Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Buying and selling property

These homes are about to become worthless

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 19 March 2012  |  Comments 40 comments

Changes to flood insurance could leave 200,000 UK homes uninsurable and unsellable.

These homes are about to become worthless

Up to 200,000 British homes could soon become uninsurable, thanks to the end of a flood agreement between the Government and insurers.

Twelve years ago, in 2000, the Government and the insurance industry came together to produce a document called the Flood Insurance Statement of Principles. This governed insurers' treatment of policyholders in flood-prone areas and was renewed for five more years in 2008, but it is set to expire in June 2013. Also, the latest version does not cover homes built since January 2009.

Flood damaged

The trade body for insurance companies, the Association of British Insurers (ABI), has warned that the deal will not be renewed next year, as it 'grossly distorts' the market for home insurance.

The ABI's members no longer support this agreement, because policyholders in low-risk areas are paying higher premiums to subsidise those living on flood plains. The big insurers who signed this agreement are unhappy that they remain 'on the hook' for large numbers of high-risk homes. In other words, they no longer want to bear such a high proportion of flood claims.

A double whammy: uninsurable and unsellable

At present, the agreement means that even people in the highest-risk areas can buy home insurance and, therefore, enjoy some protection against flood damage to their buildings and contents.

But what happens to them when the deal expires?

Politicians and civil servants in the Local Government Association (LGA) fear that the end of this 13-year deal will leave some households unable to buy cover for damage to their homes and contents.

In fact, up to 200,000 of the UK's 26 million homes could be uninsurable. This comes to one in 130 homes, or 0.77% of the UK's housing stock. While 0.77% is a tiny proportion, the 200,000 households at risk could suffer terribly. Unable to buy buildings and contents insurance, they could be exposed to big bills from the next round of floods.

For example, just imagine not having insurance when a flood causes £20,000-£40,000 of damage to your property. In effect, your home could become uninhabitable, forcing you to move out and abandon your nest.

What's more, homes in high-risk areas could become practically unsellable. After all, who would buy a property which cannot be insured, yet has been flooded, say, twice in the past ten years?

Without insurance, no mortgage lender would be willing to lend against these properties, leaving only cash buyers in the frame. However, taking such a big risk would be sheer madness, forcing cash-rich homebuyers and buy-to-let landlords to reject these properties and look elsewhere.

According to the LGA, if the Flood Insurance Statement of Principles is not replaced next year, it could leave homeowners nursing an £11 billion liability. Divided by 200,000 homes, this comes to £55,000 per household.

Is your home at risk?

Anyone whose home has been damaged by flooding in the past 12 years should be more than a little nervous. According to the LGA, those at risk of being priced out of the market for home insurance mostly live in Devon, Huddersfield, Kent, Nottinghamshire and Worcestershire.

In particular, those affected by the massive floods in Cockermouth, Cumbria in November 2009, or the devastating deluge that hit the Midlands and Yorkshire in 2007, should be most worried.

To find out whether your home is in a high-risk Flood Warning Area, simply check the flood maps shown on the Environment Agency's website or call Floodline on 0845 988 1188. These flood maps show the areas of the UK most at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea, as well as showing significant, moderate and low risks of flooding.

In addition, you can get help and advice from the National Flood Forum, a registered charity set up to help individuals and communities at risk of flooding. Also, read this guide to flood risk from the ABI.

Dealing with catastrophe

Critics of the insurance industry argue that insurers should not be allowed to 'cherry pick' the lowest-risk customers while excluding high-risk homes. However, since the birth of insurance in the Middle Ages, underwriters have always reserved the right to reject excessive risks.

On the other hand, without some kind of compromise or replacement deal, up to 200,000 British families could be teetering on the brink, waiting fearfully for the next storm. Until Britain invests more in flood defences, these folk are living on the edge.

When members of a nation are faced with catastrophic risks, the best way to bear those risks is to place them on the broadest, strongest shoulders. For example, earthquake risk in Japan is partly covered by the huge Japanese Earthquake Reinsurance scheme introduced in 1966.

Likewise, the US operates federal flood insurance programmes, which helped in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.

However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) does not want this flood burden to be paid for by an extra levy on hard-pressed taxpayers. Defra also argues that flood-hit homeowners should invest in their own defences, for example, buying sandbags and 'hard defences' such as embankments and walls.

Time for a new system?

With the Government refusing to subsidise flood insurance, another way to provide fair, affordable and widely available home insurance throughout the UK would be to introduce a compulsory levy on all such policies. This happens in France, where insurance premiums include a natural-disaster levy to meet flood costs, with the State acting as reinsurer to guarantee payment in extreme circumstances.

More: Get quality quotes for home insurance | The best home insurance companies for customer service | Save 50%+ on your life insurance

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (40)

  • easygoing
    Love rating 156
    easygoing said

    So Defra suggests that homeowners at risk should build their own defences. Can you imagine the problems in getting that past the tiny minds in local government planning departments?

    After the floods in 1953 (?) new homes built in southeast London on the flood plane were 'jacked up' by one storey, in effect throwing away the ground floor as a flood defence. The practice soon stopped though as flood defences were improved. Maybe this is a way forward for new builds.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Alan14
    Love rating 16
    Alan14 said

    The whole point of insurance as I see it is to protect against unexpected catastrophes, or incidents. If an area is not classed as high risk suddenly experiences flooding due to unforeseen problems then they should be covered by insurance; however since when has it become unexpected that houses built on flood plains might just flood? Isn't there a clue in the name?

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    Perhaps in future people won't buy homes on flood plains and house builders will stop building in stupid places. If we all pay extra to protect against everything, that would be floods, mining subsidence, earthquakes, tsunamis, lightning strikes, bloody big trucks crashing into your home and every conceivable problem. Few people would get insurance and whole towns in the West Midlands would be uninsurable because of mining subsidence. The insurance industry will assess the risks and they will insure but at a higher premium. The headline is again misleading and sensational; apparently acceptable for Rupert Murdoch style newspapers, but on a website? What next, phone hacking the chancellor's phone?

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    Maybe this will stop the stupidity of allowing building on flood plains! And stop the grasping building companies profiting from it. It's not just flood plains, in Blackpool a company built on a known bog that took years to sort out with properties having to be demolished.

    Anyone who has bought a property since this info was available only have themselves to blame.... http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37837.aspx

    Anyone who bought a property before this info was easily available should have had it included in a property survey.... of course, we know some buyers save money by not having surveys.

    Insurance companies have always taken your money up front then try to wriggle out of paying out when there are problems, 'twas ever thus', hey!

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LiamT
    Love rating 45
    LiamT said

    so, they are stopping insuring 'at risk' homes. when does everyone's insurance premium go down then? oh, it will not, will it? typical.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • JohnW
    Love rating 26
    JohnW said

    People seem to forget that the purpose of an insurance company is to make a lot of profit, they are not in the business to protect you nor are they on the side of the insured. If left to thier own devices they will charge exhorbitant premiums for no cover and strike you off if you ever make a claim.

    Legislation and monitoring is essential.

    The headline may be sensational, but there is certainly an element of truth in the fact that left to themselves the insurance companies will cherry pick and only insure those properties they are pretty sure will not be a risk.

    £11 bn spread over the insured properties would be a £500 a year levy? Something does not make sense in that calculation. Maybe there is an £11bn potential liability but how much did they actually have to pay out?

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • HappyHacker
    Love rating 18
    HappyHacker said

    Why have Local Authorities allowed so many houses to be built on flood plains? When I have been prudent and ensured my house is at a low risk of flooding why should I pay additional charges to those who have bought high risk properties? While I have no time for the avaricious tendencies of insurance companies they do have a point. Governement spending on flood defences is being cut and too may houses have been built in high risk areas without any flood defence measures being built into the houses. I have a lot of sympathy for those who have been hit by the exceptional floods but I do question why I should be expected to pay?

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • DavidDale
    Love rating 10
    DavidDale said

    I have always, perhaps naively, seen insurance as people clubbing together to reimburse an invidual for loss on the basis that, while a few will inevitably suffer catastrophes over time, the majority won't and spreading the loss over a large number of people makes the individual costs bearable. The problem seems to come when there are middlemen, i.e. the insurance companies, whose main interest is simply to make money. If they will not cover everyone for a similar fee or even at all, then the state should take over property insurance for everyone, not just those at higher risk, and keep the insurance companies out of it.

    There are extra benefits from this arrangement as it is only the state which has the resources for maintaining and improving such things as flood defences and which has the power to prevent developments on flood plains. Having the same organisation which controls these defences responsible for meeting the costs of their deficiencies would be a powerful incentive to have the job done properly.

    So householders would pay a charge based on property value rather than risk and the state would make sure that the risks are minimised and the costs when things do go wrong is borne by the largest number of contributors.

    The only real problem I see is the appalling record of the state in honouring this type of commitment. The families of those killed and injured on the roads due to the state's failure to use the funds levied from road users specifically to maintain those roads, currently called VED, are well aware of the state's shortcomings. National Insurance is now just another tax..Still, if we ever did get a government with integrity and the ability to plan more than 5 years ahead, taking property insurance out of the private sector would be a way of ensuring everyone is covered and that the risks are minimised. One can only dream.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    This could get even worse. I live near the sea but in actual fact the house is 10 metres above maximum high tide level. I have had one insurance company refuse house insurance on the basis that I am near water.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • killick_becki
    Love rating 58
    killick_becki said

    Meanmachine2 I am the same. We haven't had it refused yet but according to the insurance companies I live in a flood risk area. The only water is a tiny stream which if it was to flood my house would have to have the houses at the bottom of the road completely submerged!

    I think they have simply looked at distance rather than elevation.

    The only flood risk I have is emmense rainwater creating a stream down the road.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • amwell44
    Love rating 39
    amwell44 said

    As usual, lots of ignorant and silly remarks about insurance companies, who are no more avaricious than any other service provider. Underwriting risk is geared to contractually covering unforeseen events (not certainties) for a competitive premium and factoring in enough to pay for the costs of running the business, plus a margin of profit, like any other well run enterprise. Underwriting profits on Buildings and Contents insurance are quite hard to achieve in today's consumer market, so insurers traditionally look to investment returns on premiums and reserves, but those are elusive as well. Insurance is also a heavily regulated (and World leading), industry, staffed by qualified professionals and the consumer is well protected. The 1945 Labour government did not nationalise the insurance industry ( "National Insurance" is not a funded scheme - that's what's wrong with it), so we won't see nationalisation 23 years after the collapse of socialism Worldwide. There will be an industry solution to the problem and the State will almost certainly play a part, just as they do with War and nuclear risks, so don't let the alarmist article panic you.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    Thank you amwell44 for providing the insurance companies viewpoint. If only there was any evidence insurance companies were providing a service, as you rightly point out in the next sentence, they are not. No one is in business to provide a service per se, everyone who is in business is in it to make a profit. If insurance companies want to improve the public's opinion of them, which I gather is somewhere around estate agent/politician/journalist level, then they could try basing premiums on the actual size of the probability of an insured event happening, rather than just on the basis that that the probability is non-zero.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nitnot
    Love rating 5
    nitnot said

    Seems to me that purchasers who buy houses built on a floodplain should have some comeback against the developer or perhaps the mortgage company who should have known better. The buyer could not be expected to have expert knowledge of flood risks whereas the developer and lender owe a duty of care towards the purchaser to advise on this and other risks, thus at least partial blame rests with the developer and the mortgagee - if there was one! In the event of default the lender would end up holding an asset with negative equity! Perhaps the simple solution is for lenders to underwrite flood or other uninsurable risks - and thus provide gainful employment for lawyers when it all goes pearshaped!

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • george19a
    Love rating 28
    george19a said

    The key phrase in the article is "those living on flood plains" AND it is called a FLOOD PLAIN, because it tends to FLOOD!!! Just ask anyone that lives locally to a flood plain and they will tell you which areas have historically been subject to flooding.

    As the Meerkats would say 'simples', but this isn't the fault of the insurer. Insurance companies don't build houses, neither do they grant planning permission. Please give credit where credit is due. This is down to the developers that built the houses and the Local Authorities that gave planning permission.

    Apologies to those that work, or own a business on a Flood Plain as they are equally hard hit by flooding.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Houses on 'flood plains' can be built in such a way as to be undamaged by flooding but there are instances where houses which should have no theoretical risk of flooding are inundated due to flash floods from freak downpours combined with inadequate drainage. This happened locally to a whole estate where screening measures using earth banks to improve privacy from a main road resulted in there being no way for accumulated water to run off. Even houses in extreme flood risk areas can be individually protected for £10K-£15K so the premise of the article that houses will be 'worthless' is absurd and quite frankly, I would expect better of Cliff who has clearly never visited the beautiful city of York.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    One who buys property should always examine the natural disaster risk of the area BEFORE making a purchase. Be it near a cliff top with a wonderful view over the sea or near a scenic river in the heart of England or by the bottom of a beautiful winter snow covered mountain in Scotland, there are risks that the purchaser alone must assess.

    Those that go ahead and buy in a risk prone area are accepting that risk and should not accept the remainder of the nation to indemnify them when that risk goes bad any more than a casino gambler who loses can expect the remaining punters to cover his losses.

    There a some natural disasters such as tornados or lightning strikes that cannot be predicted and insurers will accept these risks.

    Government should not, at the taxpayers expense, indemnify in any way those foolhardy enough to build or buy on a flood plain. Equally, developers who build on a flood plain must be made to show on their development plans how they intend to negate the flood dangers to their build and to initiate a fund to cover failure of those plans.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    I used to live in a city where they built houses on an area that used to flood regularly. I couldn't believe it. It was down by the River Severn, and a lot of its reaches flood. After 5 years or so, they were flooded out and had to be left for 12 months to dry out, plaster chiseled off, etc.

    A government department gave planning permission. These people should be compensated and the houses bulldozed.

    Just a thought. Presumably with house prices being double what they should be, the cost of insurance is high.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • amwell44
    Love rating 39
    amwell44 said

    MK22, insurers in fact do precisely what you say they do not do - not only for Household insurance, but for oil rigs and ships and virtually everything that drives the World economy - or else why do they employ actuaries and spend their time modelling risk? Without insurance, run as a global business, there would be no World economy. Think about it. Do try to get out of your "profit is bad" mindset - you and other commentators on this site - it pays your wages, or your benefits, as the case may be. By the way, I work in one of the most economically backward countries in the World, helping in a small way to bring insurance to their economy.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • easygoing
    Love rating 156
    easygoing said

    Insurance companies have a really bad image at the moment but it wasn't always this way, so what happened? They stopped being insurance companies that's what. They became greedy in the search for ever greater profits. The insurance side was just a cover to legitimise the desire for more money than the next business. Hence short cuts, mis selling, avoidance in paying out, all sorts of motoring misdeeds and the public starts to feel that they are being conned. At which point they, the public, lose faith and then start to invent a few tricks of their own. The whole system degenerates into the mess we have now.

    Unfortunately this is one can of worms that you can't put back in the can. As has been said before it is possible to build on a flood plane providing that the house is designed to cope with flooding. Unfortunately the cost will be higher and again local government planners would need to change their attitudes.

    Government in the past have encouraged flood plane building and they should take some responsibility for the situation.

    We live in a society and for that privilege we have to undertake some commitments. You can't have a tick box on your tax return so that you can pick and chose where you taxes go, they are for the good of all.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • deddajay
    Love rating 2
    deddajay said

    I do get a little tired with the insurance industry bashing, being a professional in this industry. I've lost track of the number of times that I've been abused over the phone for not settling a claim when it was not valid. What people have to remember is that when they take out a policy, be it motor, household, travel or whatever, they are entering into a contract which is binding on both sides. The insurer agrees to settle the claim in the event that x occurs, provided the insured sticks to his side of the agreement in presenting a claim which falls within the policy terms. This includes informing the insurer of anything which may be relevant to the policy before it is taken out because if the insurer cannot evaluate the risk the correct premium cannot be applied and the event may be excluded. An insurance policy is not designed to cover all eventualities, only those specified in the policy and for which a premium has been paid.

    Also if insurers didn't make a profit there would be nothing in the kitty to pay claims when they arise, after taking overheads, staffing costs, taxes and other outgoings into account. In my particular insurance area it costs around £110 per claim just to handle it before we even think about settling the claim itself.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • earthmother
    Love rating 5
    earthmother said

    @deddajay.

    "Also if insurers didn't make a profit there would be nothing in the kitty to pay claims when they arise, after taking overheads, staffing costs, taxes and other outgoings into account. In my particular insurance area it costs around £110 per claim just to handle it before we even think about settling the claim itself."

    What about all the money from hundreds of people like myself, who have never made a claim? 20 years of fully comp motor insurance, usually in excess of £200 a year and not one claim ever made (I am no longer able to drive so will never get any of it back). 15 years of contents insurance and only 1 small claim when a freezer failed, and even then I didn't get back what I should have, the payout was on the size of the freezer rather than the value of the contents. This is why I no longer have any type of insurance because insurance companies are nothing but rip-off merchants.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Meanmachine2
    Love rating 37
    Meanmachine2 said

    I dont know about insurance company bashing but changing the topic slightly I have just received my car insuance renewal which has gone up 25%.

    When I queried it, the insurance company stated that the reason for the increase was that the Government have regraded the crime level on my post code.

    I checked with the Police & I have now received from them a detailed report showing that the crime level in my area has actually gone down 1.1%.

    So who's ripping who off.

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @earthmother

    So insurance companies are a rip-off because YOU and others like YOU never claimed? I think the intelligence of your logic is self-explanatory. I'm so pleased that you 'won't get any of it back'. Perhaps you should have driven into some hapless Rolls Royce just to get some value for your premiums. Do you even understand the concept of what insurance is about?

    Report on 19 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Cliff D'Arcy
    Love rating 26
    Cliff D'Arcy said

    To those critics who accuse me of 'dumbing down', sensationalist reporting and ill-informed insurance company-bashing, I would point out that I worked in the insurance industry for 15 years in claims, legal, marketing and product design roles. I negotiated some of the biggest contracts in my sector and gained professional qualifications in this field.

    As an ex-insider, I have an absolute right to slate insurers when they let the public down. By doing just this, I played a major part in bringing down the corrupt PPI industry, thus securing over £9 billion of compensation for ripped-off borrowers.

    Hence, when it comes to the subject of insurance, I like to think that I have something worthy and informed to say! ;0)

    Cliff

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Cliff - please tell us ONE area in the UK where homes will become worthless due to flood risk. I'd like to invest.

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Offa
    Love rating 40
    Offa said

    I think you will find that building will go on apace on unsuitable sites as Cameron and Osborne consider that teh UK will build itself out of recession. Where they build it is not a concern of theirs as no doubt they live in houses well away from trouble.

    Sadly many people do not do homework when buying a house. I have had hous for over 40 years - four different ones. I have always looked at the neighbourhood before the house. Where is the nearest brook/stream/river/ quarry? Any knowledge of floods in the area- I have only bought in the area I was brought up so have that knowledge. Clealry areas do change - roads get widened etc. But fllods are consistent over decades, in the last 50 years council spent a lot of flood alleviation but that has stopped due to cuts. No yu dig your own moat.

    That siad I had a burst water main outside my house , a 7 inch main which produced a mighty lot of water and a big hole in the road.Luckily we were in and I diverted it round the house to go down the garden and into neighbours' property thus missing ours.

    Severn Trent fixed it with 12 hours but it took them over I hour to turn the water off as they could not find where to do it. They made good damage to teh drive but I did not report this to teh insurance company as they would have put me on the flood list - doubtless a good excuse to grab higher premiums in future.

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • UpHillAllTheWay
    Love rating 38
    UpHillAllTheWay said

    It's so easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight. Now that it's in all the headlines, people are much more conscious of flood areas, and if anybody buys in such an area nowadays, there is some cause to say "They should have known" - although I don't suppose their estate agent would point it out. I have just looked at the flood map to see where I stand. There was a moment of panic, I must confess, though I found myself to be OK - but the guy who bought a house 20 years ago couldn't check the flood maps on a convenient web site. It was a nice neighbourhood, with clean looking houses - his buildings i9nsurer inspected the place and said it was file, and he was granted a mortgage without problem. The question of it flooding didn't even cross his mind, and even if it had, the facilities for checking just didn't exist. It's so easy now - I followed a link and I had my answer in a couple of minutes - but for that guy who has lived in his house for a long time, who doesn't follow LoveMoney, and is still happily unaware of the problem - till his insurance company refuses to insure him, and he is subsequently unable to retire where he wants to because he was banking on selling his house to do it - the new rules must seem very hard. Surely, his local council would have had flood maps and resources at the time they granted planning permission to the builder? Surely, they should have some part of the responsibility?

    Of course, if his council pays out, everybody in its local taxes catchment area pays in - so it's tantamount to the council being his insurer, and why should other people be burdened with the loss? Well, I've heard tell that the quality of mercy is not strained - it droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven. (that's a quotation from Shakespeare for those who don't know - not a religious rant)

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • UpHillAllTheWay
    Love rating 38
    UpHillAllTheWay said

    Two guys got chatting on a tropical island.

    The first said "I was really lucky - my house burned down, and with the insurance money, I was able to retire to this little paradise"

    The second said "The same happened to me - only in my case, the house was flooded and everything - even the building was ruined, and the insurance money is paying for my retirement here"

    The first thought for a moment, then asked "How did you start a flood?"

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Daytona
    Love rating 4
    Daytona said

    Why should sensible people who chose not to buy houses which are liable to flooding subsidise those who did ?

    Insurance is for exceptional events. Houses being flooded multiple times is not an exceptional event.

    I've no doubt, that in our hugely competitive insurance industry, some company will offer these households insurance, but it will be at a justifiably huge cost.

    The moron councilors who granted planning permission for housing developments liable to flooding should be held personally liable.

    Report on 20 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • mavql
    Love rating 0
    mavql said

    I'm not personally at risk of flooding in my property but I would just like to defend some people that are. Over the years, new housing developments, new commercial developments and engineering works to natural waterways have all created new flood risks.

    When a new development springs up with great new flood defence systems, where do you think the water goes in the event of a flood? Certainly not in the properties which construction companies are trying to flog; the flood plain moves further along the river (for example) and now houses which for centuries have not been susceptible to flooding are suddenly high risk.

    How exactly is this their fault? There should definitely be some kind of contingency for these cases.

    What about people who live in areas where they are repeatedly burgled? Are they to live with iron bars on their doors & have no breakable glass windows just to protect their property or should they be allowed insurance to protect them from financial ruin?

    The government needs to step in & update this policy.

    Report on 22 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • saveasuearn
    Love rating 8
    saveasuearn said

    For goodness sake how difficult can it be? Insurers already load premiums depending on postcodes with high crime rates for both car and household insurance. Why can't they simply apply similar rules to those at risk of flooding - if homes in a particular area have been subject to flooding within say the last 5-10 years, then higher premiums should be calculated accordingly, given the increased risk. I'm surprised that more insurers aren't already doing this - it's hardly rocket science!

    As for Cliff's usual negative and scaremongering headline...it may increase premiums and quite possibly force certain house prices down - but I seriously doubt insurers will refuse to insure these properties altogether, after all weighing up risks and probabilities to ensure the insurers always make a tidy profit at the end, is what they've always been about.

    Report on 22 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    I realise that the headline is not Cliff's but I'd be prepared to pay 50% of the original purchase price to anyone who now believes they have a 'worthless' home.

    If you believe that your home is not at risk, surely you can find an insurance company to ensure your property with a flood exclusion?

    Report on 27 March 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Meduza78
    Love rating 17
    Meduza78 said

    to saveasyouearn: insuring a number of houses in area with high risk of flood is something different than insurance of individual for being robbed or his property being a subject of burglary, isnt it? to pay compensation to whole area in case of flood cannot be compared to individual case, can it? does not matter how much the insurance will cost each insured individual in case of flooding, the compensation can be neck breaking to the company, depending on the severity and area of flood. in addition: in case of natural disaster, the company cannot sue anyone for that and ask for compensation, as it can be done in case of an attack made by an individual... so yes, it can be difficult. a lot.

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • regent
    Love rating 0
    regent said

    So, will the Property developers, Planners etc be liabe for building Houses on a known Flood plain if there is a Flood and or, will the land be worthless as no one should really buy a house etc on a Flood plain. As said, Insurers already load premiums depending on postcodes with high crime rates for both car and household insurance, whats different with Flood risk insurance.....or . Maybe the Developers and Insurers have twisted the arms of the Government and got their own way and cancelled the national agreement...again.

    Leighton Buzzard will suffer?

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    yocoxy.

    So would you really buy a house, albeit at 50% value, that floods, and then you have to chisel the plaster off the walls and leave it to dry out for a year, have a lot of your possessions ruined, and then have to do it all over again, maybe as soon as next season?

    I think to say they are worthless is correct.

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • regent
    Love rating 0
    regent said

    nickpike said

    I think to say they are worthless is correct...

    However,So, will the Building society's and others take a Known risk and provide a Mortgage for an un insurable risk...i agree its not on and worthless.!

    Leighton Buzzard will suffer because of its huge flood plain and the Department of the environment not doing the job of river/ brook/ maintenance and long term risk management?

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @nickpike

    What part of 'individual flood defences' do you not understand? Homes can be proofed against flooding in such a way that the property itself will not flood and will not be damaged on a repeated basis. There are numerous systems of flood gates, special walls, sealed doors and flap valve systems fitted to sewerage pipes which are tried and tested around the world.

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Megatyte
    Love rating 21
    Megatyte said

    @amwell44

    "By the way, I work in one of the most economically backward countries in the World"

    Oh, so you DO work in England.

    A H

    Report on 01 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeB55
    Love rating 6
    MikeB55 said

    I'm surprised the insurance companies don' take the premiums, but refuse to pay out if their is a flood due to a let out clause in the small print.

    Report on 02 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    @nickpike. To answer your question, yes I would still buy. I'd add personal defences and I'm sure I'd find tenants at half the local rent.

    Since I'm prepared to buy, they're not worthless. Something is only worthless if no-one will buy it at any price.

    I work in The Netherlands where 27% of properties are below sea level and 60% of the population live in them. Add flood plain based housing and 55% of all Dutch property would be 'worthless' by your definition with a massive majority of the population living in them.

    My second comment was in response to those that said "I'm not at risk but I cant get insurance". If you're not at risk of flooding, take a policy with no flood cover.

    Report on 02 April 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2