Orange(blue?) badge, carer
curious
with him as the registered driver in order to use my wife's orange badge
with the car.Does this automatically qualify him as a carer for her(he takes
her to hospital and other places where the use of transport is required)?
Thank you
Spock
"curious" <ora...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:aphn60$1nbtj$1...@ID-16587.news.dfncis.de...
He can ONLY use the orange/blue badge when your wife is with him. Any other
time is an OFFENCE.
address@hotmail.com islander
To be a carer he must apply through the DSS who will send the forms to be
completed. This includes verifying the disability of your wife etc and can
take quite a while. I'm afraid that someone taking a family member to
hospital etc is only doing a good deed and is not going to lead to carers
allowance being paid unless a lot more help in other ways is also given on a
daily basis (I think).
I cannot see what benefit registering his vehicle in your wife's name will
gain him as he can use your wife's blue badge IF and ONLY when she is in the
vehicle, regardless of who the vehicle belongs to. Any use of the Badge
without your wife present is an offence. I assume that this registration has
allowed him to claim road tax for the vehicle under the mobility rules. As
long as this vehicle is ONLY used for transporting your wife then all should
be well, but if it is used for your son in laws private use as well, then I
would check the legality before doing so.
I am sure that there will be many here who will correct me if and where I am
wrong.
Dave
"curious" <ora...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:aphn60$1nbtj$1...@ID-16587.news.dfncis.de...
Brian Sunderland
am wrong.
My understanding of the relevant legislation tallies with yours.
Bri
--
All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.
--Arthur Schopenhauer
Pat Winstanley
<anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> says...
> The simple answer is no.
> To be a carer he must apply through the DSS who will send the forms to be
> completed. This includes verifying the disability of your wife etc and can
> take quite a while. I'm afraid that someone taking a family member to
> hospital etc is only doing a good deed and is not going to lead to carers
> allowance being paid unless a lot more help in other ways is also given on a
> daily basis (I think).
> I cannot see what benefit registering his vehicle in your wife's name will
> gain him as he can use your wife's blue badge IF and ONLY when she is in the
> vehicle, regardless of who the vehicle belongs to. Any use of the Badge
> without your wife present is an offence. I assume that this registration has
> allowed him to claim road tax for the vehicle under the mobility rules. As
> long as this vehicle is ONLY used for transporting your wife then all should
> be well, but if it is used for your son in laws private use as well, then I
> would check the legality before doing so.
> I am sure that there will be many here who will correct me if and where I am
> wrong.
> Dave
Just want to point out that a badge holder (not the car owner in this
case) can use the badge with whichever car they happen to be travelling
in at the time. It is the badge holder who gets the parking concession,
not any particular vehicle. And the vehicle they are travelling in
doesn't have to be registered with the Blue badge scheme.
Having said that I seem to recall I was asked to write down the
registration of *a* vehicle (or perhaps it was the principal vehicle -
can't remember now) I would be using the badge with. No idea why, since
it doesn't make any difference which car I'm travelling in as to whether
or not I can use the badge concessions.
Brian Sunderland
registration of *a* vehicle (or perhaps it was the principal vehicle - can't
remember now) I would be using the badge with. No idea why, since it doesn't
make any difference which car I'm travelling in as to whether or not I can
use the badge concessions.
When I was a social worker a Local Authority I worked for asked for the car
details and registration number. We never actually recorded the details (as
we had no use for them) but it helped satisfy us a vehicle existed. Some
people with Higher Mobility (and no car) were applying for the then Orange
Badge and then selling it in the pub for £700.
removespam
wrote:
Only the person named on the badge can use the concession. The car
could be exempt from road fund license irrespective of the owner if
its used only by or for the disabled persons. Don't understand what
you mean by carer?
j
removespam
<b...@absinthebri.com> wrote:
>When I was a social worker a Local Authority
Bri.
I while ago at a meeting finalizing a budget for my sons direct
payment. I was asked if I wished to be assessed as his carer. I asked
for what reason, they said no reason just that they had to offer. Any
idea why?
j
Brian Sunderland
Probably due to the 'Community Care Act' (NHSCCA 1990). Where a local
authority is assessing a disabled person for services they also have a duty
to assess the needs of any carer(s).
removespam
<b...@absinthebri.com> wrote:
>Probably due to the 'Community Care Act' (NHSCCA 1990). Where a local
>authority is assessing a disabled person for services they also have a duty
>to assess the needs of any carer(s).
That never occurred to me. Thanks
j
address@hotmail.com islander
interest, is it a criminal offence to use the vehicle for personal use when
it is effectively registered in someone else's name, and (I suppose) that it
is tax exempt based on another persons details, even though a different
person is driving it 24/7?.. also would insurance be affected I wonder?. I
would assume that if it was used exclusively for ferrying a disabled person
around it would have to be classed as a business vehicle rather than
recreational, especially as the person insuring and driving is not the
registered owner! Therefore, would the son in law be breaking the law if he
drove the vehicle to and from his mother in laws home?.. (My head hurts
now!)
Dave
***ignorance is no excuse.... unless you work for the government!***
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q6uoru0a1h4d3q3f1...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:50:33 -0000, "curious" <ora...@spamhole.com>
> wrote:
>
> If you will pardon my puzzlement this sounds more like a scheme to
> avoid paying road tax on one of his cars. I hope I have missread your
> post.
> smicker
smicker
<anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I must admit that I too was a little puzzled.. hence my response. Out of
>interest, is it a criminal offence to use the vehicle for personal use when
>it is effectively registered in someone else's name, and (I suppose) that it
>is tax exempt based on another persons details, even though a different
>person is driving it 24/7?.. also would insurance be affected I wonder?. I
>would assume that if it was used exclusively for ferrying a disabled person
>around it would have to be classed as a business vehicle rather than
>recreational, especially as the person insuring and driving is not the
>registered owner! Therefore, would the son in law be breaking the law if he
>drove the vehicle to and from his mother in laws home?.. (My head hurts
>now!)
>Dave
>
>***ignorance is no excuse.... unless you work for the government!***
I believe that if the vehicle is taxed and therefore registered as
disabled transport it should be primarily used to transport the
disabled person. I don't think it affect the insurance and unless
somebody has got a grudge against the driver or he lives in a small
community he will prolly get away with it if he can fib a bit but it's
hardly in the spirit of the concession is it?
smicker
removespam
<anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I must admit that I too was a little puzzled.. hence my response. Out of
>interest, is it a criminal offence to use the vehicle for personal use when
>it is effectively registered in someone else's name,
No.... My son uses a car that is registered to a ltd company.
>and (I suppose) that it
>is tax exempt based on another persons details, even though a different
>person is driving it 24/7?..
No its my sons details ie higher rate mobility that is used for the
tax exemption.
>also would insurance be affected I wonder?.
> I would assume that if it
> was used exclusively for ferrying a disabled person
>around it would have to be classed as a business vehicle rather than
>recreational, especially as the person insuring and driving is not the
>registered owner!
The car would be insured for private use. It would need to be to
attract the tax exemption. The registered keeper be they a company or
individual is who is insured.
> Therefore, would the son in law be breaking the law if he
>drove the vehicle to and from his mother in laws home?.. (My head hurts
>now!)
Not if he was taking is wife with him or going there on a errand for
her.
j
removespam
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I believe that if the vehicle is taxed and therefore registered as
>disabled transport it should be primarily used to transport the
>disabled person. I don't think it affect the insurance and unless
>somebody has got a grudge against the driver or he lives in a small
>community he will prolly get away with it if he can fib a bit but it's
>hardly in the spirit of the concession is it?
Seems a grey area. If he used the car to go to and from work would
that be allowed?
j
address@hotmail.com islander
"removespam" <jn...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3dbd8e8a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 01:03:45 +0000 (UTC), "islander"
> <anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I must admit that I too was a little puzzled.. hence my response. Out of
> >interest, is it a criminal offence to use the vehicle for personal use
when
> >it is effectively registered in someone else's name,
>
> No.... My son uses a car that is registered to a ltd company.
**OK, I can see the logic of that**
> >and (I suppose) that it
> >is tax exempt based on another persons details, even though a different
> >person is driving it 24/7?..
>
> No its my sons details ie higher rate mobility that is used for the
> tax exemption.
**Yes, but in the original post the son in law is the driver of the vehicle
registered to his mother in law and with a statement of use that it is for
the sole use of the mother in law (as per the Road Tax exemption form)..
therefore wouldn't the son in law only be allowed to drive the mother in law
only, and never uses it for personal use?**
>
> >also would insurance be affected I wonder?.
> > I would assume that if it
> > was used exclusively for ferrying a disabled person
> >around it would have to be classed as a business vehicle rather than
> >recreational, especially as the person insuring and driving is not the
> >registered owner!
>
> The car would be insured for private use. It would need to be to
> attract the tax exemption. The registered keeper be they a company or
> individual is who is insured.
** yes, I can see that now**
>
> > Therefore, would the son in law be breaking the law if he
> >drove the vehicle to and from his mother in laws home?.. (My head hurts
> >now!)
>
> Not if he was taking is wife with him or going there on a errand for
> her.
>
*** In this case though, the mother in law is the passenger and I assume
that they don't all live together, so unless the vehicle is parked at the in
laws home wouldn't it be illegal to use the vehicle to drive home.... in
theory ***
I don't know where I am going with this, but it sure as hell beats trying to
sleep! I haven't used my brain like this in ages......
Dave
removespam
<anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>**Yes, but in the original post the son in law is the driver of the vehicle
>registered to his mother in law and with a statement of use that it is for
>the sole use of the mother in law (as per the Road Tax exemption form)..
>therefore wouldn't the son in law only be allowed to drive the mother in law
>only, and never uses it for personal use?**
>
Thats correct Dav he couldn't use it for his personal use.
>>
<snip>
>>
>*** In this case though, the mother in law is the passenger and I assume
>that they don't all live together, so unless the vehicle is parked at the in
>laws home wouldn't it be illegal to use the vehicle to drive home.... in
>theory ***
>
No that would be okay.
j
Brian Gaff
I'm blind, and I can use it in whatever vehicle I am in at the time, be it
minicab, volunteers or neighbour etc.
The only constraint is I must be a passenger and, it appears, my carer, for
this occasion, must not say, come round to the front to gelp me, using my
badge while he or she picks me up. Silly, but traffic wardens have their
sense of stupid rules removed before getting the job.
If you are asking because you need proof of the person being a carer for
other reasons, then I must pass, as i have never tried to claim, as no one
person is my carer.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - Sorry, can't see pictures, graphics are great, but the blind
can't hear them
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
"curious" <ora...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:aphn60$1nbtj$1...@ID-16587.news.dfncis.de...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/02
Pat Winstanley
@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Do not think the registration of the vehicle matters, as I have a badge cos
> I'm blind, and I can use it in whatever vehicle I am in at the time, be it
> minicab, volunteers or neighbour etc.
>
> The only constraint is I must be a passenger and, it appears, my carer, for
> this occasion, must not say, come round to the front to gelp me, using my
> badge while he or she picks me up. Silly, but traffic wardens have their
> sense of stupid rules removed before getting the job.
>
>
Um, no... the driver is allowed to drive into and stop in an (otherwise
restricted) spot to drop you off or pick you up, even though coming into
or going out from that area you aren't in the vehicle.
Derek Hornby
> Seems a grey area. If he used the car to go to and from work would
> that be allowed?
according to the rules, no.
The rules say:
If you are disabled you may qualify for exemption from paying Vehicle Excise
Duty (Road Tax). To qualify: -
You must receive the higher rate of the Mobility Component of Disability Living
Allowance or:
War Disablement Pensione Mobility Supplement
You must produce a valid exemption certificate as proof of receipt of the
necessary allowance.
You do not necessarily have to be a driver or own your own vehicle - you can
name a person to drive on your behalf (a nominee)
The vehicle must be registered either in your name, or in the name of the
nominee - the exemption certificate will show your name and that of the nominee.
The vehicle must only be used by the disabled person or for their direct
purposes and never used in a way that is not directly for the purposes of the
disabled person or the exemption will be lost.
You can only licence one vehicle at a time - further vehicles will need to pay
normal Road Tax.
If the disabled person is not driving or a passenger in the
vehicle, it can only be used to do errands for the disabled person, such as
shopping or obtaining prescriptions.
There is no restriction on who may drive the vehicle on behalf of the disabled
person, as long as they are insured to do so.
To obtain a free Road Tax disc you will need to make your first application to
a DVLA Local Office. You will need to send or take the following documents:
-
Vehicle licence application form V10
Valid Test Certificate
Certificate of insurance or cover note
Exemption Certificate - DLA404 or WPA442. This is not required to license
invalid carriages.
Vehicle Registration Document V5 or New Keepers Supplement V5/2 - green
section - if a recently obtained vehicle and an application for V62 or an
application for a vehicle registration document V62 - if you have no V5 or
V5/2.
The DVLA Local Office will issue the disabled licence disc and pass all papers
to DVLA Swansea. You will then receive a new registration document showing
your new taxation class. Renewal reminders will be sent two weeks before the
disc expires and you will need to re-licence at a licence issuing Post Office
If you are buying a new vehicle and a dealer is registering it for the first
time you will need to let them have your exemption certificate. They will
make the application on your behalf to a DVLA Local Office or if they are
linked to the Automated First Registration and Licensing System (AFRL) they
will register and license the vehicle at their own premises. You should ensure
that the dealer does not retain your certificate once the vehicle is licensed.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> My son in law has had one of his cars registered in my disabled wife's name
> with him as the registered driver in order to use my wife's orange badge
> with the car.
Bit of confusion here. Any qualified driver is allowed to drive anyone with a
blue or orange badge. The badge can be used for any car, with any qualified
driver.
> Does this automatically qualify him as a carer for her
no.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> If you will pardon my puzzlement this sounds more like a scheme to
> avoid paying road tax on one of his cars.
Correct, but legal.
> I hope I have missread your post.
Why should anyone pay tax, that isn't due?
In this case, there are two cars, one is to be used for the benefit of
a disabled person, and so road tax is not payable if the conditions are met.
one might wonder why are there 2 cars. Clearly if there was only one car,
the son-in-law would not be able to drive anywhere for his own benefit,
as the disabled road tax exemption is only for a car that is for the sole
benefit of the disabled person.
Derek
Peter V Rawlings
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18272cbaf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <apivdg$1uonk$1...@ID-105134.news.dfncis.de>,
,,,,,,,,,
>
> Um, no... the driver is allowed to drive into and stop in an (otherwise
> restricted) spot to drop you off or pick you up, even though coming into
> or going out from that area you aren't in the vehicle.
>
>
>
The following is the most 'accessible' site detailing the features of Blue
Badge provisions. It might be helpful to read this and quote its URL the
next time the bandwidth demand goes up again on this topic!!
http://www.bluebadge.org/introduction.htm
The section on Where to use... has got the relevant info (to answer the
original enquiry) a few pages down.
Cheers,
Pete.
removespam
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>The rules say:
>
<snip>
>
>The vehicle must only be used by the disabled person or for their direct
>purposes and never used in a way that is not directly for the purposes of the
>disabled person or the exemption will be lost.
>
That's the grey area. If the husband was disabled and the wife used
the car to and from work allowing her to increase the family budget
that would be a direct benefit for the husband.
j
Derek Hornby
> The section on Where to use... has got the relevant info (to answer the
> original enquiry)
So, why are you only providing a link, to a website? Why
not take the time to *answer* the original poster?
And for the record, I agree with what Pat said.
Derek
smicker
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Surely the point is Derek why should someone buy a second car just to
>avoid paying the road tax on it. Surely it would be more in line with
>reasoned thought to keep to one car and the disabled person can bung
>him a few bob now and then. It sounds like a scheme to me to use the
>blue badge and not pay the road tax but more for the benefit of the
>car owner than the disabled person but I maybe wrong as I am no more
>infallible than anyone else.
>smicker
On second thoughts why doesn't he get a mobility car and give up work
and become her carer and whenever he wants to go down the pub or
shopping or whatever he can just chuck the old lady in the car and
leave her there for the day. Then he could sell his cars, get a free
one (free to him) and be paid to drive it where and when ever he
wants, He might even find that there are a few other schemes that
carers can use to bolster their income such as registering her for
special education, holidays etc and if he does this properly he can
handle the account himself and get some £42K a year apparently. Sounds
like a good racket to me if you know how to work the system but it's
best to keep your head down or you may attract attention especially if
you are outspoken and annoy people.
smicker
removespam
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On second thoughts why doesn't he get a mobility car and give up work
>and become her carer
You mean change his job to that of a carer?
>and whenever he wants to go down the pub or
>shopping or whatever he can just chuck the old lady in the car and
>leave her there for the day.
Then he would lose the job.
> Then he could sell his cars, get a free
>one (free to him)
No he wouldn't his employer would
> and be paid to drive it where and when ever he
>wants,
No its where the owner of the car wants to go. not him he is but a
paid employer.
> He might even find that there are a few other schemes that
>carers can use to bolster their income such as registering her for
>special education, holidays etc
How would that increase his income?
> and if he does this properly he can
>handle the account himself
How?
> and get some £42K a year apparently.
How
> Sounds
>like a good racket to me
Sounds like a brilliant one. Hope its not another one of your stories
>if you know how to work the system
Can't wait for your next post explaining how its done Tommy.
>but it's
>best to keep your head down or you may attract attention especially if
>you are outspoken and annoy people.
Is that important?
j
curious
My son in law has often had more than one car.He is one of those people who
likes tinkering with cars,Fixing them up and selling for a profit or using
for himself until he gets bored and takes a shine to another one.
Not my kind of thing(i am clueless about cars) but not exactly devious.
Peter V Rawlings
"Derek Hornby"
.........
> So, why are you only providing a link, to a website?
...because we've 'been here' only a few weeks ago (so it seems!) and all the
good advice has been presented before. Seems daft to re-invent the already
shiny new wheel?
> Why not take the time to *answer* the original poster?
Plenty of folks have already said good things, but the 'site I quoted says
it all in a very digestible and reasonably accessible way.
> And for the record, I agree with what Pat said.
...."and for the record", so do I - and I agreed with it the last time Pat
elaborated. All I am saying is that to restate opinions is wasteful and can
lead to mistake, or partial inaccuracy. As in other recent situations, it is
usually better to quote a source that may be tracking changes in the subject
area. Hopefully, the BB scheme is fairly settled, but in general, a single
point of reference is better, IMHO.
Pete.
removespam
wrote:
>My son in law has often had more than one car.
No need to explain. You should be proud of your son in law for looking
after hs wifes family. Many can't even be bothered to look after their
own.
j
smicker
wrote:
>
>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8mjqru47qdjgvqrpa...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC), smicker
>> <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC), "Derek Hornby"
>> ><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
major snip
>My son in law has often had more than one car.He is one of those people who
>likes tinkering with cars,Fixing them up and selling for a profit or using
>for himself until he gets bored and takes a shine to another one.
>Not my kind of thing(i am clueless about cars) but not exactly devious.
Yes of course but there are some who are devious unlike you. I think
your son-in-law will find his activities somewhat cramped as when ever
he wants to sell the car he will have to remove the tax and surrender
it and the log book will show the car is registered as a disabled
class vehicle which means the new owner will have to re-register and
re-tax the car. This is not the sort of aggravation most people would
want with a second hand car bearing in mind that it cannot be used
until it is re taxed.
smicker
smicker
wrote:
>
You should be proud of your son-in-law. Many people can't be bothered
to look after their own kids until they discover the wonderful
benefits arrangements and the mobility car etc.
smicker
removespam
Tommy what are these wonderful benefits. You have stated a figure of
£42,000 plus. can you back that up or is this yet another example of
your small minded prejudice
j
Derek Hornby
> Tommy what are these wonderful benefits. You have stated a figure of
> £42,000 plus. can you back that up or is this yet another example of
> your small minded prejudice
I see Tomy has not responded to the question here?
Derek
removespam
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tommy what are these wonderful benefits. You have stated a figure of
>>> £42,000 plus. can you back that up or is this yet another example of
>>> your small minded prejudice
>>
>>I see Tomy has not responded to the question here?
>>Derek
>
>See my previous post.
Or in other words Derek I was talking bollocks now I have been asked
to explain. I have run away to hid ;-)
j
smicker
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC), smicker
><ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC), "Derek Hornby"
>><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>On second thoughts why doesn't he get a mobility car and give up work
>and become her carer and whenever he wants to go down the pub or
>shopping or whatever he can just chuck the old lady in the car and
>leave her there for the day. Then he could sell his cars, get a free
>one (free to him) and be paid to drive it where and when ever he
>wants, He might even find that there are a few other schemes that
>carers can use to bolster their income such as registering her for
>special education, holidays etc and if he does this properly he can
>handle the account himself and get some £42K a year apparently. Sounds
>like a good racket to me if you know how to work the system but it's
>best to keep your head down or you may attract attention especially if
>you are outspoken and annoy people.
>smicker
On this ng there is a regular poster who is not disabled but a few
weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets £42K p.a. as a
budget towards his childs care.
smicker
Derek Hornby
> On this ng there is a regular poster who is not disabled but a few
> weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets Ł42K p.a. as a
> budget towards his childs care.
So if anyone gets what they are entitled to, aare you jealous.
And if you think about it, man many disabled pele get far more
than you seem to think. I personally have a friend who gets around
Ł700 a week, so that's Ł36400 a year.
This sort of money is usually for those that need 24 hour care.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> the parent CAN use the car <normally> as well as for when she
> transports her son (or needs the car for related purposes such as
> getting medication, etc.)
No, not true. If the car is exempt fro road tax, it can only be used
for the direct benefit of the named disabled person.
Derek
Tom
name
> with him as the registered driver in order to use my wife's orange badge
takes
> her to hospital and other places where the use of transport is required)?
>
> Thank you
>
It's underhand tactics like this to get a Blue badge that will be the demise
of the system for all disabled people. Please post the car registration
number in a reply so that a more detailed answer can be given.
removespam
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On this ng there is a regular poster who is not disabled but a few
>weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets Ł42K p.a. as a
>budget towards his childs care.
Now who was that ? I thought you where referring to me, But has my son
is not a child and receives a great deal more than the sum mentioned
it must be somebody else you are accusing of criminal activity.
j.
removespam
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>So if anyone gets what they are entitled to, aare you jealous.
>
Derek smirker and his elk are the type of people that make others
feel guilty because they have a disability. He was advising a poster
the other day to grin and bear it. Says a lot about the person he is.
j
removespam
<ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Previous comments about the BB are quite correct - it can ONLY be used
>>when the disabled person is using the vehicle - not for convenience
>>when shopping, etc.
>>
>>J
>
>I suspect that it is not unknown for a carer to force his charge into
>traveling with him just to get the use of the car and badge
My my smirker what kind of a mind would think like that.
j
smicker
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> On this ng there is a regular poster who is not disabled but a few
>> weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets £42K p.a. as a
>> budget towards his childs care.
>
>So if anyone gets what they are entitled to, aare you jealous.
>
>And if you think about it, man many disabled pele get far more
>than you seem to think. I personally have a friend who gets around
>£700 a week, so that's £36400 a year.
>This sort of money is usually for those that need 24 hour care.
>
>Derek
Don't be silly Derek, how could I possibly be jealous of somebody who
is worse of then me to such an extent that 24 hr care is needed. I
have told you many times before I am jealous of no one, I am very
happy to be alive and that is good enough for me.Money is not then end
of the world. I've had it and I know it certainly brought me no
happiness.
smicker
NOOne
you many times before I am jealous of no one, I am very
> happy to be alive and that is good enough for me.Money is not then end
> of the world. I've had it and I know it certainly brought me no
> happiness.
> smicker
Well, my father says that, and it is true, to a point, but as he also syas,
I wouldn't mind more of the happiness. If money is such a burden, or so
meaningless, I'll be happy to lift the burden from you. :)
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
Peter V Rawlings
"NOOne"
....
>
> Well, my father says that, and it is true, to a point, but as he also
syas,
>
> I wouldn't mind more of the happiness. If money is such a burden, or so
> meaningless, I'll be happy to lift the burden from you. :)
>
>
Yeah! I remember that one from the old-and-the-wise one too!
I have said before - and I see no reason to change - that it's the <choice>
that money <can> provide that really helps anyone's situation. There are
many who are a slave to its generation and they are (or their families are)
the worse for it!
Clearly, very few who are gathered here 'on-line' are actually 'breadlining'
and so the extreme lower limit is not the dominant issue, perhaps. But the
scope for large instantaneous deficit in the balance is there, as anyone who
still runs a car will know! :-(
Choice! That's what I'd willingly work for!
Cheers,
Pete.
curious
"Tom" <t...@laburnumcottage.com> wrote in message
news:4DLv9.3301$yG1.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Are you saying that as someone in receipt of high rate mobility my wife is
not entitled to a blue badge?
NOOne
"Peter V Rawlings" <peter_v....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0zSv9.2180$pI2.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Well put, Peter...I agree.
I think money is as "evel" as the people who control it.
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
Derek Hornby
> I have said before - and I see no reason to change - that it's the <choice>
> that money <can> provide that really helps anyone's situation.
Only an issue if one wants more choices.
Some people maybe happy with what they have, and not seek to be greedy for
more, cake.
> Clearly, very few who are gathered here 'on-line' are actually 'breadlining'
Why clearly, you're just assuming.
> Choice! That's what I'd willingly work for!
Well, you're not doing that badly compared to many poor folks out on the
street. You've got a 3 bedroom house and government is paying the
mortgage, and yet, at ten of the day when that house is paid for, you get to
keep the house. Really the state should get there money back when house is
sold.
Be happy with what you have, like the free education for your children, free
medical care for your family, what more do you expect.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Derek smirker and his elk are the type of people that make others
> feel guilty because they have a disability.
Yes, I get that impression as well. He has also been making silly comments
about my income, as if it was his business, but there we are, this is
how jealous people react.
> He was advising a poster
> the other day to grin and bear it. Says a lot about the person he is.
mmm, no understanding of real world, just Tommy's world.
He maybe thinks we should all just accept how we are treated, by society,
rather than fight, campaign for a better deal.
Now my granddad once said, "you get nowhere in this world, if you jus sit on
backside, if you want a better life fight for it, campaign for it, but
don't just moan for it." How right he was.
>
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Don't be silly Derek, how could I possibly be jealous of somebody who
> is worse of then me to such an extent that 24 hr care is needed.
So, why do you give the impression that you're bitter, and jealous, that
The state is rightly giving Jim's son what he's entitled to.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Now who was that ? I thought you where referring to me, But has my son
> is not a child and receives a great deal more than the sum mentioned
> it must be somebody else you are accusing of criminal activity.
I agree Tommy is talking nonsense. And if he was referring to you, was it
slander, as he seems to be suggesting you were breaking law, or cheating
the system. but not so, you are getting for your son what he's legally
entitled to.
Derek
NOOne
> I am virtually "breadlining" now but I get along fine. Before I was a
> slave to financial reward and I earned really big money for a boy from
> a council estate with little education. I worked too hard and I drank
> too hard and nearly died. Now everything is a bonus and I want for
> nothing. We still have our own house but the XJ6 has given way to an
> old Polo and we never eat out. I no longer drink or smoke or even
> socialise but I am alive and still brain intact even if the rest of my
> body is failing so far I have had an extra 25 months of life and I am
> content.
> smicker
Sounds like you are arguing more against smoking and drinking than money.
Sounds like that's what the real problem was. Is there a link with the
socializing and big money and eating out?
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
NOOne
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:app5ei$g1u$4...@helle.btinternet.com...
> "removespam" <jn...@lineone.net> wrote
>
> > Derek smirker and his elk are the type of people that make others
> > feel guilty because they have a disability.
NObody can make you feel guilty. True, some people monopolize on the ability
of others to feel a certain way, but we can't blame others.
NOOne
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:es20sus5ksbr9dhhl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:04:52 -0000, "Peter V Rawlings"
> <peter_v....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"NOOne" said something
> snip
snip should be <snip>
> >"NOOne" said something
Yes, I have been told that my writing is very stirring. I am happy that at
least I'm being heard and not ignored :)
>>
> I am virtually "breadlining" now but I get along fine. Before I was a
> slave to financial reward and I earned really big money for a boy from
> a council estate with little education. I worked too hard and I drank
> too hard and nearly died. Now everything is a bonus and I want for
> nothing. We still have our own house but the XJ6 has given way to an
I'll wager if you lost your house you might have a different take on this.
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
smicker
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Yes, I get that impression as well. He has also been making silly comments
> about my income, as if it was his business, but there we are, this is
>how jealous people react.
I have told you a hundred times Derek that I am not jealous
(especially of you) LOL
>He maybe thinks we should all just accept how we are treated, by society,
>rather than fight, campaign for a better deal.
Wrong, very wrong. I believe in fighting for all disabled or
disadvantaged whereas you are only interested in your own status.
>
>Now my granddad once said, "you get nowhere in this world, if you jus sit on
>backside, if you want a better life fight for it, campaign for it, but
>don't just moan for it."
But you just moan at your fellow disadvantaged people so why not fight
for them rather than telling everybody " it's against the law or it's
discrimination" We in this group know all about discrimination or had
you thought that this only happened to people you read about in the
newspapers?
smicker
smicker
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Don't be silly Derek, how could I possibly be jealous of somebody who
>> is worse of then me to such an extent that 24 hr care is needed.
>
>So, why do you give the impression that you're bitter, and jealous,
I don't give any impression, you take them wrongly and for your
information I am all for disabled people getting whatever they can get
that will improve their plight including Peter who you were just
ranting at again.
smicker
smicker
I most certainly would but fortunately it's paid for but I can
appreciate the plight of others who lose everything but that which is
most precious to me is my wife and with her I can take anything.
smicker
address@hotmail.com islander
was that to some it is a strange way to go about transporting your wife
around. I am sure that your son in law is a wonderful person but there are
many who abuse the badge scheme, and it is the likes of us on the NG who
invariably cop the fall out. Of course your wife is entitled to the badge,
and as long as the vehicle is used ONLY for travel either with, or solely
for your wife, then he would also be perfectly entitled to claim road fund
license as well (if that is what he has done).. Your original post was about
being a carer and I think that this was answered at the beginning. It is a
credit to your son in law that he has bought and paid for a car solely for
your wife's benefit.
Dave
"curious" <ora...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:apoueb$3hm4i$1...@ID-16587.news.dfncis.de...
NOOne
> In my case there was but by no means does this effect others. I just
> done too much of everything because I was able to and I never believed
> that one day it would all come to an end. Money was a god to me but no
> more. I live a simple life and I am more relaxed and content than I
> have ever been. In the past I could be woken in the middle of the
> night with a terrible hangover and be flying off to some hell hole
> within hours. It's a wonder I lasted as long as i did.
> smicker
That is good that things are better now. I didn't want to imply anything in
other posts. I know how some people on this NG are :) If that works for
you, that is fine. Never having had to worry about money as a "god" as I am
sure many people are in a similar situation as I am, it is certanly easy to
see the "grass as being greener" on the "other side." I wouldn't mind having
a go at it though.
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
removespam
<peter_v....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>There are
>many who are a slave to its generation and they are (or their families are)
>the worse for it!
Very true. Many people have wasted the first half of their lives
worrying about accumulating it and the second half worrying about
keeping it.
j
NOOne
> If you mean you wouldn't mind having money there's nothing wrong with
> that it only the odd one out who can't hack it sensibly. But be aware
> no one is going to give you money for nothing,you have to work for it
> and the greater the rewards the more risky the task and the harder the
> work. I was unusual in staying around as long as I did. I was 57
> before my body cracked up and I had been at it for 30 years.
> smicker
I of course an in total agreement. I have actually done a lot of thinking
about this. I was not very successful in starting my own business. I don't
really :) expect free money. I don't mind working for it (within reason). I
guess I fell into the trap that it will come easy. I really would rather
have enough "just to get" by than to be rich.
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
NOOne
> Very true. Many people have wasted the first half of their lives
> worrying about accumulating it and the second half worrying about
> keeping it.
True. My father says he wasn't careful enough in saving it. I am more with
him. I wouldn't worry about it too much and probably spend what I have. (I
do now, even though I don't have much). I suspect there must be some kind of
balance.
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
Derek Hornby
> I don't give any impression, you take them wrongly and for your
> information I am all for disabled people getting whatever they can get
> that will improve their plight
Then why did you make silly comments about "wonderful benefits"
Jim asked you to explain, you refused?
You also appeared to be against Jim and his son, for not better reason that
Son gets his rights.
As fpr comments to Peter, i am simply saying that he's not as badly off
as he seems to claim. Certainly many people would love to have what he has,
or you have, or i have! The point is there is no need to be greedy.
Derek
smicker
The secret is finding that balance. I never did, I always thought that
I would be in demand and the money would continue to flow and so I
spent it as I got it. I hadn't reckoned on being disabled but that is
all history now.
smicker
Len
"curious" <ora...@spamhole.com> wrote in message
news:aphn60$1nbtj$1...@ID-16587.news.dfncis.de...
> My son in law has had one of his cars registered in my disabled wife's
name
> with him as the registered driver in order to use my wife's orange badge
> with the car.Does this automatically qualify him as a carer for her(he
takes
> her to hospital and other places where the use of transport is required)?
>
> Thank you
>
>
Are you asking can your son in law use the badge for his own purpose - if so
the answer is no.
He can only be her carer if he applies for care allowance from the DSS your
wife would have to be receiving DLA care component (M/HRate).
if he has registered his car in her name possibility to save on tax.
Len
Len
> "smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > On this ng there is a regular poster who is not disabled but a few
> > weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets £42K p.a. as a
> > budget towards his childs care.
>
> So if anyone gets what they are entitled to, aare you jealous.
>
> And if you think about it, man many disabled pele get far more
> than you seem to think. I personally have a friend who gets around
> £700 a week, so that's £36400 a year.
> This sort of money is usually for those that need 24 hour care.
>
> Derek
>
>
£700 a week?
Len
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:30:05 -0000, "curious" <ora...@spamhole.com>> >news:8mjqru47qdjgvqrpa...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC), smicker
> >> <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC), "Derek Hornby"> major snip
> >My son in law has often had more than one car.He is one of those people
who
> >likes tinkering with cars,Fixing them up and selling for a profit or
using
> >for himself until he gets bored and takes a shine to another one.
> >Not my kind of thing(i am clueless about cars) but not exactly devious.
>
> Yes of course but there are some who are devious unlike you. I think
> your son-in-law will find his activities somewhat cramped as when ever
> he wants to sell the car he will have to remove the tax and surrender
> it and the log book will show the car is registered as a disabled
> class vehicle which means the new owner will have to re-register and
> re-tax the car. This is not the sort of aggravation most people would
> want with a second hand car bearing in mind that it cannot be used
> until it is re taxed.
> smicker
>
>
you after an OBE
Len
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:30:05 -0000, "curious" <ora...@spamhole.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8mjqru47qdjgvqrpa...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC), smicker
> >> <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC), "Derek Hornby"
> >> ><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>> avoid paying road tax on one of his cars.
> >> >>
> >> >>Correct, but legal.
> >> >>
> >> >>> I hope I have missread your post.
> >> >>
> >> >>Why should anyone pay tax, that isn't due?
> >> >>
> >> >>In this case, there are two cars, one is to be used for the benefit
of
> >> >>a disabled person, and so road tax is not payable if the conditions
are
> >met.
> >> >>
> >> >>one might wonder why are there 2 cars. Clearly if there was only one
> >car,
> >> >>the son-in-law would not be able to drive anywhere for his own
benefit,
> >> >>as the disabled road tax exemption is only for a car that is for the
> >sole
> >> >>benefit of the disabled person.
> >> >>
> >> >>Derek
> >> >
> >> >Surely the point is Derek why should someone buy a second car just to
> >> >avoid paying the road tax on it. Surely it would be more in line with
> >> >reasoned thought to keep to one car and the disabled person can bung
> >> >him a few bob now and then. It sounds like a scheme to me to use the
> >> >blue badge and not pay the road tax but more for the benefit of the
> >> >car owner than the disabled person but I maybe wrong as I am no more
> >> >infallible than anyone else.
> >> >smicker
> >>
> >> On second thoughts why doesn't he get a mobility car and give up work
> >> and become her carer and whenever he wants to go down the pub or
> >> shopping or whatever he can just chuck the old lady in the car and
> >> leave her there for the day. Then he could sell his cars, get a free
> >> one (free to him) and be paid to drive it where and when ever he
> >> wants, He might even find that there are a few other schemes that
> >> carers can use to bolster their income such as registering her for
> >> special education, holidays etc and if he does this properly he can
> >> handle the account himself and get some £42K a year apparently. Sounds
> >> like a good racket to me if you know how to work the system but it's
> >> best to keep your head down or you may attract attention especially if
> >> you are outspoken and annoy people.
> >> smicker
> >>
> >
> >My son in law has often had more than one car.He is one of those people
who
> >likes tinkering with cars,Fixing them up and selling for a profit or
using
> >for himself until he gets bored and takes a shine to another one.
> >Not my kind of thing(i am clueless about cars) but not exactly devious.
>
> to look after their own kids until they discover the wonderful
> benefits arrangements and the mobility car etc.
> smicker
>
thats probably why the son in law is now concerned
Len
> "removespam" <jn...@lineone.net> wrote
>
>
> > Tommy what are these wonderful benefits. You have stated a figure of
> > £42,000 plus. can you back that up or is this yet another example of
> > your small minded prejudice
>
> I see Tomy has not responded to the question here?
> Derek
>
>
>
Derek talking to smicker its like giving candy to a kid
Len
Len
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:58:26 +0000 (UTC), smicker
> <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC), smicker
> ><ross...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:18:15 +0000 (UTC), "Derek Hornby"
> >><derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
> >and become her carer and whenever he wants to go down the pub or
> >shopping or whatever he can just chuck the old lady in the car and
> >leave her there for the day. Then he could sell his cars, get a free
> >one (free to him) and be paid to drive it where and when ever he
> >wants, He might even find that there are a few other schemes that
> >carers can use to bolster their income such as registering her for
> >special education, holidays etc and if he does this properly he can
> >handle the account himself and get some £42K a year apparently. Sounds
> >like a good racket to me if you know how to work the system but it's
> >best to keep your head down or you may attract attention especially if
> >you are outspoken and annoy people.
> >smicker
>
> weeks ago he amazed a few by stating that he gets £42K p.a. as a
> budget towards his childs care.
>
He probably does have the mobility car - come on wake up.
Len
smicker
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> I don't give any impression, you take them wrongly and for your
>> information I am all for disabled people getting whatever they can get
>> that will improve their plight
>
>Then why did you make silly comments about "wonderful benefits"
>Jim asked you to explain, you refused?
>
>You also appeared to be against Jim and his son, for not better reason that
>Son gets his rights.
I have already told you I ignore the person you refer and any comment
about him or on his behalf. He can also killfile me if he wants in
fact I wish he would.
>
>As fpr comments to Peter, i am simply saying that he's not as badly off
>as he seems to claim. Certainly many people would love to have what he has,
>or you have, or i have! The point is there is no need to be greedy.
I am not greedy and although slightly needy I am content,ok?
smicker
Derek Hornby
> Wrong, very wrong. I believe in fighting for all disabled or
> disadvantaged
Ok, so tell us which campaigns you've been involved with, that don't
benefit you, personally?
> whereas you are only interested in your own status.
Well, I find that very funny, and so would my colleagues.
> But you just moan at your fellow disadvantaged people
Who are the disadvantaged people.
> so why not fight for them
who's them?
> rather than telling everybody " it's against the law
"It's against the law" what does the *it's* refer to?
you're making no ssnee now.
> or it's discrimination"
It often is discrimination, yes, so why put up0 with it?
> We in this group know all about discrimination
So, why accept it?
Derek
smicker
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Wrong, very wrong. I believe in fighting for all disabled or
>> disadvantaged
>
>Ok, so tell us which campaigns you've been involved with, that don't
>benefit you, personally?
As I only understand what my situation is I do not campaign, it's too
"look at me" if you get my drift.
>
>> whereas you are only interested in your own status.
>
>Well, I find that very funny, and so would my colleagues.
Your colleagues? get real Derek.
>
>
>> But you just moan at your fellow disadvantaged people
>
>Who are the disadvantaged people.
>
>> so why not fight for them
>
>who's them?
You can not even make a case with your edited versions of my posts can
you?
>
>> rather than telling everybody " it's against the law
>
>"It's against the law" what does the *it's* refer to?
> you're making no ssnee now.
I fail to ssnee your point there Drek.
>
>> or it's discrimination"
>
>It often is discrimination, yes, so why put up0 with it?
>
>> We in this group know all about discrimination
>
>So, why accept it?
I ain't about to kick up because I have been given another 25 months
of life. The fact that I no longer get invited to play football or go
to a dance are natural discriminations that I understand and accept. I
don't expect people to make special arrangements for me because I
pissed my health away whereas you imagine every disagreement to be a
personal slight upon your grand self caused by your condition which
you are so unfairly inflicted with and which has prevented you from
ruling the world. It's so unfair that not everybody else is inflicted
as you are or even a little worse so that you could still be superior
to the rest of the world or something like that. Sob Sob.
smicker
Len
maybe if you have brought this miserable life on yourself you should live
with it and leave others alone
Len
Len
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:58:57 -0500, "NOOne" <1...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> I am virtually "breadlining" now but I get along fine. Before I was a
> >> slave to financial reward and I earned really big money for a boy from
> >> a council estate with little education. I worked too hard and I drank
> >> too hard and nearly died. Now everything is a bonus and I want for
> >> nothing. We still have our own house but the XJ6 has given way to an
> >> socialise but I am alive and still brain intact even if the rest of my
> >> body is failing so far I have had an extra 25 months of life and I am
> >> content.
> >> smicker
> >
> >Sounds like you are arguing more against smoking and drinking than money.
> >Sounds like that's what the real problem was. Is there a link with the
> >socializing and big money and eating out?
>
> In my case there was but by no means does this effect others. I just
> done too much of everything because I was able to and I never believed
> that one day it would all come to an end. Money was a god to me but no
> more. I live a simple life and I am more relaxed and content than I
> have ever been. In the past I could be woken in the middle of the
> night with a terrible hangover and be flying off to some hell hole
> within hours. It's a wonder I lasted as long as i did.
> smicker
>
so we may not to put up with your moans for much longer then
Len
Alan White
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:14:35 GMT, isat...@isatlarge.fsworld.co.uk
> (Jaime) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 01:03:45 +0000 (UTC), "islander"
> ><anonexistantemail add...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Out of
> >>interest, is it a criminal offence to use the vehicle for personal use
when
> >>it is effectively registered in someone else's name, and (I suppose)
that it
> >>is tax exempt based on another persons details, even though a different
> >>person is driving it 24/7?.. also would insurance be affected I wonder?.
I
> >>would assume that if it was used exclusively for ferrying a disabled
person
> >>around it would have to be classed as a business vehicle rather than
> >>recreational, especially as the person insuring and driving is not the
> >>registered owner! Therefore, would the son in law be breaking the law if
he
> >>drove the vehicle to and from his mother in laws home?.. (My head hurts
> >>now!)
> >
> >We have cars in the family which are road tax exempt for a child and
> >the parent CAN use the car <normally> as well as for when she
> >transports her son (or needs the car for related purposes such as
> >getting medication, etc.)
> >
> >The car is registered in the son's name but the only insured driver is
> >the parent.
> >
> >Although the rules say that the vehicle can only be used on behalf of
> >the disabled person (transport, collecting prescritions, etc) I have
> >never heard of a prosecution where the occasional use for other
> >purposes was discovered. It would be easily circumvented anyway - all
> >a person would need to do would be to claim a trip was necessary to
> >buy something or collect something for the disabled person. Using the
> >car to get to work daily - or lending it to somebody else in the
> >family for their holidays would be quite a different matter.
> >
> >The car has to be <primarily> used for the disabled child (or person).
> >
> >Previous comments about the BB are quite correct - it can ONLY be used
> >when the disabled person is using the vehicle - not for convenience
> >when shopping, etc.
> >
> >J
>
> I suspect that it is not unknown for a carer to force his charge into
> traveling with him just to get the use of the car and badge,
> smicker
>
whos this prat smicker? - is he trying to make us feel sorry for him?
NOOne
> "smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Wrong, very wrong. I believe in fighting for all disabled or
> > disadvantaged
>
> Ok, so tell us which campaigns you've been involved with, that don't
> benefit you, personally?
You first! You first! You haven't either!
>
> > whereas you are only interested in your own status.
>
> Well, I find that very funny, and so would my colleagues.
>
>
> > But you just moan at your fellow disadvantaged people
>
> Who are the disadvantaged people.
Sounds like the Eliza computer program conversations I had. Eliza was a
simulated shrink.
>
> > so why not fight for them
>
> who's them?
>
> > rather than telling everybody " it's against the law
>
> "It's against the law" what does the *it's* refer to?
> you're making no ssnee now.
No, even the Eliza computer program had better comebacks than that :)
>
> > or it's discrimination"
>
> It often is discrimination, yes, so why put up0 with it?
>
> > We in this group know all about discrimination
>
> So, why accept it? Derek, over and out!
--
http://speech_for_blind.tripod.com
Derek Hornby
> As I only understand what my situation is I do not campaign, it's too
> "look at me" if you get my drift.
So, stop sneering at those that *do* get involved in campaigning issues.
> Your colleagues? get real Derek.
I don't understand sneering comment.
> You can not even make a case with your edited versions of my posts can
> you?
case for what?
> I fail to ssnee your point there Drek.
You said "it's against the law" but didn't say what you were referring to?
> I ain't about to kick up because I have been given another 25 months
> of life.
but you seem to expect others to just accept discrimination?
Derek
Derek Hornby
> You first! You first! You haven't either!
Actually I have, and still do.
1. I sit on a committee known as Telecommunication action group.
The main campaigning issues for this committee are about access to the
PTN by the deaf, deaf blind, hard of hearing, and speech impaired.
So some of the issues don't benefit me, personally.
2. I am also involved with a RNIB eyesight campaign, and can give details of
this over weekend. Just done letter to MP.
3. I've been involved locally, on issues regarding disability access.
4. Because of my contacts within BT, I will sometimes take up issues
for any disabled person, of a general issue. For example, lighting in
new styple payphones, or issues about textdirect, or issues about
Typetaalk assist.
Derek
Buffy
road tax exemption - didnt know about it beforehand
I drive the car 99% of the time but occasionally my husband drives it - to
collect one of the children for me or get some shopping etc or maybe even
cos he simply needs the capacity of my larger car ( people carrier) IF I
take up the tax exemption does this mean he would never be able to drive it
legally?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 02/11/2002
Derek Hornby
> I drive the car 99% of the time but occasionally my husband drives it - to
> collect one of the children for me or get some shopping etc or maybe even
> cos he simply needs the capacity of my larger car ( people carrier) IF I
> take up the tax exemption does this mean he would never be able to drive it
> legally?
it depends on the reason he's driving.
The relavant rules say:
You do not necessarily have to be a driver or own your own vehicle - you can
name a person to drive on your behalf (a nominee)
The vehicle must be registered either in your name, or in the name of the
nominee - the exemption certificate will show your name and that of the nominee.
The vehicle must only be used by the disabled person or for their direct
purposes and never used in a way that is not directly for the purposes of the
disabled person or the exemption will be lost.
Derek
Buffy
for me directly as a purpose for me as it is making my life easier - also
shopping for me obviously makes my life easier as i dont have to do it but
if it means he couldnt use the car to say visit the tip or go somewhere for
the weekend then its not worth having - what happens to familys who are
entitled to this but have only one car which IS used to directly benefit the
disabled member of the family but also to get the main bread winner to/from
work?!!
I mean theres taking the pee and theres taking the pee - this is basically
preventing those who have one car from taking up a 'benefit' that should be
available to them!
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:aq3ebt$qnl$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/2002
Pat Winstanley
says...
> I have just been awarded HR Mobility and so have now discovered about this
> road tax exemption - didnt know about it beforehand
>
> I drive the car 99% of the time but occasionally my husband drives it - to
> collect one of the children for me or get some shopping etc or maybe even
> cos he simply needs the capacity of my larger car ( people carrier) IF I
> take up the tax exemption does this mean he would never be able to drive it
> legally?
He could drive it, but I doubt it would cover things like picking up or
dropping off kids, or doing general shopping, unless you were along too.
A car with the road tax tex exemption is *only* to be used for the
dsabled person's particular benefit.
Think about the circumstances in which the blue badge could and could
not reasonably be used. It's probably much the same.
Buffy
so its not quiet the same thing is it?
do the powers that be honestly beleive that every family only has one car ?
If so they are blind to reality if not then they are enforcing a ruling
which punishes those not so well of!
Not everybody is lucky enough to have two cars and in a realistic world
there 'may' be times when my hubbie needs my car - his breaks down - he
needs to larger capacity - either I take up the benefit that is available to
me and apply for the no road tax thingy and tell him no u cant use my car or
I miss out on it totally!
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.182f516ae...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/2002
Buffy
'However, technically the vehicle is only exempt whilst it is being used
"solely by or for the purposes of the disabled person". Neither the DSS nor
the Department of Transport have defined exactly what this means. The
disabled person does not necessarily have to be in the car, instead, it
could be used to do their shopping or running errands: however, the use of
an exempt car for purposes totally unconnected with the disabled person is
technically illegal. The probability of being prosecuted is low and is only
likely to occur where there is flagrant abuse of the exemption, for example
where a non-disabled person uses the vehicle to drive to work. The DSS have
implied that, where the car is used substantially for the purposes of the
disabled person, there is nothing to worry about. But note these dangers.'
This 'could' be interrpreted that as long as the vehicle is used mainly for
my uses my husband 'could' drive it on the odd occasion that my not be
entirely for my benefit - but still its down to what the 'decision makers'
class as for my benefit!
"Buffy" <Bu...@Gameon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aq3fij$jul$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Pat Winstanley
says...
> Subject: Re: Orange(blue?) badge, carer
> From: "Buffy" <Bu...@Gameon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: uk.people.disability
>
> but as I understand I can use the blue badge in any car I am travelling in
> so its not quiet the same thing is it?
>
> do the powers that be honestly beleive that every family only has one car ?
> If so they are blind to reality if not then they are enforcing a ruling
> which punishes those not so well of!
>
> Not everybody is lucky enough to have two cars and in a realistic world
> there 'may' be times when my hubbie needs my car - his breaks down - he
> needs to larger capacity - either I take up the benefit that is available to
> me and apply for the no road tax thingy and tell him no u cant use my car or
> I miss out on it totally!
>
We have one car between us. Both of us use it, but I (the disabled one)
use it most - about 90% or more of the time. In other words it is used
most for my direct purposes, regardless of which of us happens to be
driving. On the other hand hubby occasionally takes his parents off
shopping or goes to visit friends, or takes one of the kids back to
their (away from) home, or just does 'his thing'. Yes, he may well pick
up a bit of shopping for me while he's out doing something else, and it
saves me having to run the (adult) kids 'home' but that's not really for
me... it's for his or the kids' benefits.
We decided it (money saved - about 100) wasn't worth the risk of being
prosecuted for fraud (and fined far more than that!). So we (I) didn't
take up the option of the road tax exemption.
Note that a lot of families DO only have one car... or no car at all!
Usually those (generally) who are 'not so well off' as you put it.
It's up to you whether you choose to take up the tax exemption or not.
Derek Hornby
> but as I understand I can use the blue badge in any car I am travelling in
Yes, that's right.
> do the powers that be honestly beleive that every family only has one car ?
You can have as many cars as you want and afford!
> If so they are blind to reality if not then they are enforcing a ruling
> which punishes those not so well of!
How so?
> Not everybody is lucky enough to have two cars and in a realistic world
> there 'may' be times when my hubbie needs my car - his breaks down - he
> needs to larger capacity - either I take up the benefit that is available to
> me and apply for the no road tax thingy and tell him no u cant use my car or
> I miss out on it totally!
The message is clear. If your able-bodied husband wants to drive
your car (legally) for times when it's not for your benefit, road tax is due.
Anyway, you've admitted you get DLA mobility, many disabled don't even get that,
but still have to manage. Isn't DLA mobility to cover the extra costs of
travel?
Derek
Buffy
There are many disabled people in the UK.
Many of them will be entitled to the road tax exemption.
>You can have as many cars as you want and afford!
Many of them will be part of a family with only one car - ( If you read my
posts correctly I never stated anywhere that I thought anyone should be
restricted with the amount of cars they have per family I merely stated that
many familys only have one car)
In such familys the car will obviously be used for the DP benefit but also
for the rest of the family - they have no option to have a car specifically
for the DP as they have only one vehicle.
THUS because of financial reasons/personal choice meaning they have only one
this ruling makes it impossible to claim the road tax exemption.
I am merely questioning the reasoning behind this as it is punishing those
people for not being able to afford a second car simply for the DP when
surely these are the people who would benefit most!
I havent in any way queried my benefit have I ? Infact I am merely quering
the fairness to other less fortunate people! We are very lucky in as much
as having two cars but it seems to me that there must be many familys in the
UK with a DP within the family who should be entitled to the road tax
exemption but cannot take it because they can only afford one car - to me
that is unfair for those people.
>Anyway, you've admitted you get DLA mobility, many disabled >don't even get
that,
>but still have to manage
Or do you begrudge anyone who does get DLA mobility as your comment seems to
suggest!
>Isn't DLA mobility to cover the extra costs of
>travel?
Have I in any way questioned the costs I endure to travel? Nope I am merely
questioning what seems to me, to be an unfair ruling must be to the
detrement of many DP and their familys in the country - forgive me for
wishing a more fair system for other people.
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:aq3mgc$l4l$2...@knossos.btinternet.com...
smicker
>I have just been awarded HR Mobility and so have now discovered about this
>road tax exemption - didnt know about it beforehand
>
>I drive the car 99% of the time but occasionally my husband drives it - to
>collect one of the children for me or get some shopping etc or maybe even
>cos he simply needs the capacity of my larger car ( people carrier) IF I
>take up the tax exemption does this mean he would never be able to drive it
>legally?
>
All he has to do is say that he is carrying out an errand for you.
Might not be strictly legal but you can hardly be expected to buy
another car just for one off's. This post will cause a storm but if I
was you that's what I would do.
smicker
Pat Winstanley
says...
> Many of them will be part of a family with only one car - ( If you read my
> posts correctly I never stated anywhere that I thought anyone should be
> restricted with the amount of cars they have per family I merely stated that
> many familys only have one car)
>
> In such familys the car will obviously be used for the DP benefit but also
> for the rest of the family - they have no option to have a car specifically
> for the DP as they have only one vehicle.
>
> THUS because of financial reasons/personal choice meaning they have only one
> this ruling makes it impossible to claim the road tax exemption.
>
> I am merely questioning the reasoning behind this as it is punishing those
> people for not being able to afford a second car simply for the DP when
> surely these are the people who would benefit most!
>
Nobody is being 'punished'.
Pat Winstanley
ross...@hotmail.com says...
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:02:55 -0000, "Buffy" <Bu...@Gameon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I have just been awarded HR Mobility and so have now discovered about this
> >road tax exemption - didnt know about it beforehand
> >
> >I drive the car 99% of the time but occasionally my husband drives it - to
> >collect one of the children for me or get some shopping etc or maybe even
> >cos he simply needs the capacity of my larger car ( people carrier) IF I
> >take up the tax exemption does this mean he would never be able to drive it
> >legally?
> >
> All he has to do is say that he is carrying out an errand for you.
> Might not be strictly legal but you can hardly be expected to buy
> another car just for one off's.
No need to buy another car. One does us fine. We simply don't cheat by
pretending that one car is purely for my benefit - it isn't. If we had
two cars then one would probably be registered for the road tax
exemption. It's cheaper to run one car with no exemption than to run two
cars with one exemption.
> This post will cause a storm but if I
> was you that's what I would do.
Just because you wish to lie and steal from the rest of the taxpayers
(many of whom are themselves disabled and/or have disabled dependents)
doesn't make you clever or big... just stupid and thoughtless and
selfish.
Buffy
Ok so 'punished' probably isnt the correct terminology - sorry for not being
a dictionary!
HOWEVER the fact remains that familys with disabled members whom can only
afford to run ONE car are being discriminated against with this ruling
regarding the road tax exemption.
WHAT happened to EQUAL rights for everyone? Or is it simply a case that it
is begrudged that these familys whom do use their car for both the benefit
of the disabled person AND the benefit of the rest of the family are able to
claim the road taxation exemption? ( god forbid these people want to get to
work to earn money to make their partners lifes more bearable!)
Or is it simply a case of 'Im alright jack'
I cannot be the ONLY person whom regards this rule as unrealistic and
unfair!
Good god we are lucky enough to have two cars but I feel infuriated that
familys with disabled members are discriminated against with regards to this
excemption simply because they only have one car which needs to be used for
more than the sole benefit of their disabled member!
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.182f899b6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...