- This topic has 18 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Topic
Just been told, by higher Motability Operations management, via Motabilitys CEO that I as a named driver of my spouse could not use the car for anything of a personal nature, ie go for a game of golf, bowls or even visit one of my own friends and use the car. Using it for work is acceptable.
They thanked me for my honesty on how I would use the car but stated that this would not conform to their acceptable use terms and conditions. So will need to keep our own car for when I need to to continue a personal social life.
Thoughts on what others have been told, more important, not been told but actually have it in writing.
- Replies
Pazlaz, your absolute honesty is commendable.
Here is Motability’s own guidance –
https://www.motability.co.uk/whats-available/cars/package/use/
Motability cars:
2015 RR Evoque AWD 2.0 TD4 SE Tech - written off
2017 Toyota CH-R 1.2T Dynamic CVT AWD - written off
2019 BMW X2 2.0L Sport
2023 Nissan Qashqai e-Power N-ConnectaAlot of it is common sense with how you can do those things and at the same make it to the benifit of the disabled person.
Being able to get home quickly from a game of golf or bowls to attend to your partner in an emergency.
sounds reasonable to me.👍
Having your partner use public transport just because you need the car boot to carry your golf clubs.
Not recommended.🙁
Common sense & priorities are always for the motability customer, I can’t see an issue.
Tom…
Alot of it is common sense with how you can do those things and at the same make it to the benifit of the disabled person.
Beat me to it word for word
Well put
This comes up often.
Common sense applies in many ways. When my wife (the benefit recipient) could still drive, we ran two cars. One Motability car (for her) and one private one (for me). When her disability worsened and she could no longer drive, we went down to one car. My private car was far better than anything available through Motability, so my preference would have been to retain it and ditch Motability, but my car wasn’t as accessible for my wife or her wheelchair (it was a saloon). I was happy to buy a different car privately, but my wife preferred to stick with Motability.
I called Motability to explain the situation, that we only needed one car as I was now the only driver and obviously there would be frequent ocassions when I would use the car on my own and not always for her benefit. In truth, I was rather hoping that I could say to my wife that they’d said that this was unacceptable and we’d have to leave the scheme, but the complete opposite was the case. They said that the rules are in place to deter blatant misuse and enable them to recover cars that were being abused (e.g. named driver lives miles away, rarely sees the benefit recipient and uses the car as their own), but that a couple who live together and only have one car can use the car in exactly the same way as they would if they had one private car between them. So that is what we do and will continue to do without any concern whatsoever. If it wasn’t acceptable, then Motability would need to recover tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cars from households where the Motability car is the only car, including from many contributors to this forum!
This comes up often. Common sense applies in many ways. When my wife (the benefit recipient) could still drive, we ran two cars. One Motability car (for her) and one private one (for me). When her disability worsened and she could no longer drive, we went down to one car. My private car was far better than anything available through Motability, so my preference would have been to retain it and ditch Motability, but my car wasn’t as accessible for my wife or her wheelchair (it was a saloon). I was happy to buy a different car privately, but my wife preferred to stick with Motability. I called Motability to explain the situation, that we only needed one car as I was now the only driver and obviously there would be frequent ocassions when I would use the car on my own and not always for her benefit. In truth, I was rather hoping that I could say to my wife that they’d said that this was unacceptable and we’d have to leave the scheme, but the complete opposite was the case. They said that the rules are in place to deter blatant misuse and enable them to recover cars that were being abused (e.g. named driver lives miles away, rarely sees the benefit recipient and uses the car as their own), but that a couple who live together and only have one car can use the car in exactly the same way as they would if they had one private car between them. So that is what we do and will continue to do without any concern whatsoever. If it wasn’t acceptable, then Motability would need to recover tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cars from households where the Motability car is the only car, including from many contributors to this forum!
If you
I would ask for a detailed hard copy of that conversation to be sent to you
Taking the word of a phone jockey imo is not ideal if/when ever challenged
@Ele I have absolutely no intention of asking again, as I got the information that I wanted the first time and have no reason to doubt it. Like tens, if not hundreds of thousands of others with one car in their household which happens to be a Motability car, we shall carry on as we have for the 6 years since we retired without issue.
In the highly unlikely event that someone should contact us and say that what they previously told us was incorrect then we will deal with it then, but I’m confident that won’t happen, as they wouldn’t be able to cope with the huge proportion of scheme cars that would need to be returned if that was the case!.
If others in our situation wish to look for a problem and, as a result, pay for and run two cars when they only need one, then that is entirely a matter for them, but it’s not something that I would do. I’m relaxed that going forward our one car may at times be a Motability car and at other times may be a private car but, for now, it’s a Motability car which we run with their consent.
I am in total agreement with Glos Guy. It is ridiculous to suggest that such a rigid interpretation of the rules be applied.
Prior to Covid, my partner lived and worked about 60 miles away so I leased her a car on PCP a few months before lockdown. During lockdown I suffered a major downturn in health leaving me unable to, amongst other things, drive. My partner moved in permanently. Now we had 2 cars and one driver. I couldn’t sell private car as too early and negative equity so I rang and spoke to Motability.They were very helpful and arranged termination of my car. 18 months later with equity in car, I spoke with Motability and they confirmed that I could rejoin and that my partner had full rights to use the car as it were our own. Logically, wherever she goes for whatever reason, she needs to be able to get back to me asap if needed.
I traded my private car against the deposit for my new MotabilityThanks @Mossfinn I’m glad that you were told exactly the same as me.
Motability have to use the term ‘for the disabled persons benefit’ in order to comply with the VAT exemption and to give them grounds to recover cars where there is clearly abuse. The example they gave me when I had the discussion was someone like a grandchild or niece/ nephew who lives elsewhere being in possession of the recipients car and using it as their own car, rarely, if ever, using it for the benefit of the recipient.
Clearly in a situation where a couple live together and only need one car (as, in my case, my wife can no longer drive), there are going to be times when the partner uses the car in a way that is not directly for the benefit of the recipient. It would be daft to assume otherwise. However, as you say, if my wife calls to say she has fallen or needs me, I need to be able to get home quickly. Also, my wife would probably argue that all times that I spend away from her are directly for her benefit 🤣
My mum had a car on the scheme, she didn’t drive and my brother was her main carer. He was allowed to take the car to work etc in case he was needed. He also then moved quite far away, but still worked locally. So again Mb had no issues at all with him taking the car to his new address overnight as he might be needed and my mum might need the use of the car. Which she always got.
Now my dad and is new wife, she developed MS and he worked away from home, so he couldn’t take the car. For years, she they didn’t have a car on the scheme for that reason. As no one else drove, but as MS does, it got worse. So her daughter, passed her test and they got a car for when my dad was away working.
Notice I say had. As both are not with us any longer. But it does show how different cases are treated. As long as the claimant isn’t being denied use of the car then they see no issue. They might put a tracker on the car but again it will only prove if the car never goes to the claimants address or in my dads case sits miles way from the home address, in the same place for a week or even weeks sometimes.
EX30 SMER Ultra
Hi Glos Guy. I had a similar conversation with MB. I’m the disabled pip recipient with increasing lack of mobility and my wife is my carer who uses the car for a variety of local tasks in addition to shopping etc. that seems acceptable to them.
A possible caveat is insurance cover. The MB link to Direct Line documents is down, so cannot check the small print. I’ve been fortunate to have never been involved in multi party accident disputes, but have heard horror stories about ins companies trying to wriggle out of settlements for the most nebulous of reasons.
The most sobering part of our pre command training was delivered by a legal expert on what to expect in the event of an “incident”. Boeing allegedly had a two billion dollar legal contingency fund and lawyers primed to deflect blame. Our airline also had a team of lawyers and, at that time, long haul aircraft were insured for $800 million against claims, loss etc. Expect forensic investigations. You, he said, might be backed by your union and are legally responsible for anything that occurs whilst in command. Guess who is going to get the blame if at all possible? I’m following the tragic collision in Washington with interest. Not looking good for the military and ATC less than optimal as I often experienced.Will read the small print again
Acceptable use and insurance. I was on my way to the shops to buy a turnip for the PIP recipient’s dinner, prove me wrong.
Acceptable use and insurance. I was on my way to the shops to buy a turnip for the PIP recipient’s dinner, prove me wrong.
We used to use that excuse back in the day when we had a works van and the bosses telling us we can’t use the vehicles for private purposes however if there was an unfortunate accident (never was) we always were pre armed with the excuse “I was on my way to the service station to fuel up for the next day when I had an accident”.
Mind you it would have been a bit of a stretch of the imagination when you had to pass umpteen petrol stations to get to the one you were going to use. 😁
@clappedout Again, I wouldn’t worry. The one time I had to make a claim I was the only person in the car and I was at fault. They didn’t bat an eyelid and didn’t question me on why I was using the car or for what purpose etc. The only question that I was asked was whether or not I’d be happy to live with the damage (so as to avoid the excess) and, if so, that it wouldn’t affect the good condition bonus. I wasn’t, as the car was only a few months old, so the claim progressed without any issues whatsoever.
Acceptable use and insurance. I was on my way to the shops to buy a turnip for the PIP recipient’s dinner, prove me wrong.
Exactly. The only things it’s probably best not to say are “Well, I was half way around the circuit on a track day when…….”, or, “I was out doing my Uber shift last night when the passenger in the back sneezed loudly and…..” 😂
I can see really that instead of telling the truth, I should have just ignored the wording.
Perhaps the interpretation of the words can just mean so much differant things to differant people and their own circumstances.
Think I’ll just have to treat myself to a nice classic car.
Thanks all
I can see really that instead of telling the truth, I should have just ignored the wording. Perhaps the interpretation of the words can just mean so much differant things to differant people and their own circumstances. Think I’ll just have to treat myself to a nice classic car. Thanks all
You go to buy fish a chips to take home but the chip shop doesn’t open for another hour, so you go visit a friend or play a round of golf and then collect the fish and chips to take home which has a benifit to the claimant. You are not lying!
Denying the taking the claimant to the hospital because you have a round of golf with your friends booked is another matter.
I can see really that instead of telling the truth, I should have just ignored the wording. Perhaps the interpretation of the words can just mean so much differant things to differant people and their own circumstances. Think I’ll just have to treat myself to a nice classic car. Thanks all
It’s obviously your choice, but you really don’t need to buy a second car unless you specifically want one. Over thinking this issue could end up costing you money that you really don’t need to spend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.