VRDP29400 - Motor vehicles [items 2(f) and 2A]: what does ‘substantially and permanently adapted’ mean under Item 2A for a vehicle adapted for a disabled person who is normally a wheelchair user?
Item 2A is more generous than Item 2(f). Item 2A does not require the disabled person to remain in the wheelchair or stretcher whilst the vehicle is in motion.
In the case of Quentin Hylands (18560), the Tribunal considered whether the motor vehicle supplied to the Appellant was ‘substantially and permanently adapted’.
The Commissioners’ had declined relief from import VAT charged on a motor home for the appellant's father, “on the ground that the ramp was too steep, that it was not considered to be permanent and not considered to be substantial and also unfit for the purpose intended”.
The Tribunal Chairman agreed with the appellant’s contention:
“The evidence showed clearly that it consisted of a large piece of equipment, the ramps, which were capable of being put in place with reasonable ease to allow the wheel-chair to be pushed up into the vehicle, and of being dismantled and stowed conveniently and tidily within the vehicle. There was also a mounting on the floor of the vehicle to take the wheels of the wheel-chair, which were then clamped in position when the vehicle was moving. This mounting was either bolted or welded to the floor. It appeared to us that the adaptations were certainly capable of being used for so long as the Appellant’s father would require them.
It seems clear to us that without the ramp the Appellant’s father would be unable to enter the Rambler, and without the floor mounting for the wheelchair he would be unable safely to be transported in it. That alone is enough to satisfy the definition of substantial in Notice 701/59.
The case of Bunning (T/A Stafford Land Rover (FTT, 2012) supports the findings in the Quentin Hylands case. Here, the appellant fitted a steering wheel spinner and wheelchair ramps to one vehicle and sold another with adaptations which included brackets for transportation of a mobility scooter. The Tribunal held that both adapted vehicles qualified for the relief as they met the objective tests under the legislation.
In the case of Croall Bryson & Company (FTT, 2011), the Tribunal held that the installation of hand controls and steering balls could be considered substantial and permanent even if they were fitted quickly and could be removed with a spanner, provided they met the disabled person’s needs for entering and driving the vehicle. Therefore, adaptations need not be time-consuming or complex, but must be usable for as long as needed by the disabled person.