header-logo header-logo

Conflicts of interest?

03 March 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Opinion , EU , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
nlj_7736_bevan

The new Untraced Drivers Agreement fails to ensure full conformity with the protection required under European law, as Nicholas Bevan explains

On 13 January the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) published its new Untraced Drivers Agreement 2017 (UtDA 2017) as well as amendments to the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 2015 (UDA 2015). The changes came into effect this week (1 March 2017).

The MIB is a consortium that is owned and controlled by every motor insurer authorised to sell compulsory third party motor insurance in the UK. It was set up in 1945 at the insistence of the government and specifically charged with providing a safety net for victims of uninsured drivers and insolvent insurers. Over the years, the industry has enjoyed a licence to dictate the terms under which the MIB discharges this public service. This has led to the schemes becoming increasingly skewed in its interests. Properly understood, the MIB is a public body but, as an emanation both of the insurance industry and of the state, it is heavily conflicted in its

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll