Leading PI campaigner says Untraced Drivers Agreement has major flaws
Children and protected parties often get a raw deal in term of legal representation and settlement advice from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), according to a leading personal injury campaigner.
Writing for NLJ, legal consultant and solicitor Nicholas Bevan, formerly senior counsel at Bond Pearce, has called for reform of the current arrangements at the MIB, which investigates claims free of charge and compensates the victims of uninsured or untraceable drivers.
He argues that the Untraced Drivers Agreement 2003, which governs the compensatory scheme, has two major flaws regarding children and protected parties.
First, although there is provision for a limited legal fee, there is no guarantee that they will be legally represented. Second, there is no specific provision for an independent appraisal to vet the fairness of settlements.
“Applicants are encouraged to apply to the MIB direct from the government’s official website, with no recommendation for independent legal advice,” says Bevan.
“No hint is given of the numerous procedural and substantive irregularities that pepper the scheme and that enable the MIB to reduce or reject legitimate claims entirely.”
Therefore, he asks, can the interests of minors and protected persons be “adequately safeguarded” if there is no provision for independent legal representation, and is a settlement reached with the MIB binding?
Bevan differentiates the MIB scheme from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme assessment, because the latter is run by an independent government agency and pays out sums according to a predetermined tariff system, whereas the former is a private company managed by insurers.
He cites evidence taken from Sir Rupert Jackson’s report into civil litigation costs that insurers’ first offers are usually 20% below par as further evidence of the way children and protected persons are discriminated against by the 2003 agreement.
“These individuals are ill-equipped to comprehend the issues, assess what is a fair offer in settlement, still less to challenge or test technical points raised by the MIB or even to know whether an appeal or complaint is called for,” he said.
“Arguably, this in itself constitutes a breach of the Community law equivalence and effectiveness principles.”
