Oh Fell. It Seems To Have Triggered...
Body & Soul1 min ago
Are You Happy To Pay For Others To Have A Nice View?
11 Answers
so, someone choose to live in a beautiful location looking over flat meadows and a lovely river running nearby. You live in a city centre with noise, crowding and all the other things that go with a City.
Would you be prepared to pay for that person to live in the nice tranquil place?
Because it looks like you will be:
//The Flood Re scheme is to be funded by a levy on insurers equivalent to around £10.50 per household, with the current average UK home insurance bill at £136.
Premiums will be capped at £210 a year for houses in council tax bands A and B, rising to £540 for bigger homes in band G.//
My home insurance is far more than £540 and thats the cheapest I have been able to secure so looks like flood prone house on flood plains will actually be cheaper to insure. The world has gone mad.
http://
Would you be prepared to pay for that person to live in the nice tranquil place?
Because it looks like you will be:
//The Flood Re scheme is to be funded by a levy on insurers equivalent to around £10.50 per household, with the current average UK home insurance bill at £136.
Premiums will be capped at £210 a year for houses in council tax bands A and B, rising to £540 for bigger homes in band G.//
My home insurance is far more than £540 and thats the cheapest I have been able to secure so looks like flood prone house on flood plains will actually be cheaper to insure. The world has gone mad.
http://
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Houses with a river view tend to cost considerably more. Perhaps people who cannot get insurance should prepare their homes for once a decade floods. The magician Paul Daniels' Thameside home was flooded in 2003 so he had the ground floor tiled. If owners took similar precautions then we wouldn't all have to subsidise them.
The founding principle of insurance is that financial reparation is available for the unfortunate few and this is funded by the contributions (premiums) of the fortunate many.
It is thus inevitable that far more people who have not made a claim will see a premium increase to support the few who have been forced to claim because of disasters such as those of recent weeks. With household insurance in particular different types of premises are subject to different risks. You might as well say why should those living in areas where they have a nice view have to pay for claims made by inner city folk who are more prone to be burgled.
Don't quite know what any of this has to do with Mr Cameron.
It is thus inevitable that far more people who have not made a claim will see a premium increase to support the few who have been forced to claim because of disasters such as those of recent weeks. With household insurance in particular different types of premises are subject to different risks. You might as well say why should those living in areas where they have a nice view have to pay for claims made by inner city folk who are more prone to be burgled.
Don't quite know what any of this has to do with Mr Cameron.
-- answer removed --
NJ
Insurance is all about assessing risk and putting a price on it. In this instance, insurers are declining to offer insurance because the risk is too great. Or they are charging very expensive premiums. That means premiums for low risk insurance can remain low. What Cameron is doing is interfering with that process. He is forcing insurance companies to offer low insurance on very high risk properties. The insurance companies take a hit on something they didn't want to sell in the first place, and have to pay for it by charging low risk customers more.
Insurance is all about assessing risk and putting a price on it. In this instance, insurers are declining to offer insurance because the risk is too great. Or they are charging very expensive premiums. That means premiums for low risk insurance can remain low. What Cameron is doing is interfering with that process. He is forcing insurance companies to offer low insurance on very high risk properties. The insurance companies take a hit on something they didn't want to sell in the first place, and have to pay for it by charging low risk customers more.
The problem of using the post code is that it is a very blunt instrument.
Post codes cover very wide areas with little similarity between them. I remember some years ago my house insurance went up considerably to cover the risk of flooding . I pointed out that I lived on a hill and if I was flooded the whole of southern England would be under 150 ft of water. After an argument the flood premium was dropped.
If you Choose to live in an unsafe location , whatever the risk is, it should be Your Responsibility. I know most of the areas in the Thames Valley that are currently suffering and those same areas had the same problems 70 years ago but they still build houses in the same way with little real acceptance of the flood risk. So my sympathy is rather muted.
Post codes cover very wide areas with little similarity between them. I remember some years ago my house insurance went up considerably to cover the risk of flooding . I pointed out that I lived on a hill and if I was flooded the whole of southern England would be under 150 ft of water. After an argument the flood premium was dropped.
If you Choose to live in an unsafe location , whatever the risk is, it should be Your Responsibility. I know most of the areas in the Thames Valley that are currently suffering and those same areas had the same problems 70 years ago but they still build houses in the same way with little real acceptance of the flood risk. So my sympathy is rather muted.
So perhaps that is another question to ask when you are proposing to move to a new area? Are you prone to flooding or sink holes. How many people would be aware that there may be a risk. It seems to me that builders are building on any plot of land they can without caring about consequences. The people who are affected now will have a great deal of difficulty selling their houses, and the cost of drying out and replacing their stuff will be enormous.
ask your gran //'
The people who are affected now will have a great deal of difficulty selling their houses, and the cost of drying out and replacing their stuff will be enormous.//
That may be so , and always has been, but for many that 'risk ' is acceptable if the insurance societies pick up the tab, which in future that also means the great majority of us.
I don't see why we the majority should subsidise the minority risk takers, and the insurance societies . We already do too much of that with our car premiums and as long as we continue to do so, there will never be an improvement in irresponsible behaviour.
The people who are affected now will have a great deal of difficulty selling their houses, and the cost of drying out and replacing their stuff will be enormous.//
That may be so , and always has been, but for many that 'risk ' is acceptable if the insurance societies pick up the tab, which in future that also means the great majority of us.
I don't see why we the majority should subsidise the minority risk takers, and the insurance societies . We already do too much of that with our car premiums and as long as we continue to do so, there will never be an improvement in irresponsible behaviour.
1 to 11 of 11
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.