Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 111 total)
  • Flooded out – blame the victim?
  • epicyclo
    Full Member

    After looking at the flooding I was just thinking that there is bound to be a huge hike in house insurance next year, then I remembered that insurance companies usually find a way to weasel out of big claims unless there’s likely to be political repercussions.

    The UK government marches to the tune of big business (its major party fund donors?).

    Seeing as the biggest and baddest of big business are in the financial sector, are we going to see the establishment saying to the victims of the flooding – “It’s all your own fault”

    After all they got off with the biggest bank robbery in history, so a bit of chicanery here shouldn’t present any problem if they can keep the govt onside.

    I’m expecting to see a flood of negative PR aimed squarely at the flood affected now.

    As an example, think of all the anti Personal Injury PR stuff we see in the press.

    The victim or their lawyer gets vilified in the press for the high payout, not the negligent employer or person who caused the injury. The public has has a generally antagonistic attitude to PI lawyers, but the payouts are a result of a court process (or avoiding a court process) in which a judge who is expert in the area and not easily fooled is making the decision. So who benefits from blaming the victim here? The insurance company.

    Now, let’s look at all those people who live in the flooded areas. How long before the press is claiming it’s all their own fault?

    If we can get the general public to agree that the flooded people were to blame, then the govt is not likely to intervene if the insurance companies avoid their responsibilities.

    The irony is that many of the flood victims are govt supporters and have probably swallowed its campaign against another class of victims – the poor, the disabled, and the weak who are painted as rorting the system instead of being worthy of support.

    somouk
    Free Member

    There was a piece in one of the newspapers today apparently that the ‘Flood victims knew the risk’ so you might not be too far from the mark.

    bensales
    Free Member

    Now, let’s look at all those people who live in the flooded areas. How long before the press is claiming it’s all their own fault?

    Every house I’ve ever bought has included a land search giving the property’s flood risk. I’ve then needed to exercise my judgement as to whether I wish to take on the risk it indicates and buy the property.

    Whilst one cannot blame the weather, and possibly there is some blame in how land and rivers are being managed, the only person who controls where the house you live in is, is the you.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    DezB
    Free Member

    Whilst one cannot blame the weather

    I blame the weather

    slackalice
    Free Member

    Although the farming community in Somerset have been lobbying the EA for dredging and flood management for a few years now. My understanding is that the EA have / are blaming reduced funding from central government.

    Im not sure whether the insurance companies now accept any further risk? So, they are reluctant to insure anything that has been flooded (unless of course they accept a reduced level of risk with an increase of premium. Insurance nowadays seems to be more about the shareholder dividend.

    Nobby
    Full Member

    The victim or their lawyer gets vilified in the press for the high payout, not the negligent employer or person who caused the injury. The public has has a generally antagonistic attitude to PI lawyers, but the payouts are a result of a court process (or avoiding a court process) in which a judge who is expert in the area and not easily fooled is making the decision. So who benefits from blaming the victim here? The insurance company

    It is not the awards for genuine claims it’s the bogus ones & the extreme levels of fees being made by the “no win – no fee” brigade that’s the issue. In a majority of cases, these are bigger than the awards.

    There is a £30bn long term plan to help prevent flooding in the future and improve the UK infrastructure – £25bn of that is being provided by the insurance industry with the balance from the Government.

    Having worked in the U.S. it’s accepted that if you buy a property in an earthquake zone or “Tornado Alley” it’s at your own risk should you be affected by either. There is an argument to say that if you live on a flood plain you should accept that you may get flooded.

    I’m not saying it’s right – just that there is a valid argument.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    bensales – Member
    …Whilst one cannot blame the weather, and possibly there is some blame in how land and rivers are being managed, the only person who controls where the house you live in is, is the you.

    Up to a point. People have to live somewhere, and it’s not as if this is a frequent event.

    There are controls on how you can build, eg if you built on stilts like they do in places like Queensland, then floods would be no problem. Good luck getting that past a planning department.

    Flood waters can be managed. There’s a whole country called the Netherlands where they seem to manage ok, and other countries manage far higher rainfalls than have happened here. For example where I lived in Oz, over 1 metre of rain would fall in the first 3 months of the year, the town is built on a flood plain, yet that is managed ok.

    If long established areas here flood it has to be something to do with the management of the water system, and it is the government which holds the ultimate responsibility there, not the victims.

    imnotverygood
    Full Member

    The victim or their lawyer gets vilified in the press for the high payout, not the negligent employer or person who caused the injury. The public has has a generally antagonistic attitude to PI lawyers, but the payouts are a result of a court process

    I think people take one look at the level of whiplash injuries in this country compared to abroad and draw their own conclusions…..

    stilltortoise
    Free Member

    Every house I’ve ever bought has included a land search giving the property’s flood risk. I’ve then needed to exercise my judgement as to whether I wish to take on the risk it indicates and buy the property.

    1. Not all searches are as revealing as you might wish
    2. Sellers can be a little “economical” with the truth
    3. Some people have lived in these houses for a long time and bought when the flood risk and actual incidents of flooding were almost non-existent.

    Some people may have bought houses knowing there was a high flood risk, but I’d find it a great shame if the blame game applied to all those victims.

    binners
    Full Member

    They’ll be blaming me for building my fireworks factory on an active volcano next! The sneaky manipulative bastards!

    deviant
    Free Member

    This weather is awesome. The other half had a problem with her car that was going to be expensive to fix or more likely terminal…. either way she doesn’t have the funds to replace or repair.

    So we got her mechanically minded father to put water in the engine and various pipes/hoses, started the vehicle, properly shafted it and are now going through the insurance instead as ‘water ingress’ into the engine from all this terrible weather and the puddles we must have driven through!

    She loses her NCD but gets the car written off and enough of a pay out to get a decent vehicle back on the road again….every cloud and all that.

    Nobby
    Full Member

    She loses her NCD but gets the car written off and enough of a pay out to get a decent vehicle back on the road again….every cloud and all that.

    Unless someone sees/hears this and you get done for fraud….

    kimbers
    Full Member

    well Im alright jack

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    Nobby – Member
    …It is not the awards for genuine claims it’s the bogus ones & the extreme levels of fees being made by the “no win – no fee” brigade that’s the issue. In a majority of cases, these are bigger than the awards.

    Bogus? Really? How many? There would have to be a lot of very dim-witted judges and are not legal fees subject to review if they are disproportionate?

    I think you’ve swallowed the negative PR which will seize on the the rare fraudster to justify its vilification of all the real victims.

    (I have no connection with the PI system)

    djglover
    Free Member

    It’s not just about homeowners by the way. Lots of people might be renting a property and will not have even considered the risk, certainly colleagues of mine have rented houses in Wraysbury that are underwater now, how do you help those?

    pictonroad
    Full Member

    Nobby – Member

    There is a £30bn long term plan to help prevent flooding in the future and improve the UK infrastructure – £25bn of that is being provided by the insurance industry with the balance from the Government.

    You see, that’s not actually true is it?

    They are (or have committed to) INVESTING £25bn into uk infrastructure, not flood protection and they will be seeking a return on that investment…

    Nobby
    Full Member

    Bogus? Really? How many? There would have to be a lot of very dim-witted judges and are not legal fees subject to review if they are disproportionate?

    Not really. Less than 10% of cases get anywhere near a judge & until the medical profession comes up with a fool proof method of confirming soft tissue injuries it’ll continue.

    After an accident I had last year the insurers of the lorry that hit me insisted I have a medical check before settling the claim for my damage as the “didn’t want me making an injury claim later”. I told the Dr I was fine yet all of his questioning was leading me down a path toward me having suffered injury & anguish. I refused to accept either was the case and he eventually conceded I was fine. It would have been very easy to get something going.

    Insurance companies cannot afford to defend these cases as their court costs are huge (probably more than the overall settlement) and disproving whiplash is nigh on impossible without putting video surveilance on every claimant.

    binners
    Full Member

    certainly colleagues of mine have rented houses in Wraysbury that are underwater now, how do you help those?

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

    Just received a set of these from the Environment Agency ,it had a note with it saying “Pray for sunshine”.

    I don’t think that I need a waterproof jacket now. 🙂

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    Nobby – Member
    “Bogus? Really? How many? There would have to be a lot of very dim-witted judges and are not legal fees subject to review if they are disproportionate?”
    Not really. Less than 10% of cases get anywhere near a judge & until the medical profession comes up with a fool proof method of confirming soft tissue injuries it’ll continue…

    Got proof of that? The system has a lot of checks involving medical professionals on each side of the case – there would have to be a high proportion of crooked ones for there to be anything other than a rare one slip by.

    Nobby
    Full Member

    pictonroad – Member

    You see, that’s not actually true is it?

    They are (or have committed to) INVESTING £25bn into uk infrastructure, not flood protection and they will be seeking a return ot that investment.

    The industry press release stated it was aimed at flood defences etc but was part of the overall £300bn + scheme. If that was incorrect then fine, but it’s how the industry put it out.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    pictonroad – Member
    You see, that’s not actually true is it?

    They are (or have committed to) INVESTING £25bn into uk infrastructure, not flood protection and they will be seeking a return on that investment…

    That’s a classic promise of jam tomorrow, and don’t look at our actions of yesterday.

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    If the flood victims are nice middle class people they’ll get official sympathy. If they are working, or non-working class people then they’ll be blamed for living inan area prone to flooding as often as once-in-two-hundred years.

    Nobby
    Full Member
    hora
    Free Member

    When you are buying a house, doesn’t the Solicitor let you know if there is a flood risk (and/or recommend you get a flood survey if needed?).

    TBH if you’ve bought a house in a flood-risk area knowing this, what do you expect? Not being heartless as there will be people who have bought houses in said-areas who have lived there for decades and have settled/dont want to leave.

    binners when are you in Chorly next? We can have a Benny Hill partee

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    Nobby – Member
    epicyclo:

    Consultation Paper

    Less than 1 in 20 according to a NWNF firm.

    Didn’t actually give a number of how many claims were fraudulent, just an assertion that some were. How do they know?

    I’m not surprised the govt has got involved, this ties in with what I’ve said above. Follow the money.

    Anyhow, right now the concern is how the flood victims are going to be treated, not provide sympathy for a poor insurance company that actually has to pay up on a policy.

    hora – Member
    …TBH if you’ve bought a house in a flood-risk area knowing this, what do you expect?

    Hopefully you could expect the various levels of government to have taken the appropriate actions to prevent flooding or mitigate it. It’s not rocket science, but it does need dedicated maintenance and the funds to do it, as happens elsewhere in the developed world.

    Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    deviant – Member
    This weather is awesome. The other half had a problem with her car that was going to be expensive to fix or more likely terminal…. either way she doesn’t have the funds to replace or repair.

    So we got her mechanically minded father to put water in the engine and various pipes/hoses, started the vehicle, properly shafted it and are now going through the insurance instead as ‘water ingress’ into the engine from all this terrible weather and the puddles we must have driven through!

    She loses her NCD but gets the car written off and enough of a pay out to get a decent vehicle back on the road again….every cloud and all that.

    POSTED 32 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

    As bad as a made up whiplash claimant. Fraud is fraud.

    hooli
    Full Member

    There are 2 sides to this, some people buy a house on a flood plain and the expect the government to sort it out if it floods.

    There are also people who buy a house with no or low flood risk and then matters outside their control mean they get flooded – something like flood defences moving the problem further downstream etc.

    There is a lot the EA can and should do but they cant predict the future or perform magic…

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    hooli – Member
    There is a lot the EA can and should do but they cant predict the future or perform magic…

    There’s no magic necessary. Just provide adequate resources. Other countries manage to do this despite much higher rainfalls. Maybe we need a few Dutchmen in the EA…

    Don’t blame the victims.

    hora
    Free Member

    hooli – well put.

    Deviant your other half is a crook. Do you class that as a soft crime then?

    bails
    Full Member

    If long established areas here flood it has to be something to do with the management of the water system,

    Or perhaps something to do with the sustained, unprecedented levels of rainfall….

    Anyway,

    Shanna, they bought their tickets
    , they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ’em crash.

    Airplane! 1980

    slowjo
    Free Member

    The EA are not a bunch of numpties, as the Government like to make out (well Sandbag Pickles anyway).

    As mentioned in another thread, Gideon has taken risks with his austerity program and it has just bitten him on the bum. I understand the policy leading to lack of dredging goes back 20 years or so, so there are no innocent parties here except maybe….just maybe the EA.

    Insurance is not a right. Insurance companies are commercial operations and they assess risks based on the probability of an event occurring and recent claims history. They then reinsure the losses across the non retail market to reduce their exposure, keep costs down and generate a profit.

    If the reinsurance market looks at a raft of massive claims they are likely to increase their rates. The insurance company will pass this on to the customer. The customer can then decide whether or not to accept their terms.

    I suspect the impact (on home insurance) of these floods will be spread across the entire country to mitigate the cost to those affected by the flooding though, in don’t be surprised if people living in flood plains pay through the nose in future, or even have insurance withheld. If the risk reduces over years, companies will probably begin to offer terms once again though it may be expensive. It will probably depend on how effective flood prevention methods are at the time. If they keep failing, then insurers will not willingly expose themselves to unacceptable risks and sadly, householders will have to live with the financial consequences of living next to a river, on low lying land etc.

    (I have nothing to do with the EA or home insurance btw)

    bails
    Full Member

    Anyone remember the fuss about gritters last year?

    Wonder if any money that could have been spent on flood prevention is now tied up in council deopts full of shiny new gritters?

    Next year we’ll be snowed and iced under and councils will have nothing but dredgers…. Then Pickles will appear and tell off the councils for not doing what he said along and getting a load of gritters.

    irc
    Full Member

    Didn’t actually give a number of how many claims were fraudulent, just an assertion that some were. How do they know?

    Well if somebody tells their GP their neck is sore after an accident can he prove it isn’t?

    A GP told me that he gives sick notes to people he doesn’t think are genuinely ill because the sick pay doesn’t come out his budget and he hasn’t got time to argue with them.

    whatnobeer
    Free Member

    There are 2 sides to this, some people buy a house on a flood plain and the expect the government to sort it out if it floods.

    There are also people who buy a house with no or low flood risk and then matters outside their control mean they get flooded – something like flood defences moving the problem further downstream etc.

    There is a lot the EA can and should do but they cant predict the future or perform magic…

    This is kind of how I feel about it. If you buy a house on a flood plain they you should of been told the risk of it flooding every once in a while, never mind the fact that you’re probably all ready paying through the nose for flood insurance. I had a house (rented) a few years ago that none of the big insurers would touch because it was in the same postcode as properties that had and ended up having to go via a specialist.

    takisawa2
    Full Member

    My next house will be a canal barge.

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    Surely there’s some risk that ANY house could flood. How’s the average person supposed to assess this risk? Its beyond their abilities.

    Predictable annual flooding, yes, you could possibly say a homeowner should have know about it… but not several months of non-stop storms and heavy rain. Its incredibly unusual. This is exactly what insurance is for.

    robdob
    Free Member

    Surely there’s some risk that ANY house could flood. How’s the average person supposed to assess this risk? Its beyond their abilities.
    Predictable annual flooding, yes, you could possibly say a homeowner should have know about it… but not several months of non-stop storms and heavy rain. Its incredibly unusual. This is exactly what insurance is for.

    All the flood risk areas calculated by the EA are on their website in a nice easy to understand way. No solicitor search needed and it all explained.

    andyl
    Free Member

    I’ve not read all the replies so far but there are these things, that being mountain bikers we should all be familiar with, called hills. Hills and high ground are quite good places to build houses.

    Then you have the opposite which is low land that can flood. (Patronising attitude not aimed at anyone on STW but at those in the outside world with no sense)

    That land is cheap to buy (I wonder why) and easy to build on, so attractive to developers. Council planners then pass their plans and let them build their nice cheap houses.

    Then the poor EA, bless them, has to try and protect those houses but doesnt really have enough money. They also probably make a few mistakes, maybe on bad advice. And then possibly don’t help themselves making more mistakes all by themselves.

    Now to me, if a company is going to build homes then the planners shoudl either insist they are put in a safe location or insist that as part of the development the correct measures are put in place to protect those homes if they are at risk. If the development company cannot do that then they should provide £X to those who can.

    Same goes for anyone who wants to do something which may affect existing homes and put them in danger.

    I do feel very sorry for the people who have been affected, and yes they did have the choice to live there, but they should also be able to expect that measures have been taken to protect their homes by the people who gave permission for them, built them or are charged with the task of maintaining waterways, flood deferences, sewerage etc etc whoever those bodies should be.

    nedrapier
    Full Member

    slowjo, nice post. I’m looking for a house at the moment. Everynoe and then, there’s something that looks too good to be true. “What’s wrong with this one then?” is the game. Sometimes it’s obvious from pictures, there’s something funny about the house itself. If that all looks good, zoom out on the map, and there it is – it’s on the flight path, 90 yards from the motorway. OK then. It’s low lying, near a river, let’s check the Environment agency website – top google result for “flood risk” or “postcode flood risk”, so you don’t exactly have to be an industry insider to figure this stuff out.

    Buying a house is seems to be all about compromises, finding a compromise you don’t mind but that puts other people off, like: it needs work, funny layout, no garage, close to the rail line, long way from the station, etc, etc, etc. If it’s perfect in every way, then the compromise is that you’re paying through the nose for it.

    If you decide that that house in the flood plain is a good buy, that’s partly (mostly/entirely) because it’s in a flood plain. The more likely it is to flood, the more house you’re going to get for your for your money.

    You’re taking that saving on a similar house further up the hill and gambling on the fact that “It won’t happen to me”. There must be some people who fall in love with a place, realising that it floods, and factor in the repair cost every x number of years. Still a massive gamble if you move in thinking on cleaning up every 10 years and it turns out to be every 2.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 111 total)

The topic ‘Flooded out – blame the victim?’ is closed to new replies.