The Thames barrier is intended to prevent central London from flooding. As our capital city such an occurance would be catastrophic.
The Thames barrier won't protect such developments as the 'Thames Gateway' or whatever the hell it's called, and indeed was never intended to.
I wholeheartedly agree thogh that building houses on flood plains is complete insanity. Also, people that get flooded who weren't adequately insured should expect no help from the Government.
Some might say it would be a Good Thing :-)
Possibly related to the fact that the public sector organisation have extorted large amounts of tax out of the people, and the poeple would like to see something back?
Owain
Bear in mind that a lot of places that have been flooded so far this summer are not in flood plains.
Even if people are adequetely insured we'll all end up paying for it eventually when the insurance companies raise the premiums to cover their losses.
You must be a trusting soul if you believe that!
After recouping their losses by increasing everyone's premiums, the insurance companies will still declare record profits next year. They'll work out how much they need to claw back and then add a substantial extra amount on top - just like they always have done.
To have even more council tax extorted - but surely it's up to the individual to take the necessary precautions to insure themselves against such problems and let the public organisations do the job they are paid for - the clearing up of the infastructure and NOT individual hel/?
I don't know about you folks in England, but here in N. Ireland the insurer asks "has there been a history of flooding within X distance from your house". I have never had to answer "yes" to that, but would/could they refuse to insure me if I did ?
The message from Roger contains these words:
Apropos the 1953 floods, it depends on whether you are quoting figures for those killed in the UK, or not. Officially, 1,835 people were killed in the Netherlands, 307 were killed in the United Kingdom, in the counties of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. 28 were killed in Belgium.
But they're going to be, helped by the Conservatives who propose just that. How does that grab you? They're not exactly the party of bleeding hearts. From that alone one could deduce that the proposal has some merit. But to the vast majority of people it does anyway. Fortunately not everybody is as petty and mean-minded as most on this thread, which contains a suspiciously large number of names who do not post to this group regularly, or at all. Go away, you dismal little creeps.
Tudor Hughes.
I think you will find that this thread has been cross-posted to a DIY newsgroup, hence the names you don't recognise.
I don't trust anybody - let alone the insurance industry.
Of course. However, that does not negate my point.
Possibly, but then ask yourself why they are waiting until a problem befalls them before squeaking about that, or more to the point, doing something about it.
Most of the councils seem to be unable to even organise proper rubbish collection, so this will be a real challenge for them.
They are not *required* to offer you insurance at all.
If they do, they can choose the price.
If others do, it creates competition and that exacts some level of control over the price.
The fact that its wrong does though.
The message from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains these words:
Probably the same here. It is certainly the case that if you or a near neighbour have suffered subsidence you are unlikely to get new cover on that aspect on terms that you can actually afford.
One can have a certain amount of sympathy for companies that are reluctant to insure against flooding where flooding is a regular feature as is the case in places like Shrewsbury and York. Bookmakers won't take bets on dead certs so why should their cousins in insurance take on business that is absolutely bound to be loss making for ever more.
It is only prudent to insure, if one can afford to, to cover losses that one cannot afford to replace oneself so I was more than a little surprised that the BBC news chose to highlight a Yorkshire woman who apparently didn't have insurance to cover her new £15000 kitchen. Anyone with sufficient funds to waste that amount on a kitchen should have ample left over to insure everything up to the hilt.
So those most vulnerable can't afford the premium. Sounds like a "let them eat cake" kind of an argument
Most vulnerable?
You mean those who decide that buying expensive tvs is more important than having insurance?
They seem to be able to afford to buy all those things that they are now complaining they were uninsured for.
The message from Anne Jackson contains these words:
I intended to quote the figures for the UK but my memory let me down. IIRC we had 8 drowned in my town alone. Our class was the last to return to our proper school (for some obsure reason I can't now recall) some 6 months after the flood. Some of the householders were out even longer.
ISTR that the UK total was near doubled by the loss of a ferry in the Irish Sea. A quick google picked up the figure of 130. I can't be sure whether that is included in the 307 but I rather think it was.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.