- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Topic
Sorry for such a crap first post – been lurking for a good year and benefiting from your shared knowledge.
With the recent anti-motability press and kick back earlier in 2026, there has been a number of channels appearing mostly on Tik Tok, exposing benefit frauds. Unfortunately, their common theme is to slag motability use.
I became aware in July that one of these Tik Tok channels was publicing a loophole in an online government service which allows you to input a vehicle registration plate and find out if that car is on motability (or at least, classed as disabled which I guess you can still do as a blue badge holder not on disability benefit).
So, these guys are using this to lookup registration numbers of people in their area who they suspect being on motability.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the DVA Vehicle Lookup page changed years ago, to prevent people doing this very same thing?…. seeing who had disabled classification?
I’m not mentioning the web service here as I don’t want google to index it – spreading the fact wider. If you can send me a message privately on here I’ll certainly send over the URL but at this stage, I think its wiser to keep it hidden.
So, my point in posting.
I raised a complaint to this service, highlighting that their website is being used maliciously by persons, to work out who is in a motablility car. These people are using this to post about this on Tik Tok and no doubt call whistle blower lines. Where there’s out and out abuse of PIP, I get that …. but you can NOT expose all of our data like that.
My complaint got a vanilla “thanks, we’ll note that. Case closed” email. I suggested that they need to add last 4 digits of VIN as a 2nd input to their page – therefore ensuring that only the owner can use the service.
Three months later, I can still use this web page to see that MY car is “disabled” tax class.
I am planning to now report this to the ICO as a GDPR breach of my own personal data.
I just wanted to see if you guys think that’s the best course of action and is this something that others would also like to report? I would assume that if multiple complaints come in, they’ll be more likely to take action.
- Replies
Don’t open that link!
I can assure you that’s not a malicious link. It’s a screen shot off my own phone. There’s no other way to share an image here on this forum.
That link is safe, but has ads on that”free service” so I’ll delete it.
Ive also realised you can’t DM on here to get the URL, so….
Search “Pay Dartford Crossing ” and try it on your own reg.
It’s a screen shot off my own phone. There’s no other way to share an image here on this forum.
Yes there is.
Use the
button (the last symbol in the box at the top of your posts on both website and mobile website) to share/paste an image to the forum.Indeed, but that requires 3rd party image hosting, which is what I was attempting. Most of those hosting services won’t let you get the actual image URL. I guess they want those ad impressions!
Doesn’t really matter on reflection. Suffice to say, it’s all over social media and if you se8arch those terms above, you’ll see it on your own reg.
“Vehicle is exempt from Dart Charge payment”
Not sure if your personal data is being breached without the keeper info but you can tell the car is tax exempt
Indeed, but that requires 3rd party image hosting, which is what I was attempting. Most of those hosting services won’t let you get the actual image URL. I guess they want those ad impressions! Doesn’t really matter on reflection. Suffice to say, it’s all over social media and if you se8arch those terms above, you’ll see it on your own reg.
It doesn’t need third party hosting sites.
Just screenshot the image and follow Bigdaves post to display an image.
You seem to be over complicating a simple thing.
I can assure you that’s not a malicious link. It’s a screen shot off my own phone. There’s no other way to share an image here on this forum.
The link imageshare.cc has a very low trust score between 4 & 10 out of 100 depebding on what citeria you look at, hence the reason, I called it out.
If, as you say, you have a screenshot on your phone, you can easily insert the image on here, as suggested by @BigDave even if you have to convert to jpg, which is unlikely. No third party hosting is required, as the image is a screenshot.
You can inset a URL by using i.e tinyurl by using insert link option.
This was posted last year. Can’t tell if it’s the same website.
You’re right in that there no personally identifiable data exposed, but these posts are encouraging people to look up cars on your street to find out if they’re in a notability car.
For that reason, DVA no longer state the taxation class on their lookup site.
The Motability statement was relating to a website which is now closed.
The Dartford Crossing is a government website that is able to tell if your vehicle does not require a payment to use the Dartford Crossing. Presumably the most common reason for not having to pay is because the vehicle is classed as disabled for road fund. Not all Motability vehicles are classed as such and a great many vehicles that are not leased through Motability do not require payment to cross the Dartford Crossing.
The link imageshare.cc has a very low trust score between 4 & 10 out of 100 depebding on what citeria you look at, hence the reason, I called it out.
If, as you say, you have a screenshot on your phone, you can easily insert the image on here, as suggested by @BigDave even if you have to convert to jpg, which is unlikely. No third party hosting is required, as the image is a screenshot.
You can inset a URL by using i.e tinyurl by using insert link option.
Thanks for the info… I’ll get there eventually!
The malicious website that irritated so many of us last year gave a result that said “This car is likely to be a Motability car” (or words to that effect).
Does this new one just state if a car has disabled classification? If so, there’s no link with Motability, as the majority of motorists who have disability eligibility use it on a private vehicle, rather than a Motability one.
I’ve just checked my private car on the Dartford Crossing site and it confirms that the car is exempt from the Dartford Crossing toll, but anyone with even half a brain would know that it’s not a Motability car!
The malicious website that irritated so many of us last year gave a result that said “This car is likely to be a Motability car” (or words to that effect). Does this new one just state if a car has disabled classification? If so, there’s no link with Motability, as the majority of motorists who have disability eligibility use it on a private vehicle, rather than a Motability one. I’ve just checked my private car on the Dartford Crossing site and it confirms that the car is exempt from the Dartford Crossing toll, but anyone with even half a brain would know that it’s not a Motability car!
Same here @glos-guy .
Just ran the X6 through with exactly the same result and likewise it is certainly not available on Motability! Do I care – not a jot!
In any case, disabled taxed vehicles are just one of a number of vehicles that return as ‘Exempt’ on the Dartford website. It includes such as unmarked police, fire and ambulance/NHS vehicles as well as the M.O.D. ‘White Fleet’ (which are not all white, nor green and look like tanks. The white fleet actually look like any other widely available vehicles)!
As privately owned, as well as Motability fleet vehicles taxed as disabled return as exempt and given that no personal information is disseminated by the website, I do think the OP is rather making a mountain out of a molehill.
Plus, complaining may have the unintended consequence of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Too many similar complaints and the Dartford Crossing could look at withdrawing the disabled exemption entirely. Thus hitting disabled people who use the crossing in the wallet/purse!
button (the last symbol in the box at the top of your posts on both website and mobile website) to share/paste an image to the forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.