Advice on previous flooding in house we want to buy!! Would you do it?

kw.jc2018

Hi there,

My partner and I are first-time buyers and we have almost got to the end of the buying process.. Potential to move in 2-4 weeks!

Anyway, we received the searches on Tuesday this week (2 days ago) and have found out that the house is at moderate risk of surface water flooding. This itself I have come to terms with and could easily take the risk of this for our dream home.
However, the flood risk paperwork spurred me to look into home insurance quotes and when asked 'has this property ever flooded?' I had to tick 'yes' as the Property Information Sheet from the other party's solicitor stated there was a flood in 2015 in their back garden (it never touched the house). The flood cause was a blockage in the main sewer system which the water company accepted responsibility for.
Nevertheless there was still a flood. Anyway, completed the insurance quote.... £475 for the year!!!! :eek: Compared to around £200 for the house without the flood declaration.

Now i'm wondering if we can afford everything. I'm so gutted as we're already packing this house up ready to move, plus my daughter is already enrolled in the local school to that house. I don't know what to do or think.

Would it be a good idea to negotiate a discount? If so, how much is proportionate to the cost of the house? (£260k)
Is there a way around the flood being defined as a flood? As in, because it was the fault of the water company does it disregard it? :think:


Any advice would be gratefully received as, as you can probably tell by my rambling, I am very anxious about the process, even flood aside :laugh:

Many thanks in advance

Mermaid89

If it were me i'd still be moving in, thanks very much Do you still have to declare it as a flood even though it never reached the house? Sorry if that's an obvious/daft question but i would've thought it's asking if the HOUSE has flooded, which by your post, it hasn't.

D_M_E

Try a high street insurance broker and see what they can get or find for you.

Ask sellers who they insure with and what they paid, you may get a reasonable quote from the same company.

Try phoning a few companies and explain the situation, you never know.

AnotherJoe

I agree with mermaid (ironic name given the subject ) since the property didn't flood just the garden you shouldn't have said it had. You are insuring against the property (eg the house ) flooding not the garden.

kw.jc2018

Mermaid89 wrote: »

If it were me i'd still be moving in, thanks very much Do you still have to declare it as a flood even though it never reached the house? Sorry if that's an obvious/daft question but i would've thought it's asking if the HOUSE has flooded, which by your post, it hasn't.

I rang the insurer for the cheapest quote to find out what the definition is for 'property' (I didnt give my name or anything, just asked for advice) and they replied 'property is defined as anything including land inside the boundary walls' he said most insurers would have that definition too.

I wouldn't mind bending the truth a little but i'm worried it will come back and bite me in the butt if the house ever did flood (and giving that it is at moderate risk of flooding, that might well happen) and then they found out it had flooded in the past and cancel my insurance, because then it really WOULD be hard to get insurance in the future

kw.jc2018

D_M_E wrote: »

Try a high street insurance broker and see what they can get or find for you.

Ask sellers who they insure with and what they paid, you may get a reasonable quote from the same company.

Try phoning a few companies and explain the situation, you never know.

Thank you, I am on the case already. Going to call the estate agent in the morning and then hunting down a broker _party_

TBagpuss

kw.jc2018 wrote: »

I rang the insurer for the cheapest quote to find out what the definition is for 'property' (I didnt give my name or anything, just asked for advice) and they replied 'property is defined as anything including land inside the boundary walls' he said most insurers would have that definition too.

I wouldn't mind bending the truth a little but i'm worried it will come back and bite me in the butt if the house ever did flood (and giving that it is at moderate risk of flooding, that might well happen) and then they found out it had flooded in the past and cancel my insurance, because then it really WOULD be hard to get insurance in the future

Be honest about it. The premiums may well go down after a year or 2 with no flooding.

However, if £300 difference in insurance premiums a year is liable to make it unaffordable then re you sure you are not overstretching yourselves with this house anyway.

Davesnave

kw.jc2018 wrote: »

I rang the insurer for the cheapest quote to find out what the definition is for 'property' (I didnt give my name or anything, just asked for advice) and they replied 'property is defined as anything including land inside the boundary walls' he said most insurers would have that definition too.

I wouldn't accept this as the final word on the matter. By that definition, some landed property would then automatically become expensive to insure, even when there is no threat to the house.

Here, it's possible for small areas within our boundary to flood with surface water, yet the house remains safe, being on a ridge, with nowhere for water to flow in, or stand to any depth.

While our home cannot flood because of the topography, 200m away, adjoining our boundary, there's another property that until very recently was at risk of water pouring off the fields and taking a direct route through the house. New works may have cured this, but obviously there must be an insurer's flag against that house.

Insurers have their own records and there's the Environment Agency's flood mapping, but I think it's worth checking the exactsituation with specialist brokers before parting with cash. There's also the possibility of having an independent flood risk assessment, much as one might for damp or structural movement etc:

http://bluepages.org.uk/listing-category/surveys-independent-flood-risk-assessments/

However, as others have said, if there's a minimal risk for the house itself, a raised premium isn't the end of the world if you are budgeting correctly.

kw.jc2018

Davesnave wrote: »

I wouldn't accept this as the final word on the matter. By that definition, some landed property would then automatically become expensive to insure, even when there is no threat to the house.

I completely agree.

UPDATE: I've done some online quotes with some of the bigger companies ie Churchill, Aviva, More Than, etc and I've found one which, in their policy wording states 'home is defined as the house/flat and it's outbuildings' and then asks 'Has your home flooded in the last ... years?' So I think we may have found a way around it without lying to anyone! :T :j

Do you think it's worth ringing them and potentially digging myself a grave? Or should I go with that?

Davesnave

kw.jc2018 wrote: »

Do you think it's worth ringing them and potentially digging myself a grave? Or should I go with that?

The definition is made clear, so if all other aspects, like price and customer service ratings are reasonably equal, I'd use that company without giving them the third degree on it.