Stopped by police...

Richard53

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The reasoning they gave at the time was that, as the sole earner, my ability to get to work and earn an income was a direct benefit to my partner. Whether something similar might apply in the OPs case depends very much on what the overall domestic set-up is.

I am genuinely surprised by this. I can see the logic, but the wording of the warning is so clear that I have never bothered to look into it further. The situation would apply to me, too, but I wouldn't consider using my wife's car even if mine broke down, as her car is too important to her for me to risk her losing it. Perhaps I should give them a ring and clarify.

Joe_Horner

Richard53 wrote: »

I am genuinely surprised by this. I can see the logic, but the wording of the warning is so clear that I have never bothered to look into it further. The situation would apply to me, too, but I wouldn't consider using my wife's car even if mine broke down, as her car is too important to her for me to risk her losing it. Perhaps I should give them a ring and clarify.

It would certainly be worth ringing them to see if they still take the same approach. Always good to have the option there if needed.

Logically they should still be ok with it - a lot of motability customers don't drive themselves and it would be ludicrous in that case to insist that their family must own another car for commuting because it would make the motability one effectively redundant!

Richard53

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It would certainly be worth ringing them to see if they still take the same approach. Always good to have the option there if needed.

Logically they should still be ok with it - a lot of motability customers don't drive themselves and it would be ludicrous in that case to insist that their family must own another car for commuting because it would make the motability one effectively redundant!

I guess there is a huge grey area here. Granny doesn't drive, so she has a couple of family members as named drivers, who use the car to take her to the shops, collect her medicines, etc. That is all quite legitimate - but then there are many cases where the family members treat the car as a free gift and use it as a family hack, often without reference to granny at all. That is clearly not what they are supposed to do, but there is a line to be drawn somewhere in between. Perhaps Motability are more flexible about drawing it than I had assumed.


I will certainly check with them, because it would be very useful to have her car as a backup in case both of mine coincidentally failed to proceed and I needed to get to work in a hurry.

decrement

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The rule is clear enough but the interpretation is on a case by case basis.

As an example, we had a motability car for 3 years in my partner's name and they were quite happy for me to use it for commuting. We confirmed that with them directly and also had commuting cover for me on their insurance, which they wouldn't have provided if it was a disallowed use!

The reasoning they gave at the time was that, as the sole earner, my ability to get to work and earn an income was a direct benefit to my partner. Whether something similar might apply in the OPs case depends very much on what the overall domestic set-up is.

Exactly, thats what we have too, its very clearly written in the insurance documentation that the named driver (not the registered name for motability) can use the car for commuting.

I cleared all of this with motability as i found their website and terms contradictory to this but they said it's fine under our circumstances.

Not sure why i have it and others dont, like you say must be case by case.

Robisere

cba to wade through all of this, especially the totally irrelevant DLA/Motability argument, but I can tell you this OP, after speaking to a police officer mate (a D.I.) : -

* IF they were plain clothes police, they are bound by law to present their warrant cards when speaking to a member of the public, whether on the street, at your door, or stopping your vehicle on the highway.
* Any lawyer would laugh at any police officer who tried to bring a prosecution under these circumstances.
* Any police officer involved in such activity and not presenting his or her warrant card, is liable to disciplinary action.

You have been subjected to the worst kind of intimidation, by people who are liable to be arrested and prosecuted for impersonating an officer of the law. If you have not already done so, contact your local police as a matter of urgency. They will do this again: they may see this as a prank, or they may actually have a criminal purpose in mind. Report it ASAP.

Franz_Ferdinand

Robisere wrote: »

cba to wade through all of this, especially the totally irrelevant DLA/Motability argument, but I can tell you this OP, after speaking to a police officer mate (a D.I.) : -

* IF they were plain clothes police, they are bound by law to present their warrant cards when speaking to a member of the public, whether on the street, at your door, or stopping your vehicle on the highway.
* Any lawyer would laugh at any police officer who tried to bring a prosecution under these circumstances.
* Any police officer involved in such activity and not presenting his or her warrant card, is liable to disciplinary action.

You have been subjected to the worst kind of intimidation, by people who are liable to be arrested and prosecuted for impersonating an officer of the law. If you have not already done so, contact your local police as a matter of urgency. They will do this again: they may see this as a prank, or they may actually have a criminal purpose in mind. Report it ASAP.

Maybe post up a couple of links to the laws you're referring to will help the op.

Robisere

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Maybe post up a couple of links to the laws you're referring to will help the op.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

I did not actually refer to any laws: I simply gave the information presented to me by a friend who was in the happy position of knowing the law and was content for me to use that information to benefit someone in the parlous position of being subject to an unlawful and possibly criminal act.
'nuff said?

Franz_Ferdinand

Robisere wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

OK, FF?

He wasn't stopped and searched. Try again you don't want him to look stupid now do you?

The_Fiddle_Man

I am aware Motability Cars can be used for commuting to and from work by the named driver if it brings in a income to the home where the disabled claimant lives, i.e. son lives with dad and uses car for him but also brings in an income so can use the car to get to and from work.


I drive a Motability Car as a named driver, and the car is always at my home and used to commute back and forth to the claimant home several times a day, more so in recent months since the claimant has now surrendered their driving licence due to medication. It is then used to take them out shopping, to medical appointments etc. I also use it to go to the park with their dog each and every day, they sometimes come along. I don't however use it to get to my voluntary job, I take the bus! Admittedly I sometimes use it for shopping myself, but only when I am out shopping for the claimant.

The_Fiddle_Man

decrement wrote: »

Exactly, thats what we have too, its very clearly written in the insurance documentation that the named driver (not the registered name for motability) can use the car for commuting.

I cleared all of this with motability as i found their website and terms contradictory to this but they said it's fine under our circumstances.

Not sure why i have it and others dont, like you say must be case by case.

I think if I was you I would get it clarify again, otherwise if you have an accident whilst commuting you'll be up !!!! creek without a paddle!