Buying a House with an obvious Flood Risk

JP08

In the not too distant future (outcome of work restructure pending), we're looking at selling up and making a quite major change in lifestyle, and hence are keeping a weather eye on the property market in our desired location.

One of the houses currently on the market in our target area fits our future requirements fairly well. It's been up for sale for quite a while now (we're talking well over a year), probably because it has a clear risk* of being flooded and is close to an area that has been hit by newsworthy flooding in recent years. It also needs some quite serious upgrading, but appears to be unlisted. And, no, I don't want to post a link to it !

The upside is the place is in a spectacular location, albeit somewhat remote. When we saw it, from the outside only, tail end of last year the heart said "Yes ! Want it now !"; the head said "Being able to watch red squirrels in the trees in the garden is not a good reason to buy a house ..."

The building is of a construction (stone and lime mortar, flagstone floors, period property) that should dry out over time - ie "breathable" construction. It's managed to stand in this location since the early 1800s. The flooding should be only "fresh" water - ie not sewage contaminated (only the property over the road is,slightly, higher up the valley).

Would such a flood risk property be a total no-no for you guys, a risk and inconvenience with living with if at a suitable discount with adaptions (raised sockets etc), or something you'd just accept for a fantastic location ? Or to put it another way would you follow your heart or your head ?

* not overly clear on the Gov data website, but does appear to be in the 1 in a 100 in any one year zone, and has a fairly hefty stream running along the rear boundary. And the maps for historical flooding don't seem to cover the stream in question.

moneyistooshorttomention

It entirely depends on how risk-averse someone is personally.


Speaking personally - I'm very risk-averse (well - I am an ex-civil servant - so what would one expect?:rotfl:).

Others may not be....

booksurr

you should not base a crucial life decision on the ramblings of a bunch of internet strangers (keyboard warriors) whose attitude to flood risks may be very different to yours and therefore of no meaning to your circumstances.

if 10 people reply to this thread and 9 say do not buy are you seriously not going to buy it because the majority say follow your head when in your case you want it to be your heart that rules you??????

JigglyPug

I wouldn't buy anything that was so likely to flood that you'd have to consider raised sockets :eek:

It may be in a fabulous location but having seen family friends go through the nightmare of refitting a house after two major floods, I'd never buy a house in a flood zone. It's not just the act of things getting damaged, it's the time taken and stress involved to get the house back to a liveable standard again... only for it to then all be undone when the next flood hits. You're living in a constant state of stress, worrying every time large amounts of rain are forecast that it'll happen again. Not to mention that with global warming only getting worse and the water table rising, I'd be concerned about floods happening even more frequently in the future.

I'm sure it's a lovely house and a lovely location but if you're seriously considering that it'll be flooding at some point then it's not worth the heartache imo.

JP08

booksurr wrote: »

you should not base a crucial life decision on the ramblings of a bunch of internet strangers (keyboard warriors) whose attitude to flood risks may be very different to yours and therefore of no meaning to your circumstances.

if 10 people reply to this thread and 9 say do not buy are you seriously not going to buy it because the majority say follow your head when in your case you want it to be your heart that rules you??????

Obviously

But getting a broad spectrum of viewpoints and comments on the pros and cons and means of coping with is good additional information to help inform a decision ...

... and advice from people who have adapted places to cope / make the aftermath of flooding easier to deal with would be useful information too.

I have already owned a house that was in a flood zone (yes - the sockets and meter had been raised) and had been flooded in the past (1947 - actually would have been just to the right of this piccy). Came close again in 1998 when another foot on the Ouse river level would have put water over the doorstep - on that occasion I moved the easily shiftable / valuable, sandbagged the doors and then went with the neighbours to the Rowing Club where we could watch the river rise and get p!55ed. But I've never been flooded out. Oddly I found it more stressful having to leave the house to go to work when the river was high than it was when I was there to watch it.

moneyistooshorttomention

JigglyPug wrote: »

I wouldn't buy anything that was so likely to flood that you'd have to consider raised sockets :eek:

It may be in a fabulous location but having seen family friends go through the nightmare of refitting a house after two major floods, I'd never buy a house in a flood zone. It's not just the act of things getting damaged, it's the time taken and stress involved to get the house back to a liveable standard again... only for it to then all be undone when the next flood hits. You're living in a constant state of stress, worrying every time large amounts of rain are forecast that it'll happen again. Not to mention that with global warming only getting worse and the water table rising, I'd be concerned about floods happening even more frequently in the future.

I'm sure it's a lovely house and a lovely location but if you're seriously considering that it'll be flooding at some point then it's not worth the heartache imo.

You and me both - but then, as I stated, I'm an ex- civil servant - so risk-averse is in my DNA by definition:rotfl:

But - the thing I do think imo is that it's very easy to have the "wouldnt happen to me" way of thinking. It's a form of "magical thinking" that seems to go (imo) as "Yep..there's an element of risk - but I personally am safe from it or a 'magical' way out of it will emerge if worst happens". But I'm no fan of what I personally call "magical thinking" - which equals "I personally will be protected from something that might hit A.N. Other - indeed the majority of the human race".

I may, of course, be entirely wrong on that....:cool:

Yep...a fully paid-up member here of "keep your powder dry"....

ReadingTim

Depends on whose money you're using to buy this place, but if you're going to need a mortgage, it'll probably be the bank/building society's risk appetite which determines whether you get to live there, not yours.

If you don't need a mortgage, then really it's up to you, but you'll probably have to be comfortable with the fact that the place may be uninsurable, so if the worst did happen, what you would do? - I wouldn't want to be paying for post-flood damage if my only income was my pension, for example!

lincroft1710

Another ex civil servant and another who has known people affected by floods (relatives) whose repaired house is proving difficult to sell despite nearby flood protection works having been carried out.

Your head should rule when making major financial investments not your heart!

StumpyPumpy

I have friends that live in a high flood risk area that was inundated in 2014. To the best of their knowledge their house has never flooded and it didn't in 2014, so they would be able to answer in the negative to any questions about flooding on a sellers' questionnaire.

However, in 2014 their house was only accessible by boat for over a month, their cars were stranded and even the snorkel fitted Land Rovers could not get through. This caused them massive inconvenience as you could imagine. But while they weren't actually flooded their specialist flood insurance wouldn't cover them to move out until it actually did. So they had to either finance alternate housing themselves or sit it out in a house surrounded by rapidly stagnating water with intermittent power and heating. In the end, they did move out to temporary accommodation, though no flooding happened, and after a long battle with their insurance company finally had their claim thrown out in court a few months ago.

To the best of their knowledge, everyone in the area whose homes were actually flooded had their claims settled after about 6 months, and curiously not had such an insurance price hike as they have had since (or maybe not so curious, if you are cynical). They have even started saying that if the floods come again they may "accidentally" break the soil bank that protected them this time as it would be cheaper and quicker to sort out in the long run. Now they are desperately seeking to move away but potential buyers are struggling to get a mortgage and they feel trapped in a house that doesn't flood!

I guess the moral to this is that when considering a house in a flood area you need to pay heed to not just "will this house flood", but also "will this house be subject to major inconvenience if the area floods".


SP

JP08

JigglyPug wrote: »

It may be in a fabulous location but having seen family friends go through the nightmare of refitting a house after two major floods, I'd never buy a house in a flood zone. It's not just the act of things getting damaged, it's the time taken and stress involved to get the house back to a liveable standard again...

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

You and me both - but then, as I stated, I'm an ex- civil servant - so risk-averse is in my DNA by definition:rotfl:

But - the thing I do think imo is that it's very easy to have the "wouldnt happen to me" way of thinking. It's a form of "magical thinking" that seems to go (imo) as "Yep..there's an element of risk - but I personally am safe from it or a 'magical' way out of it will emerge if worst happens". But I'm no fan of what I personally call "magical thinking" - which equals "I personally will be protected from something that might hit A.N. Other - indeed the majority of the human race".

I may, of course, be entirely wrong on that....:cool:

Yep...a fully paid-up member here of "keep your powder dry"....

- Oddly, considering this thread, I'm risk averse too.

But it tends to come out as "always have a plan B" and not "don't do something". So, to take this place as an example, I'd be looking at flood resilience in the refit it is going to need anyhow so that repair costs and time are kept to a minimum - the place has a good start there already as it has stone floors (no timber and no voids undernearth) and lime mortar (and probably lime plaster - which dries out in situ and allows the wall to dry out too and doesn't need redoing like gypsum and plasterboard - if it isn't lime, it would be by the refit end). And the location does mean that the flood water would be relatively clean, unlike those poor sods you see on TV every few years in York for example, where it is be cruddy sewer contaminated water that means everything has to be stripped.
Gov advice on Flood Resilience

ReadingTim wrote: »

Depends on whose money you're using to buy this place, but if you're going to need a mortgage, it'll probably be the bank/building society's risk appetite which determines whether you get to live there, not yours.
If you don't need a mortgage, then really it's up to you, but you'll probably have to be comfortable with the fact that the place may be uninsurable, so if the worst did happen, what you would do?

- - this hypothetical move would be mortgage free and fair point, though it's likely flood insurance would be dear, but not impossible on this place - and can be reduced by having a flood resilience plan.

Don't get me wrong, flooding is always disruptive, but knowing and recognising the risk means there can be some mitigation. It's whether the aggro of the mitigated risk is worth the benefits of the whole that is the question. And I'm curious as to other peoples experiences and opinions re this.

booksurr

JP08 wrote: »

Obviously

But getting a broad spectrum of viewpoints and comments on the pros and cons and means of coping with is good additional information to help inform a decision ...

OK... one of my properties is in flood zone 3 (1:100). My area made the national news when it did indeed flood and the water was within 1 inch of my neighbours front door. The police closed the roads on the whole estate so I could neither enter nor exit that property in a vehicle. The water in the street was above my gumboots :embarasse but i did not catch a contagious disease :cool:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26199631

I have owned it since 1991 and have not had any insurance on it since 1993 when a mortgage lender could no longer force you to take out insurance. I have my own defences ready to be deployed, and in the meantime do not see why I should pay a significant premium to an insurance company for something which will not affect me. I bought in full knowledge of what was there and I choose to ignore it .

Are you now informed enough to make your own decision based on my attitude to risk?