Should the taxpayer fund insurance for those on flood plains?

John_Pierpoint

Picture the scene.
Canterbury 2000 - I've been cycling round the place house hunting.
Lots of little millstreams intended to power watermills, for all those pilgrims that needed feeding.
I arrive at the planning department to consult the local plan.

"Have you got any sort of map that shows the flood risks"
"I don't know, I will have to check".
.
.
.
"Yes we do, here they are [two large document tubes]. You know that is the first time I've ever been asked for them."

[Distance from a watercourse was no guarantee, in fact being next to a watermill was a relatively safe position; because the guys who originally built the mill chose the position with best fall and protected their investment.]

As someone else has already pointed out, as well as flooding water courses you are at risk from surface water.

Can I also point out, especially for those in basement flats and those with ground floor plumbing; you are at risk from sewers "back firing".

I have a relative who was only persuaded to buy the sort of thigh high shutter, to fit to the ground floor doors, when the home had been flooded to ankle depth for the second time.

Is it climate change or "hard" landscaping that is responsible ?

GDB2222

CLAPTON wrote: »

the government allowed building on the land

they therefore should made provision to make sure that it is safe to do so.

it's reasonable for an ordinary person to assume a location is safe and that adequate flood defenses are in place.

Interesting take on the nanny state. Basically, it's the government's job to protect the 'ordinary person' from the consequences of his own folly?

System

Not being able to get flood insurance doesn't mean a house is uninsurable, it means you can't get flood insurance.

The_White_Horse

absolutely not. the insurers should pay - as long as adequate flood defences are in place. they took on the risk and now they have to pay out. the only way the govt should have to bail them out is if they failed in their duty to upkeep or maintain the flood defences. people CHOOSE to live on flood plains. It is not a surprise. Searches are carried out. They must then CHOOSE whether or not to get insurance. If they CHOOSE not to, then tough luck if they are flooded and if they do, well done to them, the insurers should pay out.

if insurance becomes unavailable or prohibitively expensive, then perhaps house prices will drop in those areas. People can the CHOOSE if they want to live there.

CLAPTON

GDB2222 wrote: »

Interesting take on the nanny state. Basically, it's the government's job to protect the 'ordinary person' from the consequences of his own folly?

example 1
I buy a house that has stood for 100 years without floods.

several years later a housing estate is build some miles away that affects the water absortoin on a flood plain (all authorised by our government)

several years later, my property is flooded.

why is this my own folly.

example 2

I buy a house that has stood for 100 years with any flooding

In time of asterity the government agencies cut back on dredging the local rivers and neglect the storm drains

my house floods

how is this my own folly.

CLAPTON

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Not being able to get flood insurance doesn't mean a house is uninsurable, it means you can't get flood insurance.

that may be true but it also means that no mortgage lender will provide a mortgage.
Some potential buyers may see this as a disadvantage.
In common parlance one might say the house was unsellable

paulmapp8306

I dont think the tax payer should bail anyone out here, with one exception.

A buyer should know the risks of flooding when purchasing the property, and if there is a risk insurance should have been bought. In this case it is totally up to the insurance company to fund the claims - if they cant cover the possible claims they should not be providing the insurance, or they should be charging more for it. If you cant get insurance - then as a buyer that should say something, and you buy at your own risk.

The exception is if insurance was available when the house was purchased, but since that time things have changed and now no insurance is available. This is then no longer the fault of the owner as he made the correct desicion at the time of purchase. Its not his fault insurance is no longer availabe.

The "paying ambulance drivers" is a silly argument and not relevant. Paying for the firemen or rescue services, to remove people from danger is the equivilant in this case - which is done. The equivilant in an accident is for the tax payer to pay for repair/replacement of the cars involved. This is down to the insurance companies in that case - as house damage should be in this case.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

that may be true but it also means that no mortgage lender will provide a mortgage.
Some potential buyers may see this as a disadvantage.
In common parlance one might say the house was unsellable

If you buy an asset you take a risk. If a new high speed rail link is put in or motorway built or a particularly good state school in the area pushes up the value of your home, that would be confiscated using your logic.

If you expect your fellow taxpayers to share in your losses they should also get a share in your profits.

paulmapp8306

mystic_trev wrote: »

The alternative is Insurance Companies continue as before, rating their Policies according to risk.

Which is how it should be.

Why should someone who made sure their home was not in a risk area, and potentially paid more for their home to do so - then be penalised by paying a premium to cover properties that are in a risk area.

The whole premis of insurance is the premium reflects the risk, to make it any other was is totally unacceptable.

paulmapp8306

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is reasonable to expect the government to protect the people from reasonable threats.

Taxpayers built a flood barrier on the Thames to protect London from flooding.

So it is reasonable for taxpayers to protect other sections against the increasing risk of severe flooding. It most cases is it impractical for individuals to protect their own property in isolation from the wider community.

Where that protection fails, unless the property owner is negligent it is reasonable to protect them from losing their property using taxpayers money where necessary.

Insurance plays a part and the government needs to insure that insurance is available

How it does this is subject to debate.

Without knowing the full details, cost, number of properties at risk etc etc it's a little difficult to be definitive about the (range) of solutions.

Its not reasonable at all. Its reasonable for the government to fund flood defenses yes. But if the flood overcomes the defenses then it does. Nothing is fool proof, and its why we have insurance.

Its reasonable for insurance companies to reduce premiums for homes in a risk area where the risk is minimised by flood defences, and this is where the tax payer is helping the insurance policies be available and affordable.

The alternative, is for insurance to be withdrawn for everyone - and for the tax payer to funs ALL damage. Would you expect the tax payer to fund damage in a fire? or if a truck ploughs into your home? No - thats what insurance is for.

Its kind of like the airoplane v car accident thing. Many Many more people die in car accidents than aircraft ones - but the death toll per accident is much higher in an air accident - so its reported more. In this case a single flood affects many people so theres this call for tax payers help.