No. Before, there was no requirement for a car to be continuously insured-so, providing it wasn't driven without insurance, no offence was committed. Of course, when it comes to renewing the tax disc,insurance was required.

I for one don't support the change of legislation. It is infantising law that serves no useful purpose. There are times when it is convenient to have a car and not pay insurance on it-and it perfectly legitimate-I've been there myself. Providing a car is not being driven without 3rd party insurance, it isn't anyone's business what the insured status of a vehicle is.

Yes I thought that it's exaclty the kind of law that has unintended consequences.

It might be amusing to call Direct Line and get a quite for Insurance for say a Dodge Viper that I 'have in my garage' in several large cardboard boxes in a zillion bits (some parts missing) ...... still going to ask for an arm and a leg? Or won't they be able to cover it in it's disassembled state. Love to find out.

Typical Nu Liebour sledge hammer to crack a nut. Far better to put basic TP insurance cost on the fuel then everyone who uses a vehicle is insured and pays.. Use it more or have a higher power vehicle then you pay more premium. Rather simple.

One annoying side effect of this new law is that if you do want to keep a car off road for just a few weeks (e.g. whilst selling it) you must either keep it insured (which can be difficult if you already have your new car covered by your insurance policy) or SORN it. To SORN it will mean giving up your tax disc, thus meaning that you will have to apply for a new tax disc later on, losingout on a months tax that you paid for (they don't refund for part months), if you want to put it back on the road. Possibly also paying a higher rate of VED.

This therefore, makes it harder to sell your car on with tax still on it, which is the normal way of doing things for private sales.