Q&A: The Government answers your flood insurance questions

We need solicitors to band together and offer their clients “no win no fee” assistance. The courts are going to have to deal with this incompetence and deprivation of human rights

If these houses are put up by developers, why blame others? Surely they know they are building in an area with risk, and the buyers should be similarly informed. We can’t blame others if we make a poor choice, can we?

Government have been deliberating about Somerset Levels since 1939. No-one can know what the Plans are – with such a lack of – forward planning. We assume our Nanny State is watching over us – or providing information that an area of land (upon which we dwell or intend to dwell) is to be sacrificed -eg flooding valleys to make reservoirs etc. When purchasing, a solicitor helps with due diligence and prepares Searches and advises clients of Risks. This is because the usual protection of Consumer Law does not apply to House Purchase. With older properties, they have a right to live peacefully and enjoy. This is a human right, and people need to demand compensation from the government for this debacle. It is the only way the Treasury will properly Count-the-cost, and be able to rightly justify the expense Flood PREVENTION schemes – the likes of which progressive nations such as the Netherlands embark upon 🙂

As I intimated, a change in risk (e.g. not maintaining defences or, as you say, poor planning that significantly increases a risk) is a separate issue. A question I am asking is that if people choose to live in a flood risk area what steps can they themselves take to help prevent, or mitigate, flood damage.

ALL areas and Homes are at Risk of Flooding – because of the legacy created by lack of investment, especially since 1989 when the water companies were privatised, and DEFRA reorganised. So, regardless of your “current” Risk Status, (as your street could be next to Flood), EVERYONE needs to…. Contact your Local Council, & read your local Flood Management Plan (a mandatory document now for ALL councils since the new law in 2010 Flood Management Act. ). It will tell you exacty what the Council and all the Stakeholders are planning on doing to prevent Floods in your area. Everyone needs to participate in this exercise unfortunately. We thought we could just go out to work and pay taxes and water charges, but our servants have let us down, and we are needed at the pumps 🙂

All Insurance should have been hiked (or more correctly “spread”) because flooding has been going on for several years, and that is the way Insurance works – the Brits invented it – It should spread the cost of the unfortunate, amongst us all. Unfortunately, since going global, the insurance market is in tatters (next to be investigated after Bankers). It should be assessing Risk, recouping costs via the courts – where cause is negligence, Setting aside appropriate Reserves to meet Risk, and setting premiums in accordance with calculated Risk – then enabling shareholder returns. Instead it is running amok.

The government are responsible for ensuring our safety. Flooding in last 5 years has been ignored, and only getting attention now – because it is affecting Thames River where there are very expensive real estate & people with clout. This is an opportunity for everyone (poor and rich) to get on the band wagon. Speak to your MP now. Otherwise only London, and those who speak the loudest, will get new flood defences, and we are all equal, are we not ? Justice for all 🙂

Insurance is about risk – the more of a risk you are, the more you pay, whether it is young or dangerous drivers, or people who have chosen to live in areas that were known to be at risk of flooding. Tax we pay is used to mitigate flood risk and money is not unlimited, so must be used as effectively as possible. Where we need action is in ensuring building is properly planned where a flood risk exists, and that building does not contribute to flood risk elsewhere. We must bear in mind this has been a very exceptional period of wet weather over which we had no control – cutting carbon emissions in the UK would have had no effect either. I think we should know whether dredging the river in the Somerset levels would have been sufficient to offset the effects of this record-breaking rainfall, sand exceptional sea conditions.

Insurnance is about Spreading risk – and Penalising those who do not Take Care as they Increase the Risk, or are responsible for increasing the Risk. In the case of Flooding, everyone is agreed it is the Planners, DEFRA and the Water Companies who have increased the Risk – and so they should pay, and not the indivudual – who is not to blame – unless as you say – they received a Flood Reports from their Solicitor upon purchase, and ignored the advice they paid to receive about KNOWN Flood Risks. If we don’t check out and chase the promised Govt handouts – we will find that the wrong people are being compensated 🙁

I have checked mine and it excludes groundwater flooding as well. Can Which put any pressue on the ABI to ensure underwriters include groundwater when accepting premiums? This verges on deception when as most homeowners would be under the impression that flooding means flooding.

The Contract between a Homeowner and their Insurance Company needs to be kept simple. It already expects “reasonable steps” to be taken by the Insured to alleviate the liability of the Insurance company and it would not be practical for Insurance companies to offer contracts purely on this “considered” basis – it would simply result in more argument about what the compensation payment should be – for an already-well-stressed individual. Politics must be taken out of Professional judgement. Where DEFRA and Planners have acted unprofessionally because of Political constraints, either they or the Individuals that tied-their-hands should be made accountable for the losses and heartache now being incurred.

I had just assumed that London and the Soutth are regarded as far more important than the northern regions. 🙁

A huge effort went into dealing with the floods in 2007 – whether north or south. Leeds and Sheffield suffered, as did Oxford, the Thames Valley, Gloucestershire. So I don’t think introducing a geographical divide is either helpful or justified. Most of the damage is paid for by insurance – £3bn in 2007. The help to victims seemed to be general. Flood defence investment will always be based on maximum return I guess – how else can you prioritise resources? No different with coastal erosion – some properties will not justify the cost of defences. We need to look at both defences, and the underlying factors – including farming practices that lead to soil erosion that help clog drainage sytems and waterways, and developments that take place either in inappropriate areas or are not forced to make adequate provision against normal floods. I also maintain that householders could do more to help protect their properties.

John is absolutely right in what he said about the 2007 flooding. Considering the number of properties affected in the north, there was not much help provided.

By coincidence I have this evening been listening to a group of people debating the lack of support for those affected by flooding in Yorkshire (in 2007) and in Cumbria, compared with current support for the south. They offered the same explanations that John and I have given. I think you are right about the reasons for this prioritisation, Malcolm, but like many others I believe the geographical divide is a bit unfair.

As long as there is no investment in Sewers and Public Services, flooding will grow to affect everyone. Councils have no money or priority to remove leaves and grass from the highway grids, and are weary of “flushing” sewers, as they crumble and break. Farmers are not not paid to maintain the vital ditches that run across their land, taking water to the rivers. Payment for the Public Service of Surface Water removal in England was transferred to monopoly Water Companies (Wales & Scotland new better). The private companies are likely to offer you a refund of your Service Charge if you complain about the Service, as it is cheaper and easier than addressing the monolithic problems that removal of Surface Water is presenting us with, after 40 years of building – without planning sustainable water removal at the same time. There are tools and technology out there to do this – we are just a LDC now. (Less Developed Country) 🙁

I’d prefer to see hard evidence of a north-south divide before accepting anecdotal evidence. From what I recall of 2007, with Yorkshire and Humberside being particularly badly effected, a good deal of help was given in trying to deal with excerptional rainfall. I would not take the blank cheque book at face value – that is not what is being offered. Small businesses will receive some limited financial aid and council tax will not be.charged on people unable to occupy property for example.
I would be interested to see a survey of who, in areas at risk of flooding, have modified their homes to help deal with the risk.

I would like to see what the Insurance Companies have done to mitigate flood risks. How much investigation and Reports have they done? Did they demand the Pitt Review, and its swift, funded implementation? Have they helped identify where the blame lies – eg Daily Telegraph report yesterday that the Somerset level flooding was “deliberately Engineered”….

Malcolm, I wasn’t intending to suggest that there was any sort of north-south divide in the allocation of resources to deal with the flooding problems between 2007 and 2013-14. I was merely trying to indicate the contrasting scale of the problem in relation to the political reaction then and now – it just happened that the comparator was the Yorkshire & Humberside region which suffered particularly badly in 2007, just as it happens that now we are in the run-up to a general election whereas then we were not.

As to the blank cheque analogy, I am very aware that there is no blank cheque for the businesses and householders who have suffered during this catastrophe; but the PM made it clear that “money was no object” in coping with the present problem whether it be flood defences, military assistance, relaying railway tracks, dredging rivers, rebuilding sea walls, and so on. I cannot recall any politician ever before saying that “money was no object” about any previous disaster or predicted adverse weather event. That was the blank cheque, and it will be interesting to see whether the words and figures will agree. I think the devil will be spotted somewhere in the detail.

While it would have been better if the flooding had been averted by proper land drainage measures, an earlier implementation of sustainable drainage schemes, and tighter planning controls on new developments on flood plains, the remedy [or sticking plaster] now emerging is thanks to persistent media attention that has stirred up the politicians into a much more acceptable response than the “leave it alone and it will go away” approach in previous years. On the question of new developments on flood plains and the creation of excessive water run-off with inadequate catchment capacity, my curious mind questions whether the local councils who are under pressure to promote the building of new houses [government planning guidance is biased in favour of it], and who also want to increase their rateable property base, are not only sufficiently disinterested intrinsically but also entirely unaffected by influence from the housebuilders to stand in the way of developments that might lead to – or at the least do nothing to mitigate – flooding. To put it crudely, I think the housebuilders have got the local planning authorities over a barrel [or a water butt, even].

I should be surprised if it made any commercial sense for insurance companies to eliminate the risks from which they make their money. The capital funding for such investment would have to be over a long term but as soon as householders perceived there was little risk they would stop taking out insurance or switch to companies that didn’t invest in flood prevention. At the moment, so long as the government continues with flood prevention measures the insurance companies will carry on offering insurance cover in areas at risk. The argument is that the government is barely meeting its obligations. The government already takes an insurance premium tax from every policy and really needs to improve the country’s resilience to all calamitous weather events.