Should the taxpayer fund insurance for those on flood plains?

CLAPTON

useless_git_requires_wife wrote: »

Where I live, the government allowed houses to built in an area with higher risk of crime than the norm. Imagine my shock when I discovered this only after I moved in and started getting burgled.

I look forward to the state coughing up for my car insurance, house contents insurance, etc, etc

I would have thought that if you had lived there for say 50 years and had always been able to get insurance and now suddenly insurance was refused then there would be an issue to be resolved.

is that what you meant?

mind you, that would have been quite a long time looking for a wife but I wouldn't expect the taxpayer to make provision in that situation.

useless_git_requires_wife

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would have thought that if you had lived there for say 50 years and had always been able to get insurance and now suddenly insurance was refused then there would be an issue to be resolved.

is that what you meant?

mind you, that would have been quite a long time looking for a wife but I wouldn't expect the taxpayer to make provision in that situation.

Car insurance is prohibitively expensive and some insurers will not quote, etc, etc.

I'd like assistance from my fellow taxpayers/ the government please. Seems reasonable to me.

John_Pierpoint

They will give you six months to get nice new replacements for the stuff stolen, and then target you gaff again.

You could find yourself in a downwards spiral of unaffordable insurance premiums

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

In the normal course of events the house will be insured by the owners in the normal way
So if the house falls down the hillside then insurance will pay out.

I don't know the details of your specific example; why wasn't the house insured in the normal way?


My points about the government responsibility are where insurance companies refuse to renew insurance after some one has been insured previously.

The case GD is referring to was quite extreme to be honest. Woman bought house on cliff top at auction. She did not view the house nor did she send a surveyor in. Just bid for it blind. After the auction but before she had paid, the cliff fell into the sea. Seller demanded that she pay up. She said no. Seller said I will see you in court and won. Buyer cried a lot. Seller got charge over buyer's other house.

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The case GD is referring to was quite extreme to be honest. Woman bought house on cliff top at auction. She did not view the house nor did she send a surveyor in. Just bid for it blind. After the auction but before she had paid, the cliff fell into the sea. Seller demanded that she pay up. She said no. Seller said I will see you in court and won. Buyer cried a lot. Seller got charge over buyer's other house.

They've obviously not seen Homes under the Hammer.

Cue Martin: "So you didn't view before buying, oh no!"

Cue Lucy: "And you didn't read the legal pack, that can be a very expensive mistake."