Flood areas, wanting to sell below market value

thequant

wymondham wrote: »

I would imagine many of those who have been repeatedly flooded recently will want to move regardless of loss of value etc... some things are more important...

I'll be very interested in how the Insurance industry deals with the repeated floods... too frequent for them I bet!

Why do people buy in these areas in the first place?

Insurance companies avoid taking business from these areas.

Marktheshark

Perhaps the romance of living near the river is over, it was a huge selling point for many.

SailorSam

There is always someone who'll be willing to buy. It's like those houses that 10yrs ago had a nice sea view, but now thanks to erosion they're on a cliff edge. Even knowing that the house will be on the beach in a few years time someone comes along and buys it.

wymondham

thequant wrote: »

Why do people buy in these areas in the first place?

Insurance companies avoid taking business from these areas.

Maybe they get more bang for their buck? I'd imagine that known risky areas are a more reasonable to buy in?

kinger101

thequant wrote: »

Why do people buy in these areas in the first place?

Insurance companies avoid taking business from these areas.

It's easy to judge from your dry home. Many of the areas that have flooded are "low" risk, which the Environment Agency suggests is a <1% annual risk. As well as checking the EA report, most buyers are savvy enough to ask how much insurance is, and the vast majority of the affected properties are insured according to the news reports.

If the areas in this "low" category were to be abandoned, that's pretty much all of Hull, and an area that extends out from The Wash to Lincoln, Peterborough and Ely. I'm sure many don't want to live in Northern hellholes like Hull, but many people do and have strong ties to these regions.

You also don't have to be a genius to work out why cities were built on rivers in the first place.

Of course, building new homes on flood plains should require adequate risk mitigation measures, but most of the properties that have been flooded have stood there for decades, and we simply are not in a position to abandon all the houses that might flood.

Marktheshark

kinger101 wrote: »

I'm sure many don't want to live in Northern hellholes like Hull, but many people do and have strong ties to these regions.

I would trust the people of Hull more than the rat racers of London.
Theres a reason people in these Northern Hell holes dont have much and that reason is they have morals and wont trample each other in the dirt for a few quid.

Mistermeaner

Marktheshark wrote: »

I would trust the people of Hull more than the rat racers of London.
Theres a reason people in these Northern Hell holes dont have much and that reason is they have morals and wont trample each other in the dirt for a few quid.

Nail on head. Head out into hull on a Friday night to see these morals in action

padington

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article53461.html

kinger101

padington wrote: »

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article53461.html

It includes this nugget:

"In my opinion, home buyers should as a minimum not buy properties of less than 30 metres above sea level AND 10 metres in elevation from the valley floor / height of the normal river"



Hmmm......they might of done some research before plucking figures from nowhere.

AG47

CLAPTON wrote: »

unless they can sell at a reasonable price, they have not be able to afford to buy elsewhere

The good news is that once the correction starts all they have to do is wait for property to correct in price before buying even cheaper than they sold.

The return of sell to rent, here we come.