Thanks @kezo but I fear this isn’t about financial gain but the court of public opinion. If I was in there position with their spineless leadership, here’s how is prevent cars from going to mental health disabilities. 1 redesign the PIP descriptors so that the only descriptor for the mobility element would be moving around. The whole Activity 11 would mysteriously vanish. There could be a compensation of including mental capacity in each of those activities, resulting in those people could qualify for enhanced daily living award. 2 maintain Motability’s ability to provide cars for those eligible for the enhanced rate of the mobility element. Job done, mental health minimised without reversing the Conservative lead Act equalling mental and physical disabilities and all the consequences they didn’t see coming. Again, if either Motability or the current Labour leadership had a spine, pointing out all these ‘cars for ADHD’ cases were instigated by this Conservative move to equalise mental & physical health. However, I’ve only heard a few older Conservatives who were senior at the time confessing that they didn’t see this as a long term consequence.
To remove activity 11 would have far reaching effects outside of mental health and affect those with cognitive and sensory impairments, which will also limit automatic axcess to the blue badge etc.
Of course, it is the DWP and their HP providers who assess how a condition affects you day to day, but I don’t expect for one minute anyone who is mildly anxious, just on the spectrum or with mild ADHD, to be awarded such an high award and only those that are sever or profound getting such awards? Then of course cognitive can include those with dementia, bran injury, stroke, the list goes on and again only those with severe enough conditions getting such awards.
From my thinking anyway, it would be quite easy to align PIP/DLA etc etc with the wider HMRC VAT relief scheme for permanently adapted vehicles, where those who’s qualifying criteria is under Sec.12 and those whose qualifying is under Sec.11 not qualify for the scheme. There would be little changes needed both in government, local government and outside agencies.
However, the problem with that, regardless how its acheived, will see the numbers on the scheme shrink making it even less affordable than is now. It would have far reaching effects in both the new and used motortrade.
Another way would be, those that qualify under Sec.12 do not pay VAT on AP’s if their vehicle is permanently adapted and those that qualify under Sec.11 pay VAT on AP’s. This assumes as of the governments budget, that they continue to be happy with block exemption of VAT on the purchase of new cars and assuming the removal of “luxury” cars has done enough to quell the rebellion!
Of course the Timms review could be threat or could shock us and be an opportunity, with Sharon Brennan (previous roles include policy manager at Alzheimer’s Society, Director of Policy and External Affairs at National Voices, a coalition of health and care charities, and advising the Department for Transport on accessibility as a member of the Disabled Person’s Transport Advisory Committee.) andDr. Clenton Farquharson CBE (Associate Director at Think Local Act Personal, a Trustee of Disability Rights UK, and National Development Team for Inclusion. He was named in Disability News Services’ list of influential disabled people.) have recently joined as co chairs. Whether regular disabled people make it onto the team, is yet to be seen!
Interesting read: