observer Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Seems the Insurance Companies are getting fed up with paying out on claims for flood damage, to the point where high risk homes may not be able to access insurance. So, is Insurance a right? Could the use of higher premiums for high risks promote changes in building style and/or location, to minimise flood damage? It would appear that the EA has totally failed to prevent building on the flood plain, through the planning process; so perhaps the Insurance Companies could encourage wiser planning in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 It's the job of the insurer to match the premium to the risk. It certainly isn't anybody's "right" to be given affordable insurance on a high risk property such as one built on a flood plain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 In the year 2011 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in England and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans." He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights." Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard-but no Ark. "Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?" "Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbours claim that I should have obtained planning permission for building the Ark in my garden because it is development of the site, even though in my view it is a temporary structure. We had to then go to appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision. Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to clear the passage for the Ark 's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it. Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special Scientific Interest set up in order to protect the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go! When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space. Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Authority ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission on how many disabled carpenter's I'm supposed to hire for my building team. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only accredited workers with Ark-building experience. To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark." Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky. Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?" "No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it!"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I agree with Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Brilliant Wolfie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Not only read it but posted it in the jokes section some few weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 So if we start building homes at higher elevations or start building on stilts, we will be insurable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 You would be ok for flood insurance but may get turned down on the chance of subsidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'm not a builder Sid, but isn't their something called "rafting" to combat subsidence? If they did start building on stilts, boats could be kept on the ground floor, when the cars get submerged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Nice on Wolfie ! Jest the truth & nothing but the truth . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 It does make you wonder though why a lot of land that has flooded has not been built on till recent years, maybe our ancestors knew something ,but the rain this year has been ridiculous even by British standards. One of the reasons put forward a few years ago for flooding was that so much land was now paved or concreted that any water could only runaway to the drains or lower ground rather than soaking into ground where the rain fell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Mankind has developed the arrogant belief that they can control nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 They have been doing that ever since Canute tried to control the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Canute didn't try to control the sea. He demonstrated to his court that even he, a man of Royal Birth, was unable to turn the tide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 The things that get me with all these incidents are the ones who go on the TV and moan because they haven't paid for insurance and now they are looking for free hand outs to cover the cost of their damaged plasmas and playstations.... If they don't have insurance, that isn't mine nor the rest of the tax paying populations problem to sort out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Making no apologies for the cut and paste. The following relates that he tried and failed to command/control the sea, ordering it not to rise onto his land. Albeit to demonstrate he didn't have the power to control nature, he did in fact attempt to control the sea. Ok so I'm splitting hairs. I'm happy to do so. The third, that with the greatest vigor he commanded that his chair should be set on the shore, when the tide began to rise. And then he spoke to the rising sea saying “You are part of my dominion, and the ground that I am seated upon is mine, nor has anyone disobeyed my orders with impunity. Therefore, I order you not to rise onto my land, nor to wet the clothes or body of your Lord”. But the sea carried on rising as usual without any reverence for his person, and soaked his feet and legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 The things that get me with all these incidents are the ones who go on the TV and moan because they haven't paid for insurance and now they are looking for free hand outs to cover the cost of their damaged plasmas and playstations.... If they don't have insurance, that isn't mine nor the rest of the tax paying populations problem to sort out I completely agree with what you say there Baz but maybe in some instances some people may have bought homes on areas which were know to the insures as being a flood risk but the developers etc duped them into thinking it would be ok and there was no risk. There was a lady on the news saying the very same the other night althoug I didn't hear it all. Maybe these buyers signed up to buy homes before they realised the level of preimium they might have to pay for insurance, if indeed they could get it, and by then it was too late and there was no way out. I believe some people on the new Walton Locks housing developmet struggled to get insurance however since Peels took the Env Agency to court over their flood maps I think that has helped a little and will also 'help' for the other housing developments along the ship canal etc. Sad to say but even after all that I still agree and if people can't be bothered to look into the details more carefully to ensure they can afford insurance premiums and to to take them out then I don't see why all our payments should go towards paying for their claims either. .... ooh an maybe all this over development everywhere is causing a bigger strain on the whole network hence more flooding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 You are right in what you are saying Dizz. Caveat emptor etc. If you are buying a waterfront property, especially in these times of climate change alarmism when 20 foot sea rises are being bandied about by the likes of Al Bore, then you really have no complaint if your neighbouring river comes in for breakfast one morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Not sure if I sense a touch of sarcasm there or not Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Saw a woman interviewed on tv the other morning and her house and garden was under about ten inches of water. I was feeling a bit sorry for her until she came out withe the following statement. "I was a bit concerned that there might be a bit of flooding before i went on the school run after hearing warnings on the radio. I was very surprised when I got back to find the water had flooded the house" Now don't get me wrong I am sorry about her plight, BUT if she was concerned they maybe getting the kids to school should have been second on the list. first priority being to try at least to put some sort of flood defense in place. I am sure that in her place that I would have been shifting everything that I could possible move to higher ground and digging soil out of the garden to fill plastic bags and form a flood barrier. Still on the bright side they have lifted the hosepipe bans for most places Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Its simple.... if you don't have insurance; don't come whining to the authorities when your belongings get wrecked. I understand that when the flooding happened in Yorkshire a few years ago, uninsured people living next door to insured people could get more compensation from the government than those with insurance got from their insurers after excesses were taken into account! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.