition Bonus is returned within 28 days of the vehicle return, the usual 3/£250 5/450 terms apply - discretion as always belongs to Motability not the dealer who supplied the vehicle.

- the 'contract hire' is with whichever Motability dealer supplied the car
- the 'money' for the contract flows from GOV Motability then to dealer
- if DLA - PIP is withdrawn the money to the dealer stops immediately
- the minute that money stops the contract is 'broken' and dealer wants the vehicle back immediately
- how [days] each individual dealer takes back possession of the vehicle is decided by the individual dealership