Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Tracking device on motability car
Has anyone come across this? A niece is the driver for the mobility car to which her aunt, who is in a care room, is entitled. The DWP have inserted a tracking device to ensure that the only journeys made in the car are ones which are clearly undertaken by the aunt. (For instance the niece is taking her children to school by bus even though the car is there outside). Ruth
If they want motability vehicles to be totally restricted to the disabled person, why not bring back the old “invacar” tricycles? (Complete with built-in stigma!).
As an aside, how much does all his surveillance cost to police and administer? Good use of taxpayer’s money?
[ Edited: 24 Apr 2017 at 01:50 pm by Benny Fitzpatrick ]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
The Motability website states they would only used the data collected if they suspect misuse or receive a report of misuse, otherwise it just sits there collecting the data. It also says it is common in the case where the claimant is in a care home. I think it would be really interesting to argue that the niece’s use of the car to take her children to school is for the benefit of her aunt - after all if she has to take them by bus then get another bus back to the house to pick up the car to visit her aunt surely that’s time she could be spending caring for her aunt that she is wasting on a bus…it wouldn’t succeed but it would be an interesting argument to make as the rules only state the car must be used for the benefit of the disabled person, not their sole benefit and they do not have to be in the car.
Yes, is quite common, more info here http://www.motability.co.uk/information-for-customers/cars-and-wheelchair-accessible-vehicles-customer-area/your-agreement-named-car-drivers .
TBH I think it is a good idea, unfortunately you do get cases of financial abuse where relatives are using the Motability car for other things and preventing the claimant having full use or having access to the mobility payment instead. I think they often do it when the car is being kept somewhere other than the claimant’s home.
Like Dan says the journeys don’t have to be taken by the Aunt - but do have to be for her.
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.
I don’t pretend to know the answer to this problem but I suspect it’s inevitable that some abuse occurs & if we come across a case I think it’s up to us to point out to the client the possible consequences. I’ve only had one such case. Cl. didn’t drive. Had DLAHRM for disabled son. Ex-partner gave some help with son, using his own car. He persuaded Cl. to get a Motability car for him to drive. He then used it as his own car, apart from occasional use for the disabled son. I told Cl. this could well be seen as benefit fraud with serious consequences. She made sure the car went back.
The Disability News Service reported on this in 2012, so there should have been time to gather data on how much abuse of the system there really is. I don’t know if any are available though. (As a charity, Motability isn’t required to respond to FOI requests)
I suspect the differences in our own experiences may come from our different client groups. The majority of my clients who qualify for high mob have profound learning disability as well as autism and many of them live in residential care. They are unfortunately vulnerable to financial abuse, and this is something that there is far more than anecdotal evidence for. I feel very strongly that this is something that we as welfare rights workers have a responsibility to take seriously. It has nothing to do with disabled parking spaces, media reporting or the vilification of disabled people, it is about protecting vulnerable people who really do experience abuse.
Well said.
I think there’s more to this than is known and further, people are missing the point here.
The car itself is likely not the important thing but the associated insurance.
If a vehicle is used outside of its declared purpose then the liability on/of the insurer can amount to vast sums.
Should Motability not act reasonably where a concern arises then surely RSA may withdraw cover for that vehicle or put the entire scheme in doubt.
I’m sure the scheme was suspended for a time in one region for the reasons of significant misuse - sadly i’ve not been able to find a reference to my recollection.
I “think” there’s more to lots of things than meet the eye but where you end up is pretty unsavoury if that’s the starting point.
Funnily enough the first article had to offer a correction at the bottom pretty quickly. The key bit though is the paragraph which says “Motability is not so much an exercise in welfare as an industry, benefiting not just the severely disabled but car manufacturers and dealers. It is the largest fleet operator in the country, accounting for eight per cent of new sales, and its muscle in the marketplace allows it to demand good terms.”
That’s really why tracking is taking place. It can be dressed up as being about fraud but it’s also about anonymous data collection and, as John says, insurance. As irate as we might get, I don’t yet see anyone arguing that it’s a proportionate use of data under the DPA!
I absolutely agree that it very much does depend on the client group by the way. I’d also accept that some groups are more vulnerable than others. There’s lots of research being done on levels of financial abuse but the outcomes thus far have mostly triggered further research and acknowledge widespread difficulties with data collection. Not the least of the problem is that people are often accused of financial abuse when the real issue is that they simply don’t understand their obligations and professionals haven’t necessarily assisted with that.
Difficult area all round but I suspect tracking devices are a long way from being the proportionate solution. Very much a case of being careful what you wish for. Not hard to see that a further tightening of PIP could be accompanied by a separate accreditation process for Motability and a tightening of their criteria accompanied by a medical process that might be, ooh, let me guess, run by a private company. Wonder who does that sort of thing!!!
Struggling to see how this fits in with DPA principles 1 to 3. For starters there’s no “purpose” unless there’s a report from elsewhere. Kinda falls at that hurdle. As for “transparency”!!!
And to back up what Mike says by analogy, a couple of questions;
Let us assume we have a disabled client and their carer - SDP isn’t an option because of a non-dependant living with the client, so a CA claim makes sense. We are satisfied that the carer is regularly providing a significant amount of care and we advise both client and carer what ‘regularly and substantially caring’ means….
1. Do we ask the client and carer to compile a diary and record of care actually provided over, say, a four week period in order that we are satisfied that it actually is for 35 hours or more each week - and not 38 or 40 hours some weeks and 32 or 33 in others? And without this refuse to assist with the CA claim?
2. If we don’t, should we?
I don’t think caring or the amount of is the issue at hand.
Location trackers
The Motability Scheme lease package includes insurance cover for two named drivers, however regardless of who is driving the car; it should always be used for the benefit of the disabled customer.
To ensure that customers gain direct benefit from their car, and to protect the Scheme from potential abuse, we may talk to some customers about fitting a location tracker. An example of this could be if the named drivers don’t live with the disabled person, or they live in a care home where a number of drivers have access to the car.
We will always speak to a customer before fitting a location tracker to their car. In some cases this has resulted in a clear understanding that the proposed use of the vehicle is outside of Scheme rules, and has resulted in the vehicle application being withdrawn by the Scheme or, frequently, independently by the customer.
Tracker data is reviewed to monitor how the vehicle is being used and to confirm that the disabled customer is receiving the anticipated benefit. If inappropriate vehicle use is suspected the customer is contacted to discuss how the vehicle is being used. The customer will be warned of any unacceptable use and the continued use of the vehicle outside of Scheme rules will result in the lease agreement being terminated.
http://www.motability.org.uk/7._Managing_Fraud_and_Misuse.pdf
I don’t think caring or the amount of is the issue at hand.
It’s analogous though;
a) Disabled person’s named motability driver is also their next of kin. They (and the disabled person) live in rural northern England where public transport isn’t great. Next of kin uses motability vehicle to attend a review meeting of the disabled person’s care package with social services - it is proposed that care package is reduced and her placement in supported accommodation ends. Next of kin wishes to advocate for the disabled person at this meeting - unfortunately the disabled person’s mental health problems mean they find participation in such meetings too much of a challenge themselves. Abuse of the scheme?
b) Named motability driver uses the car to do her own weekly shop. This reduces both the number of shops needed (just one instead of three because she can get the lot in the boot of the car, whereas she would struggle with more than a couple of bags on public transport) and the time taken - 90 minutes all told as opposed six or seven hours otherwise. The time gained is then used to accompany the disabled person to art therapy classes and to facilitate their participation. Also to take the disabled person to a ‘hearing voices’ support group and to pick her up afterward. Without the time ‘gained’ via the ‘prohibited’ use of the vehicle, the driver/carer would not have the time available to do this. Abuse of the scheme?
Those are just examples off the top of my head, I’m sure it would be possible to come up with many more.