Fraudulant use of Motability car?

Richie-from-the-Boro

It was the historical and blatant institutionalised abuse by Motability of the lax Motability rules that led to the boot on Lord Sterling's neck, the change in rules, and the halving of the 6k strong Motability fleet in 2011.

The same creep[ing] of Motability's so called 'special permissions' by non-disabled individuals claiming they are more special than other non-disabled people in order to get their camels nose under the tent flap of a free car paid for by the taxpayer. If the disabled don't get their own house in order then I will as I did before predict yet another onslaught by an IDS Mk II and another 50% of all disabled will lose their mobility freedom.

All the arguments in favour in this thread, are for non-disabled people to be allowed daily unrestricted use of a fully maintained taxed and insured car from the taxpayer. Not surprising that with this practice on the rise with the corresponding 20% rise in high rate PIP for MH that the Motability fleet is growing along with the cost to the treasury, do people really think GOV have not already noticed.

FBaby

I rang them again this morning, they checked directly with DWP as well and put a note on our record saying that they had assured me that as I am the only named driver and the breadwinner, my husband is no longer able to drive, work or leave the house without his wheelchair, the car is being used for his benefit to pay our bills.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that indeed, the DWP would say that is ok, yet it is so morally wrong. What difference does it make that you are the breadwinner? Are you the only household where only person works because they are the only one who can work? Should all single parent be entitled to motability because without a car, they couldn't work so wouldn't be able to support their children? What would you do if your OH couldn't work for other reason than being disabled? Would you give up your job because you don't have a car and can't afford even a very cheap one?

I am all for adapted cars and supporting disabled people to drive, but this whole attitude that it is justified for someone not disabled to be the main beneficiary of the car because it allows them to work and therefore support the disabled person makes me want to scream (as it shows in my posts!).

GlasweJen

The DWP have precisely nothing to do with it.

The DVLA took 4 months to send out a letter confirming that they won't allow me to drive and charged me £43 for the privilege so I don't think they are going to immediately "put a note" on someone's file exempting them from being prosecuted for using a benefit that's solely for disabled people when they are not disabled and merely related to a disabled person.

CTcelt1988

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

It was the historical and blatant institutionalised abuse by Motability of the lax Motability rules that led to the boot on Lord Sterling's neck, the change in rules, and the halving of the 6k strong Motability fleet in 2011.

The same creep[ing] of Motability's so called 'special permissions' by non-disabled individuals claiming they are more special than other non-disabled people in order to get their camels nose under the tent flap of a free car paid for by the taxpayer. If the disabled don't get their own house in order then I will as I did before predict yet another onslaught by an IDS Mk II and another 50% of all disabled will lose their mobility freedom.

All the arguments in favour in this thread, are for non-disabled people to be allowed daily unrestricted use of a fully maintained taxed and insured car from the taxpayer. Not surprising that with this practice on the rise with the corresponding 20% rise in high rate PIP for MH that the Motability fleet is growing along with the cost to the treasury, do people really think GOV have not already noticed.

They are reducing spending on PIP to save money, not catching fraudsters. If there was no abuse of the Motability scheme at all, the Government would still want to reduce the spending from DLA to PIP.

System

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

They are reducing spending on PIP to save money, not catching fraudsters. If there was no abuse of the Motability scheme at all, the Government would still want to reduce the spending from DLA to PIP.

As the amount of PIP paid, providing it is the enhanced rate, has no bearing on Motability and its use I fail to see what point your little rant is trying to make in this thread

CTcelt1988

Confuseddot wrote: »

Something like this

http://www.offers.peugeot.co.uk/just-add-fuel/new-208-5-door

!!!!!! wrote: »

If partner did not have a disability you would still need to fund a car for your work and personal use so nothing changes. Car cost is covered by DLA, fuel costs are either going to be for the disability car OR yours on a per trip basis, never both at the same time.

!!!!!! wrote: »

As the amount of PIP paid, providing it is the enhanced rate, has no bearing on Motability and its use I fail to see what point your little rant is trying to make in this thread

I was making the point that Government will continue to cut spending on PIP, no matter what happens with Motability. It wasn't a rant either.

The previous poster implied that they will cut PIP because of fraud, when that isn't the case.

Richie-from-the-Boro

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

They are reducing spending on PIP to save money, not catching fraudsters. If there was no abuse of the Motability scheme at all, the Government would still want to reduce the spending from DLA to PIP.

I don't disagree, you missed my point. Handing on a plate the opportunity to proclaim fraud gives GOV the political capital to blame all disabled users because they cheat. They then have public support to use a 'scattergun' approach. Many many honest users then have their PIP eligibility withdrawn altogether as was the case on the last round of cuts.

Blatant abuse, cue Redtop's (remember), the 'nudge unit' and a six moth onslaught by BBC ITV and the other channels and descriptors are changed and another 50% lose their Motabily vehicle. Most of that 50% never cheated the spirit of what was intended by Motabilty but they lost their car because of the behaviour of a tiny % nevertheless.

CTcelt1988

Sadly Motability does get a bad press due to the minority of people that abuse the scheme.

Tigsteroonie

Motability's own guidance on when you can and cannot use the vehicle is covered in their Fraud & Misuse Factsheet: http://www.motability.co.uk/Fact_Sheet_4_-_Managing_fraud_and_misuse.pdf

Richie-from-the-Boro

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Sadly Motability does get a bad press due to the minority of people that abuse the scheme.

Having entered this thread since the last round of Motability cuts its becoming self evident from the anecdotal postings here that Motability are once again swaying from their agreed intended [contract] use in their own words """ in household use the car for shopping and other routine activities, as long as the disabled customer will benefit""" how anyone in the Motability organisation could re-interpret that statement as ' using the car for commercial purposed day work ' amazes me. Sending just this thread to the Tory rag tops would lead to yet another onslaught.

If Motability want to allow any of the 'discretion' variances they should write them into a legal contract and openly publish them so that others who might want to avail themselves can. They could seek a change in legislation & rules concerning the VED and Insurance and test them in law and not leave it to ' similar arrangements, being unaware of any prosecutions based on the rules about the tax discs and being a grey area'.

Looks clear to me that Motabilty are as complicit as some of their users.