Whingers.

[dennis]

Well you have the opportunity to state where I am wrong if you wish.

[Andy Hall]

Over simplified view.

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

If she was insured why was she used as a bleeding heart?

If she wasn't (which was the implication in the news story) then she has only herself (or possibly her non evident other half) to blame for her present predicament.

[dennis]

I didn't claim it was a complicated view only that yout point was wrong.

[ARWadsworth]

My house contents insurance cost less than a TV licence. I consider the insurance essential even though I am not in a flood plain. There are other disasters available so I pay for cover for those as well. The reason non insured people are interviewed on TV is to make the story more interesting.

Adam

[Weatherlawyer]

If the government over rule local coiuncils and allow despicable builders to ruin arable land in order to make more money than they need and cause one hell of a lot more damage than the said council was worried about, then you are quite right they should not be so expected

But they should be forced to -and pay even more by default, immediately. They should pay like for like, new for old replacements, including reinforcing any foundations that seem affected or in later years, so prove and they should pay interim costs, as as well as compensation for pain and suffering.

The taxpayer aught to be entitled to see to it that the said builders have all their assets seized and their children and wives sold as slaves to help repay the debt. Said builders either strung up by their testicles on lampposts, to ensure no further breeding takes place and then if marketable sold as slaves, body parts or fertiliser.

The choice being made by their customers.

[Derek Geldard]

???

Direct Line offered me 1,000,000 of rebuilding insurance (Apparently their standard figure) + £35k of contents cover on a modern 4 bed house, market value £300k, for £174 / annum.

Unfortunately they withdrew the quote when the rains came down (our area was not affected) before I'd taken it up. 8 -(((

there were plenty of alternatives in the 170 - 190 quid bracket. I eventually settled for Legal & General who offered 400k of rebuilding insurance including accidental damage + £40k of contents cover + £2k of personal posessions + legal cover all for £224.

DG

[Andy Hall]

The problem is that since you are saying so based on very simple arithmetic, it really doesn't hold water.

[Andy Hall]

"Need" is not a particularly relevant word when making money in a business. That is purely defined by what the shareholders expect. In the case of a large development company, it is quite likely that the investors are largely pension schemes and other investment vehicles using funds from the very people who buy the products of the developer

- i.e. the houses.

The house purchasers bought the properties of their own free will.

The customers already did make their choice by choosing to buy from the developer.

[Derek Geldard]

Building insurance is just one part of the cost of living in a house. Their predicament is a consequence of choices they have made. They have had the same options in their lives as everybody else.

Not at all, everybody has to eat. Everybody does not have to buy a house, and if they do they have lots of choices, some wioser than others, as to how they manage their ownership of it.

They have their priorities mine are probably different. I make no criticism of them for excercising the choices that they have had their own way. If they want to live without insurance I wish them luck.

DG

[Derek Geldard]

Building insurance would have covered that cost.

They self insured.

Whilst there's water in the house the local village hall or similar could be made available for them.

Once the water's gone it could take quite a time for their houses to be restored . If they have no money it could potentially take a very long time indeed, I can't see how the public purse could pay for temporary accomodation that could extend indefinitely. Some of the properties in the 2,004 Carlisle flooding are still not re-occupied.

Maybe the answer is for them to sell the house as a write off, raise a bit of cash, use this money to rent a house for as long as is necessary, and start again by buying another house. This is more or less exactly the same as what happens when a car gets badly damaged in a crash. I see no clamour for the government to set up a stall in every market square to re-imburse uninsured motorists.

Look on the bright side, there'll be no mortgage payments to pay, and if they rent a smaller house than the one they had (Let's face it the'll have fewer possessions now) it might even save them money.

DG

[Julian]

But remember that the house values today have little relationship to their build cost. You could probably (at a guess) 'throw up' a new house in a posh area that would sell for £1,000,000 with about £75,000 materials and labour.

Julian.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think its a combination of a very heavy and wet Brown government, coupled with too may immigrants to the south east who have simply pushed the land downwards. It would never have happenened with Our Tone in power.

Coupled with the vicious attacks on the Tory landowners, who can no longer afford peasants to keep the ditches clear. Unless they are members of Nu Laber of course, when they can simply do a 'cash for Poles' swap under Job Creation Schemes.

And personally I find the sight of all these privileged people who own

4WD's and tractors pulling people out of floods to smack of elitism, don't you?

I think we should all drink the natural floodwaters as well. to make sure there are no chemicals in our drinking water supply.

You know it makes sense!

Hic!

[The Natural Philosopher]

As long as it drowns most of the house of commons, and Fleet Street, I am all for it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Of ourse they are, silly. By DEFINITION they are. If they get flooded, they are 'flood plains'

Expect for those of us who are NOT living on flood plains.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Quite right! Shut the NHS down immediately.

[The Natural Philosopher]

We don't drown these days, we lose money.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Good way to create cheap housing. Uninsurable crap on flood plains.

Then let the occupants drown.

Hey. Its more politically acceptable than death camps. Thats how they do things in Louisiana!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Mmm. Or not. If it got regularly flooded, you might not find the land worth that much at all.

[Clive George]

Mmm, top idea. Now I admit from what I've read, these people haven't shown themselves to be terribly financially astute, with problems prioritising expenditure, but selling a damaged house is a swift route to massive financial pain from negative equity.

clive