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?
T
his 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.