thejesmonddingo – Member
These one in a hundred years storms seem to occur every couple of years these days

Yes, this is true and why the correct term for global warming is in fact climate change.

Analysis from ten years ago is completely out dated and as such areas which were deemed not at risk now are. Subsequently, the monies spent to protect should, and will increase. The problem is that there is a time lag between a flood event and the protection being passed by funding, planning and being built.

But then how will they keep within the rules of their mortgage to keep the home insured, and what happens if they want to move, nobody will buy or offer the new owners a mortgage.

do people on this thread realise that not everyone owns their house?

But the landlord may well have had to borrow money to buy his property to rent out,and the loan company want to ensure incase of flood fire etc the property /loan will bne safe.

eg guaranteed.

Yeah sorry what I quoted was just to highlight that the discussion just seemed to focus on home owners. Many do not have much choice where they live and those are least likely to have their possessions insured.

It is definitely wetter under the Tories! They may be crap at economics, and fond of lying to take us into pointless wars, but the weather was miles better under a labour government!

I blame Ian Duncan Smith! He’s a right ****! So it’s definitely his fault!

Lol at binners.

Thats the sad thing, large numbers who are insured will claim for food wastage due to power cuts,also for damage to their homes which will push insurance up for a lot of us, which in turn will stop even more people being insured,and with a lot of homes being uninsurable.

Just imagine being in a low paid job,renting a house, and all your possesions are destroyed by 4 foot of dirty water,no power no running water,and nowhere to go, then cameroon turns up with a camera crew and loads of pr people.

This thread should simply have ended with Junky’s post. Jamie gave it new life, however.

thejesmonddingo – Member

I worked with a woman who bought a house on a new development on the banks of the Dearne,she was most put out after 6 months when it flooded.The address? She lived in The Watermeadows,doh.

Because they thought the people who built their house wouldn’t have dropped it in the middle of a flood zone? That’s not such an unreasonable thing to expect tbh.

The flooding as reported on The BBC in Yalding, oh it floods !!!

Well it has flooded most years as it is where 2 rivers meet and has huge food plains the, heart of the village has flooded most years in living memory and will always do so. The people who have lived there more than 5 mins know all about it, its just the poor buggers who have moved in and havent done their home work who get caught out.

The old bakery used to get flooded every year that is why there was no plaster on the walls and flagstone floors when the warning came all the equipment got moved upstairs and baking carried on and the cute little rowing boat out the back rowed bread out and flour in.

It’s the same in the west country on Points west they interviewed an old biddy about the flooding (her house was flooded 4′ deep) her answer was well what do you expect when you are next to a major river,btw her house was 300+ years old.

The people who have been screwed are those who have purchased a modern house that’s has flooded, the local council have refused planing permission as it floods but on appeal it has been over turned by the government. The developers walk away with their pockets full of cash leaving the poor owners shafted.

Northwind – Member
thejesmonddingo – Member
I worked with a woman who bought a house on a new development on the banks of the Dearne,she was most put out after 6 months when it flooded.The address? She lived in The Watermeadows,doh.
Because they thought the people who built their house wouldn’t have dropped it in the middle of a flood zone? That’s not such an unreasonable thing to expect tbh

In the first instance, I do have empathy for the lady, however, to mirror a quote from the recent stamp duty thread, if I were spending that amount of money, then I’d be looking into this myself. That said, it is the responsibility of the builder to inform the buyer of the risk. In this instance, ignorance or a poor solicitor is possibly to blame.

I accept I don’t have all the facts.

Mikeypies -thanks for confirming what I was told about Yalding

kevj,it was a refused planning application overturned on appeal,I used to fish that stretch,and had seen it deep enough to flood her livingroom years before the houses were built.If I’d known where she was buying I’d have counselled against it.

Flood defenses are funded on a cost and risk basis.

or the closeness to Hilary Benn’s second home 😉

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325629/Hilary-Benn-in-new-row-over-flood-defences.html

Personally, I bought a house on a hill.

This.

I live in a Kent village very close to sea level. Apparently parts of it regularly flood. We had some flooding at the green the other day, but that was a combination of the weather and the debris in the drainage.

I checked with the EA website and with 2 separate insurance companies that the part of the village I was buying in wasn’t a flood risk before I went ahead.

We also have the original drainage ditches at my end of the village, it bit that flooded doesn’t anymore.