Hundreds of thousands of householders in areas at high risk of flooding face losing their home-insurance policies next year unless the Government finds extra cash to rescue the industry.
Why don’t they just charge higher premiums?
Then you read on and there’s a fuss about govt help, did govt live up to its side of the last deal, where’s the money etc.
Then you get this:
“It has been a very expensive time for the industry because of a spate in floods which cost us £3 billion in 2007. If the talks break down then an open market operates, with no guarantees of premium limits.
“It is quite possible that insurers won’t be able to provide cover at all in certain areas such as Tewkesbury and Cornwall, which have been subject to the most severe flooding in recent years. In other cases they might demand premiums of say £10,000, which would be unaffordable in most cases.”
Although nearly 2.8 million homes are at risk of flooding from the sea or rivers, and another 2.3 million are at risk from surface flooding, insurers have identified the 200,000 properties with the greatest risk. But the industry admits that those in “medium-risk” areas could also be stung by hefty premiums, if an open market prevailed.
Err, perhaps houses in Tewkesbury shouldn’t actually be insured against flooding then? Or perhaps the premiums might really be £10k?
Defra said yesterday that talks were continuing. “We are working very hard with the industry on this complex issue,” a spokesman said. “We need a lasting solution that ensures affordable insurance bills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer.”
Why should flood insurance for a house that is likely to flood be affordable? Why should the taxpayer pay for you to live in that darling little water mill that floods every third year?