LV Insurance company refusing contents cover for 1st floor flat Re flood risk area!

[jaba]

My mum has just moved into a first floor flat. Insurance company were given new address details months ago but are now refusing contents insurance cover because they say the flat is on the edge of a flood risk area.

Flat is first floor so at little to no risk.
Are most insurance companies doing this?

LV as of now claim on their website to be part of the "Flood Re" scheme which means they would not have to pay out anyway!
But the eligibility rules are not 100% clear, does it only offer cover if insurance already exists on the property? So does this mean new buyers are then excluded from the scheme and any possibility of even contents insurance?

The wording isn't very clear, but she is or was an existing customer so that should let be included in the scheme, but the property has changed, but "Liverpool Victoria" insurance website doesn't make the clear by their wording!

Any info would be appreciated?

 

[KenGMac]

jaba, good evening.

Looks as if there are two problems here.

1/. As for the refusal of cover even in a first floor flat indicates that the Post Code indicates when an application is made that this property may, stress may be at a "RISK" of flooding.
To explain, for years now all major Insurers have been sending details of every new claim registered, to an independent third party [Experian] this data has been collated, as above for years, the data is then collated, crunched and heavily analysed, the result is then made available to the Insurers, not Joe Public.

The accumulated data dump is utilised by all major Insurers to flag every property in the UK [Yes All!] into a risk category of Yes I will insure you, the property is at a slight risk [premium hike] or the property is in a well known flood risk area.

Where the system fails is as you point out a first floor flat.

If I digress, I own a property that is situated on a Promenade with the sea in front of me, several Insurers will look at my Post Code and refuse point blank to Insure my property at all, I do live in the ground floor, the area has never flooded, but? because of the potential No cover from a load of insurers.

Just to expand on the above data dump other data is extracted, such as, likelihood of Break ins, Subsidence, Car theft or damage, Malicious vandalism including fire raising Etc, Etc, Etc. There are some well documented cases of two different sides of one street, each in a different Post Code area having differing loading's on Premiums because of the Post Code.

As for so called Flood RE? this has only just come into force, I believe that a lot of Insurers are still trying to get their heads around it and ensure the staff handling claims are completely trained in its implications.

I can only suggest that you contact the insurer and carefully explain that the first floor flat is some [what 3 / 5 M above footpath level] distance above any rational flood level.

Ken.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

What is the prime objective of having an Insurance? It is so that someone else (insurance providers) can take on a risk on your behalf, on the bases of a chance

So any Insurance company declining to offer an insurance on the bases of a flood risk areas should therefore not even be in a business to call themselves Insurance Providers, that means they are in a business of ripping uneducated people, because they will cover only those areas that are not at risk of claim.

which then means, if there is no risk, why then throw your money away? You will have to be a nutter to do so.

so therefore what is the purpose of such companies who are not prepared to accept a risk? they should not be in a business offering policies where risk is negligible. Either they treat all areas as equal or simply don't offer policies based on discrimination.

as far as my thinking goes, Insurance companies take on the risk on the bases that perhaps worst comes to worst, they will manage to pay out certain percentage of claims, those whose houses have been flooded, but there will be a lot more whose houses have not been flooded and hence made no claim. As an example, of course I do not have the actual statistics, but let us say an insurance company has 3 Million customers and are raking in on average £300.00 per customer, so their annual in income is £900 Million, and if assuming in any one year floods cause damage to 200,000 properties each claiming approx £5,000, then overall cost of componsation could mount to 1 Billion, but this is only for a year which resulted in a chance flood, insurance company may have had better years when no claims were made, so all their savings from past years would be able to cover the risk in one bad year, and still enable them to survive, pay their overheads and staff. Or they could spread the risk with other larger underwriters.

But I think Insurance companies who are picky and choosy should be outlawed, and all premiums should be based on a level ground, same for all postcodes regardless of thefts, crime, and other risks, otherwise pointless offering covers for some areas with absolute no risk and declining those areas prone to risks, so they should be prohibited from having their cake and allowed to eat it.

That is why I don't insure anything, e.g. Have you not heard that if your house wiring is in bad state, and it caught fire, they can decline to pay you out, but if your house was in good shape regarding wiring, then where is the risk in the first place, you would have to be stupid to throw your money away.

Other companies will ask you to fit security locks on all windows and doors, like dead locks etc, if you did that , then the risk no longer there as thieves will not be able to gain access to your fort knox, in which case would you want to throw your money on an insurance which will never be claimed against.

Car insurances are the same, except yes you need to cover your own risk against any accidents, but many companies ask if your car has approved alarm systems, only then they would cover you, why? if you have highest Thatcham approved alarm, then chances of theft are negligible, so do you need theft insurance if you have a good alarm? and if you said you did have a good alarm, they could still refuse to pay you unless you can prove beyond a doubt that you had set it before you left your car! Insurance companies are a rip off merchants. They are like any business trying to make mega million profit at lowest possible risk.

 

[foxhole]

Change insurer, probably save some money as well.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Here is a latest example of how one insurance company want your money but will try and talk you out of a claim when the crunch comes, and will find sleaziest of excuses to avoid paying you any claim, thus proving my point they are there to rip you off instead of covering a risk. http://www.aol.co.uk/cars/2017/06/1...urance-loophole-that-could-cost/?ncid=webmail

So tomorrow they could even decline to pay you a claim if say you did not have a seat belt on, which is altogether another offence, and cannot possibly cause an accident in the first place, unless you were caught having an accident whilst putting a belt on whilst driving. They could however decline or reduce the amount payable to you after suffering more injuries caused as a result of you not having the belt on. Less injuries would have been sustained if the belt was on.

I think what they lack is the meaning of a word RISK. a risk is chance thing, like a bet, this is how bookies are in business, they take your bets on to win and make money and stay in business, whilst insurance companies decline to pay you, when all goes pot belly, so they are clearly robbers! thriving by robbing you of your cash, and the law is on their side encouraging them to rip you off, by making motor insurance mandatory. Do you know that i have not made a single claim on my cars in the last 25 years!

 

[DaveHerns]

Insurers have to make a profit to survive and they do try to avoid paying claims if they can. Not insuring your house is a bit of a gamble, the unexpected could happen and is it worth saving £300 odd premium and losing £300K odd when your house burns down?
Use one of the better known insurers, comply with the policy terms and complain to the Ombudsman if your claim is rejected
In the OP's case, use a specialist broker rather than a comparison website.

 

[crank39]

Here is a latest example of how one insurance company want your money but will try and talk you out of a claim when the crunch comes, and will find sleaziest of excuses to avoid paying you any claim, thus proving my point they are there to rip you off instead of covering a risk. http://www.aol.co.uk/cars/2017/06/1...urance-loophole-that-could-cost/?ncid=webmail

So tomorrow they could even decline to pay you a claim if say you did not have a seat belt on, which is altogether another offence, and cannot possibly cause an accident in the first place, unless you were caught having an accident whilst putting a belt on whilst driving. They could however decline or reduce the amount payable to you after suffering more injuries caused as a result of you not having the belt on. Less injuries would have been sustained if the belt was on.

I think what they lack is the meaning of a word RISK. a risk is chance thing, like a bet, this is how bookies are in business, they take your bets on to win and make money and stay in business, whilst insurance companies decline to pay you, when all goes pot belly, so they are clearly robbers! thriving by robbing you of your cash, and the law is on their side encouraging them to rip you off, by making motor insurance mandatory. Do you know that i have not made a single claim on my cars in the last 25 years!

It was in the national news recently that having your dog in the car COULD cost you up to a £2500 fine

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/dog-seatbelt-car-insurance-rules-5651379

Rule 57 highway code states when in a vehicle, make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly.

Whilst breaking rule 57 doesn't carry a direct penalty itself drivers could still be pulled over for driving without due care and attention. This can result in a maximum fine of £2,500 and nine penalty points.

Should the breach of the Highway be extreme, then a compulsory ban and re-test could be enforced. In an event where an unrestrained pet has caused an accident, then an insurer is likely to refuse to pay out.

 

[foxhole]

I always try to restrain my bitch in the car.

 

[DaveHerns]

In an event where an unrestrained pet has caused an accident, then an insurer is likely to refuse to pay out.

Cover for 3rd party liabilities is compulsory so insurers can't refuse to pay out, they may pay out and try to recover the cost from you (some hope) but they'll still pay claimants in the first instance.

 

[Doggit]

Flat is first floor so at little to no risk.

As the flat is on the edge of a flood plain, I assume that there hasn't actually been any flooding yet, so you've no data to ascertain if the 1st floor is at risk or not. Ask them to justify their assumption. Then ask them to resend it to tht underwriters, and ask for a written refusal stating the reasons.

 

[crank39]

I assume that there hasn't actually been any flooding yet, so you've no data to ascertain if the 1st floor is at risk or not. Ask them to justify their assumption. Then ask them to resend it to tht underwriters, and ask for a written refusal stating the reasons.

Likewise, they can't ascertain the opposite, how do they know it will flood when it never has?

 

[Mikefromlondon]

I have 12 cats, half of them rescued from streets, abandoned by humans, none insured against serious illness, or large vet bill, if I insured every cat, it would cost me around £15 a month per cat, so that over a year would cost me £2160.00 with access charge of £200 for each cat needing treatment.

So I looked at the possibility of any one out of 12 cats needing serious treatment, costing say in access of £2000, so far touch wood, only one cat needed costly treatment when he had blocked bladder and couldn't pass water, and it cost me only £425.00, sounds big, but I saved nearly £1600,during last year alone, this year so far so good, no major vet bills, apart from worming and flea treatment, even here I save a lot of money by buying flea treatment pack for a large dog of 40kg, (I don't actually have a dog) so dog pack will treat 10 cats, and cost just a little over cost of one pack of 3 ampules for treating one cat!

The 40kg dog flea pack has 10 times as much contents to treat 10 x 4kg cats three times a year. All you need is a graded syringe to accurately measure the dose. So one dog pack treats 10 of my cats three times a year! and costs less than two cat size packs!

So far in the last 7 years by not insuring my cats, I have practically saved £14,000.00. that would be like hidden saving that would go towards any more cats needing costly treatment. (I am therefore my own unlicensed underwriter ! )

As for houses hit by frequent flooding, time to build houses on stilts, and do away with flood insurance, with that you get your own parking underneath, as well as you can moor a small canoe for worst case scenario to go for shopping! Car insurance providers don't ask if your car is parked in a flood zone. Unless they know that from your address and raise your quote accordingly.

 

[DaveHerns]

Insurers work in weird ways. When I changed my Peugeot 508 for a Volvo V70 the existing underwriters for Saga refused to quote.

 

[chappers]

.

as far as my thinking goes, Insurance companies take on the risk on the bases that perhaps worst comes to worst, they will manage to pay out certain percentage of claims, those whose houses have been flooded, but there will be a lot more whose houses have not been flooded and hence made no claim. As an example, of course I do not have the actual statistics, but let us say an insurance company has 3 Million customers and are raking in on average £300.00 per customer, so their annual in income is £900 Million, and if assuming in any one year floods cause damage to 200,000 properties each claiming approx £5,000, then overall cost of componsation could mount to 1 Billion, but this is only for a year which resulted in a chance flood, insurance company may have had better years when no claims were made, so all their savings from past years would be able to cover the risk in one bad year, and still enable them to survive, pay their overheads and staff. Or they could spread the risk with other larger underwriters.

.

Therin lies the modern insurance con. In the old days that was how insurance was risk assessed, nowadays each individual policy is assessed on it's own risks.
They are a joke, just move onto the next company.
Apparently my postcode is in a flood risk area, but in the 30 years I have been living here even the houses nearest to the river haven't flooded, not to mention my house is about 30 feet above the river. Half the town would be30 feet under water before it reached my doorstep.

 

[Mikefromlondon]

A friend who wanted to add his daughter to his car policy, which had just over one month left to run out, he rang them to add her name, they were happy to do that and not even charge him any extra, he was so pleased with that, he couldn't thank them enough! then came the bad news, they said however they would not be able to renew his insurance when it runs out in a month's time.