Brian Cowen's oversight towards Disabled drivers

alpina

Just wanted to throw this one out there...

Are there many drivers within this forum in receipt of
'The Primary Medical Certificate' and are in need of an automatic transmission to drive. The government are giving an allowance towards the purchase of a new car/VRT exemption on one hand to disabled persons but no provision has been outlined towards one who can no longer operate a clutch. As in many instances the additional cost occured due to the higher Co2 levels is actually greater than the manufacturers are charging for the Auto.

The Auto. gearbox in these circumstances is a necessity not a nicety but has been totally overlooked. Giveth on one hand & taketh with the other has never rang through so clear. One is receiving an allowance as a result of being disabled and now, with this blatant oversight being penalised for being disabled. The smallest of ammedments would rectify this, one in receipt of the P.M.C. would have the Co2 levels of the manual equivalent honoured. Of course this would cause this govenment to think things through and it is quite evident that insufficient thought was put into this whole scenario from roll in time to year of one's car's Co2 levels being recognised.

Like so many things in this country at the present, A Blatant Farce!:mad:

colm_mcm

You've lost me,
If you're VRT exempt you don't pay VRT or road tax and get a fuel allowance, if you don't qualify then you don't qualify. Maybe I missed something.

chris85

Im lost on this. I have researched this scheme of the VRT excemption before for family and no problem with it.

If disabled (driver or passenger), you buy a car (auto or manual) then you are excempt for VRT on the vehicle and also excempt from road tax on the vehicle. The CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this scheme as far as i can see.

Not sure if i get what you mean on this?

alpina

From this July Co2 emissions have everything to do with it..

colm_mcm

alpina wrote: »

From this July Co2 emissions have everything to do with it..

"it" being VRT and road tax exemptions for disabled drivers?

chris85

OP, under this scheme the new car is excempt form the VRT and road tax so the new VRT rates make no difference as the only thing that the CO2 emissions will do is effect the VRT and road tax which disabled drivers dont have to pay.

Unless I am missing something?

Altreab

chris85 wrote: »

Im lost on this. I have researched this scheme of the VRT excemption before for family and no problem with it.

If disabled (driver or passenger), you buy a car (auto or manual) then you are excempt for VRT on the vehicle and also excempt from road tax on the vehicle. The CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this scheme as far as i can see.

Not sure if i get what you mean on this?

As someone who has a primary cert i have to agree with you chris. The main problems i have with the scheme at the moment are
1) The allowance is capped at a total of
# €9,525 for a driver.
# €15,875 for a passenger.
# €15,875 for a family member

Now these allowances have not changed a cent since 1990 AFAIK. They really need to raise them. Remember that this is the Total in VRT and VAT that can be refunded from the cost of the car and the adaption.

2) The engine size is still restricted to 2Lt for drivers and 4Lt for passengers/Family members. Since we are moving to CO2 basis for everything the engine size limit should be scrapped.


OP. Why buy an automatic when you could buy a electronic clutch system that will do the clutch side of things as well in a manual car?

fabsoul

colm_mcm wrote: »

You've lost me,
If you're VRT exempt you don't pay VRT or road tax and get a fuel allowance, if you don't qualify then you don't qualify. Maybe I missed something.

But there is a limit on how much VRT you can get back. It should be the same for a driver and a passenger but it not.


alpina, you could get a Syncrodrive Clutch for a manual car almost as good as a auto.

colm_mcm

To be fair, if you pick the right car, the amount saved by VAT and VRT is usually more than or very close to 2 years depreciation.
I think the government is giving a fair deal as it stands. motor distributors are doing their bit by offering fleet discount to Irish Wheelchair association members etc.


Usually for a disabled passenger, the work required on the car is more, eg. swivel seats, hoists, ramps etc.
the majority of disabled drivers we dealt with required only hand controls or a steering wheel spinner.

alpina

To Chris 85, you get €9,525 off the price of car, manual version, say €50,000 Auto version €55,000, manufacturer charges approx €2.5k balance is as a result of higher Co2 so one still has to pay more. This is not a rant and Altreab as someone with a PMC & you are in need of auto. box you will see what I mean when you go to change.
Have spoken with the IWA and yes it was an oversight, such is the reason I am addressing now rather than the usual Irish attitude of bitching after the fact.
These are the facts right now, one is penalised for needing an auto and as the IWA have stated I was the first to address such oversight and it was that an oversight.

alpina

Colm Mcm we are discussing the point & principle of being unfairly charged, not the logistics

colm_mcm

any increase on the list price due to the CO2 emissions being higher as a result of being automatic doesn't affect the driver.

Let's say an auto Car X is €30,000
manual Car X is €27,000

and for arguments sake, the invoice price from the distributor to the dealer of the auto box is €2000 more than the manual. the other €1,000 being VRT.

the dealer will only charge the customer the €2,000 more for the automatic car. the €1,000 VRT everyone else pays doesn't even come into it.

alpina

Of course one has to pay the outstanding €1,000 one's allocated allowance in most cases is well eaten up ever before you get to auto. pricing this is where the oversight comes in to play

colm_mcm

alpina wrote: »

Of course one has to pay the outstanding €1,000 one's allocated allowance in most cases is well eaten up ever before you get to auto. pricing this is where the oversight comes in to play

depends on the type of car you want, automatic cars with €9,500 VRT and under are widely available. If you want a flashier car, I don't see why the government should foot the bill. My understanding was that the government provide this scheme as a means of mobilising people with disabilities, rather than some sort of compensation.
Given that the VRT on a lot of diesel cars is coming down, it should make life easier for people trying to stay under a certain VRT figure?

alpina

My goodness, regardless of the car you drive, if you are in receipt of a PMC there should not be a surcharge applied when one is in need of an auto. It is the logical answer to this predicament. You last line I do take great offence to, I am not nor have I ever sought 'compensation' a seriously narrow minded and shallow contribution I have to say!

colm_mcm

So do you think the VRT and VAT rebate shouldn't be capped?


My point is, that if you "need" a Mercedes instead of a Toyota, maybe you should pay for that yourself?

Altreab

alpina wrote: »

My goodness, regardless of the car you drive, if you are in receipt of a PMC there should not be a surcharge applied when one is in need of an auto. It is the logical answer to this predicament. You last line I do take great offence to, I am not nor have I ever sought 'compensation' a seriously narrow minded and shallow contribution I have to say!

Ok alpina maybe im missing something here but what exactly is the surcharge you are talking about?

Altreab

colm_mcm wrote: »

So do you think the VRT and VAT rebate shouldn't be capped?


My point is, that if you "need" a Mercedes instead of a Toyota, maybe you should pay for that yourself?

Capped maybe but reviewed more than once every 20 years
When you actually look into it between the VAT and VRT charged on the car, then add in the VAT charged on the adaptations you find that cars costing more than 22-23K are exceeding the capped figure. In that range they are usually smaller cars which can have access problems for wheelchair users getting in and out etc.
The lowering of the VRT on diesels will help as the caps wont be reached as quickly.

Altreab

alpina wrote: »

To Chris 85, you get €9,525 off the price of car, manual version, say €50,000 Auto version €55,000, manufacturer charges approx €2.5k balance is as a result of higher Co2 so one still has to pay more. This is not a rant and Altreab as someone with a PMC & you are in need of auto. box you will see what I mean when you go to change.
.

I havent used an auto box in 15 years ....servo clutches are the better job in soooooo many ways

colm_mcm

If the OP believes the capped amount of VRT should be raised to reflect the rising cost of cars, then why not just say that.
I can't see a plausable argument here at all re: CO2

Altreab wrote: »

I havent used an auto box in 15 years ....servo clutches are the better job in soooooo many ways

Automatics have some on a long way in the past 15 years!

Altreab

colm_mcm wrote: »

If the OP believes the capped amount of VRT should be raised to reflect the rising cost of cars, then why not just say that.
I can't see a plausable argument here at all re: CO2



Automatics have some on a long way in the past 15 years!

So have the various clutches but thats a whole different thread methinks

colm_mcm

I've driven the new servo systems, and they're really good, no match for a DSG or modern tiptronic box though.

chris85

OP this has got nothing to do with CO2 emission, its purely that the auto box generally costs more in a car and thus this should represent a raise in allowance for people buying auto. is this correct?

I do not agree that people buying the automatic should get more allowance as this could be said by anybody needing something in the vehicle thats differenct. For example I am looking to get a lowered floor and all that goes with it. This costs more than the auto box but i am not getting extra. the allowance is for this.

but I do agree that the allowances need to be revised and raised to meet the modern economy.

alpina

I really am lost when people say this has nothing to do with emissions, the emissions on an auto. car are higher than their manual counterpart, what I am peeved at is, if one is in need of an auto box the govern. are charging one more. They recognise disabilities, thus providing the P.M.C. but have not taken the excess charge resulting in an auto into account, hence the oversight. It's irrelevent whether, mercedes/Jaguar/Ford/Citreon are being discussed, emissions on autos. are higher so one is being penalised for needing such but at the same there is a grant for disabled, so giving with one hand & taking with the other

colm_mcm

Surely the fact that they are giving in the first place would signify the Government are on your side. The money that you are saving is quite significant compared to what the rest of us have to pay for new cars.

They are providing you with the means to change your car for a brand new one every 2 years, and trade it back in for the same amount as one that has had VRT and VAT paid on it 2 years previously.

The VRT on a car is based on emissions and the OMSP of a car, obviously an automatic car will have a higher OMSP than a manual one.

It just sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder where the government is concerned.

chris85

OP, i get where you are coming from that the auto version is eating into the allowance due to its higher VRT rate, but the allowance is there to take into account the extras different people need. You need an auto, the next person needs a swivel chair. I could say the goverment is neglecting persons who need the swivel chair which costs money thus eating into the allowance. But thats what the allowance is there for.


OP, this should not be made about automatic transmission, I think the allowance should be raised but not going to blame the goverment for what is a good scheme that just needs to have the allowances looked at.

mickdw

This scheme is a great help to people who qualify for it. I believe it is very generous. It also appears to be abused by many drivers claiming it for elderly relatives who rarely use a car. Have also seen used cars being bought under the scheme and so surely this would help with the requirement for a bigger car for access.

I feel perhaps that stronger qualification criteria be applied and then perhaps genuine disabled people could have an increased limit on it.

Oilrig

The usual Blunderbuss approach to what should be targeted relief... anomalies are inevitable.

As Mickdw states many are abusing the scheme (I know of one...) this is what tightens it for genuine users.

The first issue is the policy, is it a "relief" for the additional cost of people with reduced mobility getting mobile, or is it "compensation" for having reduced mobility, or is it an "incentive? I suspect its a combination of all three - it should be possible to find out. Clarifying this would be a good starting point in your argument IMHO.

The waters were muddied by a certain gentleman in the early '90's bringing the Revenue to court and loosing over their refusal to rebate the "tax" he paid on his S-Class, despite his limp...

unkel

colm_mcm wrote: »

They are providing you with the means to change your car for a brand new one every 2 years, and trade it back in for the same amount as one that has had VRT and VAT paid on it 2 years previously

A generous system imho. The wheelchair bound MD of a company in the business park where I work changes her car every year for a brand new one, typically a BMW or a Mercedes. Doing that costs her very little if anything. Fair play to her, but people need to realise the tax payer is footing the bill for this

fabsoul

unkel wrote: »

A generous system imho. The wheelchair bound MD of a company in the business park where I work changes her car every year for a brand new one, typically a BMW or a Mercedes. Doing that costs her very little if anything. Fair play to her, but people need to realise the tax payer is footing the bill for this

not if she get a new car every year. you have to keep the car for two years
if your getting VRT back

alpina

colm_mcm wrote: »

It just sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder where the government is concerned.

What an intelligent assumption, one does not conform so one obviously has a problem, absolutely amazing train of thought there. :rolleyes:
Think the original question has been flogged to death at this stage so can be put to bed, appreciate the level of input/feedback.:)

colm_mcm

has your opinion changed any since you first posted?

unkel

fabsoul wrote: »

not if she get a new car every year. you have to keep the car for two years
if your getting VRT back

Ah, she's probably only getting a new car every other year so!

alpina

colm_mcm wrote: »

has your opinion changed any since you first posted?

No, not at all, I can not understand how it is necessary for one to pay extra for a necessity in order to operate a car (auto.) when the govern. already recognises that one has a disability. The car of choice should be recognised as it's manual counterpart regardless of make/model where there is an underlying disability in existance. The current scheme is not based upon emissions so such should be invalid until such time as it is ammended/addressed to take the higher emissions into a/c i.e. no longer based on engine size etc.

Riskymove

alpina wrote: »

No, not at all, I can not understand how it is necessary for one to pay extra for a necessity in order to operate a car (auto.) when the govern. already recognises that one has a disability. The car of choice should be recognised as it's manual counterpart regardless of make/model where there is an underlying disability in existance. The current scheme is not based upon emissions so such should be invalid until such time as it is ammended/addressed to take the higher emissions into a/c i.e. no longer based on engine size etc.

OP you keep mentioning CO2 and so forth...

is it not the case that autos cost more now than manuals (i.e. under current system) so what is going to change under the new system?

Altreab

unkel wrote: »

A generous system imho. The wheelchair bound MD of a company in the business park where I work changes her car every year for a brand new one, typically a BMW or a Mercedes. Doing that costs her very little if anything. Fair play to her, but people need to realise the tax payer is footing the bill for this

If she changing it every year rest assured its her company thats paying for it She can only claim once every 2 years and if she sells a car sooner than that she is required to refund the revenue pro-rata the time she had it.

chris85

Riskymove wrote: »

OP you keep mentioning CO2 and so forth...

is it not the case that autos cost more now than manuals (i.e. under current system) so what is going to change under the new system?

Their VRT and road tax rate is higher and this cost is eating into the allowance. The VRT and road tax is not just abolished for these cars, it is taken away from the allowance.

I dont agree that this is an issue about automatics but I do agree the allowance needs to be raised.

Forgive me but i need to get a lowered floor and thats a lot more than a auto so why should people getting auto get more than I need to get for the lowered floor. My point is that the allowance is to allow for all these things.

This is not about CO2 and should be about raising the allowance. Op, you should refocus your efforts on raising awareness to raise the allowance to help all disabled passengers/drivers and not just focus on your automatic as the allowance sometimes does not cover the cost of VRT, tax and a lowered floor.

colm_mcm

There is no point in reasoning with the OP. He/She is on a mission.

alpina

Riskymove wrote: »

OP you keep mentioning CO2 and so forth...

is it not the case that autos cost more now than manuals (i.e. under current system) so what is going to change under the new system?

Under the present system car A. is costing €3,000 over manual equiv.
Under new system, July onwards, car A. is costing just under €5,000 extra due to higher emissions experienced in autos.

That is what's going to change under the new system.

alpina

colm_mcm wrote: »

There is no point in reasoning with the OP. He/She is on a mission.

You can echo that, received a phone call today from a certain state dept.
(no prizes for guessing) and this precise topic is to be addressed prior to changeover, amazing what can be ammended when one ripples the water, rather than sitting at the bar and moaning...:)

colm_mcm

If this ludicrous proposal gets any backing then you may be right on one count

alpina wrote: »

Like so many things in this country at the present, A Blatant Farce!:mad:

The levels of VRT and VAT exemption need to be means tested and a reflection on the conversion work done on the car.

RedorDead

alpina wrote: »

To Chris 85, you get €9,525 off the price of car, manual version, say €50,000 Auto version €55,000, manufacturer charges approx €2.5k balance is as a result of higher Co2 so one still has to pay more. This is not a rant and Altreab as someone with a PMC & you are in need of auto. box you will see what I mean when you go to change.
Have spoken with the IWA and yes it was an oversight, such is the reason I am addressing now rather than the usual Irish attitude of bitching after the fact.
These are the facts right now, one is penalised for needing an auto and as the IWA have stated I was the first to address such oversight and it was that an oversight.

With newer cars auto boxes do not mean higher co2 emissions. For example the new Audi TTS S-Tronic (audi talk for dsg) version has lower co2 emissions than the manual version. From July it will be taxed @ 28% compared to the 32% the manual will be taxed at

colm_mcm

RedorDead wrote: »

With newer cars auto boxes do not mean higher co2 emissions. For example the new Audi TTS S-Tronic (audi talk for dsg) version has lower co2 emissions than the manual version. From July it will be taxed @ 28% compared to the 32% the manual will be taxed at

Same with the Yaris 1.3. the Multimode falls into a LOWER tax band than the manual! these transmissions don't use torque convertors AFAIK. which would make them different to most automatics out there.

testicle

alpina wrote: »

Under the present system car A. is costing €3,000 over manual equiv.
Under new system, July onwards, car A. is costing just under €5,000 extra due to higher emissions experienced in autos.

That is what's going to change under the new system.

Can't you go away and buy a diesel automatic and leave us alone?

chris85

OP, every disabled driver has a certain thing they need which costs extra. You get an allowance for this. I want more money beacause i need to get a lowered floor for family member and the allowance does this.

Not posting on this thread anymore as its a waste of time. You didnt want a discussion or to hear what other people thought, you just want to preach.

unkel

chris85 wrote: »

Not posting on this thread anymore as its a waste of time. You didnt want a discussion or to hear what other people thought, you just want to preach.

Well said, Chris. This thread is now closed.