Every home to pay price of floods - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/buildingsandcontent/9393673/Every-home-to-pay-price-of-floods.html)

Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, has disclosed she is in talks with the insurance industry about a scheme which could add 10 per cent to an average family’s bill.
She is proposing a levy, which could be in place within months, that would apply to all home insurance policies in an attempt to raise enough money to cover damage in the aftermath of severe flooding, which can reach billions of pounds in insurance claims.

oh joy, yet more money bilked out of the pocket !

Other than if you have a mortgage I wasn't aware that house insurance was mandatory? I have been seriously thinking of ditching house contents insurance anyway.

Frankly I think her plan is fatuous. If you choose to live in a house which is liable to flooding then surely you have to put up with the consequences?

What's next? A levy on all car insurance so all drivers of 4WD don't have to pay as high an excess when their car gets damaged.

Talk about "nanny state"!

Could it be that a lot of her friends live in "darling little cottages" with addresses like Brook Lane, The Water Meadows, River View? Or are developers who are s**t scared they can't shift property built on that patch of land that nobody has used for centuries because it always floods and so is uninsurable?

I must take my anti-cynicism pills now.

Here we go again, yet another shambolic 'make it up as you go along' idea from our intellectually bankrupt, inept political classes. For years, we have approved building on flood plains now such decisions are coming back to haunt us. But it's not just flood plain building that causes a problem, there are too many developments built where the eye is on profit without due care and attention being paid to the fact that the more of our land mass which is covered in concrete and asphalt, the more we decrease the ground's natural ability to absorb the water falling onto it.

Insurance companies (and I declare an interest as a shareholder) are in the business to make money and I see no reason why we as customers should have to pay more just to raise enough money to cover damage in the aftermath of severe flooding. If the insurance companies take on the risk, let them pay for the aftermath of flood claims, they still make vast profits.
I have insurance for that very eventuality, I haven't had to claim for it, but I have it in place. My insurance company deems that I live in a flood risk area due to the 3 inch deep stream at the bottom of my garden (which is 8 feet below the level of my house and has never flooded since the house was built nearly fifty years ago) and despite me living on a hill.

Incidentally, the village, Croscombe, pictured in the Telegraph article is about two miles from where I live and we initially considered it as a place to live, but it is at the bottom of a small valley with the river Sheppey running through the middle of it and my main concern was it's potential for flooding. This is the third or fourth time it has flooded in the last few years. Much of it's flooding is caused by heavy rain running down the hillsides into the village rather than just the river overflowing. I also doesn't help that many of the houses which flood regularly have their ground floor about two feet below the level of the main street. Admittedly they are not new houses, many are many decades and in some cases, hundreds of years old.

The government is proposing this scheme as a way of deflecting the fact that the deal they struck a decade or so ago with insurance companies in respect of building flood defences, is about to end and no new agreement is in sight............................because it will cost money.,:ugh:

Could be worse. Here in Oz following the Brisbane floods (caused, allegedly, by State government incomptence) there was a levy imposed on ALL Australians earning above a certain amount.

Socialism at work both in the manner of the destruction and the consequent targetting of the supposed "rich". :yuk:

Could be worse. Here in Oz following the Brisbane floods (caused, allegedly, by State government incomptence) there was a levy imposed on ALL Australians earning above a certain amount.

Socialism at work both in the manner of the destruction and the consequent targetting of the supposed "rich". :yuk:

Actually I don't agree that that would be worse. In this country the retired and others on very little income would still be hit by such an increase in house insurance. At least in Oz it is charged to people who can afford it.

When I was house-hunting back in the 1980s, I found a delightful property with a stream running through the garden (complete with watercress beds).

I enquired of the owner why the lower part of the walls was a slightly darker shade to that above half a metre. The reply was that that was where the recent flood had reached.

I left . . .

Here we go again, yet another shambolic 'make it up as you go along' idea from our intellectually bankrupt, inept political classes. For years, we have approved building on flood plains now such decisions are coming back to haunt us. But it's not just flood plain building that causes a problem, there are too many developments built where the eye is on profit without due care and attention being paid to the fact that the more of our land mass which is covered in concrete and asphalt, the more we decrease the ground's natural ability to absorb the water falling onto it.


indeed, Standard Noise. Not only that but the EPA has been cutting back on flood defence management for a while.. http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/396463-flooding-planning-rebuilding.html#post5328185

Posted 20 Nov 2009:


a short synopsis of flood defence management involves the situation that the EU found that the government had to repay a large chunk of money that was taken by the UK government through DEFRA from the UK farmers (remember that whole issue?)..

The government delayed and stalled on returning the funds to the UK farmers for so long that the EU fined the UK government for not retuning the funds.. (remember that whole issue?) a fine not dissimilar to the amount that was supposed to be returned.

So the government having been found to have taken money illegitimately from the uk farm industry through DEFRA now had to return the funds and pay a considerable fine to the EU.

The government refused to provide the repayment funds to DEFRA and left DEFRA to cover the costs. In order to meet the costs (due to the government f-up and its money grabbing 'prudence') it cut the budget of the EPA which comes under DEFRA. The EPA manages the waterways, flood defence and flood management programs and systems and literally has had to ignore flood defence maintenance and management as it doesnt have the funds anymore.

Meanwhile, with the increase in housing demand, flood plains have been given planning persmission for housing estates which has redirected natural flood management to other locations.
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 20th Nov 2009 at 10:13.

I objected to a planning application for a large housing estate near me, adjacent to the river. One of the things I pointed out was that it was to be built on a floodplain. They changed the floodplain....go figure!

Now, the new houses are suffering from subsidence and cracks. Go figure again.

How would I feel about having my house insurance premiums bumped up to compensate the owners of these houses? No need to go figure on that one, I'm sure. :*

Like a previous poster I live by a stream and my house stands eight feet above it's level.After 24 hours of non stop rain in March the stream level raised by about a foot.My attitude to this is that I will just take my chance with the floods.If it does reach me then half the village will be under water.

I live in a flood plain BUT the house was designed to be here and in such a way that flooding does not flood the living accommodation and causes virtually no damage.

Despite this I have several times had insurance companies hike my renewal premium for no good reason other than 'we have recategorised the post code (latest excuse from Legal and General)'. Which means I have to search around to find a new and willing insurer. I would even be happy to forgo flood risks but flexibility is not something insurers seem to have these days.

As far as the latest asinine comments from the Government hasn't it always been the case that insurance companies balance the books by attempting to make premium income exceed claim outgoings by a margin sufficient to run the business and make a profit i.e. we all pay in the end?

The bit that makes me snort is '£xxx freezer cover'. How many people have more than about fifty quids worth in their freezer?

Even if you do, the £100 or more excess will probably wipe it out.

As far as the latest asinine comments from the Government hasn't it always been the case that insurance companies balance the books by attempting to make premium income exceed claim outgoings by a margin sufficient to run the business and make a profit i.e. we all pay in the end?

True, but now they can say "Not our fault, guv, the gummint say we got to do this so you have to subsidise those who think that living on a flood plain is a good idea. But don't worry, we're still going to jack their premiums higher to make sure we have enough profits to pay for private jets and hookers".

I don't understand having all this freedom and independence we're supposed to have, and then being forced to live in a cozy little commune where we support each other . . . or else!

Here in Australia some insurers tried to get out of paying flood damage on the grounds that it was caused by the river water rising and not inundation from rain water falling!:rolleyes:

A house that is close to and overlooks the river (and is too high to be flooded unless there was a tenfold increase in river level over the highest recorded flood since the 18th Century) has had its garden retaining wall destroyed by surface water run-off from the adjacent highway following a 'cloudburst'.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/GroupCaptain/IMGP1800.jpg

The photograph shows an insurance assessor examining the remains.