In addition, mib agreements are not implemented without input. 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. The mib`s relationship with its members is found in its statutes.31 An interesting aspect of the Mib`s statutes is Article 75. This provides that the insurer compensates the victim as an agent for the mib if a claim is made against the mib and if the driver has insurance (although invalid). Compensation is awarded in the context of uda 2015, not the original insurance policy. The UK legislation under rta 1988 allows this by not removing any restrictions on coverage. For example, section 148, paragraph 2 rta, 1988 limits certain exclusion clauses, which means that insurers may apply exclusions other than those provided for in section 148, paragraph 2 rta, 1988. This sounds reasonable, but it is controversial, given that the insurer should, under EU law, compensate the third party, and it should be within the framework of the insurance policy and not under the mib agreement. Cjeu`s cases such as Csonka 32 have established that compensation should only be awarded under the compensation scheme “in the absence of an insurance policy.”