Should the taxpayer fund insurance for those on flood plains?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

In both those cases you'd have insurance anyway so it's a pretty irrelevant point. Putting a levy on insurance to cover flooding simply protects developers and government from having to manage flooding and build in responsible locations.

If a house was now in a location where it is likely to flood each year (and obviously extreme) example do you not think it would make more sense to stop using it, or address the cause, rather than force down their insurance by charging people who don't live in a seasonal lake more?

People pay more car insurance and house insurance because they live in a rough area (even if it wasn't rough when they moved there). House values change because roads, schools, pylons, wind farms, industrial estates etc get built or removed all the time. People don't have a god given right to be 100% protected from any risk all the time.

CharlieRabbit01

mystic_trev wrote: »

Graham, I'm not sure you've got this right? The way I read it is the Government want Insurance Companies to provide Homeowners of Properties at risk of flooding with affordable coverage. This would mean those not at risk paying a supplement of at least £10 per year, on their Home Insurance, to cover those at greater risk.

Obviously Insurance Companies aren't going to subsidise those at greater risk, as they'd lose money!

I had heard this, but I don't feel that I should pay more for my home insurance to subsidise someone who is in a flood risk area.

Thrugelmir

CharlieRabbit01 wrote: »

I had heard this, but I don't feel that I should pay more for my home insurance to subsidise someone who is in a flood risk area.

You are certain there's no possibility of your property ever being flooded.

CharlieRabbit01

I don't live in a flood risk area.

If I did I'd move.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

In both those cases you'd have insurance anyway so it's a pretty irrelevant point. Putting a levy on insurance to cover flooding simply protects developers and government from having to manage flooding and build in responsible locations.

If a house was now in a location where it is likely to flood each year (and obviously extreme) example do you not think it would make more sense to stop using it, or address the cause, rather than force down their insurance by charging people who don't live in a seasonal lake more?

People pay more car insurance and house insurance because they live in a rough area (even if it wasn't rough when they moved there). House values change because roads, schools, pylons, wind farms, industrial estates etc get built or removed all the time. People don't have a god given right to be 100% protected from any risk all the time.

Lets remind us what the issue is

Because the increase in flooding, the insurance industry is saying they won't insure in those areas in the future, unless the government improves flood defenses to the point that the risk is acceptable or share the financial risk.

The increase in floods seems to be due to many factors including weather changes, increase in building in flood plains, changing land use (in the most general sense, farm land changes, people concreting their drives) poor maintenance of rivers and drainage sysems.

Most of these are totally outside the control of a house holder.

If and I say if, the insurance industry refuses to insurance properties in flood plains in large numbers (100s of thousands) then that is a catastrophic impact on potentially millions of people and with potentially massive economic effects.

It is at that stage where I am arguing that the government needs to act to ensure properties can get insurance.

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

Lets remind us what the issue is

Because the increase in flooding, the insurance industry is saying they won't insure in those areas in the future, unless the government improves flood defenses to the point that the risk is acceptable or share the financial risk.

The increase in floods seems to be due to many factors including weather changes, increase in building in flood plains, changing land use (in the most general sense, farm land changes, people concreting their drives) poor maintenance of rivers and drainage sysems.

Most of these are totally outside the control of a house holder.

If and I say if, the insurance industry refuses to insurance properties in flood plains in large numbers (100s of thousands) then that is a catastrophic impact on potentially millions of people and with potentially massive economic effects.

It is at that stage where I am arguing that the government needs to act to ensure properties can get insurance.

Surely just one of the risks you take when you decide to buy a house.

Insurance is supposed to be priced based on risk.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Surely just one of the risks you take when you decide to buy a house.

Insurance is supposed to be priced based on risk.

I fully accept that it is the property owner's responsibilty to insure their property.

The issue is that if some-one has insured their property for years and years but then due to these changing floods patterns, the companies suddenly REFUSE any insurance.

If the insurance companies REFUSE to (say) insurance 100,000 or more properties, do you say tough luck and the government has no responsibility even though they control where houses are built, how rivers are dredged, what flood defenses are built etc?

Thrugelmir

CharlieRabbit01 wrote: »

I don't live in a flood risk area.

That wasn't my question.

custardy

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.

isnt it the insurers duty(or sense) to charge a premium to cover the possible payout?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

It's a good point, but where does it stop?

Should the government be paying out for eeryone who is hit by an uninsured driver?

Should the government be paying out 70% of the premium of a younger driver, due to their higher risk putting their prices up?

Where does it stop? And like the private companies suggest, do these sorts of things only apply when the value of something we own falls, but we get to keep every penny if the value is increased by something?