For example, when a police accident report was not completed within three months and there was a false claim to the insurer with the false license plate and it turned out that the vehicle was uninsured. This underlines the uniqueness of such a fund. It is interesting to note that the mib was formed nine years later with a “threat to state control in the background.” 19 1919, the Minister of Transport found that “the legislation on the implementation of the system proposed by the Cassel committee would be a little complicated and I am pleased to say that the insurers have made proposals for a voluntary system in the same way that I would be satisfied.” 20 It is interesting to note that the courts subsequently found confusion in the introduction of extra-legal provisions. Lord Diplock in Gurtner v Circuit and another,21 “The reasons that have affected the government in assuming this oblique and extra-legal manner of responsibility to the office, despite the legal complications that entails, I do not know.” 22 That is an interesting point. There have been legal complications for both non-legal and uninsured vehicle agreements. However, it is not clear what complications are in legislation. At the time, there would have been concerns about how legislation would work in practice, that is, safeguards that are forced to compel insurers against their will. However, Christopher Shawcross said: “Insurers have taken a heavy burden through this bold move by agreeing to take financial responsibility for demented motorists if these criminals are not satisfied.” 23 Next, they say. Shawcross stated that the mib agreements went far beyond the Cassel Commission`s proposals, “by imposing on all insurers liability for all third-party claims under the Traffic Act”24 Overall, it is clear that the introduction of the Mib has significantly limited the right of insurers to avoid liability to third parties (although they are able to reject claims against policyholders). It is important to first examine the training and development of mib, which will show that compensation for uninsured and uninsured drivers has always been complex and controversial.
The mib was founded in June 1946. Previously, if the person responsible for a traffic accident was not insured or prosecuted, the third victim would be compensated unless she found and sued the uninsured driver for damages. This was undoubtedly an important issue for the victim. The introduction of the mib was born out of a report by a committee of the trade committee in 1937, under the direction of Sir Felix Cassel. The committee was composed of representatives of the insurance companies and Lloyds, In the report, the commission stated that the exception for criminal offences was introduced in Article 6, paragraph 1, paragraph e) iii) of the Motorinsurers` Bureau, “Uninsured Drivers` Agreement” (1999) , which was consulted on 02 March 2020. As has already been said, the differences between the treatment of victims are limited to some extent by EU legislation. Therefore, the elimination of a means could result in victims having less opportunity to challenge the agreements. However, it is also interesting to note that the restrictions and differences between the treatment of victims with the UK were under EU jurisdiction. Indeed, the High Court in Roadpeace challenged a violation of EU law with regard to a time clause in the previous UtDA 2003,128, and participated in that decision. “It is clear that there are differences in their circumstances (victims of insured, uninsured and unsur pursued vehicles) “129 This means that an EU remedy has not always prevented differences in the treatment of victims.130 However, it has certainly offered victims the opportunity to