Vnuk
- what's going on?
See our earlier NEWS items
on the Vnuk matter
Report from a FBHVC newsletter released on on 8th June
2017. More
& More & More
Does
Vnuk call for ALL motor vehicles to be insured at all times regardless whether
they are in use at all?
This
is a question asked by a fellow V8 enthusiast who adds "the point that I
ask is whether the requirement covers say those in store, but registered on the
DVLA computer for instance and if the effect on historic cars will be far more
of a problem than just for competition cars!"
We
understand that "one possible outcome is certainly that vehicles on a SORN
might need to be covered; if they are actually laid up they would quite possible
have some sort of cover against fire and theft. To comply, that policy would need
to be extended to cover public liability, if not already covered, but with the
minimal risk involved, the additional premium should be very small. Insurance
companies will have to amend their policies to ensure compliance, and those owners
who leave their vehicles uninsured would have to take out a policy. If they want
to incur the minimal possible expense perhaps a public liability only policy would
be possible, either as a stand-alone policy or an extension of a household policy.
At some point a vehicle being stripped for spares would cease to be a
vehicle and that would need to be clarified. A vehicle under SORN might be in
use on private land, that I think would need to be covered".
Posted:
171012 |  | Vnuk
- what's going on?
An
extraordinary situation seems to be developing with what one would assume are
unintended consequences. But the puzzling thing is that no one else in Europe
sees it as nearly as apocalyptic as we do in the UK.
Compulsory Insurance
under the EU Motor Insurance Directive (‘Vnuk’)
Briefly, as a
result of a decision of the European Court of Justice (known as ‘Vnuk’)
in 2016, which reinterpreted the EU Motor Insurance Directive, the UK Government
has decided they need to compel insurance of all motor vehicles, whether or not
they are used on the highway. They issued what they describe as a ‘Technical
Consultation’ to assist them in more fully understanding the problems such
a decision might have and to gain an understanding of the views of all those with
an interest in | the
consequences. Clearly the major high profile consequence was the possible effect
on motor sport, including historic motorsport, as the insurance industry has made
clear their unwillingness to insure significant aspects of motor sport activities.
An update on this matter was reported in an FBHVC newsletter in June 2017. More
& More
& More
MSA new release
In an email to MSA members headed "Vnuk: nine days left to act!"
sent out on 11th October 2017 they say "Many MSA members will be aware of
Vnuk, a 2014 European Court judgement that threatens the future of all UK motorsport.
The Court ruled that the requirement for compulsory insurance should cover any
use of a vehicle, so long as that use is consistent with the normal function of
the vehicle. This would require all competition cars in motorsport to have compulsory
third party insurance. In responding to the Vnuk issue, the MSA has been working
with a wide range of groups including the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA),
and we are now calling on the motorsport community to respond to a European Commission
consultation by 20th October 2017. To view the MIA’s call to action, which
the MSA fully supports, please click here.
The MSA has previously responded to a Department for Transport consultation
on Vnuk. To view the MSA’s response to that consultation, click here.
Limited time available
to respond to the European Commission consultation by 20th October 2017
In
view of the limited time available, we feel we should do everything possible to
enable members to respond easily and quickly if they wish to do so. An adaptation
of the MIA suggested response to suit an individual and give the result for what
it is worth is set out below:
EU Commission
Public
consultation on REFIT Review of Directive
2009/103/EC on motor insurance (VNUK)
Response guidance - adapted
MIA suggested response
Your response before 20th October 2017 is VITAL
To enter your answers and respond to this consultation will take no more than
TEN minutes if you use each step of this guidance as a basis for your response.
You could even ‘cut and paste’ some of the words we provide to reduce
this time if you wish. Please note - only responses received through this EU Commission
online questionnaire will be taken into account and included in the report summarising
the responses.
Step 1
Go
to this EU Commission webpage
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/finance-2017-motor-insurance_en
Step
2
Under ‘View
the Questionnaire’
Click
the link – ‘Respond to the Consultation’
Step 3
a)
Read the information which is given, then click … ‘next’
b)
Complete Section 1. Information about you as follows...
> a. Under ‘are
you replying as:’ … select ‘an individual’.
> b. Under ‘where are you based’ … chose your country of
residence.
> c. Under ‘field of activity or sector:’ … select
‘not applicable’.... then click ‘next’.
c)
Under ‘Important Notice on the publishing of responses’ - select your
own choice of response
d) Then click… ‘next’
Step
4
Under Section 2.
‘Your opinion’
Scroll
down to Section A filling in any boxes you wish to but in answer to Question 20
write ‘Please see my response to Section B.2.7 SCOPE
concerning the very important issue of the effect on motorsport throughout the
EU.’
then continue scrolling down until you reach ‘B.2.7.
SCOPE’ – and read the detail associated with the Scope section.
Step
5
You only need to
answer Questions 27, 28, 29, 30, 31and 32 but of course are free to answer others
if you wish. Our suggested responses which cover the essential issues follow.
Please change these to suit you and add additional comments to your answers, as
you wish.
Q27:
Answer - ‘No… it should only apply to public roads,
not private property’.
Q28: Answer - ‘No
– exempting/derogating motorsport vehicles from the requirement of the Directive
does not mean the liability goes away. The number of accidents between motorsport
vehicles is far more regular than in traffic conditions due to the competition.
In the event of a claim where ‘derogated/exempted vehicles’ are in use,
it falls to either the National Guarantee Fund, or a similar organisation, to
compensate the victim from a central fund. So if motorsport vehicles were to be
exempted, the subsequent cost of claims arising uninsured motorsport activities
would dramatically increase the amount of compensation being paid by one of these
funding options (e.g. MIB in the UK), so requiring a significant increase in the
size of the fund being raised from road-user insurance. Transferring the cost
of this solution, arising from accidents in motorsport, onto the road-going motorist
would be unfair when considering the increased risk which competitive motorsport
use represents when compared to the normal use of a road-going motor vehicle.
06/10/2017 V4
Q29: Answer - ‘All
vehicles used for motorsport activities’
Q30: Answer
– ‘No - motorsport activities should not be covered
by compulsory Motor Third Party Liability (MTPL) insurance’
Q31:
Answer – ‘No…. compulsory Motor Third Party
Liability (MTPL) insurance should not cover accidents that occur in areas which
the public are not allowed to access’
Q32: As no Motor
Third Party Liability (MTPL) insurance will be available to cover motorsport activities,
motorsport would cease to exist. The forced closure of European motorsport will
be a direct consequence of this Directive unless the wording is amended as requested.
>
It is estimated, by the Motorsport Industry Association (MIA), that more than
€25 billion of sales in motorsport would be lost across EU member states
and, based on their research in 2000/02/13/14, some 50,000 motorsport-related
jobs will be lost in the UK alone and tens of thousands more throughout EU Member
States.
> I strongly support your Option 3 as being the correct interpretation
and that the place of use should be defined as being ‘in traffic only’,
as defined in the REFIT review of the Motor Insurance Directive Impact Assessment.
It is not the ‘function of the vehicle’ which matters but the ‘place
of the vehicle’ is in use.
> Principle 6 of the IOC’s Olympic
Charter specifically states “the practice of sport is a human right”.
The EU’s revised European Sports Charter of 2001 confirmed the importance
and social value of sport and their European Economic and Social Committee in
2011 stated “sport contributes to the cultural and social life for both the
individual and society as a whole”.
> In Article 6 and Article
165 of the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the
importance of sport is legally acknowledged, and the promotion of sport as an
EU objective is emphasized. Article 165 calls on the EU to “contribute to
the promotion of sporting issues, while taking into account the specific nature
of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational
function”.
Step
6
Then Click…’next’ …then click ‘Submit’
… your response has now been submitted to the EU Commission.
Please
note - your complete response must be sent by 20th October 2017. Thank you for
taking part and helping to keep motorsport alive.
That's the end of
the adapted MIA guidance for responding to the EU survey. |
|
