On Jul 10, 12:59*pm, Baz wrote:
harry wrote in news:3b2d004a-b1b2-4e87-877b-
:

On Jul 9, 10:58*pm, kay wrote:
Steerpike;963924 Wrote:

snipped

It is reprehensible to use someone's personal tragedy to forward your
arguments. there is a time and a place for everything.

--
kay

What rubbish. He's just linking cause and effect.
The point is it's quite likely to happen again and Baz needs to make
his house flood resistant.

No, I don,t have to at all.



The effect goes far beyond insurance, there is also property values
and saleability to tak einto account.

Baz may find he can't get insurance or can't afford it. *In that event
he could find himself homeless if there was another flood.

You are wrong. I may not be insurable to new insurance companies NOW, but
my present one has to by law insure me if circumstances remain the same as
long as I carry out their essential preventative measures. After that I can
do what I like and be insurable. This, of course is dependant on
circumstances and mine are such that I am not in a flood area. Full stop.



Everybody needs to try to work out what could happen if there was what
we now think of as extreme weather in their area and what precautions
they can take to mitigate the effects. I have already done this to my
house.

The extreme could well become the norm.

Baz

How insurance companies overcome a requirement to provide cover by
law, is to set premiums so high that only a banker or MP would be able
to afford them. Once insurance premiums are set in this way it
effectively means properties are unsaleable, and I guess is something
that will be happening more and more as the effects of global warming
start to bite even harder in the coming years.