- Joined
- 1 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
Thanx for the replies everyone. Very appreciated.
Would take me too long to answer all replies so I'll try and list a few points in one post.
I've done some checks on the various flood risk sites.
What I can see so far is some conflicting data. I think this is because the building in very close to a risk area, very low risk is the key point to make!
The historic flood data shows the building or area it's built on has never been flooded!!
There is actually more risk of surface water flooding to properties that sit just on the road above it on higher ground.
On another website I can see half the building sits inside a light blue area, that key is listed as Very Low Risk.
No risk from surface water flooding.
No risk from reservoirs.
There is also conflicting data from government websites, some links do not show how up to date the data is.
So on planning data the area in question looks more at risk, very slightly, but it also shows the lower ground to the building benefits from flood defences, and stupidly higher ground more at risk.
Now I've looked at the lower ground and there is nothing stopping water if it travels up hill !! getting down to the lower lying ground which is indicated has flood defences. So in that case it seems clear the information is either not being displayed correctly or it's just plain wrong.
If then the insurance industry is using these tools and choosing the worst looking scenario then it's easy to understand why they are refusing insurance, its an easy opt out.
To quote one site;
"Low risk means that each year this area has a chance of flooding of between 0.1% and 1%."
Based on what I've researched one government site is incorrectly and wrongly including a much larger area and calling it "Extent of Flooding"
If it had a provision next to that reminding that almost none of that area has never flooded then fine, but it's giving a false impression and in turn making it easier for insurance companies to refuse cover IMO.
So is LV insurance refusing contents cover for a 1st floor flat based on a real flood risk to this actual first floor flat, hell no. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out the road above on higher ground which is not at any risk of flood would need to be under water by several feet, and in turn you would need around 15ft of water before the flat would be at risk of any ingress of water!
It's fake, like fake news their decision is based on lies to give them a clientele as close to zero risk as possible.
An important question is that one of you referred to, data sharing. If the insurance companies are sharing data, are they also sharing when one of them refuses cover!
I know they do this for car insurance so we can assume the answer for buildings and contents is the same.
This will create a black list, and I've seen many times in the news of the years this has already happened near flood risk areas.
Basing refusal to insure just on post code is utter stupidity, one property to the next can have a big difference in ground height, and of course not to mention 1st floor flats!
Going on what I've seen so far, LV should remove the statement on their website about being involved with "Flood RE" or they should be instructed to remove it.
Risk. What risk. When an insurance company can refuse cover when a property or the area directly around has never flooded, then should they be classed as an insurance company anymore!
Next news story will be insurance companies refusing to cover any flats with cladding to reduce risk but I bet the remaining policies keep going up regardless!
Would take me too long to answer all replies so I'll try and list a few points in one post.
I've done some checks on the various flood risk sites.
What I can see so far is some conflicting data. I think this is because the building in very close to a risk area, very low risk is the key point to make!
The historic flood data shows the building or area it's built on has never been flooded!!
There is actually more risk of surface water flooding to properties that sit just on the road above it on higher ground.
On another website I can see half the building sits inside a light blue area, that key is listed as Very Low Risk.
No risk from surface water flooding.
No risk from reservoirs.
There is also conflicting data from government websites, some links do not show how up to date the data is.
So on planning data the area in question looks more at risk, very slightly, but it also shows the lower ground to the building benefits from flood defences, and stupidly higher ground more at risk.
Now I've looked at the lower ground and there is nothing stopping water if it travels up hill !! getting down to the lower lying ground which is indicated has flood defences. So in that case it seems clear the information is either not being displayed correctly or it's just plain wrong.
If then the insurance industry is using these tools and choosing the worst looking scenario then it's easy to understand why they are refusing insurance, its an easy opt out.
To quote one site;
"Low risk means that each year this area has a chance of flooding of between 0.1% and 1%."
Based on what I've researched one government site is incorrectly and wrongly including a much larger area and calling it "Extent of Flooding"
If it had a provision next to that reminding that almost none of that area has never flooded then fine, but it's giving a false impression and in turn making it easier for insurance companies to refuse cover IMO.
So is LV insurance refusing contents cover for a 1st floor flat based on a real flood risk to this actual first floor flat, hell no. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out the road above on higher ground which is not at any risk of flood would need to be under water by several feet, and in turn you would need around 15ft of water before the flat would be at risk of any ingress of water!
It's fake, like fake news their decision is based on lies to give them a clientele as close to zero risk as possible.
An important question is that one of you referred to, data sharing. If the insurance companies are sharing data, are they also sharing when one of them refuses cover!
I know they do this for car insurance so we can assume the answer for buildings and contents is the same.
This will create a black list, and I've seen many times in the news of the years this has already happened near flood risk areas.
Basing refusal to insure just on post code is utter stupidity, one property to the next can have a big difference in ground height, and of course not to mention 1st floor flats!
Going on what I've seen so far, LV should remove the statement on their website about being involved with "Flood RE" or they should be instructed to remove it.
Risk. What risk. When an insurance company can refuse cover when a property or the area directly around has never flooded, then should they be classed as an insurance company anymore!
Next news story will be insurance companies refusing to cover any flats with cladding to reduce risk but I bet the remaining policies keep going up regardless!
