Recent floods in Yorkshire

I was amazed to hear on the news that 1 in 4 people did not have any insurance cover and wanted the government to help them out. If the government do help them out, surely it will be open season for us all to not bother with insurance.

[Pete]

I have to agree. Whilst what happened over the last couple of weeks has no doubt been devastating for many, if you decide insurance isn't a priority, then you have to accept the associated risk. The government responsibility should stop at making sure people are safe, fed and housed. Those that are uninsured shouldn't expect the state to provide free buildings & contents insurance too.

[mitchja]

The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk. It has nothing at all to do with the fact people choose not too have insurance.

Oh and anyone that thinks people dont deserve any help, please come and visit these places and just see for yourself what it's like.

It's one thing seeing the images on the TV and in newspapers but it's another actually seeing the devestation for yourself.

Regards

[Neil]

Totally agree with both of you. Living in Hull I have seen what damage the floods have done and we were very lucky not to be flooded ourselves, but why should the government (and ultimately us) have to fund people who made a choice not to have contents insurance. Knowing some of the areas that have been worst hit, the residents there spend plenty enough on beers and fags every week without fail so its not like the couldn't afford it[V]

PM Brown is due to visit 2 streets along from us very shortly, oh the joys [}:)]

Don`t get me wrong. I have absolutely no problem helping people who are in trouble and cannot afford to pay insurance. I am sure there are people in the flooded area who could not justify paying insurance on their income whether they be OAPs or just people struggling to make ends meet. The lady being interviewed in her living room appeared to be mid 30s and judging by the contents of her house would have had no problem in allocating an amount for monthly house insurance. Her comment of "I am devastated" lost my sympathy when she then told the interviewer that she did not have insurance. No doubt she thought the money was better spent on the waterlogged flat screen TV in the corner of the room.

The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk. It has nothing at all to do with the fact people choose not too have insurance.

Can you please give a bit more detail on that James. Are you saying that the 25% who choose not to buy insurance is because they cannot obtain it? There seemed to be a good deal of loss adjusters visiting flooded houses. My brother-inlaw lives in Sheffield and he has insurance. Where are the insurance blackout areas?
Thanks,
Paul

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by mitchja
The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk. It has nothing at all to do with the fact people choose not too have insurance.


Regards

We went through this out here a couple of years ago, unless you are in a flood plain the insurance companies would not issue you flood insurance.

Of course one great big Vegas summer storm later with houses being damaged that were not in the flood plain, but were next to major roads that turned into rivers and the state stepped in.

Now Nevada insurance companies have to issue you flood insurance if you request it.I am lucky in that my house in nowhere near a flood plain...or a major road either, so no issues with floods, however I do become pretty much land locked in the event of a storm.

[Pete]

Originally posted by mitchja
The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk. It has nothing at all to do with the fact people choose not too have insurance.

Ah, well if this is true, then I stand corrected.

[Pete]

Originally posted by Pete

Originally posted by mitchja
The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk. It has nothing at all to do with the fact people choose not too have insurance.

Ah, well if this is true, then I stand corrected.

Just spoken to a friend of mine up in Hull, and he's of the opinion that many of the areas affected in Yorkshire and Humberside had not seen bad flooding for some years. If this is the case, then it would seem unlikely that they'd be on an insurance blacklist?

Buildings & contents insurance isn't particularly expensive; well certainly for me it's cheaper than car insurance, and I definately wouldn't venture out onto the roads without comprehensive cover. I'm still finding it hard to muster sympathy for someone who could splash out (excuse the pun) on a plasma telly, but decided not to insure it.

I wonder whether the reaction is more due to the scale. If it had been an isolated incident involving just a few homes, no one would be expecting hand-outs. Because thousands have been affected, does that make the individual circumstances any different?

I'm also not particularly impressed by the local councils who are under-insured and in need of state help too.

[preiffer]

Originally posted by mitchja
The fact is in many cases the insurance companies simply wont issue insurance as they are deemed as too high a risk.

Then I'd have to question, why you'd live there. IF I wanted to live in the middle of a flood plain, then I wouldn't expect an insurance company to cover me. But then, I'm hardly surprised when my house becomes waterlogged.

Not saying everyone there lived in the middle of a flood plain, but if an insurance company wouldn't cover me, I'd be asking myself some serious questions about where I'd chosen to live...

[Darren Wheeler]

While I have sympathy with those who have been flooded out, I agree with the other posts that if you don't have insurance because you chose not to spend a few quid on it, then tough!

According to the Enviiroment Agency, I live on an area of land "liable to flooding" The house has been standing for some 50 years, has the River Kennet almost at the end of the garden, yet has never, ever had more than a tiny puddle in the lowest part of the garden. Never had any problems with insurance, building or contents.

The other issue here is that so many houses are now being built on rather handy bits of flat land. Locals will tell you that this flat land is actually a flood plain and has regularly flooded. it doesn't take a lot of letters after your name to realise that flat land, by a river equals flood plain but many developers and councils fail to see it, or if you believe many of the rumours, money makes them forget it.

[Neil]

Originally posted by Pete

Just spoken to a friend of mine up in Hull, and he's of the opinion that many of the areas affected in Yorkshire and Humberside had not seen bad flooding for some years. If this is the case, then it would seem unlikely that they'd be on an insurance blacklist?

Completely correct - Hull isn't prone to flooding, and the area's affected would certainly not be on any insurance black list. One of the worst parts affected where I live is only a few years old and we have insurance so I know for a fact a lot of the houses were insurable.