No, there’s no legal proof required, obviously. The point is that “saving that part of PIP” isn’t what it’s supposed to be doing. Hence the name. If you “need” to save it to get over the rounds, then there’s something not right with either spending habits or the daily living component of PIP. That makes the entire arguing that you “sacrifice so much in benefits” argument asinine. You’re sacrificing the part that you’re “supposed to” be spending in bus and train tickets. Regardless of how much you want to argue that the “Mobility part” isn’t actually meant to help with that, despite it being written both on the DWP website and on the citizens advice webpage. In fact, that entire part of PIP is tested. You only get it if you need help with getting around, so yes, it’s very much implied as to how to spend that money, because if you’re disabled but can get around, you don’t get it. If “mobility component” wasn’t obvious enough.
An interesting argument, but it doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny in the real world. Of course the mobility element is meant to help people get around but the reality, whether you like it or not, is that once in receipt of that benefit you can do what the hell you like with it. The third of recipients who choose a Motability car will (in most part) choose to sacrifice all of it to have a new car, as my wife chose to do. Not an asinine argument. Fact. Of the remaining two-thirds, some will use all of it to fund a private car or to cover bus or taxi fares. However, and this is the important point, many will not use ALL of it for this purpose. In fact, some may only use a tiny proportion of it for that purpose. Whatever you might think, or whatever ideological position you may wish to take, that is the reality. They are perfectly at liberty to do as they wish with it. There is no requirement to evidence how they spend it and no requirement to pay back any that isn’t used for that purpose, so recipients are perfectly at liberty to spend it how they wish and that decision will no doubt be determined by what they consider to be priorities.
We are fortunate that we do not have to exist on benefits but, if we did and faced with a 3% rise in benefits versus a 54% increase in heating costs and all the other rising costs, there is absolutely no way that we would sacrifice £10k of benefits every 3 years on a brand new car. That is an enormous percentage of the total income of those who exist on benefits. We would do as millions of others do (including several of my family members) and knock about in a very low value car at a fraction of the cost. We would undoubtedly use the Mobility element of PIP in major part to help pay other living costs.. You might not like that, but it’s perfectly legal and immensely sensible. There’s no way that we would have a brand new car on the drive and be struggling to heat the house or pay the bills. Much as I love cars, that just wouldn’t make sense to us and a brand new car would feature very low down on our list of priorities in the current climate.