retep Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 'Charity begins at home': Ukip's Nigel Farage calls for foreign aid budget to be used to help flood-hit communities Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552969/Ukips-Nigel-Farage-calls-foreign-aid-budget-used-help-flood-hit-communities.html#ixzz2sYQoErob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey69 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 £100 million,i thought that to repair the rail track alone it was £500 million. the numbers just dont make sense any more, i mean £500 million to to repair the rail line!!!. what about the houses?, then there is the loss of business then what about the other damage that been done to the infrastructure? i think that 2-4 billion would be more like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 £100 million,i thought that to repair the rail track alone it was £500 million. the numbers just dont make sense any more, i mean £500 million to to repair the rail line!!!. what about the houses?, then there is the loss of business then what about the other damage that been done to the infrastructure? i think that 2-4 billion would be more like it. The houses will be insured won't they? You'd be hard pressed to get a mortgage without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I agree that money should be set aside to repair roads, railways and other community facilities but surely homeowners should claim for any losses on their insurance policies? Surely everyone knows that if you buy a house by the sea there's a chance you might get flooded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The houses will be insured won't they? You'd be hard pressed to get a mortgage without it. They will surely not be insurable now. Like thousands of others after this winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bickering removed. Keep it civil please and on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 They will surely not be insurable now. Like thousands of others after this winter Wasn't legislation put in place to make sure that didn't happen? Just because you've been flooded (after some fairly biblical storms over an extended period of time) doesn't mean you'll be refused insurance. If that's the case stacks of people in catcliffe (and many other places) haven't got insurance and I don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm sure Owen Paterson will find a reason to blame the badgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Realistically the SW will get whatever it takes to repair the damage. It's coalition territory and a mecca for wealthy second home owners. It wouldn't do for their investments to lose value now would it? It would be interesting to see what the figure would be if it was Cleethorpes for example. But that's just politics, spare a thought for those affected eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wasn't legislation put in place to make sure that didn't happen? Just because you've been flooded (after some fairly biblical storms over an extended period of time) doesn't mean you'll be refused insurance. If that's the case stacks of people in catcliffe (and many other places) haven't got insurance and I don't believe that. Have you seen the houses? Residents reported them physically bouncing up and down as the waves hit. My bet is that they will be demolished. In other areas where the sea has encroached this winter, and repairs have still not been made, properties are now barely viable as long term places to live unless the government commits to defending them. Insurers are under no obligation to insure high risk properties. Many will refuse. IMO it is probably best to allow some areas to be taken by the sea. ---------- Post added 06-02-2014 at 17:34 ---------- It would be interesting to see what the figure would be if it was Cleethorpes for example. But that's just politics, spare a thought for those affected eh? I feel sorry for the people who have had their homes and businesses wrecked. I also feel sorry for people who have been shortchanged by successive governments. How can an area with over 1.2 million people not have resilient transport links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.