Well that's that then, the car has now been insured to avoid Mr Plod knocking on the door. Just another example of Blood Money having to paid out to avoid the penalties imposed by the bureaucratic dim-wits who govern us. There should be an allowance made for people like us who have a car locked the their garage, or as in our case behind a 6ft fence, with no intention or need to use the vehicle on the roads. What use is it to SORN the vehicle if you intend to sell it imminently? I can see a case for motor vehicle insurance companies to introduce a new class of insurance to cover one car being used and another off the road, pending the sale of the unused vehicle. So I hope Mr Direct Line, Mr Saga, Mr AXA, Mr Aviva, Mr Zurich, etc., etc., that you are reading this.

It may be that the Authorities are trying to stop those idiots who drive without motor insurance, but what about those people like ourselves who buy a new car without part exchanging the old one, intending to sell the old car privately? Being forced to insure the vehicle that is only intended for sale and nothing else, seems to be forcing people into an extravagance that in these hard times is unreasonable. I agree with Hamster 777 that this new rule may well give the motor trade more influence that it should rightfully have, and what about the likes of webuyanycar.com - who will be having a field day? It may well be that the government 'bright sparks' who thought this new rule up had the best intentions, ie stopping uninsured drivers, but as with so many of these rapid-fire ideas, has knock-on side effects for innocent people who get caught-up in government trawl nets. It just struck me that people like Lord Montague who have large private collections of motor cars will now be expected to insure every one of them for use on the road, alternatively they would have to be put on a SORN. Mind you, maybe people like Lord Montague can afford it whereas members of the general public cannot.

Yes Greasmonkey, I thought the Law had changed, but my wife and I both have Comprehensive Insurance on two other cars, so does that mean we can drive the car that is to be sold on our Third Party Fire and Theft cover, or does it mean that the unwanted car must be insured no matter what? It seems a complete nonsense if we have to insure the vehicle when we have no intention of using it. The vehicle in question will remain locked behind 6ft gates. Saga tell me that anyone wanting to test drive it can do so using the TPFT cover on their insurance, providing of course they have a fully comp policy on their main vehicle.

Here is an interesting little ditty that I hope someone has got the answer to. When we were recently on holiday in the UK my wife bought herself a new car. I telephoned Saga (the Insurers of her old car) and transferred the details, so that the new car was Insured - No problem. We carried on with the holiday and returned home two weeks later only to realise that the old car (which was sitting in our garden), was no longer insured. The motor tax on it runs up to the end of March 2012 and the MOT runs up to May 2012. My wife seemed to think that there was no problem as the vehicle is behind a 6ft fence and quite secure. I advertised the vehicle for sale, and only then realised that it would not be legal for her or me to take the car on the road if anyone wanted to go for a test run before buying it. The matter gets further complicated due to the recent changes in the law regarding all vehicles. Apparently now every car, whether on the road or off must carry motor insurance. So what in heavens name should I do, insure the car for 12 months knowing that we are going to sell it, or leave it as it is knowing that we run the risk of breaking the law? To put the vehicle on a SORN would be defeating the object to some extent, as we do not want to reclaim the Motor Tax, and in any event if it was on a SORN then there would be no chance of selling it because it could not legally be taken for a test run. Can anyone offer any advice - please?