How will you feel when....

Agreed durhamjen, I don't want to start a thread on that either - there'd be too much conflict for a wet Tuesday mid February

I just trotted it out on another thread ...

Margaret I agree about that phrase 'hardworking families' it's trotted out a lot.

The article mentions that Cameron says the government will help 'hardworking people affected by the floods'

I think the phrase 'hardworking people or hardworking families' has really run its course. Presumably if you are a lazy old biddy who likes a sitdown sometimes or spends too much time on gransnet and whose bungalow has been flooded you may not get any help.

What I meant by that, iam64, was that they never work out in women's favour, when we get equality.
I do not fancy starting a thread on that, either.

durhamjen, paying a bit more for insurance, and working a bit longer are indeed a bit of a pain. Is it too much to pay for equality though. I don't think so, if we did have equality that is. But, that's another thread isn't it.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flood-area-defences-funding-cuts

Article about the flood defence cuts.

yes, Margaret, car insurance premiums went up for women to equalise between men and women, just as pension ages went up.
We have to be careful where we wish for equality.

Didn't car insurance for females go up not long ago even though statistically they have fewer accidents than men?

DN checked the floodplains for us when we thought of moving a couple of years ago, although we have stayed where we are (up a hill) for the time being at least.

If insurance is higher in certain areas for certain risk factors, why should it not be the same for flood risk?
I do feel very sorry for people who were unable to get insurance after the previous floods, if they had no history of flooding previous to that.

Though I will be upset when the premiums go up, I would count myself lucky that I wasn't one of the people whose homes are awash in filthy water and whose lives are in chaos. I find it rather sad that some people now wish to blame the homeowners for their horrible predicament.

It's no doubt unwise to buy a house on a flood plain, but no doubt this sort of land is relatively cheaper and consequently so are the houses. Perhaps it's all that some people can afford. If councils still grant permission for developments on flood plains, I feel they are just as responsible - but maybe they face the same dilemma.

I feel that another problem is that many people are now paving/concreting over their front gardens and surplus surface water can't drain into the soil. A few years ago I read that people have to apply to the council to pave their drives and, if the council grants permission, the work must be done in such a way that water can still seep into the ground. I don't know if this has been enforced but if it hasn't it needs to be.

Actually, Flickety, the two bedroomed terrace houses built for the factory workers near Rowntrees in York still cost the same as those on Leeman Road, and are up a hill, fortunately.

It doesn't follow that being close to a river, with or without a view and moorings that you will flood. The sites of many of our riverside towns were chosen because, although they are beside a river they are on raised land that does not flood. However in the 19th century as factories expanded and workers flooded into towns, small terrace houses for these workers were often built on the flood plain. These small 19th century houses provide many 21st century house buyers with their first step on the housing ladder. It is easy if you have the money to say do not buy on the flood plain, but if that is all you can afford it is a bit different. DS started house-owning life with a floodplain railway cottage in York.

Much of the flooding that has occurred is not river flooding but groundwater flooding, where the volume of the rain has exceeded the ground's capacity to absorb it. This is the case in my village, we have small streams running through it, as do most communities, but the nearest river is 3 miles away, nevertheless we flooded in 2007 and last week, although fortunately this year few houses were flooded.

I think it is dreadful to say you cannot feel sorry for people who have lost their homes and treasured possessions just because they are well off. They will be suffering just as much emotional pain and grief as those in smaller properties. The Thames side properties that have flooded this year have rarely flooded before so everyone buying near the river how ever much or little they paid had no reason to expect floods like those we have just had.

flicketyB - I do realise it is nice and laudable to live in a listed building - but when I lived in Shropshire in a house that was at least 200 years old - it was not listed so maybe some authorities use a bit more common sense when applying the criteria.
be that as it may thank you for the link and I did manage to find insurance for house and contents for about £215 pa with a hefty excess (I work on the basis that if a small thing goes wrong I would pay to get it fixed rather than risk the no-claims discount.
even if a house is not listed I would never go for plastic windows and the rest - I like character in my house even if the wooden windows are a mite draughty at the moment

I think anybody who bought a house with moorings or even a nice riverside view cannot expect others to subsidise their insurance, however long ago they bought the house. My father's family live in Reading, but all up hills, I have discovered.

Iam64 and Nonnie I agree with your postings.We must read the policy properly and shop around.Bought this house 5 years ago and floods were the big thing we were concerned about, so bought the safest one that we could. I know not all have this luxury if they have been in a house for a long time, but maybe think of selling? Because, although moving house does cost a lot more than the insurance, you then have the peace of mind knowing that you won't flood.A lot of houses in Berkshire on the river, are million and multi million pound houses that wealthy people buy on the river, with moorings for their boat; can't feel sorry for these people.

mollie65, the criteria for listing is age, and there are national criteria, which is, essentially that all property over 200 years old should be listed. Being off the beaten track doesn't make any difference.

The main house insurers base their rates etc on brick houses with tiled/slate roofs built in towns or villages in the last 100 years and are really only interested in that type of property. If you own a listed property, which we do too, you need to go to an insurance broker who can contact insurance companies specialising in this market. Until recent floods in our village, which didn't affect our house, this was cheaper and better than going to any of the standard house insurers or comparison sites. There is also an organisation called the Listed Properties Owner's Club (https://lpoc.co.uk/) who also offer specialist insurance at good rates.

some people won't have a choice if the government doesn't stump up the cash to defend their house.

What's the point in getting annoyed about it when it's all out of our hands?
You could always choose not to insure your property if you want to save money.

We need to argue very strongly for better flood defense that is the only thing that will keep the insurance companies happy, and perhaps those that have been flooded will be able to obtain insurance for their homes as they will have difficulty otherwise.

Probably as annoyed as I feel about high motor insurance aggravated by plonkers on the roads and illegal "crash for cash" claims. [resigned] emoticon

I resent paying extra insurance to cover anyone who bought their house in a flood area in the last few years but am happy to pay extra towards the cost of those who bought their homes without any information to warn them they might be flooded. The point of insurance is that we all pay in to one big pot which provides for those who meet misfortune.

Our experience on insurance companies over the years has only been good.

I don't see that a pick and mix insurance approach would improve things. We pay insurance in the hope we'll never need it. When disaster strikes, whether it's a car accident, or floods/fire etc to our homes, we surely thank our lucky stars we managed to afford the policies. Reading the fine print, and making sure the things you need covered, are covered is important as well.

the thing is - the premiums for those who were flooded whether by river or sea will find it hard to get insurance and face much increased premiums so even though the rest of us will pay more - they will have to pay much more as well. Have often felt that insurance should be on a pick and mix basis - i.e. if you are never likely to flood because you live on a hill - exclude that from your insurance
I live in a grade 2 listed cottage - common or garden black and white half-timbered type but because of that I have difficulty finding insurance anyway and it also affects my contents insurance as well. The comparison web sites usually list only 1 or 2 companies who will cover me.
it is my choice to live in a listed cottage (although I do resent the fact that Herefordshire seemed to list every property over 200 years old even if down a muddy track and not seen by anyone other than the postman and a few walkers) so I pay the higher insurance demanded. I assume if you are a higher risk for whatever reason - high crime, flooding, coastal erosion, listing - you pay up or risk not being covered.

Flickety, when we lived in York, the council drew up plans for a new headquarters at Hungate. The area where they were going to build was in the 1 in a 100 years floodrisk area. A lot of the residents pointed out to them that there had been four floods in that area in ten years, so they really ought to change their floodrisk assessment.
When we left York they were building flats there, with carparking in the basement! The council offices were built somewhere else.

All insurance is legalised thievery. Rob us all blind and then find some reason why "It's not covered in your policy".
I am a little bitter!

I pay up and don't grumble about the cost of house insurance. I accept premiums are likely to increase given the recent floods/gales/storm and pestilence. Many years ago we had a large claim due to a small fire, caused probably by carelessness. We were out of our home for months, the insurance company were as good as could be expected, though we were definitely out of pocket, and overdrawn by the conclusion of the claim. I feel very fortunate not to live in an area prone to flooding.