Nah, you’re completely right Wardy. It’s nonsense, much like the argument that was made that a mandatory black box for under 30s is discriminatory and hence, illegal.
Don’t know where these kinda views come from, but reality isn’t it. I think it may have to do with people thinking that MB is purely a charity, hence not “a commercial entity”, which is.. well, kinda correct, but wrong.
The best way to describe MB as entity (meaning, both Motabilities) would be “a charity subsidised by an commercial subsidiary”. Well. The most accurate, probably not the best. Point being, people think that MB is a charity and that if they make cuts/adjustments, it amounts to discrimination.
I assume that is in regards to the black box (i may be entirely off, since nothing anywhere even tries to explain what the potential pursued legal action is supposed to be). Which makes this a non-starter, since even the cited Equality Act 2010 clearly allows for insurers etc to use age to make assessments (and act on it) in regards to risks.
There also is no discrimination if it becomes standard for all new leases, while not being mandatory for existing accounts (if it stays like that). The difference here is simply that while it is a “two tier system”, it’s not based on disability but customer/account status (new vs existing).
That all said.. Yeah, that link stinks. It’s safe, of course, as all google docs (docs.google.com) are since they already run sandboxed and have absolutely zero way to interact with your PC, but i certainly wouldn’t put any details into a form that looks a little like it’s designed to fish for disabled peoples email-addresses. At least, for now, without a bit more detail on what they’re actually trying to do (and who they are in the first place, that’d help too).
Prior: SEAT Ateca Xcellence Lux 1.5 TSI DSG MY19, VW Golf GTE PHEV DSG MY23
Current: Hyundai Ioniq 6 Ultimate
Next: we'll see what's available in 2028.