Flood insurance unfairness

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Its been very interesting listening to the reports following the recent, and still ongoing, floods where many of the people interviewed after being affected have said that they cannot get insurance for flood having been flooded previously.

As someone who studies insurance (admittedly many moons ago) this really frustrates me.  Insurance, originally conceived in coffee shops in the City of London to protect seafarers from sinking and piracy, is fundamentally the principle of protecting the few from the premiums of many.  OK, its more complex than that in the modern age but the foundation is still there.  We all pay into the pot, with some - such as younger drivers or more precious loads - paying a higher premium against the risk presented.  This smooths over the whole industry and allows for higher risks to be covered proportionately whilst ensuring that people and businesses are covered.  

Granted, insurance is ultimately a business where companies over the longer term need to make profits because a. they are mostly plcs who need to make a return to a shareholder b. need to stay in business to continue paying on claims and c. institutional shareholder who prop up sour pension funds.  What I am struggling to reconcile is that flooded properties are no longer insurable at all.    Many insurance is backed by reinsurance, a concept where insurance is 'insured' against, again and again, in a chain, which limits the exposure to risk of one insurance company by many others.  The insurers can effectively insure themselves.

I accept that some people have taken the risk of wanting to move to a lovely part of the world on the banks of a brook or river but many property owners moved in to their homes before global warming was a thing and therefore they are suffering now where they didn't previously.  

Many have taken all available steps to limit flood by installing some level of defences (analogous to installing a security system after being burgled) yet they still cant get insurance.  Why cant we all have a small increase in premium to protect the few who dont bring this upon themselves where those owners accept a personal premium increase due to the increased risk.

The system has become too unfair;  the original coffee shop owners would be spitting into their Ethiopian knowing that their revolutionary system was being abused.  

10
 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Its more complicated than that. The Govt has set up a scheme called Flood re so that all householders are offered floood insurance at a reasonable price. So that issue has been addressed.Just remember it is a voluntary scheme it is upto the householder to pay the premium and some householders choose not to buy insurance. That ultimately is their choice.

The real issue is that businesses in these flood areas cannot get insurance, they are hung out to dry so to speak. So your cafeowners, hairdressers, pubs etc cannot get cover at any cost.

3
 AJM 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Insurance is far older than the coffee shops of London!

Having moved away from general insurance I am less current with the details, but I thought the government had basically set up its own reinsurer/pooling system (FloodRe) to try to address the problem of uninsirability.

Insurance pricing always faces a delicate balance between getting large enough pricing buckets to stabilise the claims experience and having buckets so large that they are no longer homogenous. If you are reliant on a cross-subsidy or heterogeneity in your pricing (gender neutral pricing is one obvious example, and in this case the subsidy between flood prone and non flood prone properties would be another), you are vulnerable to variance in the mix and to competitors underwriting for the good risks only. To give an example, if I price an average price for a 50:50 split of flood prone and safe properties but you only insure properties with very low flood risk you will charge lower premiums to the safe customers and I will have charged a 50:50 split price and received a 20:80 split of risk. Which is why of you want everyone to pay a levy towards funding flood insurance for all, it has to be an industry wide scheme.

Reinsurance may dilute an insurers share of the risk but that just concentrates it in the reinsurers in the end - reinsurance doesn't make it go away, at best it dilutes it.

 mondite 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

 

> Many insurance is backed by reinsurance, a concept where insurance is 'insured' against, again and again, in a chain, which limits the exposure to risk of one insurance company by many others.  The insurers can effectively insure themselves.

They have to pay for that reinsurance though and those reinsurers will be looking at the risks and charging accordingly.

> I accept that some people have taken the risk of wanting to move to a lovely part of the world on the banks of a brook or river but many property owners moved in to their homes before global warming was a thing and therefore they are suffering now where they didn't previously.  

I somewhat doubt "many" moved in before climate change was a known issue but moving on.  Recent story said that 11k houses are planned to be built on high risk areas and its quite believable looking round here.

Why on earth should everyone else pay for someone choosing to live in a risky area?  If everyone else bears the risk of those decisions then the incentive to avoid those areas is reduced. If it is clear there is zero chance of insurance for those 11k houses for example then either they are going to need superb defences including into the property or they dont get sold.

Having the public insure means its turned into an externality which is never a good idea.

An extension of this though would also be holding anyone who puts others at increased risk of flooding responsible for their actions eg concrete over a large area which results in some houses downstream now being at risk then have to insure/protect them.

 Andy Hardy 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I was thinking about the flooding last week and wondered why we don't build new houses on stilts, if they're on a flood plain, and rebuild old ones on stilts when they've been flooded multiple times (obviously not possible for every building, but for many it must be do-able).

 summo 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

When flood hit houses are completely gutted and rebuilt, often new plaster, electric, flooring, kitchens etc.. not sure why there aren't more moves to switch houses around, kitchens (the most expensive refurb) should be upstairs, the bedroom with proportionally cheaper costs down etc.. It's matching the house design to the risk of flooding. 

 summo 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I was thinking about the flooding last week and wondered why we don't build new houses on stilts, if they're on a flood plain, and rebuild old ones on stilts when they've been flooded multiple times (obviously not possible for every building, but for many it must be do-able).

Just on a raised 1m high foundation would make a vast difference. 

 Wiley Coyote2 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The Govt has set up a scheme called Flood re so that all householders are offered floood insurance at a reasonable price. So that issue has been addressed.

It depends what you call a reasonable price and what the strings are.  My home flooded a few years ago leading to a claim for £14,000. My insurance company did agree to re-insure me  at a slight increase in premium but the sting in the tale was that it was with an excess of £10,000 even though alterations made to the house had reduced the likely impact of any future flood. It looked to me like the company - a household name - was ticking the box of offering insurance while simultaneously rendering the cover almost worthless and therefore likely to be refused, letting them off the hook completely while leaving them apparently meeting their obligations.

Lest anyone should think that flood victims are always the architects of their own downfall for having bought vulnerable properties I would point out that my property was 350 years old, having presumably  been built by locals who knew the behaviour of the local river and certainly had never flooded in the memory of anyone in the village, including 80 year olds. However, it was built before the surrounding moorland ,which had soaked up rain for centuries had been covered  with drainage ditches and before a vast industrial estate was built a few miles  up river, leading to much faster run off of rain water, combined with the loss of flood plains.

Incidentally, slightly off topic for this thread but relevant to UKC, other ares of insurance eg climbing, are the same. Having had an illness a few years ago I discovered my BMC premiums rocketed even though my illness was excluded from the cover.

As the OP says there is a basic principle here. Are insurance companies simply respectable betting shops taking only bets they expect to win easily or do they have a wider societal responsibility?

 wercat 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

it wouldn't take much effort to arrange utility rooms to have raised platforms for washing machines and other appliances to put them a metre or so above the ground though I suppose they would have to be secured against movement by vibration.  

Post edited at 09:03
 wbo2 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Isnt the issue the degree of risk.  Your model of shared risk works if someone really has a 1% risk but if your business is getting flooded every 2 or 3 years is it fair for you to expect someone else to bail you out? 

 wbo2 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:as an aside theres also the issue of compensation, house value, particularly for buy to let's.  What value should you get, if anything?  If the house is bought as an investment then beware- as they say - the value of investments can go down as well as up.

Deadeye 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It'd be interesting to know what proportion of houses flooded now are within the 50(say)-year flood risk lines.

 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I would go back to your broker and revisit the issue.

My business is in a flood zone, last time was 20 years ago when it flooded the premises.I have a £ 50,000 excess. But my brokers bought cover for me with another insurer for £200 to cover the difference.Its a one off.

Insurers are businesses and yes they are betting shops( its all about probability etc).

 Neil Williams 25 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> When flood hit houses are completely gutted and rebuilt, often new plaster, electric, flooring, kitchens etc.. not sure why there aren't more moves to switch houses around, kitchens (the most expensive refurb) should be upstairs, the bedroom with proportionally cheaper costs down etc.. It's matching the house design to the risk of flooding. 

You could make a flood proof kitchen easily enough - stainless steel units, all electrics above waist height (e.g. a built in oven mounted in a unit), waterproofed plaster, tiled floor - basically a commercial style kitchen.  Hose it out and thoroughly wash any crockery, pans etc that were in the lower cupboards if it floods.

Same with the lounge.  Tiled floor, rugs, waterproofed plaster and paint on the walls, lightweight furniture easily able to be taken upstairs (e.g. those Ikea wooden chairs instead of an actual sofa), TV mounted, as they often are now anyway, high up on the wall, all electrics above waist height, same with any bookshelving etc.

We seem to dislike tiled floors in the UK for some reason, other countries use them, and you can make them less harsh by adding rugs etc which you'd just take upstairs if flood warnings were given.

Post edited at 09:41
 Wiley Coyote2 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

Thanks for the advice. Sounds interesting for those who need it but happily I managed to sell the house concerned a few years later

 summo 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Is the UK the only country in the world obsessed with carpets? 

Edit. A sofa or bed are cheap to replace compared to all the white goods if kitchen was moved upstairs. 

Post edited at 09:51
 bigbobbyking 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I was thinking about the flooding last week and wondered why we don't build new houses on stilts,

Seems like a great idea. You'd have a nice big car port/garage area on the ground floor I'd buy one even if it wasn't on the flood plain. House design and planning permission does seem very conservative in terms of innovative designs.

 ScraggyGoat 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Agree I've been quoted silly money for flood insurance, having never been flooded.  Clear an attempt to tick box, reduce risk and improve profit.

Flood insurance seams to be really hit and miss. One property I've lived in is next to a major river, on the SEPA flood risk map it was right on the boundary of the flood risk, but its never flooded (nearly a 100 year old property) having recently survived a 1 in 300 year event. Neighbors are lower and have been affected, and across the road due to repeated storm culvert bursts, now re-engineered, several houses flooded. So the property post-code has numerous claims. However flood insurance; never a problem, and the whole house can be insured for total loss at less than £250 per annum, no questions asked.

At another property, which has never flooded, next to a small burn but built on a historic occupancy site. I often received quotes in the £10K range, no properties in the post-code have a history of flooding, all that triggered the quote was ticking the box to say it was near water, yet ticking the same box had no affect on insurance for the other property.  Two neighbors at that location are very low to sea level clearly inside the SEPA flood risk zone, one of which has felt the need to construct some sea-defence, both get reasonably priced insurance with no questions asked.

I accept that all these properties have a degree of risk (fingers crossed), but is that risk any greater than many houses well away from water courses, but are at risk if storm drains block and roads pond, and why the complete lack on consistency.....against what should be regarded as a significant predictor the SEPA maps...............

Post edited at 09:57
 Toerag 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

>  Incidentally, slightly off topic for this thread but relevant to UKC, other ares of insurance eg climbing, are the same. Having had an illness a few years ago I discovered my BMC premiums rocketed even though my illness was excluded from the cover.

when I took out life insurance when I bought my first house the standard quote of £28 per month rocketed to £90 because I was a climber, yet they wouldn't cover me for anything sustained whilst climbing!

> As the OP says there is a basic principle here. Are insurance companies simply respectable betting shops taking only bets they expect to win easily or do they have a wider societal responsibility?

How do we know they're actually charging a fair price and not all profiteering as a cartel as well.

 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I suspect that until the new Met office super computer is in place which will be able to focus on smaller grids then this type of thing will happen.  There probably is not the info available  to be able to narrow down to individual properties at the moment.

 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Toerag:

It is illegal to have cartels and that threat hangs over businesses like insurers who in a bygone era had tariff ratings ( stanardised pricings) on property insurers.That was stopped years ago.

Post edited at 10:17
 wintertree 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Would you insure me to shoot myself in the head occasionally with a partially loaded revolver?  No

So why would you insure me to live on a flood plain?

Where flooding has worsened on old houses (say 20 years) due to new build estates, a tax on developers or central government funds should flood proof the old houses.  Flood defences and urban development have worsened flooding in areas without historical precedent - ideally those who benefited from the downstream and upstream changes causing it should carry the costs, not homeowners shafted in the middle through unexpected flooding (based on when they brought the property) and through increased insurance.

Anyone who has bought a home on a flood plain in the last 20 years (say) is a victim of their own decisions.  I’m sorry but I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for someone in a new build home on a flood plain.  

Insurers should be required to offer reasonably priced insurance on any property that is certified as flood proof to a one in a century flood event.  Effectively insuring against failure of the flood proofing.

Post edited at 10:33
 mondite 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I suspect that until the new Met office super computer is in place which will be able to focus on smaller grids then this type of thing will happen.  There probably is not the info available  to be able to narrow down to individual properties at the moment.


Not sure that would help much. Thought that is for more accurate short-medium term predictions which would help get emergency defences into place quicker than currently but not something for insurance companies to rely on.

For accurate flood assessments its needs people to go to each location and take a proper look around.

 Neil Williams 25 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Is the UK the only country in the world obsessed with carpets? 

I think so.  Particularly bathroom ones which are downright unsanitary!

> Edit. A sofa or bed are cheap to replace compared to all the white goods if kitchen was moved upstairs. 

The white goods can be off the ground.

 summo 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think so.  Particularly bathroom ones which are downright unsanitary!

Or anywhere indoors and then keep shoes on indoors (some folk not all), some how feeling clean if you blast every surface with chemicals in the kitchen and bathroom,  squirt more chemicals into the air to 'freshen' it in other rooms. Have anti bacterial everything and anything soaps. Then go online and post a comment about being against chlorinated chicken, which isn't even chlorinated anymore. Nowt queerer than folk.

2
 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I doubt very much that most kitchens and bathrooms have carpets these days.The odd few yes.

The  trend for that vanished along time ago.30 years probably.

 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

Its not what was suggested by the Met Office. All these maps come from somewhere and at the moment they do not have detailed enough info to be able to narrow it down.

I think you and I need to find a poster with some enviormental flood background to be able to comment better.

 daWalt 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

The mett office deal with the question of will it rain. 

Turning rainfall into flow, hydrology, then turning flow into flood level, hydraulics, are not their thing. 

 Timmd 25 Feb 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> Isnt the issue the degree of risk.  Your model of shared risk works if someone really has a 1% risk but if your business is getting flooded every 2 or 3 years is it fair for you to expect someone else to bail you out? 

It's more of a thought experiment than anything else being something which has just occurred, but I'm thinking that in essence it's not someone else but everyone else, and given that we've all been contributing to climate change over the years, which is what is behind the increases in rain fall and higher peaks of water flow, maybe it's fair enough that they remain insured against flood damage?

In practical terms I know other countries have been contributing too, and that there several insurance companies in the UK, but it's not the sole responsibility of the people who've been flooded that they are being.

Post edited at 11:35
 neilh 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Fairness is not something for insurers to manage, they are after all commerical organisations who have shareholders they are responsible to and are there to make a profit.

If its fairness you want then it is the UK Gov responsibility to organsie and manage. This is what happens in places who have issues with earthquake zones etc.

 daWalt 25 Feb 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Flood insurance seams to be really hit and miss.  having recently survived a 1 in 300 year event.

I'm curious; what was the date of that?

and you're right, it's hit or miss. the op may be able to shed more light on the insurance side. but my understanding was that each insurer has their own method (alogrythm) to derive a premium based on their current risk portfolio. so if your post code (say) has a risk flag (flood risk say), and the portfolio already has a lage quantity of this risk, then your premium quote will be dissuadingly large. and vice versa.

insurance companies don't look into the individual risks of you and your circumstance in that much detail.

the EA and SEPA flood maps are only a guide, they are deliberately vauge so that you don't get one house seen as at risk and the neighbours not. maps could be produced to mm presision, but the estimates are just not that accurate.

 mondite 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Its not what was suggested by the Met Office. All these maps come from somewhere and at the moment they do not have detailed enough info to be able to narrow it down.

There seems to have been some bad reporting changing "deploying flood defences" to "planning flood defences". They sort of mean the same thing but the latter covers a lot more ground.

what they are saying this will do is give more warning about severe weather and be more granular in its response and so, in theory, allow a couple of days to go and stick temporary defences in road x as opposed to road y because its going to be raining heavily in the hills just above x and not y.

 Timmd 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh: Yes, it had just suddenly struck me, but I appreciate I'm on a losing wicket. 

Post edited at 12:12
 brianjcooper 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It astounds me that town planners still allow house building on known flood plains. Surely that should make them culpable in the event of flooding. Hiding behind 'climate change' is not a defence. A bit like ignorance of the Law is no defence.

 Timmd 25 Feb 2020
In reply to brianjcooper: If anybody is supposed to think about the consequences of things like building on flood plains and the effects of climate change, you'd think the planners would do. 

Post edited at 13:12
 brianjcooper 25 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> If anybody is supposed to think about the consequences of things like building on flood plains and the effects of climate change, you'd think the planners would do. 

Really?

 mondite 25 Feb 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

> It astounds me that town planners still allow house building on known flood plains.

Leaving aside the difficulty of thats generally where the towns the major problem is the town planners only have limited ability to control and ban. They can say dont build here and reject permission but there will often be large profits to be made and hence expensive lawyers can be hired to get it overturned.

They should be given better controls but again large profits to be made and hence contributions can be made to the relevant politicans.

 ScraggyGoat 25 Feb 2020
In reply to daWalt:

Storm Frank, Dec 2015; this article suggests a greater magnitude than 1:300, but given I haven't seen that figure corroborated anywhere I'm slightly suspicious.  Plus I don't trust the P&J to report accurately, nor have attempted to skew the interviewee's responses.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/874198/life-floods-muckl...

For a more considered nationwide review of the 2015/16 floods see: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/515335/1/N515335JA.pdf  and in more depth http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/515303/1/N515303CR.pdf

These authors have avoided using the 'one in XX'  classification and instead expressed mean river flow November to January as a % of long term average for a variety of rivers, with the Dee being at 236%.

Presumably once you get beyond a 1:200 year event it must be very hard to define the statistical re-occurrence interval as the data-set is so limited; being beyond accurate historical measured records, and events being by definition rare.  Plus comparing to historic floods over 200 years ago (and easily arguably for shorter periods) is in part meaningless as we have anthropologically modified our river catchments so much since those historic events, that the hydrographic responses will be very different.

Post edited at 13:55
 daWalt 25 Feb 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Thanks, I have a wee look at that.

The move from expressing probably as "annual exceedance probability %" rather than return period was because it was thought that Joe public couldn't grasp the return period concept properly. But, imho, AEP is no better, and no easier or more dificult to understand as a concept. 

To be honest, beyond 1 in 50 the predictions become low confidence. (Decent records pre 1950s are rare). Even before you try and account for future climate change. 

Unfortunately, given that the climate of the future (present also) will not be the same as the climate of the 20th century, for which we have good data. Any statistical analysis isn't totally reliable. 

 wbo2 25 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Anyone who has bought a home on a flood plain in the last 20 years (say) is a victim of their own decisions.  I’m sorry but I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for someone in a new build home on a flood plain.  

That might be a little harsh.. I'm not sure anyone was thinking too much about flooding, and particularly climate effects at that point.  Also I suspect you overestimate the ability of the man on the street to understand what this means , especially when some dodgy stats get thrown in the picture - most people do not 'get' % chance of x, and what it means really.

If anyone does, it should be planners, and regulatory authorities but they seem pretty toothless compared to building companies.  They might need to be compelled to start building proper water control measures, or retrofitting adeuate ones, or even , god help them, be forced to buy back particularly dodgy cases.

 Bob Kemp 25 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Its more complicated than that. The Govt has set up a scheme called Flood re so that all householders are offered floood insurance at a reasonable price. So that issue has been addressed.Just remember it is a voluntary scheme it is upto the householder to pay the premium and some householders choose not to buy insurance. That ultimately is their choice.

> The real issue is that businesses in these flood areas cannot get insurance, they are hung out to dry so to speak. So your cafeowners, hairdressers, pubs etc cannot get cover at any cost.

Unfortunately all householders aren't offered reasonably priced flood insurance. It seems that many new home owners aren't covered by the Government scheme because they're recent builds:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/21/new-homes-in-flood-risk...

1
 SAF 25 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Just on a raised 1m high foundation would make a vast difference. 

I own a house (my previous home now a BTL) that is in a 1 in 100 year sea flood risk area. If rising sea levels make this more of an issue then it may get flooded more frequently. It is a Edwardian house with very high ceilings, therefore the logical thing to do would be to lift the ground floor a foot. Potentially I could go a step further and lift the ceiling height so that the ground floor could be even higher (but window heights would become an issue then). 

But there is certainly a lot of creative thinking and problem solving that could be applied before all is lost.

 ScraggyGoat 25 Feb 2020
In reply to wbo2:

Indeed a little harsh on the general public but not entirely unwarranted, we have got ourselves in the current mess by a combination of changed land-use, urbanization and ineffective planning which had neither the will, nor the 'equality in arms', nor public support to fight the developers. I don't know if it still is the case but councils previously weren't allowed to reject development on the basis of flood risk, it was very much buyer beware.  The developers swanned off with the cash, not caring about what they leave behind or downstream, or the fact the tax payer and insurance firms (ultimately the public) pick up the tab for their profit.

People were thinking about urban flooding 20-30 years ago, I was invited to apply for a PhD. researching the affects of urbanization of river catchments, affect on hydrographs, and interaction of flood-water and built environments ~ essentially buildings acting as permeable dams ponding water. It had potential diversionary studies into sediment-pollutant, and sediment-pathogen interactions and deposition associated with flooding. The catchments involved...............Wye, Severn and Welsh Borders. This was over twenty years.  I decided not to apply.

Post edited at 14:48
 La benya 25 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Just to add some balance to the other side of 'insurance companies are profiteering rackets'. Real Estate insurance hasn't been profitable for a while. The insurers' combined operating ratios are all above 100 and they rely on other lines and/ or investment return in order to stay afloat. Several companies have pulled out of the market recently including msamlin and tokio marine (big commercial names). 

Zurich have just release figures to this effect. They have a several multi million pound claims ongoing for flood alone. Throw in the day to day fire and attritional losses and this year will be bunk for them.

If you're concerned you aren't getting a good deal, well that's what us brokers are for. We've been known to place cover for a burning building (urban legend). 

 ClimberEd 25 Feb 2020
In reply to AJM:

> Insurance is far older than the coffee shops of London!

> Insurance pricing always faces a delicate balance between getting large enough pricing buckets to stabilise the claims experience and having buckets so large that they are no longer homogenous. If you are reliant on a cross-subsidy or heterogeneity in your pricing (gender neutral pricing is one obvious example, and in this case the subsidy between flood prone and non flood prone properties would be another), you are vulnerable to variance in the mix and to competitors underwriting for the good risks only. To give an example, if I price an average price for a 50:50 split of flood prone and safe properties but you only insure properties with very low flood risk you will charge lower premiums to the safe customers and I will have charged a 50:50 split price and received a 20:80 split of risk. Which is why of you want everyone to pay a levy towards funding flood insurance for all, it has to be an industry wide scheme.

>

Then it needs to be (very) heavily regulated. 

I'm a full blown market capitalist but I'm sick of insurance companies trying to slice and dice the risk so that it is effectively no longer cross subsidised pooled risk, but far closer to 'pay what you might receive (not exactly, but you get the gist). 

3
 La benya 25 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

They are the most heavily regulated industry in the country. They are business and you can't force them to take on a risk they don't want to. That's the job of the government (see Poole). If the system ain't working its the government's fault. 

 Timmd 25 Feb 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

> Really?

Ideally speaking, if planners were approaching things with a sense of the bigger picture and their responsibilities, of the legacy they're leaving behind. 

Post edited at 15:37
 summo 25 Feb 2020
In reply to SAF: 

> But there is certainly a lot of creative thinking and problem solving that could be applied before all is lost.

Indeed.. the danger is that those who create and modify planning regulations have a business as usual attitude. There is no excuse for new builds not to be well above flood risks and way more environmentally friendly. Amendments could be brought in very rapidly, but I'm sure it'll be years away. 

 daWalt 25 Feb 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

dam nrfa web-shyte only shows up to 2014 for some gauges. these big events are in the region where small adjustments in the analysis method give significant variation in the severity (return period). and to be honest even the gauges themseles become unreliable beyond certain bounds.

I suspec the analyst for the local och-aye-the-news, might have, have hammed it up a wee bit; under some methods of analysis it'll show a big number, under others a bigger. it's impossible to say for definite which is right.

I'll read the ceh / nerc reports in detail later, I suspect the >200 is a bit of a fudge around = "we aren't sure, any value would have such an uncertainty band as to be useless in it's own right"

 StuPoo2 26 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> As someone who studies insurance (admittedly many moons ago) this really frustrates me.  Insurance, originally conceived in coffee shops in the City of London to protect seafarers from sinking and piracy, is fundamentally the principle of protecting the few from the premiums of many.  OK, its more complex than that in the modern age but the foundation is still there.  We all pay into the pot, with some - such as younger drivers or more precious loads - paying a higher premium against the risk presented.  This smooths over the whole industry and allows for higher risks to be covered proportionately whilst ensuring that people and businesses are covered.  

Yes ... but missing a key point.  If one seafarer took a new route, say down the coast of Somalia, and was unfortunate enough to encounter some pirates then that would be very unfortunate and he/she would rightly expect the policy to pay out for his/her loss.  However, if that same seafarer then followed down that new route again in his/her new boat, in the knowledge that it was apparently more risky than existing routes, then there is every possibility that the insurance policy may not pay out a second time - sail round the Western Cape with everyone else.  

An insurance policy doesn't relieve an individual of any & all responsibility.  The seafarers still had to take all reasonable steps to protect his/her cargo.  

I think the question that the flooding draws out is whether everyone in the UK is taking equally reasonable steps to protect their property inc. where they have chosen to park it.

The correct way to deal with this problem is for everyone who have chosen to build/own property on a flood plane to insure their property together in a single scheme.  That is practically the definition of what FloodRe exists for "Flood Re (short for flood re-insurance) is a levy and pool system in the United Kingdom ... to provide flood insurance coverage to domestic properties deemed at significant risk of flooding"  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Re

 Neil Williams 26 Feb 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

The point of it being called Flood Re is that you don't insure with them yourself, regular home insurers reinsure that aspect of their cover with them so can provide cover at a sensible price with the Government's assistance.

But I do think the Government should also provide help for people who are stuck, particularly in places you wouldn't think would flood until recently, to adapt homes to be more flood proof - I mean tiled flooring, moving electrics up, waterproof plaster/paint etc.  Then you're down to just needing a cleanup, not serious damage.

Post edited at 10:30
 StuPoo2 26 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Agree and agree Neil.  I simplified only to make my point above.

My point, back to the seafarers, is that if the offer to adapt homes is made by the Government (I would support that) but not taken up by some then that would be an example of someone failing to take "all reasonable steps" to protect his/her property.   You can't keep repeatedly sailing your boat down the coast of Somalia (time to end that analogy) once it has become apparent that your liable to encounter pirates.

Being flooded once - fine - pay out.  Being flooded a second time and incurring the same level of damage again - unsustainable.  No insurance scheme is going to be sustainable if the risks increase, the premiums stay the same but no one adapts their behavior to mitigate the increased occurrence of events.

Climate Change is going to make this more frequent.  More people, through no fault of their own in some cases (difficult to argue that is the case when new homes are built on an existing known flood plane), are going to have to take "reasonable steps" to protect their property.  If they fail to do so and claims on the scheme accelerate (both volume and size) the scheme will eventually implode.

 ClimberEd 26 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> They are the most heavily regulated industry in the country. They are business and you can't force them to take on a risk they don't want to. That's the job of the government (see Poole). If the system ain't working its the government's fault. 

Insurance should be a non-profit industry (i.e. no market rent) for collective benefit (as that is its purpose) and needs to be regulated as such

1
 SDM 26 Feb 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Agree I've been quoted silly money for flood insurance, having never been flooded.  Clear an attempt to tick box, reduce risk and improve profit.

> Flood insurance seams to be really hit and miss. One property I've lived in is next to a major river, on the SEPA flood risk map it was right on the boundary of the flood risk, but its never flooded (nearly a 100 year old property) having recently survived a 1 in 300 year event. Neighbors are lower and have been affected, and across the road due to repeated storm culvert bursts, now re-engineered, several houses flooded. So the property post-code has numerous claims. However flood insurance; never a problem, and the whole house can be insured for total loss at less than £250 per annum, no questions asked.

> At another property, which has never flooded, next to a small burn but built on a historic occupancy site. I often received quotes in the £10K range, no properties in the post-code have a history of flooding, all that triggered the quote was ticking the box to say it was near water, yet ticking the same box had no affect on insurance for the other property.  Two neighbors at that location are very low to sea level clearly inside the SEPA flood risk zone, one of which has felt the need to construct some sea-defence, both get reasonably priced insurance with no questions asked.

My parents' house is another anomaly when it comes to flood insurance. They live at the top of a 6% hill. There are about 5 houses ~1m higher than them but even a burst water main from them would leave my parents' house unaffected. They are close to a stream but 50ft higher than it. The stream is dry most of the year and has never flooded beyond its banks by more than about a metre because the slope around it is very steep on both sides. They are 200ft higher than the 3 surrounding cities and the nearest river and 100ft or more above almost every surrounding village.

A couple of houses at the other end of the village (in a narrow valley where the bottom of the steep slope meets an even steeper slope on the other side) flooded a couple of times ~10 years ago, both due to water pipes failing.

The only possible mechanism by which their house could flood would be a localised failure of the mains directly on their property.

Most insurance companies either refuse to include flood insurance or make it prohibitively expensive. Yet for their house to flood due to any natural event, entire cities and millions of homes would have to be fully submerged first.

 wbo2 26 Feb 2020
In reply to SDM: In which case I doubt they're buying flood insurance anyway...   But...

An ex-colleague  lived on a hill, by the road.  After very extensive rain the maindrain  under the road blew out , water then eroded a big hole and suddenly a big lump of road disappeared downhill, and the hole extended under his neighbours house.  On Christmas eve......

In reply to StuPoo2:

> Yes ... but missing a key point.  If one seafarer took a new route, say down the coast of Somalia, and was unfortunate enough to encounter some pirates then that would be very unfortunate and he/she would rightly expect the policy to pay out for his/her loss.  However, if that same seafarer then followed down that new route again in his/her new boat, in the knowledge that it was apparently more risky than existing routes, then there is every possibility that the insurance policy may not pay out a second time - sail round the Western Cape with everyone else.  

But what if that seafarer had no option?  Your example is right if there was an alternative route.  Moving house is not a trivial matter and in many cases a previous flood would make the sale very difficult, especially if you had paid a market rate before a flood.  What impact would a flood have on the market value?

A better example would be one I was personally affected by.  I was burgled in Nov 2008 having never claimed previously.  They stole various items including my car keys to take the car (brand new), and one thing of high value.  They paid out without question on a claim in excess of £50k (much higher than many flood claims I suspect, if the fabric of the building hasn't been compromised) but insisted I install a safe, make sure all windows has BS approved locks and that I have an alarm fitted and I lost my no claims bonus.  I did all these things and as such within a year or two my premiums returned to normal, despite the fact that burglary is still a very present risk.

If a home owner has been flooded they should take all possible precautions for the future including (as others have suggested here) installing flood defences - which I think the government should subsidise - try and move things to a higher level in a home, tiles floors etc.  If they don't then you can see an argument for withholding cover as insurance doesn't absolve people from reasonable personal responsibility but the unfairness comes from restricting cover when everything practicable has been done to mitigate risk.

Post edited at 11:41
2
 StuPoo2 26 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think this all hinges on the "no other options" bit of the discussion.

Take it to the extreme  ... 

The guy who built this house, as beautiful as it is:  https://hips.hearstapps.com/ghk.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/11/480x309/5500162a1b...

I would LOVE to live in that house - it literally looks amazing!!!  But if I choose to live in that house ... I might find myself having difficulties getting insurance coverage for natural disasters like, say, an earthquake ... simply because even if I did everything in my power to build an earthquake proof house on the top of that thing the whole pillar might come down rendering my efforts in vain.  

I don't mean to suggest for a moment that moving house is not trivial or distressing or prohibitively expensive or that the government should not help out if the increased risk of flooding as a direct result of man made climate change that previous governments effectively stimulated, sponsored and were the architects of.  But some houses are not going to be able to stay where they are AND be included in nationwide flood insurance schemes - it is impossible.

There are always "other options" .. 

 StuPoo2 26 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

What about this property???  (I can't tell if that's a computer generated image or not ..)

Do you think that they should be included in nationwide insurance schemes alongside those on the mainland for, say, storm damage?

https://i.gzn.jp/img/2007/08/30/single_house/sha2.jpg

 Brown 26 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You sound like someone advocating socialism for the rich. Keen for affluent homeowners to be protected from the consequences of their poor decisions.

Two individuals look to buy a house, one buys a house on a hill because they reviewed flood risk prediction. The other buys a house in a flood plain as they liked the river view. One house floods, the other doesn't.

Take a further two individuals, one took good advice as a child, worked hard, became a successful doctor, lawyer etc and ended up with loads of cash, the other went climbing became a climbing bum and achieved little material advancement.

Both outcomes are reasonably predictable. Should we compensate Mr Climbing Bum for his failure to earn loads of money in the same way as compensating Mr Flood Plain for his stupidity.

People need to take some personal responsibility.

1
 La benya 26 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

You're about 400 years too late. That would have been a good idea before we established the current system. 

Anyway. I'd be more pissed off it my council tax went up £100 a year because someone in Cockermouth got flooded again. I live in a sensible place away from a river. I'm not paying for them to live with Riverside views and risk being flooded every other year! That's basically what you're suggesting. 

 La benya 26 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

... And if you got burgled again, your prenium would go up or they would exclude cover for theft. What's so difficult to understand?!

As callous as it sounds, living on a flood plain is a choice. Deal with the consequences or move. 

 ClimberEd 26 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> You're about 400 years too late. That would have been a good idea before we established the current system. 

> Anyway. I'd be more pissed off it my council tax went up £100 a year because someone in Cockermouth got flooded again. I live in a sensible place away from a river. I'm not paying for them to live with Riverside views and risk being flooded every other year! That's basically what you're suggesting. 

It's not actually. I'm talking about insurance in general. Houses shouldn't be built on flood plains imho, which mean the 'flood insurance if you live on a flood plain' wouldn't even come into it.

1
 La benya 26 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

If the government are backing insurance and not making a profit. They need the cash reserves that insurers do to pay claims. That money is only coming from on place in your new world order. Taxes. 

 summo 26 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

It's not always the homeowners fault for living on Beck View or Riverside Drive, it might be the local council who gave permission to turn 2km2 of land upstream into an industrial estate or out of town shopping centre with very rapid run off. The same shops that you as a fellow local may use, but don't suffer the down stream problems. 

 elsewhere 26 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Upstream improvements to drainage of agricultural land likely to cover a bigger area of rain catchment?

 summo 26 Feb 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Upstream improvements to drainage of agricultural land likely to cover a bigger area of rain catchment?

Of course. It's not just one problem, it's all of them combined. The farming methods that have brought down food costs, have environmental ones. 

In reply to StuPoo2:

> I think this all hinges on the "no other options" bit of the discussion.

> Take it to the extreme  ... 

> The guy who built this house, as beautiful as it is:  https://hips.hearstapps.com/ghk.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/11/480x309/5500162a1b...

> I would LOVE to live in that house - it literally looks amazing!!!  But if I choose to live in that house ... I might find myself having difficulties getting insurance coverage for natural disasters like, say, an earthquake ... simply because even if I did everything in my power to build an earthquake proof house on the top of that thing the whole pillar might come down rendering my efforts in vain.  

> I don't mean to suggest for a moment that moving house is not trivial or distressing or prohibitively expensive or that the government should not help out if the increased risk of flooding as a direct result of man made climate change that previous governments effectively stimulated, sponsored and were the architects of.  But some houses are not going to be able to stay where they are AND be included in nationwide flood insurance schemes - it is impossible.

> There are always "other options" .. 

Daft extreme example.  Im referring to homes where perhaps the people concerned have not previously been flooded.

In reply to StuPoo2:

Another dafter example.  If you read my OP the main frustration is where someone might have been living in a home for many years and global warming has caught up with them.  Buying that home you could quite expect to struggle with insurance.

In reply to Brown:

> You sound like someone advocating socialism for the rich. Keen for affluent homeowners to be protected from the consequences of their poor decisions.

You sound like someone with a chip on their shoulder and I'm not advocating anything of the sort.  If you look at some of the news reports many of the people who are now struggling to get insurance are hardly the rich who have made a choice to live next to a pretty river.  Many, if not most, of the people Ive seen are far from wealthy.  They are struggling small businesses or small home owners who have seen record river levels and rainfall.  Should they not be able to get any kind of protection?

> Two individuals look to buy a house, one buys a house on a hill because they reviewed flood risk prediction. The other buys a house in a flood plain as they liked the river view. One house floods, the other doesn't.

Nonsense.  Many of the people flooded live on hills and the runoff strike hard when the hills are saturated.  Not all those affected live on or near rivers.

> Take a further two individuals, one took good advice as a child, worked hard, became a successful doctor, lawyer etc and ended up with loads of cash, the other went climbing became a climbing bum and achieved little material advancement.

> Both outcomes are reasonably predictable. Should we compensate Mr Climbing Bum for his failure to earn loads of money in the same way as compensating Mr Flood Plain for his stupidity.

This doesnt make any sense.

> People need to take some personal responsibility.

What if their choices were made long ago before flooding was at the frequency we now see and have had no choice.  I wonder what reaction you would get if you said that to someone's face who have lived in a home for years but have only just been hit.  It doesnt sound very pleasant.

In reply to La benya:

> ... And if you got burgled again, your premium would go up or they would exclude cover for theft. What's so difficult to understand?!

Well yes, I argued for increased premium but lack of cover?  You really think I should be penalised for something beyond my control? 

> As callous as it sounds, living on a flood plain is a choice. Deal with the consequences or move. 

It does sound callous and I'm not just talking about flood plains.  Many people get flooded by runoff.  They live on the side of hills.  What if the devaluation of their homes makes it too difficult to move?

Many posters just sound bitter because they cant afford to live in a picturesque home next to a river where in reality many victims of floods are far from wealthy.

Post edited at 10:35
 oldie 27 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> As callous as it sounds, living on a flood plain is a choice. Deal with the consequences or move. <

If someone chose to buy a house which they knew, or should have known, had a high flood risk then I'd probably agree. However if that was not the case and the house became near worthless due to flood risk then moving elsewhere might not be an option. One advantage of renting.

 StuPoo2 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> You sound like someone with a chip on their shoulder and I'm not advocating anything of the sort.  If you look at some of the news reports many of the people who are now struggling to get insurance are hardly the rich who have made a choice to live next to a pretty river.  Many, if not most, of the people Ive seen are far from wealthy.  They are struggling small businesses or small home owners who have seen record river levels and rainfall.  Should they not be able to get any kind of protection?

Private insurers are under no obligation to to ensure everyone. If you are arguing for the government to ensure these people .. then you are making the case for socialism.  "the means of production, distribution, exchange and flood insurance(?) should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."  

Why don't all those people you have identified as now no longer being able to get flood insurance club together to form a not for profit co-op and insure themselves ... just like the seafarers from your OP.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it a bit.  "Many posters just sound bitter because they cant afford to live in a picturesque home next to a river".   Probably right .. they are bitter .. i'd love to live next to a river.  But they also don't want to chip to pay for flood insurance for those who have elected to live by a river of erect in a flood plane.  Can't have it both ways.

I appreciate this is an emotive topic for you.  I hope you are okay and not personally affected.

 elsewhere 27 Feb 2020
In reply to StuPoo2:

The government is the ultimate insurer as no private insurer can cope with some risks (eg nuclear power) and some certainties (eg flood defences and flood damage). That's not socialism, it's a

In reply to StuPoo2:

> Private insurers are under no obligation to to ensure everyone. If you are arguing for the government to ensure these people .. then you are making the case for socialism.  "the means of production, distribution, exchange and flood insurance(?) should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."  

Correct, private insurers are indeed not obliged to insure people which it the whole point of the thread.  I say that the system appears unfair to those affected by flood. I dont necessarily subscribe to socialism as you put it, rather that the system is tweaked to accommodate those who are unfairly penalised in my eyes based on 'acts of god' as it were.

> Why don't all those people you have identified as now no longer being able to get flood insurance club together to form a not for profit co-op and insure themselves ... just like the seafarers from your OP.

Its a good idea although I suspect that because claims can be large and, relatively speaking, flood victims are few then this wouldnt work, which is why insurance companies exist.  The operate at scale.

> You are trying to have your cake and eat it a bit.  "Many posters just sound bitter because they cant afford to live in a picturesque home next to a river".   Probably right .. they are bitter .. i'd love to live next to a river.  But they also don't want to chip to pay for flood insurance for those who have elected to live by a river of erect in a flood plane.  Can't have it both ways.

Im not trying to have any cake and eat it.  I was merely pointing out that many people I have seen on the news recently seem pretty desperate and despite their horrible situation cant get cover.  You are also putting words into my mouth.  Rivers are part of the issue, yes, but not everyone 'elect' to be in a flood plane.  Many people have lived in average houses for many years and are now being affected by rising river levels for the first time.  Many have also been affected by runoff.  If we are to believe climate change is a thing, we are all responsible for this in some way.  Its seems that people on UKC also seem to think that every waterside dwelling is a £1m pad housing toffs who deserve it because they have the temerity to live beside an idyllic brook, which is patently rubbish. 

> I appreciate this is an emotive topic for you.  I hope you are okay and not personally affected.

 Brown 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Let me put it another way.

I invest my money in Toys R Us. For years it pays dividends and I'm happy. Then it gets hit by unforeseen changes in the retail environment (amazon home delivery) and goes bust. I loose my money.

I invest my money in a house which I enjoy the benefit of for years before it gets flooded. Because my house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and nobody wants a flooding house it looses a chunk of its value.

You seem to want the government to prop up the value of your house by interfering in the market. This sounds a lot like socialism for the rich to me. Will the government also compensate me for my Toys R Us losses? Neither event was foreseeable when the purchases was made.

If the market does not want to offer them flood insurance at a price they are willing to pay then I don't think it is the states roll to start stepping in. If the market is unable to correct the value of flooding homes due to the government propping up their value then there is no disincentive for house builders building in flood plains and no disincentive for people buying flood prone houses.

I think you infantilise people. If people are not responsible for life choices for better or for worse then you treat people like delicate flowers who need to be closeted by government ie Socialism for the Rich.

1
 La benya 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It's a market. No one has to give you insurance. You sound entitled. Burglary isn't out of your control... You move to somewhere where there isn't that problem, if that is the main force affecting you life at that point.

I'm not bitter at all thanks. Got a lovely house by the seaside. A lot of people are seeing the foolishness of living on a flood plain and ignoring the romance of river views is all. 

 La benya 27 Feb 2020
In reply to oldie:

Flood risks are known. How do you think insurers rate these things? Of course they change over time due to our developments but it doesn't happen overnight and if you weigh up the risk of no insurance against the Riverside views and decide its not worth the risk, you move before you get flooded.

 Phil79 27 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Just on a raised 1m high foundation would make a vast difference. 

New houses on flood plains or areas at risk of flooding are already built on 'raised' sites.

Typically, developer will undertake an Flood Risk Assessment to determine relevant flood level. I've not done any for a few years but there were certain criteria to be meet, as set out in government policy (i.e. depending upon defined 'flood zone' certain development types are restricted, and then finished levels on a site have to sit above a defined flood level (based on certain storm, sea, or river level return period event, with allowance for climate change)).   

Its more a question of if the current guidance is 'fit for purpose'.

Critically, what happens in areas where flooding has historically not been common but now is (i.e. historic town centers in major river valleys)? Or areas which are nominally defended, but defenses are now inadequate.

Its more complicated than just build higher.

A holistic look at whole catchment land use also critical, which isnt being addressed.

I cant help thinking much of the River Severn (and other major rivers) would flood a lot less if they upper catchment wasn't essentially devoid of trees!  

 La benya 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I should add that one of the principal doctrines of insurance is that the loss should be sudden and unforseen. Flood is... Continually flood problems are not. They are a 'commercial decision' and therefoe not insurable (potentially a hedge product or bond could be created but it would be incredibly expensive). 

Cover can be included for change in water course/ rise in water table etc but these are add ons which cost and are underwritten case by case. If insurers know of flood controls which will move a problem towards you, they aren't going to provide cover. 

I kind of understand what people are saying, the the government should provide cover where the open market fails. But the only way that would work is if they charge everyone else for that. And I don't want to pay for someone to live in a house that flood all the time. I might consider measures to move them from the problem area,but I wouldn't be advocating market rate (pre flood issues) being given. 

 summo 27 Feb 2020
In reply to Phil79:

I'd agree. It's a double or triple whammy. Land is drained quicker, potentially more concentrated rainfall and more lowland building. 

 Brown 27 Feb 2020
In reply to Phil79:

Just think, if we stopped subsidising insurance for these sites then none of the regulation would be needed as nobody would build the housing as no mortgage company would lend against it.

I can't get a housing development built without warranties from NHBC as without these, home buyers cannot arrange mortgages. If the government stated guaranteeing home owners against design flaws as well as flooding we could build some real cheap rubbish safe in the knowledge that it would get sold and the state would pick up the tab for sorting it out.

The only people who would loose out would be society as a whole of course. 

In reply to Brown:

> Let me put it another way.

> I invest my money in Toys R Us. For years it pays dividends and I'm happy. Then it gets hit by unforeseen changes in the retail environment (amazon home delivery) and goes bust. I loose my money.

Oh lordy.  This is an investment which can go up as well as down and the risk are clearly pointed out beforehand.

> I invest my money in a house which I enjoy the benefit of for years before it gets flooded. Because my house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and nobody wants a flooding house it looses a chunk of its value.

> You seem to want the government to prop up the value of your house by interfering in the market. This sounds a lot like socialism for the rich to me. Will the government also compensate me for my Toys R Us losses? Neither event was foreseeable when the purchases was made.

No, I didnt say that at all.  In fact, the only suggestion of government intervention was that I think they should step in to help bolster defences and fit flood barriers at flash points and subsidise personal flood guards at home.  Have you seen the picture at Iron Bridge today with the flood defences buckling under record levels.  Are you suggesting they should just rip them down?

Why do you keep saying socialism for the rich?  I am suggesting that being un-insurable seems very unfair to me given that insurance in principle is designed so that the premiums of many help the unfortunate few.  I didnt say anything about the government stepping in.

You also keep assuming that all bankside dwellers are hideous rich folks who bring it on themselves.  Many of these people have lived in their home for years and climate change is now affecting them.  Also, in case you missed it, RUNOFF.  Not all home are flooded by rivers.

> If the market does not want to offer them flood insurance at a price they are willing to pay then I don't think it is the states roll to start stepping in. If the market is unable to correct the value of flooding homes due to the government propping up their value then there is no disincentive for house builders building in flood plains and no disincentive for people buying flood prone houses.

Blimey, you dont listen much do you.  My point was that they cant get insurance at all.  If all homes in flooded areas had to pay an extra arbitrary figure of say, £1k, extra per year then over a few years they might build up enough surplus to cover their loses for the times when they have bad floods.  Conversely, maybe have an extra excess of another arbitrary figure for flood claims.   Maybe the rest of the country pays an extra £0.10 per annum to help.   Like it or loathe it, we all pay for the claims of others.  You might be the most careful, claim free driver in the country but your premiums increase because of the claims of other drivers who may be reckless and accident prone.  Flood victims dont bring this on themselves whereas the young reckless driver does.  They, the young driver, pay a huge premium increase and pay a large excess but you still in some way have an increase too.  Its just how it works.

But flood cant get cover at all.

> I think you infantilise people. If people are not responsible for life choices for better or for worse then you treat people like delicate flowers who need to be closeted by government ie Socialism for the Rich.

Oh FFS, I didnt say government intervent.....oh I giveup.  Nasty horrible rich folks, you deserve everything you get with your full bank accounts and your big riverside homes.

Post edited at 13:13
In reply to La benya:

> It's a market. No one has to give you insurance. You sound entitled. Burglary isn't out of your control... You move to somewhere where there isn't that problem, if that is the main force affecting you life at that point.

And you sound callous and pretty unpleasant.  I live in a decent area with comparatively low crime but I was targeted because of my new car whilst me and my family were upstairs.  You almost sound like I asked for it because I dared to have a new car.

> I'm not bitter at all thanks. Got a lovely house by the seaside. A lot of people are seeing the foolishness of living on a flood plain and ignoring the romance of river views is all. 

Interesting.  I'd be keen to learn where.  East or West Coast?  I wonder how you'd feel if a freak storm were to wash away the coast and whether you would hope or indeed expect the government to do all it could to prevent your home washing into the sea, as many places are.   Would you expect to claim on your insurance.

Nice that you are happy and enjoying that lovely sea breeze knowing that when you get back it will still be there, unflooded and unburgled.  You dont sound very caring.

1
 Brown 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't understand why you think the value of housing should never be allowed to fall in the manner of any other asset class.

When you buy a house is it not also made abundantly clear that its value could go up as well as down?

You seem to keep insisting you are not suggesting government intervention before going on to suggest government intervention: bolster flood defences, fit flood gates, subsidise personal flood guards, making all homeowners in a flooded area pay an arbitrary figure of £1K, and make the rest of the country pay.

If you have an un-insurable asset and the government subsidises the insurance of it that is government intervention. 

1
 Wiley Coyote2 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

At the risk of coming over as some kind of socialist (God forbid!) isn't the  whole point of living in a society that costs are spread? When I bought my previous house it had no history of flooding . However subsequently when a huge industrial estate was built upstream  and the run off into the river became much faster it did. There was no way I could have known that would happen when I bought it years earlier.

That industrial estate was given permission on the premise that it would create jobs  and hence generate taxation and economic growth to benefit the area and the country. Is it unreasonable to expect some of that benefit to be spent mitigating the problems the development has caused. If you also accept that climate change is man made and at least partially a result of pollution from modern industrial lifestyles should not those who benefit from that lifestyle (ie most of us) contribute to solving the problems is causes, including flooding?

Would those who trouser the benefits of  modern living but take the view that flooding is entirely the householder's problem take the same view of all problems not directly affecting them? How about dangerously flamable cladding on tower blocks? I now live in a three storey stone house with no cladding whatsoever so why do I have to chip in to solve the problem? Isn't it entirely the residents' fault for choosing to move in and not checking the building was safe? Likewise I live in a small rural village. Terrorism is not a  problem here. ISIS and Al Queda have never heard of us so why do I have to contribute to expensive protection for Londoners? They chose to live near terrorist targets so why not let them pick up the tab? Etc etc etc ad infinitum

So would you prefer to live in a society where people  all chip in to solve big problems even if they are not directly affected themselves? Or is it just I'm all right Jack and devil take the hindmost?

 StuPoo2 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Correct, private insurers are indeed not obliged to insure people which it the whole point of the thread.  I say that the system appears unfair to those affected by flood. I dont necessarily subscribe to socialism as you put it, rather that the system is tweaked.

I do agree with you Mr DrunkenBaker ... it is unfair.  What tweak are you proposing is made?  

> accommodate those who are unfairly penalised in my eyes based on 'acts of god' as it were.

The problem here isn't the act of god.  It's the fact that the act of god affects people differently AND in a predictably different way.  Floods happen, yes, but they affect the people who live in riverside properties, like those low down by the river in IronBridge, disproportionately more than those 100m back up high on the side of the gorge.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-51657771  This is a fact.

No different from car insurance.  Everyone is profiled when they apply for car insurance.  Some groups crash predictably more than others ... they pay for that in their premiums.  If an individual is a careful driver he/she builds up a no claims discount and his/her premiums descend back towards the norm.  

> Many people have lived in average houses for many years and are now being affected by rising river levels for the first time.  Many have also been affected by runoff.  If we are to believe climate change is a thing, we are all responsible for this in some way.  

I do believe Climate Change plays a part in this and I would be supportive of one-time relocation assistance from Government for houses which now find themselves in the firing line.  One-time is the key word here though.  If they receive relocation assistance, but the house goes back on the market and new tenant/owner moves in ... there is no way that we should pay relocation assistance a second time if the house floods.  

In reply to Brown:

> I don't understand why you think the value of housing should never be allowed to fall in the manner of any other asset class.

My argument was about insuring against flood not a change in the value of a home.

> When you buy a house is it not also made abundantly clear that its value could go up as well as down?

You probably need to start a new thread about that as this wasnt my point..

> You seem to keep insisting you are not suggesting government intervention before going on to suggest government intervention: bolster flood defences, fit flood gates, subsidise personal flood guards, making all homeowners in a flooded area pay an arbitrary figure of £1K, and make the rest of the country pay.

You kept badgering on about socialism for the rich and other stuff which wasnt the reason for the thread.  I was simply saying that the insurance system in these situations seemed to me unfair.  Many of the homes which have been on the news are not large, expensive properties.  Many are small, terraced and just happen to have been built where high rivers flood them or new levels of rain create runoff and with additional development, nowhere for the water to go. 

I guess we should stop the building of new flood defences, forget planting new forests to collect that water, demolish the Thames Barrier, stop shoring up the sea defences.  I dont live in any of those areas and am happily dry of feet and landlocked so why should I give a damn.

> If you have an un-insurable asset and the government subsidises the insurance of it that is government intervention. 

I'll repeat it again because I dont think you are grasping this.  I am saying that being unable to insure for flood in flooded areas, even at massively increase premiums, seems punitive.

2
 Brown 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You keep suggesting that the government redistributes money from society at large to homeowners, who whilst may not be superstar wealthy, are typically better off than average.

I understand that you think that being unable to get flood insurance is punitive. I think it a function having a house liable to flood and that subsidising comparatively affluent households whilst cutting benefits to the less well off is an example of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. 

3
In reply to Brown:

> You keep suggesting that the government redistributes money from society at large to homeowners, who whilst may not be superstar wealthy, are typically better off than average.

Who said anything about home 'owners'.  Perhaps someone in a flood risk area is renting and cant get contents insurance.  They wont own the building so wont be responsible for the bricks and mortar.  I wouldn't distinguish between owners or renters in help to prevent flooding but if it makes you happy, perhaps the owners should be means tested on a sliding scale.  Or something.  

> I understand that you think that being unable to get flood insurance is punitive. I think it a function having a house liable to flood and that subsidising comparatively affluent households whilst cutting benefits to the less well off is an example of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. 

See above.

I'm outta here....I think Ive entered the twilight zone.

Post edited at 13:52
1
 wbo2 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:  basically there is a difference between 'unfortunate ' and wholly predictable.  How do you figure the cost of insuring someone you know is going to flood every 3 years (as an example)

  And then what responsibility does government have in reducing that?

 La benya 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Don't get pissy with me because you got burgled! Boo hoo my car was too nice so someone robbed me. That's definitely not what I said.

I sound like a realist opposed to you who doesn't understand insurance, the market. If that makes me sound callus as well so be it. 

3
 neilh 27 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

Go with the Coop or National Farmers Mutual who do this 

 oldie 27 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Flood risks are known. How do you think insurers rate these things? Of course they change over time due to our developments but it doesn't happen overnight and if you weigh up the risk of no insurance against the Riverside views and decide its not worth the risk, you move before you get flooded. <

Trouble with moving before you get flooded is that your potential buyer/solicitor/surveyor is likely to have access to the same information .

Incidentally almost everyone, including me, seems to accept that its morally OK to sell a property that one knows has a problem but doesn't declare and hope the buyer is unable to detect. Morally convenient to transfer responsibility to the buyer I suppose.

 Bacon Butty 27 Feb 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Life, generally, IS unfair.
I think your expectation that private insurance companies with/and/or this Tory government would throw money at these poor flood victims is verging on a pipe dream.

It's interesting to note that most, if not all, of these flooded areas lie within Tory constituencies.
People should really think deeper about who they vote for, rather than slinging an X in box for the party that promises them an extra fiver in their weekly pay packet.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...