General Chat

my home is insured but not the content, but, if i go out my lappy goes over mums, coz she has content lolololol

I have my house and car with LV and have had to claim on both policies in the last few years. I have to say that they have been FAB - very fast response on both and for my car I had a courtesy car same day and a cheque within a week.
I do know that a lot of people in rented accommodation don't insure their contents as they can't afford it (or think they can't - maybe if they looked into it, it might be cheaper than they think)
I would personally never be without insurance.
Maz. XX

I am fully insured........however.....I have zero faith in insurance companies.......slightest room for wriggle and they refuse to pay out.

IF anyone who has been flooded but paid their premiums in good faith ...but receive no payout......gets help I have no problem with that at all.

However I don't think it's right for anyone who just didn't bother getting cover to get help.....no one LIKES paying it.....but it's a necessary evil xx

I think that's fair enough Ann - if they'd been flooded before and couldn't get insurance against flooding - then they do need help. But this chap on the news tonight didn't mention that so I assume it was just because of the excess ...

I think some of the people in the Gloucester flood didn't have insurance because (they said) they couldn't afford it. I am not sure if they were bailed out with any money or not but I remember the same arguments going on. There was one couple in Cockermouth who had been flooded twice before and who had been actually unable to obtain any insurance and they were flooded again.

But the recent floods were in areas not "prone to flooding" so insurance should not have cost more than average surely?

I did wonder why his insurance company had slapped a £10k excess on him - maybe he'd been claiming something every year for years and they thought enough was enough, maybe he'd stopped paying his mortgage so they thought - fair game. But I do wonder why he didn't shop around for something a bit cheaper.

But even so, if someone has no insurance at all - should the government then fork out for them in times of crisis?

I've paid house insurance for years, some 35 years+ and only made a couple of claims on contents in all that time and frankly do not see why my taxes should pay for some foolish man to have his house sorted out.

Jill

we have our house inside and out and our car insurance

with the same company works out cheeper

It would be very foolish not to have house and contents insurance. The government may bail out people who live in areas prone to flooding - whose insurance premiums are prohibitive. But that doesn't apply to everyone else.

So who pays for house insurance then?

Apparently 30% of people do not have house insurance.

There was an article on the news tonight about a couple in the floods who had not paid their house insurance for a few years. They said it was because the company had wanted to put a £10,000 excess on buildings and contents so they thought it was hardly worth it and therefore stopped paying it. Someone else then said that the government should help out these people who did not have insurance.

This got me thinking as I live by the coast and houses have been built here on flood plains. I can understand that insurance companies would be a bit wary of full cover and want a bit of an excess in place if there were flooding. Fair enough. But, if you lived close to a flood plain that was then built over and your insurance company demanded more money because the risk of flooding were then that bit higher how would you feel?

Trouble is, if the government do fork out for people who don’t have insurance and have been affected by the recent floods what will that mean for those of us who do pay insurance? Will it just encourage people to stop paying, as they know the government will “bail them out”?