Uninsured Drivers Agreement

| 0

DfT`s response to the consultation on the revision of the non-compliance agreement. I had an accident with an uninsured driver. Can I make claims? As has already been said, the agreements have an extra-egial mechanism for compensating victims. There are transparency and enforcement challenges that we will look at. It is important to first examine the training and development of mib, which will show that compensation for uninsured and uninsured drivers has always been complex and controversial. The mib was founded in June 1946. Previously, if the person responsible for a traffic accident was not insured or prosecuted, the third victim would be compensated unless she found and sued the uninsured driver for damages. This was undoubtedly an important issue for the victim. The introduction of the mib was born out of a report by a committee of the trade committee in 1937, under the direction of Sir Felix Cassel. The committee was made up of representatives from the insurance companies and Lloyds to examine a number of mandatory insurance issues, including uninsured drivers16. For example, in 2013, Df T conducted a public consultation on Mib uda and UtDA and stated: “We recognize the valuable work that the mib has already done with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (apil) and the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (Masse) to discuss and resolve issues as part of the agreement on uninsured drivers.59 consultation responses have also been published by the Df. When the uda was introduced in 2015, the DfT developed a “final outcome of the consultation”60, which discussed at length some of the changes made to the uda in 1999 and the reasons for them.

However, some of the additions to the agreement were not discussed in depth. For example, the inclusion of an exclusion from terrorism in the agreement (paragraph 9) was only briefly discussed in the response. It is interesting to note that, subsequently, the exclusion was removed from the agreement in 2017 (point 3)61) by the agreement`s endorsement, so that, although there is some context behind the new agreement, the communication of intent has been improved. Of course, there will be private discussions with private agreements, although any substantial changes to the mib regime, as presented, could and should have further consideration. An agreement enshrined in the legislation would have had such a review, with a number of levels in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as a committee and report phase. It is interesting to note that the endorsement of uninsured drivers was not the subject of a public consultation in 2017. It was a less substantial agreement that amended or removed certain provisions of the Uda 2015 (such as the exclusion of terrorism) and there were no substantial additions. Overall, the limits of transparency in the introduction of the mib agreements are therefore worrying and reform is needed, the method of possible reform will be discussed at a later date.