Flood insurance fears

FEARS are growing that more than 2,000 York households at future risk of flooding could be left without insurance, after talks between insurers and the Government reached an “impasse.”

The Press reported earlier this year that a national deal – agreed in 2000 to ensure high-risk homes could get flood insurance – was due to finish next year.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said then that people could have problems accessing competitively priced flood insurance after the floods agreement ran out.

It said yesterday that the Government had refused to consider providing a temporary overdraft facility to a proposed not-for-profit special insurance fund for 200,000 high-risk households nationwide which would otherwise struggle to get affordable household insurance when the current arrangements finish.

Nick Starling, director of general insurance at the ABI, said: “Negotiations have hit an impasse. Insurers know their customers are increasingly worried about flood cover and we will therefore continue talks with Government to try and find a way forward.”

Hugh Fell, managing partner of George F White, one of the North East’s largest property surveyors said properties affected by flooding will be worth less money when they come to sell, partly because of the failure of the Government and ABI to reach agreement.”

A DEFRA spokesman said it remained committed to reaching an agreement with the insurance industry, with a number of options on the table.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:29am Tue 27 Nov 12

Madasanibbotson says...

I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ?
I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ? Madasanibbotson
  • Score: 0

10:08am Tue 27 Nov 12

baldiebiker says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ?
"we" can be part of a caring community or take the stance "I'm all right Jack",
I'm for the latter and yes my house did flood in 2000 and no I don't have it insured.
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ?[/p][/quote]"we" can be part of a caring community or take the stance "I'm all right Jack", I'm for the latter and yes my house did flood in 2000 and no I don't have it insured. baldiebiker
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 27 Nov 12

JoeR says...

Madasanibbotson wrote:
I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ?
I'd accept that argument, if it weren't for all the flood defence schemes that have been built and maintained by the taxpayer. Many of these have made flooding in undefended areas worse. Maybe owners of defended homes could pay towards a fund to keep the insurance cost down for the undefended homes?
[quote][p][bold]Madasanibbotson[/bold] wrote: I feel sorry for people that are flooded, but they bought houses that are at risk. Why should the taxpayer pay for flood damage ?[/p][/quote]I'd accept that argument, if it weren't for all the flood defence schemes that have been built and maintained by the taxpayer. Many of these have made flooding in undefended areas worse. Maybe owners of defended homes could pay towards a fund to keep the insurance cost down for the undefended homes? JoeR
  • Score: 0

11:09am Tue 27 Nov 12

Semprini says...

You can bump that to 2700 if the proposed Germany Beck build goes ahead.

It's underwater again today, quelle surprise.
You can bump that to 2700 if the proposed Germany Beck build goes ahead. It's underwater again today, quelle surprise. Semprini
  • Score: 0

11:50am Tue 27 Nov 12

notmyrealname says...

Why do the government have to provide a fund to rescue the Insurance Companies . Can someone explain what the Insurance Companies done with all the money I have paid them for my whole life and rarely made a claim for anything and when I do the excess or limitations make it a waste of time . Sometimes wonder if there's any point in insuring anything really -we are all held to ransom. I feel sorry for the flood victims - the insurance should be paid out regardless of the number of times they claim.
Why do the government have to provide a fund to rescue the Insurance Companies . Can someone explain what the Insurance Companies done with all the money I have paid them for my whole life and rarely made a claim for anything and when I do the excess or limitations make it a waste of time . Sometimes wonder if there's any point in insuring anything really -we are all held to ransom. I feel sorry for the flood victims - the insurance should be paid out regardless of the number of times they claim. notmyrealname
  • Score: 0

11:59am Tue 27 Nov 12

Guy Fawkes says...

Opposing government bailouts for insurers is not a case of saying "I'm all right, Jack", but rather of thinking long term rather than short term.

Developers want to buy land such as Germany Beck, because it's cheap. Why is it cheap? Because it's at very high risk of flooding. So what happens is that developers build estates full of houses on flood-prone land, which is then bought by people who then have to pay sky high insurance premiums for the rest of their lives and put up with the disruption and stress of a big flood every few years. Everyone is happy ... apart from the poor sods who actually have to live there, and the poor sods in non-risk properties who have to subsidise their insurance. The insurers make their cut on each policy, and the government (i.e. us, who are forced to pay twice) are forced to install expensive flood defences.

It would be far better to say "OK, enough of this moral hazard, no more of the government allowing themselves to be held to ransom by the insurers".

In the short term, there would be pain as a minority (relative to the population as a whole) found themselves unable to buy flood cover. But very quickly the problem would start to shrink and disappear. If developers knew from the outset that houses built in places like Germany Beck would be uninsurable, and thus unmortgagable, they wouldn't build them, because they'd know that they'd be unable to sell most of them. Then, perhaps, they'd turn their attention to the millions of acres of brownfield land in non-risk areas, that might cost more to develop up front but would result in better quality and longer lasting housing stock in the long term.
Opposing government bailouts for insurers is not a case of saying "I'm all right, Jack", but rather of thinking long term rather than short term. Developers want to buy land such as Germany Beck, because it's cheap. Why is it cheap? Because it's at very high risk of flooding. So what happens is that developers build estates full of houses on flood-prone land, which is then bought by people who then have to pay sky high insurance premiums for the rest of their lives and put up with the disruption and stress of a big flood every few years. Everyone is happy ... apart from the poor sods who actually have to live there, and the poor sods in non-risk properties who have to subsidise their insurance. The insurers make their cut on each policy, and the government (i.e. us, who are forced to pay twice) are forced to install expensive flood defences. It would be far better to say "OK, enough of this moral hazard, no more of the government allowing themselves to be held to ransom by the insurers". In the short term, there would be pain as a minority (relative to the population as a whole) found themselves unable to buy flood cover. But very quickly the problem would start to shrink and disappear. If developers knew from the outset that houses built in places like Germany Beck would be uninsurable, and thus unmortgagable, they wouldn't build them, because they'd know that they'd be unable to sell most of them. Then, perhaps, they'd turn their attention to the millions of acres of brownfield land in non-risk areas, that might cost more to develop up front but would result in better quality and longer lasting housing stock in the long term. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Tue 27 Nov 12

truthseeker2 says...

Anyone know where we can see a list or map of the properties?
Anyone know where we can see a list or map of the properties? truthseeker2
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Kelly Smunt says...

truthseeker2 wrote:
Anyone know where we can see a list or map of the properties?
Environment agency.

http://maps.environm
ent-agency.gov.uk/wi
yby/wiybyController?
x=460093.0&y=451892.
0&topic=floodmap&ep=
map&scale=8&location
=YO1%200SS&lang=_e&l
ayerGroups=default&d
istance=&textonly=of
f#x=460093&y=451892&
lg=1,&scale=9
[quote][p][bold]truthseeker2[/bold] wrote: Anyone know where we can see a list or map of the properties?[/p][/quote]Environment agency. http://maps.environm ent-agency.gov.uk/wi yby/wiybyController? x=460093.0&y=451892. 0&topic=floodmap&ep= map&scale=8&location =YO1%200SS&lang=_e&l ayerGroups=default&d istance=&textonly=of f#x=460093&y=451892& lg=1,&scale=9 Kelly Smunt
  • Score: 0

8:00am Wed 28 Nov 12

Oncebitten says...

People buy properties in areas that are affordable to them with their circumstances....now we could all argue that the government/councils allowed and even encouraged such building as the land is/was cheap and I for one think this is true.

What nobody allowed for was a change in our climate....

The insurance companies take and take and take from me year after year and I cannot remember the last time I made a claim for anything....so where's that money...taken in the good (dry) times...therefore should be invested wiser and given back in the bad (wet) times.

I know due to where I live flooding will never be an issue,unless you need an ark first,....I feel the government are responsible for not letting the insurance companies take and not give!!...but let's not knock where people live...people live where houses are built!! simple.
People buy properties in areas that are affordable to them with their circumstances....now we could all argue that the government/councils allowed and even encouraged such building as the land is/was cheap and I for one think this is true. What nobody allowed for was a change in our climate.... The insurance companies take and take and take from me year after year and I cannot remember the last time I made a claim for anything....so where's that money...taken in the good (dry) times...therefore should be invested wiser and given back in the bad (wet) times. I know due to where I live flooding will never be an issue,unless you need an ark first,....I feel the government are responsible for not letting the insurance companies take and not give!!...but let's not knock where people live...people live where houses are built!! simple. Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree