These are documents that, once signed, mean that the MIB, while paying your right, has your consent to reject this amount of compensation as a debt to the other driver. This allows them to track the recovery of the compensation they paid you by the uninsured driver. 1) the number of complaints it has received about the activity of the Bureau motorizer over the past five years; and whether he will make a statement; (2) when it justifies its decision to regulate the office of automobile insurers by voluntary agreement; (3) when he makes a statement about the activity of the motor insurance office; (4) when it reviews the voluntary agreement between its department and the Motorinsurers Bureau; and whether he will make a statement; (5) The statements it has received regarding the activity of the Insurers Bureau engine.50 May 2019 usefully defines an « uninsured vehicle, » including « a motor vehicle not implementing a May policy » (point 325, paragraph 1, point a)). This provides limited clarity with respect to the `unsecured vehicle`, in particular the fact that it does not contain `a May policy that comes into force`. Moreover, it is clear that Maya 2019 is the defence that insurers can use restrictively. Thus, under Section 310, the insurer « does not have the authority to terminate a May policy. » However, there is only recourse under EU law in the UK during the transition period, or there is an agreement between the UK and the EU that is part of it. Relations between the EU and the UK beyond the transition period have yet to be decided. If the UK is not required to comply with EU law, there will be no need to act, which could mean less protection for victims and less control over mib agreements. Of course, it should be noted here that the introduction of legislation does not necessarily mean that the protection of victims will increase and that the legislation necessary to strengthen the protection of victims is not necessary. We need to look at the potential for introducing legislation in the UK, although it is first of all important to look at the legislation that regulates this area in legislation. This article has so far found that the UK`s system of compensation for victims of uninsured and unse persecuted drivers is a benefit for costs and expertise, but that there are challenges related to transparency and the provision of adequate protection to victims of third parties, particularly after the transition period.
The approach to the act offers an interesting contrast with the United Kingdom due to increased transparency. However, it is not certain that it works in the United Kingdom. It is therefore necessary to consider whether a legal system would be beneficial or whether there are alternatives. It is clear that, at present, mib agreements do not offer full protection to victims of accidents, although they are compensation agreements. However, it is difficult to know whether the applicant parties fall because of the shortcomings of the agreements and to what extent this may be going, which may be related to the lack of transparency of rights. Moreover, despite the limits on legal coverage for victims of insured vehicles119, it is clear that accident victims are treated differently.