Of course, there is nothing to say about the fact that the legislation inserts exclusions. However, the differences between the protection offered to victims of uninsured and insured vehicles would be more noticeable and would be subject to further review. In addition, the introduction of a compensation system for victims of uninsured and unsur pursued vehicles would have some advantages in the legislation. For example, by imposing the equivalence of accident victims from uninsured and unsur pursued vehicles, with victims of insured vehicles, as shown by the procedure of the act. However, it is questionable whether the equivalence of third parties could instead be qualified in the mib agreements without the need for a statute. Greater transparency in discussions between dfT and mib, as well as increased consultation with people outside the Mib and DfT, could also mean equivalence without resorting to legislation. As noted above, it is clear that Mib is consulting on its agreements. However, a new consultation would undoubtedly be welcome. Motor Insurers Bureau updates the agreement on accidents involving unsured drivers, including hit and runs and motorcyclists who lose control due to diesel accidents. For insured drivers, there would be no time limit for a minor. The Tribunal also found that the MIB was not a state and that the applicant had no right to act directly against the MIB for violating the directive; However, the British government`s offence was so serious that it was submitted to a claim for compensation. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has debated the legality of the Mib process under EU law. 69 The ECJ noted that in 200370, the UtDA had not made it “impossible or unduly difficult” to exercise the right to compensation.
The court recognized the procedure for appealing a mib decision and, furthermore, that the procedures of the agreement offer the “benefits of speed and cost-effectiveness of court costs.”72 This is an interesting point and an advantage of the use of a private system which, initially, does not require court intervention. If a legal system has instructed the court to determine the damage caused to untraceable vehicles, the legal costs could be increased, as well as the time required for compensation. Mib was criticized by the applicant in Carswell/SoSFT 73, which stated that the 2003 UtDA scheme was “fatally defective” because “the mib is not independent. Since it includes all auto insurers (which are beneficiary companies), it is commercially interested in the outcome of a potential claim; and it is both the examiner and the body responsible for an arbitration award. 74 This was rejected by the court, partly because it is an inquisitory system and, on the other hand, because another system was required because of the absence of a driver. In addition, the Tribunal found that this was a commercial organization, simply because it was a commercial organization. In addition, the Tribunal found that there were “guarantees” such as arbitration. B through arbitration, legal advice and “the enforcement of the duty to investigate arbitration mib.76 , concerns related to the appointment of arbitrators, as well as the ability to challenge an arbitrator`s decision. Under section 18, the SoSFT appoints an arbitrator to a Queens Council body77, as found in mib,78, these directors are appointed because they have the experience and expertise to decide the range of issues that might arise under the agreement. Nevertheless, there are particular concerns about the bias of arbitrators. In Evans,79, the Advocate General stated that property damage was totally excluded from the 2003 agreement, but was subsequently introduced in the 2015 amendment for accidents involving “significant injuries”.