MIB CAVE IN FOLLOWING MY BLOG
On 8 February 2017 I posted a blog – NEW MIB UNTRACED DRIVERS SCHEME: INSURERS AT IT AGAIN.
I was highly critical of clause 10(1) which I refer to as “a deliberate exclusion of solicitors from the process at the beginning.”
Following that blog that agreement dated 10 January 2017 and made between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau, which was due to come in on 1 March 2017, was revoked even before it came into force.
A fresh agreement dated 28 February 2017 has been entered into and the offending part of clause 10(1) has been removed.
The MIB only published the replacement scheme on 2 March 2017, that is one day after it came into effect.
This followed some interesting comments and exchanges on my blog by Paul Ryman-Tubb, which you can see on the original blog.
In particular on 24 February 2017 Paul Ryman-Tubb accused me of writing an article which lacked accuracy but refused to say in what respects it was inaccurate.
Presumably Mr Ryman-Tubb knew at that stage that the MIB and the Government were in fact going to agree with my point and amend their agreement accordingly.
Apart from demonstrating the power of blogs this shows the importance of never letting the Government, insurers, consumer groups or anyone else get away with seeking to remove lawyers from the process.
Lawyers stand between civilization and tyranny.
Please see my related blogs:
NEW MIB UNTRACED DRIVERS SCHEME: INSURERS AT IT AGAIN.
MIB UNTRACED DRIVERS AGREEMENT FIXED COSTS SCHEME: THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
Kerry Underwood 
Mark 15:39
When the centurion standing there in front of Jesus saw how He had breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
Andrew Twambley
March 7, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Who is this Mark who made a comment at 15:39 before the blog was even posted? 🙂
kerryunderwood
March 7, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“Apart from demonstrating the power of blogs this shows the importance of never letting the Government, insurers, consumer groups or anyone else get away with seeking to remove lawyers from the process.
Lawyers stand between civilization and tyranny.”
truthaholics
March 7, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Excellent work Kerry, as always. Keep it up.
Nick Bettridge
March 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm
Thank you Nick
Kerry
kerryunderwood
March 7, 2017 at 1:42 pm
The problem is, that due to reduction of legal aid, and allotment of contracts for funded work to certain chosen legal companies, the court system per se, and now mainly commercially aware, not in competition or personally liable lawyers, sadly, even getting independent , competent legal representation is getting nigh on impossible.
finolamoss
March 7, 2017 at 2:23 pm
Disagree. Many firms will do this type of work on a contingency fee basis.
Kerry
kerryunderwood
March 7, 2017 at 2:49 pm
Yes. Congratulations are indeed due to you for giving this campaign a magnificent boost via your blog. So thanks. But this was a team effort. The Law Society and APIL were also involved in the background (with me advising them as well ). But I suspect that there is nothing quite so salutary or incentivising as a public shaming on your excellent blog . The MIB’s arrogant attempt to deny victims legal representation was exposed for what it was : a flagrant abuse of its powers as an emmanation of the state. The MIB’s humiliating U-turn was also probably influenced by the road safety charity RoadPeace’s ongoing (and wide ranging) judicial review of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Rights Against Insures Regs 2002 and the MIB Agreements. Leigh Day are acting.
Finally, Mr Ryman Tubb do please elucidate. What was inaccurate in Kerry’s earlier blog? I notice that all reference on your website to the one day wonder that was the first Uninsured Drivers Agreement of 2017 has disappeared without trace. Isn’t that inaccurate?
Nicholas Bevan
March 9, 2017 at 11:24 am
Nicholas
You deserve the most praise for bringing it to our attention and for constantly keeping an eye on the MIB – a much needed eye unfortunately.
Kerry
kerryunderwood
March 10, 2017 at 12:59 pm
Good Afternoon all,
I have a question in regards to a matter I am currently dealing with. I believe it to fall under the uninsured driver’s agreement given the fact that the MIB carried out an investigation and found the defendant driver and his photograph. I took that information and located the school the Defendant attended and they confirmed his address due to a GDPR request I made – when making the request I attached a photograph of the alleged driver.
The MIB believe the matter to be untraced even though they themselves found the identity of the defendant driver. By way of background information, the defendant provided a false name at the scene. A mid check was carried out against the insurers, they provided an invoice which showed that their policyholder is a car trader who had sold the vehicle some time before the accident but did not update the information with the insurers.
The incident occurred when our client’s vehicle was shunted from the rear by the Defendant. Two independent witnesses (the mother who is a “Doctor” and her son who is training to be an osteopath) provided statements confirming our client’s stance.
What would be the most appropriate way for me to get the MIB to change the matter from untraced to uninsured? What legislation / agreement clauses should I refer them to? Furthermore, despite the two witnesses and our client confirming it was a severe accident by stating that they heard a “loud bang”, the MIB believe the accident to be a “low velocity”.
I look forward to your assistance.
Kind Regards
Usama
Usama Shafiq
September 3, 2018 at 1:18 pm
This is dealt with in detail in my blog – Suing Unknown Defendants, which I have recently updated and I have provided a link in that blog to the excellent article by Dr Nicholas Bevan – Priciple v process – which first appeared in new Law Journal on 15 March 2019, and here is another link to that article.
Kerry
kerryunderwood
June 5, 2019 at 2:47 pm