[Closed] Flooded out - blame the victim?

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.

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.

[i]Whilst one cannot blame the weather[/i]

I blame the weather

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[i]Some[/i] 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.

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

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.

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....

well Im alright jack

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)

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?

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...

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.

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

[img] [/img]

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

[img] [/img]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

epicyclo:

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228993/8425.pdf ]Consultation Paper[/url]

[url= http://www.whiplashclaim.co.uk/whiplash-claims/ ]Less than 1 in 20 according to a NWNF firm.[/url]

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

hooli - well put.

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

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

Anyway,

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

My next house will be a canal barge.

Surely there's [i]some[/i] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mistakes is a bit harsh. There's only so much you can do with the finite resources you have. Biggest problem is that people who have houses near water don't want things in the way of the water cos it's all pretty, or want building work going on even though it protects them "cos it's never flooded before". You have to consider so many variables along the channel, upstream and downstream, it's crazy. And of course you have to prioritise schemes which protect more people, because it's protecting life which is the priority. Not fields in most cases.

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.

Millions will be spent on dredging and we will have light rain for years to come 🙂

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25030-dredging-would-not-have-stopped-massive-uk-floods.html

"The solution for residents and communities is to adapt to living with it," Cloke says. "They shouldn't expect the government or the Environment Agency to protect them from a flood that's impossible to protect against."

Horatio, there are things called return periods: how often a certain phenomenon is likely to reoccur. A 1 in 50 year event is pretty bloody common, a one in 100 year event is still pretty common.

Would you buy a house with a 1% chance that it would be flooded 3 feet deep this year?

If you were insuring millions of houses against flood across the UK, would you make an effort to avoid being on for £100m of losses? Would you make an attempt to avoid some of the high risk areas, and make sure you were getting a decent amount of premium from the medium risk areas (100 - 500 year return period)? If you go cheap on flood premium, you're going to find yourself a haven for flood prone risks, and when (not if) the storms come, you're going to be left holding a greater proportion of the £500 million cost than you might have liked. Some of the claims will be recouped through your own insurance (reinsurance), but next year, your reinsurers aren't going to be so keen, they'll want to increase your premium, reduce your cover, know what you're doing to reduce your exposure.

In other words, nothing's for free. If you ignore risks thinking "that's what insurance is for", you'll end up paying in the long run.

Millions will be spent on dredging and we will have light rain for years to come

And people will declare that the dredging worked.

A return period in a flood context is a measure of magnitude..its not a measure of frequency or how often a flood is expected to occir...and its massively misleading for the average person
..I wish the ea would stop using it.

Iirc insurance co have a gentleman's agreement with govt to continue offering insurance to those in high risk flood areas..the existence of that agreement is what allows development in unsuitable areas to continue.

We need to get smarter about flood management though:

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/learn/threats-to-our-woodland/human-impact/how-tree-planting-could-help-reduce-flood-risk-in-wales/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes

As these stories point out, there are solutions in unlikely places - e.g. EU farming subsidies being dependent on all land being used for production are preventing adoption of very effective floodwater management.

how is a "1 in 100 year" event not a measure of frequency?

Obviously events with bigger magnitude will happen less often, the two are inextricably linked.

Because 1 in 100 year events don't happen once every hundred years.

The problem with return periods is that we're incredibly short-sighted, "The worst floods since 1968" OMG!! that's like ofrever!!! How can we be expected to factor that in to our decisions!?!?!?

mole valley floods, 1968, flood this year, bit less than 50 years after. Never going to be regular, but twice in a lifetime? Not infrequent enough to discount form the biggest investment you'll ever make.

But it is, we're very bad at learning, and being honest with our mistakes. "Looks like a stock market bubble, but the last one was aaaaages ago, like what? 5 years ago? and before that? We have to go back another 5 or ten years!!" and again, and again, and again with shocking regularity

The flood risk should be included in the premium you pay. The premium you pay is based on actuarial calculations on the chances you will make a claim, and what that cost will be. (Unless we are talking about gender rating for car and life insurance, courtesy of the EU)

I doubt insurers will try and weasel out of claims for flooding. I doubt they will blame people for living on flood plains. They may review their premiums/excesses/exposure in these areas)

But if you live near a river or on a flood plain, the chances are that at some point in your life there will be an exceptional weather event and you will get flooded. It's not about blame, it's about probability and risk.

No government has tried to control the weather/nature since Canute's early attempts.......

He didn't, to be fair. He was demonstrating his humanity to people whole thought were asking too much of him, showing that he could no more control the tide than anyone else.

IIRC a 100 year flood means it has a 1% chance of happening in any given year, not that occur every 100 years. A measure of probability rather than frequency. I might be wrong though, so feel free to correct me.

bang on wnb.

Realise that I was missing "likely" from my earlier posts. Sorry gwealod if that was misleading, and that the expression of statistical likelihood of occurrence is the part you think is missing from the EA's stuff.

but I wonder if anyone thinks like that. Hope they don't

"1 in 50 year event, being flooded here. Last flooded in 1992, I should be fine to buy as long as I move out before 2042!"

He didn't, to be fair. He was demonstrating his humanity to people whole thought were asking too much of him, showing that he could no more control the tide than anyone else.

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.

Very clever, eh, hope she has 3rd party fire and theft, so not covered,

Also a lot of insurance companies dont cover vehicles driven into water because of the potential for fraud, also, how and where did the vehicle get flooded, how was it returned to where it is now, will the neighbours or freinds blow her in for fraud.

Mistakes is a bit harsh. There's only so much you can do with the finite resources you have. Biggest problem is that people who have houses near water don't want things in the way of the water cos it's all pretty, or want building work going on even though it protects them "cos it's never flooded before". You have to consider so many variables along the channel, upstream and downstream, it's crazy. And of course you have to prioritise schemes which protect more people, because it's protecting life which is the priority. Not fields in most cases.

Not really harsh. they have made mistakes.

My tone might have sounded sarcastic but I wasnt being so, they are undoubtedly underfunded and limited. That is why mistakes have happened.

We can but hope for a massive cash boost and subsequent employment drive by them. Not only to fix problems but go after people causing them.

The flat I live in is subject to excessive contents insurance quotes, which did go up massively following a previous flood. Now, I live on the second floor so unlikely to make a claim. I would also like to point out that I did choose to live here, but it was pretty much a choice of buying here or not buying at all, since the place I live was the cheapest available.

Being surrounded by floodwater is a ball ache. Not so much for me, but it means that, for example, my MIL cannot get out for her daily walk. She feels this to be crucial to her wellbeing, as she has had cancer and related ops and the exercise improves things. Wading through the water last time ended with her getting sick, so she's remaining housebound until the waters recede. I understand that it's important for lots of people to feel better about their lives by belittling other people. You can ****ing do one.

Good news - looks like Cameron has warned off the insurance companies.

So hopefully we won't be seeing the blame the victim card being played this time.

My cynical mind wonders if this is anything to do with this being the Tory heartland. 🙂

And a general election on the horizon...

Surely gay couples should pay for the flood damage since they are clearly to blame?

What exactly is Singletrack's legal position with deviant admitting a criminal act on here?

Just seen the news & It looks like a lot of people were ready for flooding anyway. Most people had boats at the bottom of their (flooded) gardens! Very handy & forward thinking if you ask me.

(iv'e got a Canadian open canoe, just in case)

In the past I have found STW Towers to be quite fair MCTD 😉

Maybe being a claims manager in a previous life just makes me a little more sensitive to that kind of thing.

Still, it's a victimless crime, eh? 🙄

epicyclo - Member

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

45,000 in 2011 - and that's just the ones caught.

I doubt STW would be responsible for reporting an admission of perceived fraud, but I'd imagine the police could request identifying details of the poster if they were investigating.

MoreCashThanDash - Member
What exactly is Singletrack's legal position with deviant admitting a criminal act on here?

I also broke the speed limit driving to work this morning and took class-A drugs at college....quick, hang me!

It's not all quite as simple as some make out is it. I had a to cut shourt a business trip to Brussels yesterday at £200 cost to myselg because my road was flooded and we were about 1" away from being underwater. Our are has not flooded previously, didn't come up in any searches and is not on a floodplain area etc.

However a couple of issues further downstream and an issue with some building work taken on by a fella down the road, means that on this occasion our home is very much at risk of flooding.

As for "what are we doing"... well not a great deal in all honesty... Water is kind of hard to stop as King Kanute once found out. It goes where it goes and there's very little you can do about it, we've got sandbags going on and we're doing our best... but we can't 'divert the water as it comes up through the drains by the houses.

Only thing worse than a criminal is a smug criminal.

Wonder if crimestoppers would share that view? 😉

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

Living in one of the highest homes in the Bristol area I hope not for the sake of everyone else!

Only risk we have is water ingress from crappy building work but that is down to the landlord and her builder and the longer it takes them to agree to doing anything about it the more damp and is appearing on the walls and ceilings and the more of my stuff is getting soaked...but that is another matter!

My sister struggled to get contents insurance for her rented flat, because it was right next to the Tyne, so it was inside the flood risk area on the EA maps, even when she pointed out that it was a [i]second floor[/i] flat...

We pay a fortune for our building insurance, because our postcode is within 400m of a water course. When the river floods, the bottom of our garden can be under around 6 feet of water. But, the garden's 300 feet long, and the house is a good ten feet higher up and 200 feet away than the highest the river has ever reached, so I think we'll be ok.

Weirdly, the river has broken its banks far less this year than in previous years.

Fortunately David Cameron has now declared that 'Money is No Object'

when it comes to the cleanup and repairing flood defences
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/11/uk-floods-david-cameron-unlimited-public-funds
and
"we are a wealthy country and we have taken good care of our public finances"

shall we all celebrate the end of the age of austerity then?

The thought of Tory voters in Berkshire being driven back to the dark ages hasn't crossed David Camerons mind.

With all the best will in the world of money being no object there's 2 problems from my own perspective.

Yesterday morning the water was about 12" deep and lapping around the front doorstep. Mrs Weeksy was told by the council "we've sent some sandbags, you're on your own, there's only a few houses so we've got more important things to work on"

Along with part 2, which is that no-one can just make the water go away, it has to go 'somewhere' but there's more of it than the stream can take, more than the drains can take and more than any other things in place can take...so where/how do you make it go away.

I'm sitting here and it may seem i'm in control of my thoughts and emotions, but in all honesty i'm struggling to keep control of it all.. it's just i hate being in a situaion i can't influence, affect or resolve.. we've checked and tried to unblock all the culverts, we've re-directed water to the best of our ability, but still, it's not the best. If we re-direct the water incorrectly, we're facing the real possibility of flooding someone elses home instead through our actions.. which would be as much as a disaster to me as flooding our own.

It's easy making light of the situation of "it's only a bit of water"

but you know what... it's not, it's really really not.

shall we all celebrate the end of the age of austerity then?

[img] [/img]

The age of austerity never applied to the south east in the first place. It only ever applied to the frightful plebs in their provincial hellholes

And central London, did you see that bit, binners?

Phoned an insurance company, one that makes a saga out of a crisis, for a contents and building quote, seems because i have a roof that is flat 4 floors above me, i am not able to be insured, and one question i got asked was was i within 150 metres of any water and had i been flooded within the last 5 years, or any flooding nearby,living on a hil didnt count.

So expect some equally stupid questions from insurance companies as they try to refuse insurance to people renewing with a new company.