The Motor Insurers` Bureau (mib) was established in 1946 to provide compensation to victims of road accidents by uninsured drivers and later uninsured drivers. The mib and its agreements have been criticized by academics for possible gaps in coverage. Mib agreements are considered “a whole new piece of extra-legal machinery” because they are not based in law and therefore without parliamentary oversight. This has posed challenges with transparency issues when new agreements are put in place. Complaints against mib, particularly about undetected drivers, have also been controversial. Given that the UK is in a transitional period of its relations with the EU and there is no way to appeal to the Mib transition period, the question arises as to whether the Mib should be established on a legal basis. Both the new Untraced Driver Contract and the Uninsured Driver`s Agreement will come into effect on March 1, 2017. The agreements are available from the bureau of auto insurers. Motor Insurers` Bureau (MIB) handles driver claims involved in accidents involving uninsured or unsurbted drivers. Since agreements do not need to pass through Parliament, Hansard`s parliamentary debates are largely unavailable to discuss the purpose and interpretation of the agreements.53 When a case is brought before a court to determine the interpretation of the agreements, the courts have the opportunity to defer to discussions between the Mib and the government. However, the courts sometimes seem to have criticized the lack of evidence for the introduction of certain provisions. In The Case of Delaney/Secretary of State for Transport54 on State Liability for Exclusion in Uda 1999,55 Jay J at the High Court, Jay J. stated that the court was tried before Christmas, in which the applicant sued the unidentified driver of an “insured” car for a judgment that the insurer must comply with under letter 151 of the RTA 1988.
If the applicant succeeds, this will lead to seismic displacement in such cases, with the complainants likely seeking to prosecute unidentified drivers of insured vehicles, rather than under the untraceable driver agreement, in order to benefit from the higher refundable costs. Ibid., . An interesting comparison between the Mib and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Cica) was made by the applicant, the Mib representing commercial interests, while Zika examines the claims as the arm of the government. However, the Tribunal found the similarities between the two, as the payments of Zika and Mib were made by the government. Mib are paid by motorists. The Tribunal found  that “any increase in the amount of payments by the mib affects premium rates rather than profitability.” This is an interesting point, even if it is inconclusive with respect to the complainant`s criticisms of Carswell at the mib. It should be noted that Mib has previously expressed concerns about premium increases and the resulting increase in uninsured driving. In addition, the Carswell Tribunal found that  “the impact of the payments on the profitability of insurance companies on the parties to the payment of mib fees is therefore highly uncertain.” As the agreements between Mib and SoSfT are in place, it is not certain that there is state influence in this area. The mib is not self-regulating with the ability to determine whether and how it compensates victims. The relationship between the Mib and the state has been discussed several times, as the direct vertical effect of the directives can only be used against the state or its emanation. The Mib is a socially limited society and therefore raises the question of whether it is an “emanation of the state”.