"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

Perelandra

vivatifosi wrote: »

Good luck perelandra, I hope that the water stops short of your house. Out of interest, as an affected party, what advice are you getting, if any, on protecting your property?

Thanks.

From official sources? Very little, other than what can be googled (although I'm not really sure what else could be added to that). The local residents support is good, though. Lots of people offering help (both advice and practical).

The critical time will be next week, I think. The water is still rising as of yesterday, but really really slowly. As long as there isn't a new influx of water (did someone say storms over the weekend?) I should be okay.

My house is an ex council house, built on an above-surface foundation of over a metre of concrete. Without that, I'd've been flooded. The houses built privately around here don't have that security.

Perelandra

mayonnaise wrote: »

All the best Perelandra.
Please don't feel as if you are stealing if it ever comes to compensation. You'll deserve every penny of it.

Thanks- if it comes I'll take it, of course, whether it's an offer to buy at a fair pre-flood value, or a one-off lump sum.

RICS did a piece of analysis which suggested that flooding only affects house values for about 3 years. If that were true, then:

a) The taxpayer could end up doing well out of it if house prices continue to rise (if property purchased)

b) The homeowner could end up doing well out of it, if they receive a compensator lump sump, but retain ownership of the property.

vivatifosi

BillJones wrote: »

When I move out of our Capital one day, up to the borders, I've always assumed that I'll want a house on firm ground, on a hill, sheltered from storms, within walking distance of water, "just in case". This vastly reduces my choices, and will quite likely increase my costs (as will insisting it's stone built, with a walled garden). I genuinely believe that if the earth cracks open and swallows it that I'll stoically accept my monetary losses if it's not insured.

I'd quite like the fire brigade to upll me and my family out of the hole, and actually expect that they would, but think that my views on the flooding are similar to on my future house. The state should rescue, protect, and preserve life, and not ignore good environmental management, but they should not tend to go as far as compensating people for their houses dropping in value.

That how I felt when I moved here Bill. 450 ft above sea level, about 150ft above the nearest river. I felt so gutted for my neighbours when their houses flooded due to a massive burst water main. You never know what is around the corner.

Idiophreak

This doesn't seem as complex as a lot of people are making it out to be.

People pay less for houses that are more prone to flooding, but they have to pay more insurance as a consequence. If they decide not to buy said insurance, I fail to see how this is the taxpayer's problem.

If you've got insurance and hour house floods, you get your house fixed and put it down as "life happens".

If the government does something that significantly increases the risk of flooding (ie your house moves from, say, a 1 in 100 year event band to a 1 in 10 year event band)...and you kicked up a fuss at the time and said "this will increase the risk of flooding!" then yeah...maybe there's an argument that you should be compensated...but no moreso than anyone's compensated when the government build a new road by their house, or approve an incinerator nearby - ie probably no compensation at all.

In terms of what the government *should* pay for, I'm all for maintaining our flood defences, but whether more should be funded out of general taxation is a different question...I paid more to get a 1st floor flat so I could avoid the (slight) flood risk in the area. Should my taxes really go toward improving defences to make the flat downstairs worth more? I'm not so sure.

Perelandra

smartn wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from and agree that it's not the governments job to pay compensation for loss in house values however I think the government/taxpayers have a moral obligation to help these people out with increased funding for flood defences and dredging etc and to provide plenty of support while the crisis continues.

The Sun has provided more support than the official channels (in terms of number of "Sunbags" at least).

The army and council are providing very few sandbags in my area, and those which are available are being provided (and rightfully so) to the more vulnerable customers. If you're not an OAP, you are being refused any practical help. Resources are limited, and so need to be prioritised.

When should the government step in and provide the support, though. Should it be provided preemptively (which would imply an ongoing cost whenever the risk rose above a pre-defined level) or only after the crisis has started (by which time it will be too late to have a meaningful impact- which is what we're seeing in Egham).

It may be cheaper in the long run to provide compensation to those affected than the pre-emptive option. I don't think it's practical to provide sufficient support to "save" everyone once the flooding itself starts.

Graham_Devon

Idiophreak wrote: »

This doesn't seem as complex as a lot of people are making it out to be.

People pay less for houses that are more prone to flooding, but they have to pay more insurance as a consequence. If they decide not to buy said insurance, I fail to see how this is the taxpayer's problem.

This isn't what the discussion is about.

People fear the long term resale residuals of their properties. indeed, it seems some have been told their properties will have turned to properties which are unmortgageable overnight.

Their issue isn't refitting the carpets. It's selling the house, or in some others cases, the lower value of the house.

Some of these people are suggesting the government should take the market value of the properites before flooding, and then compensate the homeowner for the difference between what it was worth, and what it is worth today (post flooding).

Some others are simply wanting to get rid of their home and move elsehwere, so feel the government should purchase the home at pre flood values, allowing them to talk away and buy somewhere else.

Perelandra

Graham_Devon wrote: »

it seems some have been told their properties will have turned to properties which are unmortgageable overnight.

Hells bells, this I hadn't thought of. I'm currently on a lifetime tracker, so at least I won't have the hassle of trying to remortgage. Presumably my existing lender couldn't pull the rug out from under my feet, and say that they no longer want to lend to me?

prowla

Idiophreak wrote: »

In terms of what the government *should* pay for, I'm all for maintaining our flood defences, but whether more should be funded out of general taxation is a different question...I paid more to get a 1st floor flat so I could avoid the (slight) flood risk in the area. Should my taxes really go toward improving defences to make the flat downstairs worth more? I'm not so sure.

Hows about if the flood undermined the whole building, brought in sewage which meant that your 1st floor flat was unfit, meant you couldn't get in and out, took out the electricity, gas and phone, wrecked your car in the basement, etc.?

Idiophreak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This isn't what the discussion is about.

People fear the long term resale residuals of their properties. indeed, it seems some have been told their properties will have turned to properties which are unmortgageable overnight.

...how? by what?

Idiophreak

prowla wrote: »

Hows about if the flood undermined the whole building, brought in sewage which meant that your 1st floor flat was unfit, meant you couldn't get in and out, took out the electricity, gas and phone, wrecked your car in the basement, etc.?

Yeah, my example was just stupid.