Flood damage - who pays?

  Kate B 22:18 05 Jul 07
Locked

click here

There's a line in the story which suggests that people who didn't have contents insurance should get government help. I've also just watched the 10 o'clock news piece on the floods which featured a woman who seemed to think the same thing.

I'm extremely sorry for people who've been flooded and I feel strongly that the government should indeed contribute to rebuilding the infrastructure, but I don't see why those without insurance should get additional help. Surely it was up to them to insure themselves; and surely they knew they were taking a risk that they could lose everything to some kind of disaster/theft without insurance?

What do you think?

  Woolwell 22:23 05 Jul 07

If the Government pays (and it is by no means certain) then surely those who have been prudent and have taken out insurance are being penalised. It is of course tax payers' money.

  Woolwell 22:33 05 Jul 07

Further thought - perhaps the people who built the houses and those who permitted them to be built on flood plains are the ones who ought to compensate all those affected (insured or not).

  Blackhat 22:39 05 Jul 07

I live within a mile of the Birmingham, Moseley tornado damage of july 2005. Many houses had roofs ripped off and structural damage. To this day many properties are still vaccant and in a state of disrepair as the owners did not have insurance. They have asked for help but 2 years on, not a lot forthcomming!

Get insurance not hand outs, they can be slow comming.

You can never predict what might happen, I didn't expect a tornado, although some places that have flooded have been known to be at risk, so common sense must kick in somewhere down the line. Basic instinct from my point is it could happen tomorrow so be insured today.

Yes there will be grants, collections, fund aid etc but only because some people think it will never happen to them and when it does somebody else will pay.

Big bee in my bonnet on this subject sorry for rant, feel better now.

  Forum Editor 22:41 05 Jul 07

for people who neglected to insure their homes.

  Kev.Ifty 23:15 05 Jul 07

When I bought my first house I didn't have contents insurance because it would have been a big slice of my earnings at that time.

I had to work alot of overtime just to pay my £300 Mortgage.

I am now in a fortunate position. I earn above average wage and have a relatively small Mortgage so can afford to fully insure my home.

Can you imagine how much it must cost the younger generation to get a home, pay all the bills and then find the extra to insure what could be an at risk house.

It's possible the only reason these unfortunate people live where they do, is because the house prices are affordable due to the flood risk.

If money making Land Lords didn't snap up all the affordable housing as 'Buy to Rent', then house prices would not have increased beyond the reach of many folk. The ordinary working person could then not only pay a reasonable Mortgage but also cover themselves against all the stuff we comfortable joes do.

  Kate B 23:17 05 Jul 07

Oh, lordy, it's all the fault of evil money-grubbing landlords, is it? What about taking responsibility for yourself and your possesions?

  Blackhat 23:27 05 Jul 07

Good point but my house insurance is only £35 per month, thats less than £9 a week, what value do you put on that great investment you make when you could loose it all without notice!

House prices are another issue and in respect of the Birmingham tornado situation most of the properties were land lord ownwed.

  Kev.Ifty 23:31 05 Jul 07

No its not 'all' their fault.

What is the Mortgage rate at the mo? about £6 per £1000 borrowed? Why is it so high?

Supply and demand I suspect. The affordable housing is going somewhere and yes I do put some of that down to the buy to rent people.

If I could afford to buy another property , I probably would. I could rent it out and make a good profit perhaps. I suspect though I would be contributing to the rise in unaffordable housing.

  anskyber 23:31 05 Jul 07

There is little doubt that individuals make a decision when they buy a house or rent one.

It is almost impossible to get a mortgage these days without having to fend off the mortgage lenders advances. Buildings insurance (usually compulsory) contents, personal, pet? If people have not faced the decisions they must have been camping on Mars whilst the sale goes through.

The truth is most decide to take the risk. I saw the interview with the woman in Hull. It seemed to me she was expecting Government intervention even though it looked as if the small cost, and it is small, could have been met.

Sky TV with all the bells costs something like £500 a year, home insurance for contents costs about a fifth of that price.

Personal choice, but do not ask me to pay for those who choose to take the risk.

totally agree with that, its your choice if you decide not to insure the single most important possession (your home and most of your belongings) to me its stupidity, as blackhat said we never expected a tornado here, i rent my place privately and pay less than £200 a year, for full cover up to £500000 and you can pay monthly should you choose. that covers all my worldly belongings, my life! i paid more than twice that for a graphics card, nonone has an excuse not to pop into tescos and pay a tenner a month!

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 benchmarks: Antutu, Geekbench 4, GFXBench and PCMark results

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

This stop-frame animation tells a moving story of domestic violence for Refuge

New iPad 2017 preview: Apple's affordable but underspecced new iPad may appeal to the education…