nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Motability car removed from me .by Motability

Darrenm91

Two years ago almost now on the 10th of january 2017 i had one side my car parked on a pavement , just like everyone elses on the street but anyway it was partialy infront of a driveway gate and the long short of it is the police were called & the vehicle was moved Because it was causing a "PARKING OBSTRUCTION" Which in fairness i agree.

but the next day i get a call from motability saying"We Are now removing you from the scheme for 3 years because we have been informed by the Police Service Of Scotland that the car was "*Seized*"

Which infact the car was not seized it was removed because it was causing a parking obstruction which i then went on too retain the police report feom police scotland and it says "Reason for removal of vehicle was a partial Parking Obstruction so the police had confirmed that it was indeed not "Seized" but according to motability it was infact seized so i appealed once then twice and now for a third time & as of 3 weeks ago i took my complaint the Financial Ombudsman by which they are regulated by the FCA & The Financial Ombudsman so they have said that my complaint is infact "Being Upheld" good news for me . So i think that i may be getting a new motability vehicle.

but my question here is what would any of you guys done in this situation??

Any help or advice is appreciated

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

wilko

Sorry about your problem, firstly you shouldn’t park the way you did disabled or not, yes you have done everything in your power to prove your innocence and I hope you have learnt from your exspeance, hope you are allow to have a new mobility car, how have you managed during the time with out one?

Darrenm91

@wilko i havent my life has been turned upside down by the whole thing, but for the cheek of the people at motability saying "The Car Was Seized" when it clearly was not. It was removed because of a parking obstruction.
i mean the money they make off disabled people and we are treated like absolute criminals when they jide £2.4 billion of taxpayers cash and loe to the government & then they receive an excess of £2bn per year feom the governent as well as ther Chief Executive taking a hike on his salary too £1.7m 11 times more than what the prime minister earns but yet im treated like a criminal .

makes me laugh !

exdvr

@Darrenm91.....glad that it "makes you laugh"? and agree that Motability have taken a rather severe course of action, but I don't suppose you'll make the same mistake again will you?

Keep on laughing....life isn't meant to be easy.

Darrenm91

@exdvr no its not but u see where im coming from , its not a laughing matter at all because ive suffered terribly without it.
but as u agreed it was a severe course of action but they lied and said it was "Seized"

which subsequently it was "Removed Because it Was Causing a Parking Obstruction.

Rather embarrasing from a charity as such as Motability .

But there could be repercussions for them brought by the FCA .

Sam_Alumni

The gov website seems to use the term 'seized' to infer when it is removed for causing obstruction.

The police can seize a vehicle if they think it’s being used in a way that causes alarm, harassment or distress, for example careless or inconsiderate driving.

They can also seize a vehicle if they think it’s:

being driven by someone who does not have a proper licence or insurance
dangerously, illegally or obstructively parked
broken-down or abandoned

Darrenm91

@Sam_Scope yes but it wasnt seized as in for anutbing criminal. it was causing a parking obstruction

Like for Example the police "Seize" your mobile phone they keep it for evidence dont they? they keep it as part of evidence or production in a case.

but the financial ombudsman seem too think they may jave acted unfairly or in an agressive manner.