The Motor Insurers` Bureau (mib) was established in 1946 to compensate victims of road accidents involving uninsured drivers and, subsequently, uns persecuted drivers. The mib and its agreements have been criticized by scientists due to possible gaps in coverage. The mib agreements are considered “a whole new extra-legislative device” because they are not based on a law and are therefore devoid of parliamentary control. This has led to transparency challenges in the implementation of new agreements. Claims against the mib, particularly with regard to uns persecuted drivers, have also been the subject of controversy. Given that the UK is going through a transition period in terms of its relationship with the EU and that there may be no recourse against the mib after the transition, the question arises as to whether the mib should be based on a legal basis. Since it is not necessary for agreements to be concluded by Parliament to enter into force, parliamentary debates in Hansard are largely non-existent when the subject matter and interpretation of agreements are debated.53 When a case is brought before a court to determine the interpretation of agreements, it is possible that the courts will rely on discussions between the MIB and the government. However, the courts sometimes seem to have criticized the lack of evidence of the introduction of certain provisions. In Delaney/Secretary of State for Transport,54 concerning the State`s liability for exclusion contained in the 1999 uda,55 Jay J stated in the High Court: cf. z.B the mib uda supplementary agreement, which, inter alia, removed from the previous agreement the derogation relating to terrorism and damage to vehicles, see the mib “The Supplementary Agreement (uda)” (2017) called on 03 April 2020. However, the mib were only required to compensate victims of uninsured drivers, any payment to victims of drivers without traceability being ex gratia. Interestingly, the initial report of the Cassel Commission did not recommend that victims of drivers be compensated without success.25 Nevertheless, in clause 6 of the original agreement, the MIB stated that they had no legal obligation to compensate victims of drivers without being unmasked “if there is sufficient certainty that a vehicle was involved and that, with the exception that the vehicle: Owners or drivers cannot be traced, a claim would lie, the Bureau will consider with kindness the payment of an ex gratia payment to the victim or his family. 26 However, Parliament has been the subject of significant lobbying efforts to remedy this situation, due to cases where victims have not received compensation after being injured by an uns persecuted driver.27 Finally, the UtDA was set up to repair victims. but with restrictions, for example.
B with regard to property damage. .