frededwards Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 People in flood prone areas should pay higher premiums to cover this. If you bought a Ferrari and parked it outside your house in in Pitsmoor you wouldn't expect to pay a premium as low as if you parked it on the drive of your Surrey mansion. I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there. Insurance premiums should be based upon risk. We don't expect a Ferarri driver to pay the same as someone with a Corsa, so why should someone living at 600 above sea level see their premiums rise to subsidise someone who is daft enough to live on a flood plain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Where are the utility companies in all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 They are crooks as well. They operate as a cartel, and the spineless regulatory body allows them so to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil-minx92 Posted November 27, 2012 Author Share Posted November 27, 2012 They are crooks as well. They operate as a cartel, and the spineless regulatory body allows them so to do. that one thats funded by the energy companies themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 One of the Goldsmiths tweeted this morning that 160k houses have been built on flood plains since 2000. I dont have a link, nor know how true it is/isnt. However, i do object to us subsiding the insurance companies. If a house has been built on a flood plain, then the house builder and govt need to look at themselves before asking "other" tax payers to take the hit. Genuine cases of homes not being able to be insured the Govt can create a fund for, but subsiding insurance companies is a license for them to take the mickey out of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there. Insurance premiums should be based upon risk. We don't expect a Ferarri driver to pay the same as someone with a Corsa, so why should someone living at 600 above sea level see their premiums rise to subsidise someone who is daft enough to live on a flood plain. The thing is, once these 'at risk' people can actually get insured, no doubt they will pay through the nose for it, I bet their premiums will be really high, AND everyone else still pays extra to cover it as well. They won't be paying the same level of premiums as everyone else, I'd bet £8 on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 The govt and insurers have come up with the idea that all household insurance premiums will attract a new £8 'tax' (for want of a better word) to cover payouts to flood victims. Is this fair, or should people just not buy houses (probably at knock down prices) in flood risk areas? I don't know where you found this load of rubbish because it is utter nonsense. But I await your lnk with interest.. For several years there has been an agreement between government and insurance companies about providing flood insurance for properties liable to flooding. It came about because planning for many houses had been given in at risk areas. This agreement has a year to run and the current government is in talks with insurers about how to extend the scheme. Here is my link to the DEFRA site which proves you are talking nonsense. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13684-flood-risk-insurance.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I know you read about all these houses being built on floodplains, but whenever I see a sodden householder knee deep in water in his front room on the telly it's always an umpteen hundred year old house, not a new build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I know you read about all these houses being built on floodplains, but whenever I see a sodden householder knee deep in water in his front room on the telly it's always an umpteen hundred year old house, not a new build. Didn't you see the ones in Catcliffe the other year..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If you have car insurance you are already paying extra to cover claims caused by people who have no insurance.Perhaps the same for buildings and contents cover ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.