Posted by on 10. April 2021

The MIB acts as an insurer of last resort under agreements with the Ministry of Transport. These agreements are reviewed from time to time to reflect the necessary changes. The 2017 car accident will be in effect from March 1, 2017 for all accidents involving non-detracted drivers. The agreement follows a consultation process with the Ministry of Transport and replaces the previous agreement of 2003 and its five subsequent amendments. According to previous updates, the agreement has no retroactive effect and all accidents prior to the implementation date will continue under the 2003 regime as amended. DfT`s response to the consultation on the revision of the non-compliance agreement. In this regard, I only look at the cost settlement under the new agreement and not the content of the agreement, nor the law on untraceable drivers. For non-registered vehicles, Section 328 May 2019 states: (1) „if an injury is caused by a road accident; and b) the motor vehicle involved in the road accident is an unidentified vehicle; c) the road accident occurred in May. (2) The named defendant is responsible for the assault, as if … (a) a May motor vehicle policy was in effect; and b) the named defendant was the May insurer for the May policy. Maia 2019 also contains a definition of „unfit vehicle“ in paragraph 327, paragraph 1, which states, among other things, that an unidentified vehicle is „a) a motor vehicle that cannot be identified after proper examination and search.“ This, too, gives only limited clarity on how an untraceable vehicle is determined. There are serious consequences for drivers leaving the scene of the accident and often their victims and families have the potential to suffer long-term physical and emotional effects, which can have significant financial consequences. This appears to be the result of EU car insurance legislation, which notably regulates compensation for victims of uninsured and un persecuted drivers across the EU and provides a high level of protection for victims.

Cases such as Bernaldez 8 and Candolin 9 by EU courts have strengthened protection for victims Through EU legislation, mib agreements have been the subject of a number of disputes over compliance with EU law. For example, in the Delaney/Secretary of State for Transport case10, SoSFT was successfully prosecuted in a francovich 11 appeal for 122 (paragraph 6, paragraph 1) e) (iii)) of the desatratium of EU law with respect to compensation for persons who commit an illegal act13. This remedy against the Minister of Transport (SoSFT) could be completed14. The introduction of legislation could, without completely remedying it, allow for further action against mib in the courts. This would mean the equivalence of victims of uninsured and untreated drivers with those who are injured by an insured vehicle. The latest agreement for England, Wales and Scotland applies to accidents that occurred on or after 1 March 2017. These agreements are available on the MIB website. My questions are; 1) Is this a Cameron v. Hussain case in which I should expose against „an unknown person“. and the insurer that was identified during my initial research? 2) Do I only have to expose against the person identified as the seller in the sales bill? 3) Is it just an unsured driver requirement? 4) I miss the point completely and your expertise and advice would be greatly appreciated.

In addition, the insurance industry has extensive expertise in claims processes, pricing and risk, which means it is important to cooperate with the insurance industry to ensure that there are no significant disruptions to insurance activities.