Floods.

[Weatherlawyer]

Some ideas I was trying to put together earlier after watching the news:

Severe and prolonged flooding.

Damage done:

Foundation movement. Hygiene. Wiring. Plumbing. Plastering. Furniture.

Other Problems:

No food storage or cooking facilities. Having to live elsewhere. Loss of mementoes. Splitting up families. Employment difficulties.

Foundation movement:

Be careful what you sign when the insurance people send out loss adjusters. You need to be sure that the foundations haven't moved before signing away any potential claims with a settlement with the insurers that just gives you funds for a clean up.

Hygiene.

If you have had your home awash then the sewage system will have backfired on you. If the flood levels were above the toilet pan, expect the worst. But even low levels will have brought in unknown possibilities.

Soft furnishings will need hosing down and drying out. They will probably be ruined but leaving them to rot will be a depressing and smelly experience. Rinse the dirt out of them and get them outside to dry.

The above goes for all clothing and the like that has got wet. The main problem in washing clothing is that there will be no electricity in areas badly affected by flooding.

A secondary issue is that even in laundrettes where there is electricity the problems will be so bad that the drums will often be filthy when you come to use them. I don't know why that should be but some people have no idea.

After getting the place cleared the walls and floors need hosing down. A pressure washer and lots of Dettol is a must.

Electrical items that have been immersed in water are likely to be dangerous to use. It might be possible to salvage them if prompt attention is given. Washing machines and the like may be redeemable if the coils to the motors are cleaned and dried.

Anything more on that subject is speculation.

Wiring:

I am no expert on plumbing or wiring but...

Any wiring covered with water, under floorboards for example, will probably need replacing. In theory any wires with only the sleeving immersed should be OK but a pinprick cut in that sleeving will have allowed ingress. Of course the individual wires inside the sleeve will also be sleeved and two of these will also need to have been compromised before they can short. And one of them has to be the "Live" wire.

Any wires that have connection boxes and other open ends that were submerged will have to be replaced. In fact it is difficult to ensure a good job has been done without renewing all the wiring in the areas concerned.

Anyone care to take on where I left off? Some advice about plumbing and plastering would be an idea but the wiring needs are probably paramount for anyone without insurance.

[John]

Does the media seek out people without insurance for their stories - or are there loads of people who don't have insurance?

Are they taking a calculated gamble - or are they ill-advised?

[Malcolm Stewart]

Seems like a good start

Anyone here able to explain why the water levels in Toll Bar have fallen so little? Blocked drain and river bridges?

[Pete]

There are lots of people that can't afford insurance believe it or not. They need every penny coming in and don't spend it on inappropriate things! Certainly people on benefits, excluding some higher rate benefits that come with a car thrown in, need every penny. Some take a risk and after paying for years just stop, others can't get insurance as the company that built their home knew it was liable to flooding. Insurers will not provide cover. So there are many reasons. Even some with insurance will not be covered completely due to the wording of the contract which sometimes falls foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

I felt sorry for some of the people on TV earlier, one woman had bought carpet and a sofa on credit. This is unfortunately how some people have to live. I should imagine the DHSS will help her out.

[Brian G]

John,

After attending and repairing many flood, storm and fire damaged properties over the years for a local authority, it's surprising how many of its tenants did not have contents insurance.

Obviously, those who have outstanding mortgages will have at the very least obligatory structural insurance cover, but I would lay odds-on, that many of them will have no contents cover or are vastly under-insured just to save a few pounds on costs - or would have sought the cheapest 'internet' cover that they can possibly find that will not include 'new for old', provide for temporary accommodation of a sufficient duration for the drying out and repairs, be full of the infamous 'get out of paying clauses' or again, leaving them vastly under-insured.

Before there are any adverse responses to this - I do my 'homework' every year when my household insurance policy is due (structure and contents) and I have yet to find an internet company that will give me a better quote than I can get from my existing company when quoting *EXACTLY* like-for-like (and I do mean that and ditto on my car insurance) even from the internet 'household' names who promise to 'beat' all other quotes.

I would also suspect also that quite a few home owners with no mortgages will have neither structure or contents cover.

As for "Are they taking a calculated gamble - or are they ill-advised?" - personally my opinion is that if they took a "calculated gamble" then be-it on their own heads and they will probably learn an expensive lesson - or expect someone else to 'bail' them out (no pun intended, it's too serious for that) - or in this litigious age, will probably try and sue/blame

*someone* for the flooding!

If the were "ill-advised", then that is something else - but again, I would lay odds-on - that advice would not be that of a professional!

Brian G

[Mary Fisher]

We decided a few years ago not to have either buildings or contents insurance, the cost and penalties are so high and our history and the likelihood of claims so low that we save money against any contingency. In effect we're our own insurance company.

But let me say this, if we were inundated (unlikely because we're on a hill) or had a fire or theft or explosion or anything else we wouldn't expect anyone else to bail us out. Why should they? We take full responsibility for our decision. We've made contingency plans and are prepared to live in very constrained circumstances should we have to rebuild completely - which is extremely unlikely. The rebuilding, if any, would be done by us with help, if necessary, from our family. 100% rebuilding is very rarely necessary. Other repairs are do-able by ourselves. We have only one item of furniture bought new and we don't care for it, we can live without 'modern conveniences' without much extra effort.

The only losses which would really upset us are irreplaceable anyway.

I heard a woman on radio tonight saying that the flooding of her house was "a disaster". Well it isn't, compared with what other people in the world have to suffer. It might take years to regain what she has but it's only material wealth. The extent of the current floods are nothing compared with what happens in other parts of the world, we should get things in proportion.

We're not wealthy but when I heard the report of the tsunami some time ago while we were spending Christmas with family in our tiny old caravan I realised how much we had compared with those who had absolutely nothing and went to the local town to give a big donation. It'd rather do that than give it to insurance companies.

Mary

[Don Spumey]

In our case it was a condition of the mortgage to have building & contents insurance. The irony is that we were about to undertake a complete refurbishment of the ground floor which included a new kitchen before we were flooded!

Now I know there is a God, because the consequence is that now the insurance company are having to pay for it instead of me :-))

Don.

[:Jerry:]

I can see were you're coming from but some of these people will have been flooded by other people flood water (so to speak), such as the people in one village who got flooded due to others being pumped out up stream, IOW it could be said they were intentionally flooded by the action of others elsewhere - how would you feel if some (well meaning) 'clown' dropped a few million gallons of water over the top of your hill which then proceeded to inundate your property?

[djc]

John wrote:>

I have buildings cover; necessarily as I am the management co for a block= =2E Contents I don't have. In 1985 it was costing me over =C2=A335 a month, s= o I=20 stopped. Burglars are not likely to run off with my books, I have little =

else that I value and money could replace. I've saved enough on premiums =

over the years, I can afford to repair and redecorate without calling on =

an insurance co.

An insurance policy is just a bet, albeit one you would rather lose.=20 Insurance companies like bookmakers set the odds in their favour But=20 many people seem to have the attitude that having paid so much in=20 premiums they should get that back in claims. Which makes for short=20 odds. If you only need cover against a really big claim then most=20 insurance policies, even with a big excess, a poor value.

--=20 djc

[Peter Ashby]

Hills can slip, especially following heavy rain. Rain also lubricates fault lines when it penetrates far enough down causing earthquakes with a time delay. So living on a hill will not save you from the effects of water. Just ask the people in Norfolk who live on top of cliffs...

Peter

[clot]

Yes agreed. But the slips I can recall are known areas of problems- East Coast - of course, recently nesr Matlock associated with mining, somewhere in Shrops again assoc with mining. I do not recall anywhere that this has recently happened that is not a known area where insurance would be high. Not advocating whether to have insurance or not (though I do), just pondering over genuine unknown risks that have been realised.

[Brian G]

Mary,

With regards to flooding, I like you, live on the top of a rather high hill for such things as rivers bursting their banks etc - but there is more than one way to flood a house!

But all I can say here is that until you walk into such an affected property then you really don't understand what the people are going through - and with regards to 'only material wealth' then try saying that to someone who has not only lost their home and all their belongings - but loved ones as well in a house fire...

Whilst I accept that paying a hefty insurance premium is a right royal pain in the backside under normal circumstances - I would rather have a *good* insurance company on my side in the abnormal ones - and only have to deal with the emotional affects of the results... Been there and done it with a break-in some years ago!

Bloody hell, I'm feeling maudlin now, I thinks it's time for a 'night-cap and bed... It must be my age!

Brian G

[clot]

Agreed, my previous post was in reference to the flood aspect only!

[Frank Erskine]

What - Matlock's near the East Coast?

I dropped Geography in my third year at school, but there must've been a nenormous change in the country recentlyish...

;-)

I think the closest we've had to flooding is on a roundabout about ¼ mile from here, where there was around 2" of standing water after a downpour of rain.

[clot]

Indeed not! Did I say that! Seriously, within about the last two years there was a dwelling which I'm pretty sure was in Matlock where the garden disappeared after prolonged rain and I think that it was associated with former mine working in the area.

[Peter Ashby]

Then your memory is very Anglocentric then. We have had just those problems up here and iirc the Welsh have as well. I grew up in NZ (aka the shaky isles) and living somewhere like that teaches you that rock is anything but static. Hell a huge chunk fell off the top of our highest mountain a few years back. Amazingly nobody was climbing it at the time.

Peter

[Tony Williams]

ISTR reading somewhere that hills near Wellington were mapped by the Ordnance Survey 100-odd years ago, and when re-mapped using GPS they were found to have moved sideways, by 10 feet or so.

[:Jerry:]

That is no surprise when you consider the surveying methods used back then and what GPS is!

[Peter Ashby]

Sounds about right, Wellington is the San Francisco of the South Seas in terms of sitting right on a major fault line, having steep hills and reclaimed land on the harbour likely to liquify when the big one hits. But then most NZ houses are built of wood, which means they flex when the earthquakes come. Most structural damage is from brick chimneys collapsing. Houses do get moved of their foundations but you just ring a company who come and jack your house up and put it back.

I have lost track of the number of earthquakes I have been in, perhaps the most frightening was when I was at work on a Sat morning in a big 4 story stone building. The lights were hung from the high ceilings on chains and were swinging through about a four foot arc. I was watching the reflections in the big windows in the children's pavillion over the road as the glass flexed in and out. It never broke though. I was thinking about all the weight above me. Wife and kids walking down the hill to meet me never felt a thing...

I sincerely hope I am not living in the house I currenlty occupy in Scotland if a shallow 4.5 on Richter scale hits. For one thing I would fear for the gas pipe...

Peter

[Peter Ashby]

Except they have well defined anchor points. There are also places in NZ where you can park your car and look at the scars in the landscape from previous earthquakes. There's a good one near a place called Inangahua Junction in the NW of the South Island, that was at least a 7 iirc. Fortunately it was and still is a sparsely populated place.

Parts of the Napier waterfront disappeared and other parts rose out of the sea in the big 1931 earthquake (7.8). Napier is the worlds best preserved Art Deco town as they rebuilt in '31 and hardly touched it after.

What single quakes can do:

Wellington will have had a score or more earthquakes over 4 in the last

100years. Easily enough to spread the landscape 10feet.

Peter