header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 March 2017 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Opinion , EU , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Conflicts of interest?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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 compensatory

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll