Thomson Reuters and the Journal of Personal Injury Law, have kindly granted me permission to post my article 'Why the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 Needs to be Scrapped' .
 J.P.I.L., Issue 2 © 2011 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited
Copies of this article are available through Westlaw / Lawtel.
Part II: Why the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 needs to be scrapped
An overview of the main defects
Unjustified insistence on an applicant making enquiries
Breach of the right to privacy
(b) giving such information about the relevant proceedings and other matters relevant to this Agreement, and
(c) accompanied by such documents as MIB may reasonably
Disproportionate insistence on disclosure
(ii) any contract of insurance which covers, or which may or has been alleged to cover, liability for such death, injury or damage the benefit of which is, or is claimed to be, available to Defendant or Defender,
Fit for purpose?
Who is to blame?
- Rescission of the MIB Uninsured Drivers Agreements 1988 and 1999 (including the November 2008 Supplementary Agreement) with immediate effect;
- The substitution of a new, much shorter, agreement concurrently with the rescission or new legislation; that:
- Reform of the MIB to make it more accountable for its conduct in administering the functions it fulfils on behalf of the Government under the EU Motor Insurance Directives. This accountability should not be limited to supervision by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government but it should extend to the public at large and major stakeholders operating in the civil tort law compensatory regime. This could involve:
- A clearer breakdown within the MIB’s financial accounts and an agreement that the levy raised from its insurance members, raised from increased premiums charged to the premium paying public, should be hypothecated to the National Guarantee Fund.
- Improving the dialogue between the MIB and those who represent the interests of injured victims by creating a joint working party to devise new protocols and procedures under a reformed set of Domestic Agreements to help identify potentially fraudulent claims, to avoid incurring unnecessary legal costs and encouraging the early and economic disposal of claims.
- To appoint an independent arbitrator or commissioner to deal with any complaints in the way claims has been handled by the MIB.