Insurers have recently announced that upon renewal of their
contract with the government next year that they may consider not insuring
houses that are at a high flood risk.
For some time now insurers have had an agreement with the
government guaranteeing homeowners in such vulnerable areas protection against
flooding, but a recent influx in flood related claims has seen insurers paying
out more than they feel comfortable with.
Such change in legislation could result in a plethora of
complications from people not being able to obtain mortgages because they
cannot get home insurance, to people moving out of their residences for fear
that if their houses do become flooded, they will be costly to repair and they
will also face the prospect of having to pay for temporary accommodation whilst
repairs on their home take place. All of this of course at the same time
devalues massively houses with a flood risk putting the seller out of pocket
once again.
So there we see it, the safety net potentially being taken from
underneath thousands of vulnerable people in the UK who simply wish to live
with some assurance that the welfare state will provide some provisions for
them if their homes become destroyed in tragic circumstances.
All this of course on the eve of a second recession when the
purse strings of the nation become even tighter and David Cameron pushes ever
more for the idea of Big Society,
where ordinary, hard working citizens are to volunteer in community schemes,
police officers asked to retire early, yet continue to work for no wage as
special constables.
My question is, why then is David Cameron not making
important assertions with corporate giants such as insurers and saying” look,
the rest of the UK is facing crippling financial hardship, people are playing
their part to aid the Big Society,
now you need to play yours”.
At the moment, the case stands that ordinary people who may
not be well off at all are breaking their backs to try and help the UK get back
on its feet, whereas as big businesses are thinking, if they are not making X
amount of billions, then they are not happy and things need to change, usually
businesses cutting costs.
Yes, insurers do calculate risks into the prices of their
premiums, and that is the foundations of their business, but it just seems that
we live in an economy that if there seems a slightly more than normal chance of
someone making a claim, then insurers will not insure such a person. And I say,
why should insurers be winners all the time, after all they are selling a service
designed to help people in times of most need.
In my opinion, during negotiations next year, David Cameron
needs to be vigilant and assertive in making sure that insurers continue their
agreement to insure houses with a flood risk or else he will be failing the
many people that could be affected by not being able to buy home insurance.
