But according to the government its not going to happen again for another 100 years so no need to worry about insurance
Cumbria flooding
- Thread starter JBuk
- Start date
But according to the government its not going to happen again for another 100 years so no need to worry about insurance
Do you really think it's as simple as not buying a house in flood risk areas? Where are all the thousands of people in those areas supposed to live?
One of my points. Do we just 'Chernobyl' any area with a flood plain at risk as a zone of alienation and move everyone elsewhere? There needs to be another solution!
Floating houses!
I think there is meant to be a government scheme where the Government acts as the insurer for the flood element of the policy, at least for individual home owners whose house was built before a set date.
However I think it's been delayed (I remember my parents hearing about it and looking into it), and I don't believe it would necessarily cover the likes of rented properties.
It's a horrible situation, as at the moment the insurance is utterly unaffordable for a lot of people, and even when they do get it the excess can be very high. And they're often stuck unable to afford to move (even if just renting), and unable to afford the premiums or to take any effective measures to protect the property
Personally I place far more blame on the government at all levels than the people who bought the properties, as for decades the government (of all colours) has allowed building on what were drainage plains*, cut back on things like drainage maintenance and flood prevention schemes**.
It's also not helped by the amount of in town land that has been paved/concreted over, even things like turning front gardens into parking spots whilst individually is a small difference, when you have thousands of people doing it, it adds up to a lot of lost opportunities for natural drainage.
*Which has meant a lot of areas that were once not flood plains are now, and areas that used to have a very low risk of minor flooding now have a higher risk (and worse flooding) as the water used to be able to drain off better upstream.
**Again in my parents case there were plans for flood prevention works that got as far as asking property owners for permission to build on their land (my parents would have lost about 3-4 foot of currently unusable garden), but then not a peep, not even a "we've shelved the idea" message for at least a decade now.
The whole thing does my head in - when there is a known flood risk like that - even if the chances are relatively low - developers should have to go to far more lengths to accommodate that (atleast here they are forced to provide waterproof bulk storage as a minimum in new builds) and people who live in those houses only have themselves to blame if they don't take some precautions if they know their is a flood risk - far too many simply don't.
Looks like the precipitation forecast for Cumbria for the weekend has downgraded a bit - reduced to about 70mm over the weekend rather than the 120+mm for Saturday night.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 8,120
- Location
- The king of the north!
^This as soon as something happens close to those who make these decisions there minds would change and all of a sudden they would be sending aid all over the place.... mainly towards themselves.
I'm not sure if you're joking, but for a while one of the key suggestions has been to build houses in flood plains above storage such as a garage.
Oddly enough I don't think any of the house builders have taken up the idea, probably because it would cost a few grand more per house.
One of the Grand Designs houses fairly recently (this season or last) took it to another level, literally, from memory the house was built to rise with the flood water (to something like 6 or 8 foot), so under normal conditions it was street level, but if the area flooded it could be raised to keep it above the water level.
I think it required some fancy plumbing and electrical connections, but probably would work out cheaper than rebuilding elsewhere.
I can't remember if it included a boat house
don't buy a property at high risk of flooding and expect others to pay for it then
they're profit making businesses not charities
up to them to prioritise - do they want to cut back on other expenses and pay for the insurance premium or do they want to take the risk, not pay for insurance and pay out a big lump sum when they get flooded
a premium of a few grand and a high excess indicates a fairly high chance of flooding, you can't practically defend everywhere from that risk, the water is going to go somewhere
Stuff like that should be enforced IMO.
I'm not sure if you're joking, but for a while one of the key suggestions has been to build houses in flood plains above storage such as a garage.
Oddly enough I don't think any of the house builders have taken up the idea, probably because it would cost a few grand more per house.
One of the Grand Designs houses fairly recently (this season or last) took it to another level, literally, from memory the house was built to rise with the flood water (to something like 6 or 8 foot), so under normal conditions it was street level, but if the area flooded it could be raised to keep it above the water level.
I think it required some fancy plumbing and electrical connections, but probably would work out cheaper than rebuilding elsewhere.
I can't remember if it included a boat house
I don't think I watched the show but I vaguely remember someone talking about it. The only issue they said was.. it wasn't cheap. I've seen a few since but they're just floating caravans in a marina.
To some level I emphasis with your point if people purchased property KNOWING that
a) It was on a flood plain
b) What the insurance premiums are and the level of excess
c) It would be difficult to resell their property because of both a and b
But what about those people that purchased pre 2005 (the first big flood in my memory) or even before the insurance premiums started to go sky high. What option have those people got?
I think it does.
If I lived in Cumbria pre the first big flood and suddenly my home was deemed a flood risk by insurance companies, and my insurance premiums and excess went up and I found it difficult to sell my home (of if I did it would be at a loss). What fault is it of mine? My circumstances changed without giving me any possible foresight.
A pretty cold way of looking at a very unique situation buddy IMO.
it isn't a unique situation, flooding happens in plenty of areas, as does costal erosion, large employers going bust, factories and coal mines closing, crime increasing or decreasing, rail links or transport networks opening up, runways being build etc..etc..
if something unpredictable happens that causes your home to rise in value then you get to benefit from it, likewise if it falls in value you take the hit - that is just a fairly basic reality of owning an asset and there are plenty of events that can make that happen - it isn't anyone else's job to compensate for a fall in value and you don't generally get people who are beneficiaries of a big rise in value suddenly wanting to sell up and share their capital gain either...
I'm sure there are some residents of Detroit who feel a bit miffed the value of their properties have been wiped out and the cost of insuring them high along with the risk of being a victim of crime much higher - while other Americans can feel sorry for them it isn't anyone else's responsibility to compensate them for having a house that is now riskier and has lost some value
on the flip side I'm sure there are some people who bought properties in Notting Hill when it was a rough area and are now sitting on a fortune
if you don't want that risk of ownership then don't take it
if something unpredictable happens that causes your home to rise in value then you get to benefit from it, likewise if it falls in value you take the hit - that is just a fairly basic reality of owning an asset and there are plenty of events that can make that happen - it isn't anyone else's job to compensate for a fall in value and you don't generally get people who are beneficiaries of a big rise in value suddenly wanting to sell up and share their capital gain either...
I'm sure there are some residents of Detroit who feel a bit miffed the value of their properties have been wiped out and the cost of insuring them high along with the risk of being a victim of crime much higher - while other Americans can feel sorry for them it isn't anyone else's responsibility to compensate them for having a house that is now riskier and has lost some value
on the flip side I'm sure there are some people who bought properties in Notting Hill when it was a rough area and are now sitting on a fortune
if you don't want that risk of ownership then don't take it
No, if people have things happen that's beyond their control that leaves them struggling then they should be helped.