If the accident was not your fault, Truth Legal will generally conduct the business on the basis of a “No Win, No Fee” agreement. Most of the claims that the MIB receives relate to unsured pilots. They estimate that this proportion could be as high as two-thirds of the total rights they receive. The new agreement renounces this arbitrary link and obliges the MIB to pay interest on general damages and special damages from the day of the accident from the date of the formal award. I do not entirely agree with the explanatory statement. If an unknown driver extinguished my insured vehicle on the basis of a third party, fire and theft just as it is parked outside, then why would I have the money if my husband was sitting at random at the time and doing a whiplash that required physiotherapy, whereas if it was unattended, I would receive nothing. In both scenarios, I lost my vehicle without fail. The 2003 agreement excluded liability for property damage in non-prosecuted vehicle applications, unless the applicant had also taken legal action for death or battery. This situation was amended in 2015 so that property damage would only be repaired if an amount was also awarded to the applicant for “significant personal injury” and if the property damage exceeded the reported surplus of $300. The 2017 agreement maintains this exclusion, but changes the definition of significant personal injury to reduce the level of damage required and brings the reported surplus to $400. The latest Untraced Drivers` agreement of 2017 applies to accidents that occurred on or after March 1, 2017.
For accidents that occurred on February 14, 2003 or after March 1, 2017, the 2003 Untraced Drivers` Agreement applies and, prior to that, claims that did not involve drivers not without a trace are covered by the Untraced Drivers` Agreement 1996. Endorsements were reached in 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2015. Despite considerable opposition from the MIB, persons whose vehicles were not insured are entitled to recovery if they meet the other criteria. There has been a traditional mistrust and prevention of procedures under these agreements. I guess that is largely due to cost provisions. These are defined in Part 4 of the agreement and make the fixed fee regime appear to be of remarkable generosity.