Lloyds (Assurant Solutions) Contents & Building Insurance more than doubling because of floods

[cerberusalert]

My household contents and buildings insurance is due for renewal next month and Lloyds have just sent me the new paperwork. The cheeky sods have jumped the gun somewhat by more than doubling the premium to £909 per annum which is in breach of an agreement they are signatories to with the government.

 

After my area was flooded people found it impossible to obtain any affordable insurance whatsoever but the insurance industry came to an agreement with the then government that they would offer affordable insurance if the government invested in flood defences for the area, this agreement is due to come to an end in May next year. Obviously any insurance I take out now will still be in force in May '13 so they've decided to up the cost 10 months early.

 

Luckily I've managed to find cover elsewhere at only a £36 more than I'm paying at the moment.

 

But it makes me wonder what is going to happen in the future with these policies, particularly as flooding is becoming a regular occurrence across the country & in some areas multiple times.

 

 

 

See also; See also; http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Hull-flood-victims-ask-assurances-future/story-16472131-detail/story.html

 

Hull East MP Karl Turner told the Mail many of his constituents were worried about the soaring cost of premiums.

 

He said: "I have one constituent, who doesn't want to be named, whose policy pre-2007 was £350 a year. Now it's £3,000. This needs addressing."

[cerberusalert]

Is anyone else living in areas subject to flooding having problems either obtaining insurance or finding affordable insurance?

[cerberusalert]

A previous arrangement – whereby most homes pay a ‘small sum’ to cover part of the insurance of high-risk homes – is due to expire next year.

 

But insurers are angry that the Coalition has cut its flood budget by £400million.

 

 

Discussions: Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, said she was in talks with the insurance industry about a new scheme to try and meet the costs of severe flooding in the future

 

Analysts told the Mail premiums are likely to rise by up to seven per cent next year, and up to ten per cent from 2014 if a deal is struck. They have already jumped 30 per cent since 2007.

 

If no solution is found, insurers could abandon around 200,000 homeowners living in risky areas leaving them unable to sell or remortgage their homes. Ian Crowder of the AA said: ‘It’s vital they reach a deal or the risk is that insurers will start withdrawing cover from those in flood-prone areas, and leave people unable to move.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172401/House-insurance-bills-rise-ALL-homeowners-cover-costs-flood-damage-areas-risk-Government-reveals.html

 

The further consequence is that mortgagees will foreclose as the homeowner will be in breach of their agreement by not having buildings insurance. This in turn will put tens of thousands of properties on the market which are unsellable & one million people homeless.

[unclebulgaria67]

Silly situation. I live near a river, but have never been subject to flooding (touch wood). I can obtain Insurance at normal cost, but from a limited list of companies. Unfortunately the environment agency decided to make the area a moderate flood risk area, as there was minor flooding 14 years ago, to a few properties about half a mile up the road. As far as I know the flood waters did not enter their houses, just a few garages. Since then the EA have made some changes to the water management system and have created natural flood planes at points in the river, so water does not breach the river bank. Problem is that the EA, do not appear to review the risk of rivers on a very regular basis. How many years has to pass, before they change the risk rating ? If the Insurance agreement is withdrawn, this could affect all people in flood warning areas, not just those who have been flooded.

[cerberusalert]

At one time this City had a network of open drains or canals which have been gradually filled in over the past fifty years. When they did that they neglected to put a pipe network in to compensate the loss of the drainage capabilities. Common sense dictates that those drains were originally built for a reason and to arbitrarily remove them was sheer lunacy.

 

The floods we experienced were a once in a lifetime experience, in fact I cannot find any record of it ever happening before during the City's existence. The problem is the existing infrastructure could not cope not particularly because of the deluge we experienced but by virtue of the fact that the sewerage and general network was not maintained adequately + two major pumps broke down and the remainder could not cope with the capacity that day.

 

I have lived in this property for 20 years and I cannot honesty remember seeing the drains or road gullies ever being cleaned out. After the flood it was done on a regular basis... usually monthly. This lasted a couple of years and now things have been left to slide back to as was.

 

The EA, Water Board & local council etc have and are still undertaking surveying work in the area. They have measured every property to check it's height above sea-level and are in the process of creating run-offs where surrounding fields are being designed to act as holding areas.

 

The main problem is the majority of the city is built on a flood plain and after WW2 because of the fact that 90% of the city was destroyed or damaged & because of slum clearances Estates were built on water-meadows which has exacerbated the situation.