Well, I have some documents at hand from water authourities, the local
council, and most importantly my solicitor.

The bottom line is that I, or the condition of my property cannot be
responsible for third party negligence.

All 4 have accepted this (I am the fourth).
My insurers have already accepted this. As they always have done. AND as
per contract will cover the legal costs.

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me". Yes.
Correct answer. Of course every renewal will be loaded and that is accepted
by me, but not as some alarmists predict. 3% is an estimate.
There is also a possibility of compensation once the negligent authourities
have been claimed upon. That will remain to be seen.

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place to go
to. Imagine that!

Baz

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:57:50 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2012-07-11 12:59:47 +0100, Baz said:

Well, I have some documents at hand from water authourities, the local
council, and most importantly my solicitor.

The bottom line is that I, or the condition of my property cannot be
responsible for third party negligence.

All 4 have accepted this (I am the fourth).
My insurers have already accepted this. As they always have done. AND as
per contract will cover the legal costs.

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me". Yes.
Correct answer. Of course every renewal will be loaded and that is accepted
by me, but not as some alarmists predict. 3% is an estimate.
There is also a possibility of compensation once the negligent authourities
have been claimed upon. That will remain to be seen.

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place to go
to. Imagine that!

Baz

If this is negligence on the part of your water board, you and others
in the street could probably band together to take legal action against
them.
http://www.cdr-news.com/component/co...-group-actions

Absolutely. If someone has admitted liability then a legal action for
compensation for nuisance/distress/out of pocket expenses etc would be
straightforward. The guilty party would almost certainly settle out of
court. I'm not in favour of ambulance-chasing lawyers, but in this
case you would be fully entitled to some compensation.
Good luck Baz

"Baz" wrote in message
...

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place to go
to. Imagine that!

The council will house them, Baz, one way or another, albeit a caravan, B&B
or other temp acommodation.

--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Jul 11, 12:59*pm, Baz wrote:
Well, I have some documents at hand from water authourities, the local
council, and most importantly my solicitor.

The bottom line is that I, or the condition of my property cannot be
responsible for third party negligence.

All 4 have accepted this (I am the fourth).
My insurers have already accepted this. As they always have done. AND as
per contract will cover the legal costs.

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me". Yes..
Correct answer. Of course every renewal will be loaded and that is accepted
by me, but not as some alarmists predict. 3% is an estimate.
There is also a possibility of compensation once the negligent authourities
have been claimed upon. That will remain to be seen.

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place to go
to. Imagine that!

Baz

To safeguard your own interests I would suggest asking for all
involved to provide the advice you have been given in writing, and
only then hold this to be of any real value.

In article ,
says...

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me". Yes.
Correct answer.

At the moment, they have no choice; all insurance co's are obliged, by
the UK govt, to continue insuring properties that have made flood claims.

Up until 2013. The agreement ends then.

Janet

Sacha wrote in :

On 2012-07-11 12:59:47 +0100, Baz said:

Well, I have some documents at hand from water authourities, the
local council, and most importantly my solicitor.

The bottom line is that I, or the condition of my property cannot be
responsible for third party negligence.

All 4 have accepted this (I am the fourth).
My insurers have already accepted this. As they always have done. AND
as per contract will cover the legal costs.

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me".
Yes. Correct answer. Of course every renewal will be loaded and that
is accepted by me, but not as some alarmists predict. 3% is an
estimate. There is also a possibility of compensation once the
negligent authourities have been claimed upon. That will remain to be
seen.

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets
see how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another
place to go to. Imagine that!

Baz

If this is negligence on the part of your water board, you and others
in the street could probably band together to take legal action
against them.
http://www.cdr-news.com/component/co...land-a-wales-c
lass-a-group-actions

Sacha, I dont know which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
I cant even think straight after the 4 meeting.
What I did understand is that the drainage is still inadequate, despite the
£? spent. And it is drainage (or lack of it) which is the problem.

Baz

Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me".
Yes. Correct answer.

At the moment, they have no choice; all insurance co's are obliged,
by
the UK govt, to continue insuring properties that have made flood
claims.

Up until 2013. The agreement ends then.

Janet




Wrong again!
Baz

On 11/07/2012 18:02, Baz wrote:
Janet wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

I asked the million dollar question "will you continue to insure me".
Yes. Correct answer.

At the moment, they have no choice; all insurance co's are obliged,
by
the UK govt, to continue insuring properties that have made flood
claims.

Up until 2013. The agreement ends then.

Janet

Wrong again!
Baz

No she is basically right. You are about to be stitched up in 2013 by
Defra and the insurance companies working together. On paper insurance
will still be available to all but not necessarily at a price that you
can afford if you live somewhere prone to flooding. The premiums will be
loaded to allow for the increased risks of flooding. See page 4 of the
report:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications...-insurance.pdf

The LSE assessment of the state of the "Gentlemens' Agreement" on flood
insurance in the UK is even more scathing in its assessment. The
government has actually been cutting its spending on flood defences.

Those of us not in serious flood zones will benefit from the removal of
the insurance cross subsidy to seriously at risk homes. People living in
flood prone areas will have to pay a lot more to stay insured.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote in
:


The LSE assessment of the state of the "Gentlemens' Agreement" on
flood insurance in the UK is even more scathing in its assessment. The
government has actually been cutting its spending on flood defences.

Those of us not in serious flood zones will benefit from the removal
of the insurance cross subsidy to seriously at risk homes. People
living in flood prone areas will have to pay a lot more to stay
insured.


Well, not so in my case. I will never get "stitched up" . Erm, unless I
have had surgery, then I will insist upon it.
How many times does one person have to say I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE.
It is the blah blah....who are responsible....blah blah blah.
Bloody hell, the London School of Economics........"Gentlemens' Agreement",
nothing will surprise me.
I am happy with what has gone on today, and if my solicitor is wrong then
we will just have to go along with it and then chase him up too. We will
not lose any sleep until the writing is on the wall. So many scares in the
past when we DID lose sleep about the mortgage, our jobs, schooling, our
medical care etc. etc. etc.
Oh! and by the way thanks for the advice. I mean it and I will first thing
tomorrow clarify this, if I can.

Baz

On Jul 11, 7:34*pm, Baz wrote:
Martin Brown wrote :



The LSE assessment of the state of the "Gentlemens' Agreement" on
flood insurance in the UK is even more scathing in its assessment. The
government has actually been cutting its spending on flood defences.

Those of us not in serious flood zones will benefit from the removal
of the insurance cross subsidy to seriously at risk homes. People
living in flood prone areas will have to pay a lot more to stay
insured.

Well, not so in my case. I will never get "stitched up" . Erm, unless I
have had surgery, then I will insist upon it.
How many times does one person have to say I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE.
It is the blah blah....who are responsible....blah * blah *blah.
Bloody hell, the London School of Economics........"Gentlemens' Agreement",
nothing will surprise me.
I am happy with what has gone on today, and if my solicitor is wrong then
we will just have to go along with it and then chase him up too. We will
not lose any sleep until the writing is on the wall. So many scares in the
past when we DID lose sleep about the mortgage, our jobs, schooling, our
medical care etc. etc. etc.
Oh! and by the way thanks for the advice. I mean it and I will first thing
tomorrow clarify this, if I can.

Baz

If you have all you have been told denoted in writing with indications
of the statutes covering this, then you can probably feel relatively
assured. If you have nothing in writing, then what you have been told
is pretty much worthless, and it was a waste of time seeking legal
advice in the first place.

Steerpike wrote in
:


If you have all you have been told denoted in writing with indications
of the statutes covering this, then you can probably feel relatively
assured. If you have nothing in writing, then what you have been told
is pretty much worthless, and it was a waste of time seeking legal
advice in the first place.


If, by any chance, I wanted to hear from an a*sehole, I would have farted.
Now, be a good boy and get the **** to bed, you have school (skool) in the
morning. Nighty Night and dont clean your man bits too fast and mess up
your nice clean jimjams. Mammy wont like that, she will have to send you
off to get scraped again.

Night night
Baz

On Jul 11, 10:43*pm, Baz wrote:
Steerpike wrote :



If you have all you have been told denoted in writing with indications
of the statutes covering this, then you can probably feel relatively
assured. If you have nothing in writing, then what you have been told
is pretty much worthless, and it was a waste of time seeking legal
advice in the first place.

If, by any chance, I wanted to hear from an a*sehole, I would have farted..
Now, be a good boy and get the **** to bed, you have school (skool) in the
morning. Nighty Night and dont clean your man bits too fast and mess up
your nice clean jimjams. Mammy wont like that, she will have to send you
off to get scraped again.

Night night
Baz

Baz I just hope you dont get into a situation where your property is
pretty much worthless, and you then understand first hand the reasons
why you have been given nothing in writing!

The person being an arsehole here is is you.............. No one
should never ever take any sort of advice from anyone on such an
important matter, without it being in writing and denoting the
statutes which might apply!

And in your case any advice from a solicitor is going to be a complete
waste of time anyway, as the law surrounding recurrent flood damage,
insurance, liability etc etc is very complex, and its highly unlikely
he/she will have much knowledge of this area of law in any case.

You need to seek legal advice from council specialising in this area,
which will be accurate and provided to you in writing. However this
wont alter the fact that future changes in the law in favour of the
interests of insurers, are very likely, which will make current
accurate legal advice of as little value as the chat you had with your
solicitor.

On 11/07/2012 19:34, Baz wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in
:


The LSE assessment of the state of the "Gentlemens' Agreement" on
flood insurance in the UK is even more scathing in its assessment. The
government has actually been cutting its spending on flood defences.

Those of us not in serious flood zones will benefit from the removal
of the insurance cross subsidy to seriously at risk homes. People
living in flood prone areas will have to pay a lot more to stay
insured.


Well, not so in my case. I will never get "stitched up" . Erm, unless I
have had surgery, then I will insist upon it.
How many times does one person have to say I DO NOT LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE.

Perhaps not according to the official maps today, but they will be
updated to reflect newer observations like flooded twice this year.

It is the blah blah....who are responsible....blah blah blah.

Good luck proving that. It is notoriously difficult to prove negligence.
I expect the water board will point to the unusually wet summer, all the
cancelled national events and claim "Act of God".

They may also point to most of your neighbours contributory negligence
paving the entire of their front garden to park cars on leading to much
more rapid ingress of water into their drains and causing the flash
flooding. I am assuming here as a gardener that you have not paved your
front garden over in its entirety.

If you want to see how David v Goliath typically goes in the courts look
no further than the recent surface to air missiles in London.

Bloody hell, the London School of Economics........"Gentlemens' Agreement",
nothing will surprise me.
I am happy with what has gone on today, and if my solicitor is wrong then
we will just have to go along with it and then chase him up too. We will

Good luck finding a solicitor to sue another one. Been there done that.

not lose any sleep until the writing is on the wall. So many scares in the
past when we DID lose sleep about the mortgage, our jobs, schooling, our
medical care etc. etc. etc.
Oh! and by the way thanks for the advice. I mean it and I will first thing
tomorrow clarify this, if I can.

One thing that the odious Steerpike has got right is you must get
everything in writing and keep contemporaneous notes of who said what
and when with date and time of every phone call and who you spoke to.

That way you will at least stand some chance of success in future.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:21:13 +0100, "Ophelia"
wrote:



"Baz" wrote in message
. ..

The rest of the houses on this street are in the same situation, lets
see
how things go. Some of them dont have anything else or another place to
go
to. Imagine that!

The council will house them, Baz, one way or another, albeit a caravan,
B&B
or other temp acommodation.

Camp beds in a church hall?

People who are flooded out are likely be out of their homes for many
months I don't reckon that would cut it, do you?
--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Martin Brown wrote in
:


That way you will at least stand some chance of success in future.


I didn't get where I am today by being somewhere else!
I am not the fool you think I am (translation)

I did not ask for advice on this subject, but accept gladly even so. It
proves to me that people either want to help, or try to insist, without any
qualifications that I can see, that they know best. This is not aimed at
you, Martin Brown.(there is another Martin)

I have been reporting to this group the conditions of my personal and local
circumstances and sometimes I have been very frustrated with all that is
going on around me.
I think it is on topic, borderline I know.
There are people in this group that actually care about this and the
possibilily that it might affect them when the weather turns.

My rant is over and drawn a line under it.

Best wishes .
Baz