Should the taxpayer fund insurance for those on flood plains?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

If and I say if, insurers refuse outright to offer insurance for the future, then subject to the precise details I think it right that the government should offer equivalent support.
The reasons I see it as ultimately a government resposnibility is that only the government can offer flood protection on any significant scale, the the loss to the individual is enormous and potential there would be huge losses to the community if large numbers of properties were involved

I was going to respond, but as you've repeatedly refused to address the questions I've put to you, I see no reason to further debate my position as regards to the fictional circumstance you propose.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

I was going to respond, but as you've repeatedly refused to address the questions I've put to you, I see no reason to further debate my position as regards to the fictional circumstance you propose.

I think language divides us as ever; I'm not really sure which point I have inadvertently ignored.

John_Pierpoint

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Not quite so blatant as that, but I suspect that their commitment to flood prevention work has not been quite so whole-hearted as householders and insurers had assumed was intended in the agreement.
Indeed in some coastal areas they have semi-officially actually abandoned certain hard to defend areas or properties.

Now they have been rumbled by the insurance companies, and the resulting situation has come as a nasty shock. It may in fact be the case that a large area of recent flood-plain building is not economically worth protecting, although all sides have connived at pretending that it is.

It is not semi officially - it is officially.

So are we going to insure these East coast flood victims ?

Do we believe in climate change and do we believe in sea level rise and increasing "storm" effects?

I really cannot see the difference.

If you answer yes
then for how long and for how much?

Have you consulted my grandchildren?

Why are some posters so good at spending other people's money.

John_Pierpoint

The courtiers of King Canute need to study the evidence.

A 2008 letter to the Guardian [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][Waves of destruction, G2, April 17][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]proposes this method of crystallising the forthcoming losses:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]When it comes to coastal erosion, unlike most other European countries we don't have a solidarity fund to compensate people for such natural disasters, and so the last owner is expected to pay when their house is demolished.
To stop a perverse game of beggar-my-neighbour where the unscrupulous try to sell to unsuspecting buyers, we should be leasing such coastal properties from the sea. Any land that is likely to disappear within a century would in effect become leasehold and the time left stated on the title deeds. In addition to a solidarity fund, limited compensation could be paid if such estimates proved to be wrong. The British Geological Survey, which already undertakes coastal surveys, could provide fairly reliable estimates revised every decade for places with cliffs like Happisburgh. This would be rather more problematic further south along the Norfolk coast since a major breach to this narrow barrier could happen any time this century.
Once breached, the northern Norfolk broads and several villages would be lost, and so a proper cost/benefit analysis is urgently required. Coastal defences would interfere with the movement of sediment down the east coast of England and have to be balanced against any likely impacts further down the coast.
David Nowell, Fellow, Geological Society [/FONT]

dodss

Buyers took the risk and should not be helped by the tax payer.I know the Gvt issue planning guidance, but it is local politicians who grant planning permission not planning officers as is often quoted. Often Councillors vote against planning officer and Environment Agency recommendations.Larger, more viable communities is hard one to resist by local politicians. Officers and Councillors are also wary of the developer appealing and costing the authority big money in costs. Zoning areas has been diluted over the years and the Gvt want decisions made locally which leads to Nimbyism. All in all a dogs breakfast.

CLAPTON

dodss wrote: »

Buyers took the risk and should not be helped by the tax payer.I know the Gvt issue planning guidance, but it is local politicians who grant planning permission not planning officers as is often quoted. Often Councillors vote against planning officer and Environment Agency recommendations.Larger, more viable communities is hard one to resist by local politicians. Officers and Councillors are also wary of the developer appealing and costing the authority big money in costs. Zoning areas has been diluted over the years and the Gvt want decisions made locally which leads to Nimbyism. All in all a dogs breakfast.

Government planning officers often overrule local planning decisions.

Graham_Devon

Where do you stand on subsidy and landslip then Clapton?

Should the taxpayer insure that for people too? There was a case recently where someone bought a house that's too dangerous to live in now due to landslip. She was trying to sue the prevous owner, but of course got no where. Under such a scheme where we pay for uninsurab;e houses, we'd be paying out insurance for this?

gadgetmind

Caveat Emptor.

End of.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where do you stand on subsidy and landslip then Clapton?

Should the taxpayer insure that for people too? There was a case recently where someone bought a house that's too dangerous to live in now due to landslip. She was trying to sue the prevous owner, but of course got no where. Under such a scheme where we pay for uninsurab;e houses, we'd be paying out insurance for this?

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.

useless_git_requires_wife

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