On Feb 28, 4:51*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:32:46 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
I am no fan of the idea that everybody should have to contribute to a
fund so that people who live in locations with insane levels of risk
can get subsidised insurance. Market forces should operate on this.

+1

For people moving in it's their choice, they take the risk. If there aren't
any insurance companies prepared to share that risk with them perhaps that
ought to be a bit of a hint. In this day and age there is no excuse for
anyone saying they didn't know their property was in a flood risk area.
Fairly detailed maps are available on the EA's website.

Those that have been living in a flood area for a while and are now caught by
the insurance companies reassessing the risks could do with some support.
Perhaps the premiums on policies that have been held for more than 5 years(*)
are only allowed to increase in line with general buildings premium
increases. Some may well end up stuck being unable to sell. Not sure what can
be done about that. There ought to be some come back on the developers and
the councils for allowing the development.

(*) Or the owner can show that there has been continuos insurance in place
for 5 years and the premiums paid.

So what exactly do we elect local councils for and why do people
willing to risk a millstone around their necks for 20 to 30 years HAVE
to get a solicitor to do their search for them?

Wouldn't one suppose such ardently local and well respecteds "know
what is going on". Or should we take laws into our own hands as the
Afghanis and Iraqis are finding that they have to do, in order that in
seeking revenge, they provide a prophylactic against such strains of
humanity?