Article 263(1) provides, inter alia, that `where the nominal defendant is the subject of a right to an engine accident, the defendant may deal with the right to a car accident and any proceedings relating to the right to a vehicle accident as deemed appropriate by the nominal defendant, including (a) the settlement or compromise of the right to a car accident`. This can therefore be comparable to the mib when it comes to unsused pilots. Nevertheless, legal proceedings may be initiated at a later stage (for uninsured vehicles against the nominal defendant and the uninsured person (Article 272(2) May 2019) or, for unidentified vehicles, only against the nominal defendant (Article 272(3), maia 2019)). However, a mandatory conference must take place between the parties before a complainant brings a case that may contain a mediator. This does not guarantee any comparison, although each participant must „actively participate in an attempt to resolve the right to a car accident“ (Article 262(1)(b) Maia 2019). Unlike in the UK, there is no arbitration in the courts for victims of uns persecuted drivers, which means that the complainant does not have the burden of proof of an error of law to end up in court. Therefore, there is an additional level of transparency, as arbitration proceedings are not made public. This is an advantage over the UK, especially for victims of unidentified drivers. However, this could pose a cost problem.
If a claim is settled in arbitration, it would obviously cost less than legal proceedings. In addition, recourse to the courts can be a challenge due to the time spent determining the outcome of claims. Irrespective of the relevance of the arguments for or against the 1999 Agreement, certain claims must be made which, after 1 October 1999, fail due to procedural errors. This could be important for insurers when a means is made available to claimants to sue insurers directly in such circumstances, including from a cost perspective. As regards the 1999 Agreement, it could be argued that that Agreement is not in conformity with Community legislation. See Article 16 (4) mib UtDA 2017. This also applies to the mib. In addition, section 69(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides that „appeals shall be brought only if the Tribunal is satisfied that (a) the decision on the matter seriously infringes the rights of one or more parties; (b) the matter is a matter to be considered by the Tribunal; (c) that, on the basis of the findings of fact of the arbitral award, the Tribunal`s decision in the matter is manifestly erroneous or (ii) is of general public importance and the tribunal`s decision is at least open to serious doubts, and (d) that, despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter through arbitration, it is fair and appropriate, in all circumstances, that the Tribunal rule on the matter. The new agreement on unsused drivers and the supplementary agreement on uninsured drivers entered into force this week. Previous agreements continue to apply to incidents that occurred before March 1, 2017. We take into account the importance of the most important changes for auto insurers. The UK system of compensating victims for damage caused by uninsured or untraceable drivers is complex.
The mib has been around for over 70 years and has been at the center of various controversies. Criticism was expressed of the difficulties associated with reporting, implementation and transparency. One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly the private nature of the mib. Transparency is certainly an important subject and the justification for introducing certain provisions is unclear. In addition, the procedure concerning claims concerning uns persecuted drivers also lacks transparency and, finally, the requirement of an arbitration procedure for appeals. . . .