Fraudulant use of Motability car?

Tigsteroonie

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

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.

Looks clear to me that Motability are misleading their users, who are more likely to read Motability's easy-on-the-eye guidelines than wade through DVLA legislation regarding VED.

System

From their fact sheet

for the spouse to go to work which brings income to the family, or for social or leisure activities which contribute to the well-being of the family.

They really need to change their advice. Are they saying taking the kids swimming is a valid use? It appears so

Richie-from-the-Boro

!!!!!! wrote: »

From their fact sheet
They really need to change their advice. Are they saying taking the kids swimming is a valid use? It appears so

Link please !!!!!!, I've never seen that !.

System

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Link please !!!!!!, I've never seen that !.

The fact sheet on Fraud linked to in post #60 by Tigsteroonie
Under Use of the car

If the disabled person is in the car, either as a driver or passenger, they will be deriving benefit. There will also be circumstances where the car is being driven without the disabled person present but still for their benefit. For example, for family shopping or for the spouse to go to work which brings income to the family, or for social or leisure activities which contribute to the well-being of the family

Richie-from-the-Boro

Ta muchly !!!!!!.

Richie-from-the-Boro

The two paragraphs in Motability's own fraud and misuse factsheet read :
_____________________________________________________

• If the disabled person is in the car, either as a driver or passenger, they will be deriving benefit. There will also be circumstances where the car is being driven without the disabled person present but still for their benefit. For example, for family shopping or for the spouse to go to work which brings income to the family, or for social or leisure activities which contribute to the well-being of the family.

• However, it would be unacceptable if the car were used by one family member as if it were their own, rather than a family car, for example, for individual holidays, periods spent away from home or commuting to work if the disabled person would derive more benefit from the car being available to them at home. Motability would take into account whether the disabled person at all times had control over how the car was used and, in conflicting priorities, the needs of the disabled person came first.
______________________________________________________

It came as no surprise to me years ago that the registered charity is owned by Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS and that the Chief Exec was paid a £1mi££ion bonus and a £125k payment in lieu of pension on top of his basic salary of £501,900 at the same times as tens of thousands of disabled people were losing their entitlement to vehicles.The whole operation is based on the income from disabled people who receive government benefits and choose to spend it on the scheme. The CEO was defended by Stirling because he "earned it because he transformed the culture of the organisation to achieve consistently high rates of customer satisfaction and value for money" - with the ambiguity they publish reproduced above the rules can mean anything they want them to mean.

With the above they can and do do anything they choose to regain their market share. When language is capable of being understood in more than one way by a reasonable person, ambiguity exists, certainly that is ambiguous to me and I feel I am a reasonable person. Still after all done and said its a monopoly and free money. If any reads this in future its clearly a free for all - well it is owned by banks after all.

Ames

!!!!!! wrote: »

From their fact sheet
They really need to change their advice. Are they saying taking the kids swimming is a valid use? It appears so

I suppose it depends on what the car is supposed to be for. Is it in effect a wheelchair or crutch - simply to allow the disabled person to get from a to b? Or is it to enable the disabled person to have as 'normal' a life as possible, including a 'normal' family life with kids who can have swimming lessons?

If it would be fine if the disabled person took the kids to the swimming lesson, then why not if the other parent did? Isn't it a bit unfair on the disabled person that they'd have to be the one doing all the driving around?

Conversely, is it always the case that if the disabled person is the one driving it's always in their interest? My ex couldn't drive and a lot of the places I was taking him to weren't in my interests at all.

I'm not sure which side of the line I fall on, in fact I'm not sure that it's as simple as their being a line.

Commuting is different, because that leaves the disabled person with no access to transport for most of the time.

Tigsteroonie

!!!!!! wrote: »

The fact sheet on Fraud linked to in post #60 by Tigsteroonie

It's okay, I'm frequently invisible As is our motability car - the number of people who try to step out in front of it, as though it's silent and invisible ...

Let's throw something else into this mix/debate. What if the motability car has been issued on a child's DLA? The child cannot actually drive the car, so it's harder to define "derive more benefit from the car being available to them at home", especially if that child is out of the house via school transport for 8 hours a day. The child would definitely benefit from a parent being able to work, and perhaps use of the car to commute allows them to work hours that fit within the school day ...

Hypothetical, before anybody has a go at us. The car stays home with Marley, and I use the tram service. I'm just posing thoughts ...

System

The problem is that 'derive more benefit' is just Motability's idea. It is not based on anything concrete. The reality is that it should be used as you use it.
The VED side says 'direct benefit'. Working isn't a direct benefit. If you didn't work then there would be additional benefits which, although probably not bringing the household income up to what work would bring in, would provide sufficient funds to support the child.

Also the argument that you can not afford to run your own car fails. If that was the case then you would not have been able to afford one without the Motability car.

In terms of transport costs the Motability vehicle is cost free so doesn't impact the viability of owning and running your own vehicle

Tigsteroonie

!!!!!! wrote: »

The VED side says 'direct benefit'. Working isn't a direct benefit. If you didn't work then there would be additional benefits which, although probably not bringing the household income up to what work would bring in, would provide sufficient funds to support the child.

And that comes back to my point about people being more likely to read Motability's guidance, than any VED documentation, so Motability are misleading people.