Should uninsured victims of flood recieve...?

Question

help from the Government when they were uninsured and many were insured..
this question is not about money but the aspect of having insurance...or not in this case...should people expect help?

receive and not recieve ...noted....

Hi everyone thanks for the answers which make a very interesting debate...
..the insurers are estimating the cost of damage at 1.5 billion so alot of insurers will be out of pocket and I am not sure without insurance companies this company could afford to compensate for that.. but in addition to that people do need help out of goodwill and charity and a pledge for 14m as the government have introduced will help people in some way..I do feel for the people who lives have been turned upside down and some of the lack of preparation for this is similar to the N Orleans catastrophe when it just so happen the people living on the flood plains were the poorer members of society but even two years on and some of these areas have been abandoned for good waiting for some other developer to buy up the land and start again presumably...so why then are developers building on flood plains?

edit : I am not sure this country can cover costs without insurers...

Answer 1

This is a very difficult question. One part of me says no, as they took the choice of not paying for insurance and unfortunately lost out, I acknowledge they probably could not afford the insurance premiums. On the other hand our flood prevention methods seem to be very poor and in which case perhaps the local council, river authority or whoever should pay up - but remember we all moan about too high council tax, water rate charges.
The thing that annoyed me this week was governments comment that they would not pass any law to stop developers from building on flood plains. Locally (I live in the south east corner of Surrey) the local inhabitants, the parish, district and county council all said no to some 250 homes being built on the local flood plain. Some government department said yes go ahead, and it eventually got stopped at ministerial level. Now anyone from outside the area would probably not be aware of the fact their new home would have been at risk every year, and that the first town in Kent deliberately uses the flood plain to save their housing from flooding.

Answer 2

I live near a brook...before I could even get a mortgage my mortgage company did research to see if I was in a flood zone. We decided to check out flood insurance just incase and whoa it was expensive. Had it shown we lived in a flood zone we would have looked elsewhere to buy a home. If you cant afford flood insurance then you should not buy a home in a flood zone it is a big risk. It is similar to living in an area that has Tornados or areas like Florida, and other southern states. Hurricanes happen there and you choose to live there and take the chance of your home becoming destroyed. Why is it the Gov'ts fault if you choose to live in an area such as this? For those who do not live in a flood zone yet were flooded yes I can see them getting help. I live in an area where we can get Blizzards. If my roof caves in due to a blizzard then it is my fault for not making sure my roof could handle something like that. We have had ice storms in the past with trees destroying peoples homes...this is where I live and this is what could happen. Ya know what I mean?

Answer 3

I am on a relatively low income (make just above the average) and pay out the nose for an array of insurances. I had damage as a result of frost during the harsh 2005/6 winter, but when I tried to claim on my buildings insurance was told it wasn't covered. The government never offered to help me, but then I wouldn't expect to ask a fellow taxpayer to fund my home repairs. In this respect, I do sympathise with homeowners who have insurance and believe they are covered. All insurance companies do whatever they can to deny claims, and the industry should be better regulated. They can also be accused of price fixing, and again, this is an area where the government definitely should step in.

On the other hand, should insured motorists pay for non-insured motorists who have car accidents? Of course they shouldn't. So why should homeowners who have insurance pay for homeowners who do not? Let's face it - many people who do not have insurance are spending the money they should spend on insurance on holidays and other luxuries. If they paid for the insurances and said, "I need a government hand-out because now I can't afford to go on holiday", would you be so eager to give them your tax money?

Answer 4

I have no problem with the government compensating flood victims, but they should treat insured & uninsured alike. Everyone has suffered the same, but some were more prepared through their own foresight. Typically, tho' I expect a different result.

Answer 5

If you buy a house on a FLOOD PLAIN what do you expect? I mean if you bought a house on a volcano don't you think some sort of fire insurance might be a good idea

Answer 6

It's worth remembering that some people cannot actually get insurance if they live in a flood area. Knowing british insurers, if you have been flooded once, you will find it difficult to get insurance again. We happily send millions of pounds abroad - what about helping our own for a change.

Answer 7

Check you policy for one. If you life in a flood prone/flood plain area, you won't find anyone to insure you for floods, but if you are so lucky, it will cost an arm and a leg. I live in north Delaware, and can not find a company that will insure for flood damage over 5,000 dollars, and that wouldn't cover my tv.

Answer 8

In my opinion yes they should be offered help.

I was born and bred in Hull and most of the effected areas are mainly council dwellings. Council tenants do not get a choice where they wish to live, it's a case of take what is offered.

Most of my family and friends are insured but some aren't purely because of their postcode the insurance premiums are far too high and that is dependent on if they can get flood damage insurance(most can't). The help will be basic nobody is asking for all the mod cons just help with the bear basics like cookers etc.

Answer 9

no , they should have insurance, they took a chance by not having it , and came unstuck,
would they expect the government to pay for damage if thier house caught fire, or got robbed,
where in england not a third world country

Answer 10

No. People who live in flood plain areas should know they are going to get flooded eventually. Those who live below sea level are foolish to begin with and are doubly foolish for not buying flood insurance.