My feed

to access all these features


Should taxpayers pay to replace household goods/structural repairs for those who didn't take out household insurance and were affected by the recent floods?

83 replies

Bubble99 · 13/07/2007 21:51

Mr Brown has only pledged £14 million so this could be a non-starter, anyway.

With so many schools, health centres etc damaged there is probably not even enough to cover repairs for those.


What about the others?

Elderly and infirm should be covered, without question, IMO. Replacing carpets,fridges and freezers for a section of society who are not necessarily able to deal with insurance renewals (if they ever had them) should be automatic, IMO.

But. How about families who have lost their massive plasma screens and whatnot (I can't afford those, and our insurance payments are not easy to find.)

Is it fair to say that their plight (by that I mean the not being insured bit) is caused by their own financial mismanagement/not prioritisng?

OP posts:
fannyannie · 13/07/2007 21:53

"Is it fair to say that their plight (by that I mean the not being insured bit) is caused by their own financial mismanagement/not prioritisng?"

Not everyone gets into financial difficulties because of "mismanagement", lots of reasons people can suddenly find themselves struggling and as for prioritising - if you have to choose between food for your kids or insurance........

Bubble99 · 13/07/2007 21:56

But if you have a 40 inch plasma screen TV are you really struggling to pay food bills?

And, if you are, don't you think you shouldn't have bought said 40 inch plasma TV?

OP posts:
PeachesMcLean · 13/07/2007 21:57

I wouldn't normally say this but this has been discussed here before. And of course no one cares about plasma screens. But they do care about old ladies with contaminated fridges and GB's £1m on contents isn't going to go far.

Tortington · 13/07/2007 21:58

there should be a minimum standard.
floor covering, cooker, fridge beds.

owt else - get a job.

Bubble99 · 13/07/2007 22:01

I agree, Peaches.

Old people are a priority, but people who thought

'Insurance payment? Or TV (or whatever else?) are not, IMO.

fannyannie, if you were struggling to buy food, wouldn't you Ebay the TV? Rather than not pay for insurance?

OP posts:
fannyannie · 13/07/2007 22:01

"But if you have a 40 inch plasma screen TV are you really struggling to pay food bills?

And, if you are, don't you think you shouldn't have bought said 40 inch plasma TV?"

Perhaps the said 40 ince plasma screen TV was bought before unexpected financial difficulties?? Having said that we bought a BRAND NEW car when we were still struggling with buying food........the reason being that the repayments were lower than on the 2nd hand car we had at the time and we HAD to have a car for DH's job.

Bubble99 · 13/07/2007 22:02

See last post, fannyannie.


OP posts:
PeachesMcLean · 13/07/2007 22:02

£1m essential household items for vulnerable victims

hotchocscot · 13/07/2007 22:31

dh and i argued about this last night, he thinks people should get help whatever their situation, I'm feeling more hardcore and yes, agree those in real need should receive help, including help to claim properly, but those who just didn't bother to cough up for their insurance, well, tough luck, you took your chance and you got it wrong...

MrsMuddle · 13/07/2007 22:35

If these people lived in an area that is prone to flooding, the chances are that they couldn't get insurance (at least not at a reasonable price) anyway. I think their houses should be brought up to habitable standard, and they should be supplied with the essentials - beds, fridges, washing machine. Insurance is expensive, and if it's a choice between paying for insurance or feeding children, I'd hope people would choose the latter. As for plasma screens - do you have any evidence that all these flooded familes had 40 inch screens, or was it something you read in the Daily Mail?

Bubble99 · 14/07/2007 09:18

BBC news interviewed householders removing ruined TVs from their houses. One (with a mahoosive TV) was saying that, as she didn't have insurance, the govt should compensate her for her lost/ruined stuff.

Don't quite understand why you'd assume I read The Mail, Mrs Muddle?

OP posts:
Ceolas · 14/07/2007 09:21

Agree with custardo

nutcracker · 14/07/2007 09:23

I think they should all be given the money for essentials as Custy said, but anything else they should sort out themselves.

PeachesMcLean · 14/07/2007 09:24

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that.

clutteredup · 14/07/2007 09:26

chances are they haven't paid for the tvs either - if they are on hp they technically belong to the finance company...who pays then?

WikiesWizardWheezes · 14/07/2007 09:30

Personally believe that the essentials should be covered but anything else not.

If government are gonna cough up - why should muggins here bother with her insurance?? I know, think I'll cut down on my car insurance too. where did I see those plasma TVs?????

SaintGeorge · 14/07/2007 09:31

The majority of the recent flood victims do not live in flood prone areas, for example:

Sheffield - ever heard the phrase 'once in a Sheffield flood', on a par with once in a blue moon to suggest something is rare? Not a flood plain.

Hull - coastal flood plain yes, but this was not coastal flooding. The water table became saturated by having 1/6th of the year?s rainfall happen in 24hrs.

None of the government or council funding is to replace fucking TV's or play stations or anything else of that ilk. It is for beds, cookers, fridges and covers a very small area of the population. Most of the items are 2nd hand.

Most of the £2.1 million given to Hull will simply replace the money already spent on providing emergency accommodation etc and to prevent the residents from getting stung by massive Council Tax rises next year. Probably the same in the other towns.

I am getting increasingly irritated by hearing people who don't even live in the areas going on about material possessions, insurance and who should or should not be helped (or posting stupid ?jokes? that they think flood hit people might find amusing for that matter). Try and bloody live in the middle of it instead of relying on gossip and tabloid coverage.

Back to my self imposed MN exile me thinks, before I fucking explode.

meemar · 14/07/2007 09:35

I don't agree that old people should automatically be a priority. Not all old people are poor.

Maybe it should be means tested.

Freckle · 14/07/2007 09:50

I think there should be some government help for those in most need. However, I do feel that there is a danger that, if the government jumps in every time there is a large scale problem (for which people previously had the opportunity to make contingency plans, be that insurance or whatever), people will stop taking responsibility for themselves and their lives on the basis that, if anything goes wrong, the government will step in.

I can see resentment on the part of those people who have made sacrifices in the past in order to cover insurance premiums, etc., when they see that those who didn't are covered by the taxpayer.

lljkk · 14/07/2007 09:55

I think tabloids/media have irresponsibly hyped the "plasma screen" angle, don't think any govt. agencies have ever planned to help any but the most needy, and then only in the most basic way -- exactly what St. George said.

FoeGlassSlipper · 14/07/2007 10:54

I can totally see where the OP is coming from howevre, I was flooded a few years ago and it is a really really crap thing to happen to you. Not only do you lose your material good (tvs etc) but you lose personal items like photos which can never be replaces.

The place stinks for months. It is awful so we should give whatever help we can to people affected. This doesnt mean replacing like for like.

If people were uninsured they are either desperate or stupid. Unfortunately it is a hard job to prove which is which so the councils govt will need to provide basics such as beds/washing machines/fridges etc to everyone affected imo.

Judy1234 · 14/07/2007 11:30

Difficult issue. Perhaps part of what they should be being offered is a new low cost no frills insurance product with the first year paid in full by the state (the 57% or whatever it was in some of the areas with no insurance at all) to ensure next time they have it and a strong message that if you don't pay hereafter that will be held against you on next year's flood. Also they should get no more than about a third of the second hand value of what they lost so say they lost bed and TV the state might give them a basic bed in exchange ideally salvaged from charity shops etc not a load of cash.

SaintGeorge · 14/07/2007 11:42


Why do I ignore my own common sense and keep reading this?

They are not giving away cash.
They are not replacing possessions.

I live in Hull. Our house was flooded. Yes I have bloody insurance and more fool those who didn't, but they are NOT getting luxury goods thrown at them left right and bloody centre. Beds, cookers, fridges, that's it. 2nd hand.


Freckle · 14/07/2007 12:09

Who was that aimed at St.G?

My comment was a general one. And yes, I live in a flood area (not affected directly but know many people who have been).

peanutbear · 14/07/2007 12:13

no we shouldnt pay for people who chose not to have insurance

but we should pay for people who couldnt get it or really couldnt afford it

I pay for my insurance every month incase something happens if I got burgled still no fault of my own and they took my plasma scren governmnt ouldnt buy me a new one would they

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.