Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Tracking device on motability car
And if things like that are not abuse of the scheme, do we support moving to a situation where the carer will be forced to justify themselves, perhaps have to spend consderable time and effort in doing so and quite possibly at the expense of providing care for the disabled person?
I prefer to consider the real, the here, the now rather than the hypothetical allegation so as to prevent confusing evidence with fiction or fantasy.
As far as I know there is no inalienable right of access to the Motability scheme and entry and control of which is subject to the administrators.
I prefer to consider the real, the here, the now rather than the hypothetical allegation so as to prevent confusing evidence with fiction or fantasy.
So unless confronted with an actual client denied UC for a third child and who wishes to argue that she was coerced into pregnancy, you’ve no opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing?
As far as I know there is no inalienable right of access to the Motability scheme and entry and control of which is subject to the administrators.
Motability is a charity set up by Royal Charter. As such it is subject to scrutiny by both the Charity Commission and the Government. It receives a grant both from the DWP and directly from the government under the Disability Grants Act to fund its operations. As such, we can be fairly confident that the administrators are unable to alter rights of access on their own purview.
Cases of abuse are vastly overstated and lacking in evidence and I don’t believe we should be buying into this as being an acceptable process on any level. WROTricia is correct in saying that what is of “benefit” is often not obvious at all and can often involve doing things which on the surface don’t appear to be of immediate benefit to the disabled person but, without them being done, would actually prevent the use of the vehicle as intended.
The supposedly big media stories on this are rarely supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence of widespread abuse but it’s insidious and even spreads to WROs. Once heard a story of someone blocking an accessible parking space in desperation to get a space temporarily, only to be relieved when the driver came rushing back to the car they’d blocked in. The driver appeared to not be disabled at all and looked rather sheepish. I was wincing and somewhat incredulous it never occurred that the driver did not HAVE to be disabled. That’s what the media can do. We forget the basics. In this instance…
1 - I suspect the collection of the data in the first place could well fall foul of the DPA if it has no use until something else happens. Disproportionate in the extreme I would think. Certainly needs testing with the ICO.
2 - It’s a bit boring and old school but “presumed innocent” anyone?
3 - given the links with the DWP and the ongoing attempts to privatise and monetise anything which moves, what do you think this data is really being collected for? It’ll be much more for other parties benefit as opposed to being an anti-fraud measure.
id agree with this plus the cared for person is paying for the car anyway and unless its financial abuse i dont really care what they do with their car (personal opinion klaxon).
I prefer to consider the real, the here, the now rather than the hypothetical allegation so as to prevent confusing evidence with fiction or fantasy.
So unless confronted with an actual client denied UC for a third child and who wishes to argue that she was coerced into pregnancy, you’ve no opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing?
As far as I know there is no inalienable right of access to the Motability scheme and entry and control of which is subject to the administrators.
Motability is a charity set up by Royal Charter. As such it is subject to scrutiny by both the Charity Commission and the Government. It receives a grant both from the DWP and directly from the government under the Disability Grants Act to fund its operations. As such, we can be fairly confident that the administrators are unable to alter rights of access on their own purview.
Q1. Yes, but it would, of course, depend upon the evidence.
Q2. No, but as described Motability are subject to scrutiny and as less than 1% of scheme users are subject to intensive scrutiny and less than 0.5% are removed or prevented from reapplication I’m fairly confident there is nothing to see here.
http://www.motability.org.uk/Annual_Report_2015-16.pdf
Useful to remember that for a moment in time the government considered severing the link between PIP and Motability because the latter is exactly the sort of cost they don’t believe the tax payer should bear i.e. for the sick, the disabled, the elderly etc. After a predictable uproar/call for clarity it was equally predictable that Motability and the narrative of “targeting those who need it most” and who need to “protected” from those who “cheat the system” should be joined together in holy matrimony. The aim is to show that the scheme is widely abused and not fit for purpose. Anything which supports that aim then aids a reduction in funding and eligibility.
It’s pretty much the exact same narrative as for Carers Allowance. A suggestion that the passporting link could be severed at the exact point people are highlighting the fact payment needs to be increased. That was followed by a rapid uproar/call for clarity, That in turn was followed by insidious claims about “targeting those…” etc. and that in turn leads to a revised claim pack with specific questions and declarations to be signed around who is caring for how many hours. This new check has discovered what exactly about that “widespread abuse”? Er, that it’s not actually as high as was alleged. Oh dear.
More specifically, is anyone going to be surprised if it turns out you don’t get tracked if you consent and that trackers have been fitted to all vehicles for economies of scale and maybe just not activated in all cases. Of course that will then lead into those cases where tracking was “accidentally” activated. Generally you can script this stuff.
As I said, conversations about what really is little more than anecdotal evidence need to be very considered. Be careful what you wish for.
In the meantime, a brief chat with a colleague in the ICO suggests they weren’t necessarily aware of how this was implemented and if anyone has a client with concerns….
Q1. Yes, but it would, of course, depend upon the evidence.
Q2. No, but as described Motability are subject to scrutiny and as less than 1% of scheme users are subject to intensive scrutiny and less than 0.5% are removed or prevented from reapplication I’m fairly confident there is nothing to see here.
http://www.motability.org.uk/Annual_Report_2015-16.pdf
John - apologies. I read your earlier posts as approving the tracking and suggesting that abuse was reasonably widespread, but it appears I was wrong.
Q1. Yes, but it would, of course, depend upon the evidence.
Q2. No, but as described Motability are subject to scrutiny and as less than 1% of scheme users are subject to intensive scrutiny and less than 0.5% are removed or prevented from reapplication I’m fairly confident there is nothing to see here.
http://www.motability.org.uk/Annual_Report_2015-16.pdf
John - apologies. I read your earlier posts as approving the tracking and suggesting that abuse was reasonably widespread, but it appears I was wrong.
Accepted but not required. No offence taken.