Motability : opinions required, please.

[sagittonius]

I am somewhat confused with the Terms & Conditions of the Motability agreement, with regard to 'Drivers'.


An agent at Motability informs me that 'every journey' of the vehicle needs to be for the benefit of the Disabled Person. That is impractical at certain times, such as going out to get a haircut. Extreme example, but valid - or, does my haircut benefit my wife? Possibly yes, as she then stops moaning at me...

The real reason for me asking the question is that I want to add my wife's sister to the insurance - 'just in case'. Although adding the extra driver is allowed, (scenario) can she travel to her home, park overnight, do her shopping the next day, then come back to our home the next day?

I think yes, the Motability agent says no.
The reason that I think yes, is that my wife 'derives benefit' from her sister being able to drive for her.
Motability (loosely) define the benefit as being a gain derived from the journey.


The Terms and Conditions state "The Vehicle or Replacement Vehicle may only be driven by Drivers and may only be used by or for the benefit of the Disabled Person." (Which to me, is vague.)

A paragraph in a Motability article states "The car is used by, or for the benefit of, the disabled person. This does not mean that the disabled person needs to be in the car for every journey. In practice, this means other named drivers in the household can use the car for shopping and other routine activities, as long as the disabled customer will benefit." (Again, this seems vague.)

Are Motability really that stringent on the T's & C's, and who monitors usage and enforces resultant action?


Thanks for any input.

[nukecad]

"for the benefit of the Disabled Person" is a pretty loose term capable of a variety of interpretations, common sense has to prevail.

If the shopping is for disabled person then the vehicle can be used by a named driver to do that shopping for them.
If the shopping is not for the disabled person (your scenario seems to suggest that it's the sisters own shopping) then the vehicle shouldn't be used.

Going home with the vehicle, parking it overnight and doing the shopping for the disabled person the next day and taking the vehicle back?
Probably OK if the vehicle is not used for any other purpose, the query being why the shopping couldn't be done the same day.

A named driver going for their own haircut without the disabled person?
Strictly no, but you could argue that using the car instead of a bus reduces the time spent away from your disabled partner and so 'benefits' them.

In practice the odd non-disabled use is not going to be bothered about.
Unless someone reports that the vehicle is regularly being used for non-disabled purposes then Motability are not going to check.
eg. If you are using your partners Motability vehicle to go to work and back each day then that's primarily for your benefit and not the disabled persons. You could get a bus to work, may people do.

[sagittonius]

Thanks for your reply.

So, the car just sits there doing very little then.
Seems it can be a very expensive option.

Maybe the restricted use is why so many don't take advantage of the Motability scheme.

[sagittonius]

eg. If you are using your partners Motability vehicle to go to work and back each day then that's primarily for your benefit and not the disabled persons. You could get a bus to work, may people do.

I have received another reply from Motability, and another variation...
"If a named driver contributes to the household costs, the car can be used for the journey to and from their place of work. This would be acceptable as the disabled person would be gaining a material benefit from the use of the car, through the income provided to the household.

[nukecad]

Yes, as I said before the wording 'for the benefit of the disabled person' can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

(Admitted that I was a bit lax using 'partner' there, the disabled person would normally 'benefit' from their partners wages).

There have been cases in the past where a Motability vehicle has been 'confiscated' because it was only ever being used by a relative (named driver) primarily to go to work and back, the disabled person never had any use of or benefit from the vehicle, and didn't benefit from the named drivers wages.