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?

[Bubble99]

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.

BUT.

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?

High rainfall will cause flooding in most lowland places/valleys to some degree and alot of towns were built on riverbanks due to the use of the river for transport - the recurrance of big floods will like you say only happen once in a lifetime for some and it may not be top of the local governments list of priorities when the return period is so long.

I'm not saying you shouldn't live there - people do choose where to live, I just don't get it. I live on a hill and would never consider buying a property near a river.

It is a genuine interest by the way into why people live in risk areas - not a dig at folk affected by the floods.

I live miles away from any rivers. Still had my house flooded though.

anf famillies tend to stick close- a lot of the areas affected are quite close knot areas ime. Muman Dad wuldnt leave thir flood-possible street for anything, its where they've always lived.

The thing is, at this point, it doesn't even matter. The retrospectascope truly is a wonderful thing , but what we have right here, right now, is a situation where people need the basics. What they should have done, is neither here nor there right now.

The basics should be provided. It is a humanitarian issue.

Then, seperatly (sp), the issue of affordable insurance - compulsary insurance?? should be discussed.

We have contents insurance, the housing association sorts it and you pay weekly. It's open to all, no questions and you choose what you want to pay - 50p/75p a week gets you a few thousand, £1odd gets you about £20000 etc

Schemes like that would be good. And it is worth councils/gov etc investigating, but right now, the people just need help.

Actually, situations like this are where Freecycle could come into its own. Why doesn't the government tap into this seemingly endless source of beds, cookers, fridges, freezers, etc.? Surely it's not beyond its powers to have a central board where people could post and then all the government has to do is get the goods to where they are needed.

That sounds like a really good scheme.

I agree MTP. I don't think compulsory insurance should be brought in unless it is administered by the council or similar ( we used to have a shared pwnership house and the councila rrnaged it BUT they wanted the whole amount ina dvance so alot of people, my Mum included, go elsewhere so thay can pay weekly).

The trouble with compulsory is twofold- firstly some communities (eg muslim) don't do interest whoch means they have to pay in one go which is a hardship- also in thsoe areas thata re really problematic (not just floods, crime etc) insurance companies will nto want business so will set ridiculously high rates that will simply froce people into law breaking (remembering that note veryone on benefits can just get a job before anyone yells 'well they shoudl get a job!' at me).

Freckle manya reas do have something similar- a furniture despository where they collect unwanted goods which are then available for a low price to those who can show evidence of benefits or a low income (school meals level usually). One thing a scheme I used to liase with however found was that an offshoot of the ebay society was that nobody donates thinsg any more, thy just sell them

My friend's mother has been involved in all this ... she was insured with Tesco and apparently they have been FANTASTIC - while many of her friends were arguing with their insurance companies Tesco sent in workmen straight away to her.
A really sad story there though: All in the same week she celebrated living in her house for 50 years, was flooded out and then her husband of 52 years passed away (long term illness) - poor lady , at least Tesco came up trumps for her.
She lives in Hull too.
I hope you are ok SG ... {{{{}}}}

Your poor friend

we're with tesco, thats good to hear

Yes, but the whole point about Freecycle is that it is totally free at both ends (giver and receiver). The government could spend the money it would otherwise use for purchasing necessities on transporting stuff which might otherwise end up in a tip. And the recipients wouldn't necessarily have to be on benefits or a low income - just in desperate need.

Freckle, the local Freecycle moderators are working with the council at the moment I think. Most of the recent postings are people giving stuff for flood victims.

Sorry to hear about your friend's mum Ghosty.

We are coping. It is a pain in the arse and the house still stinks but we'll get sorted (eventually).

That's great, St.G. I'm sure it could be rolled out to other areas too. If the goverment could provide a central collection point in each area, goods could be delivered and then transported to wherever they are needed.

I've just had a whole slew of emails offering furniture items as well as white goods, and some people are offering them for the second time as they've had no takers.

£20 per month buildings insurance
£11 per month contents insurance
Money well spent i think

think it's only a humanitarian issue in so far as everyone should keep a roof over their heads, fresh water and sanitation

don#t think taxpayers should pay for rep[lacem,ent of belongings though

but basic belongings is really just clothes and a bit of furniture, though, you can't grudge people that.

and food, tutter. Food. Something to cook on. A bed instead of the floor if they were in a bungalow!

etc.

I know a family which lost their house because of Buncefield. The family was building their own house and they had no insurance on it because they hadn't yet finished building it.

Luckily they were not living in it at the time of the buncefield blast, but now all they have is a ruin and probably would never get planning permission to re build their house. They have not yet had compensation from the owners of Buncefield.

They have been given a council house and have been able to buy basic furniture from a furniture project. Nothing nice and certainly no plasma TVs. I don't be grudge them the fact that they have had some state help.

Haven't read all posts and I'm a bit concerned I'm going to get a lashing for this but in answer to the OP.... no we bloody shouldn't.

Oh god I'm shaking. Here goes.

I will hold off on the lashing if you hunt out my posts (I am in Hull and we were flooded) and then reconsider your opinion.

SG, I am truly sorry for anyone going through this. I saw the TV coverage. I saw the awful mess of people's homes and there's no doubt I would be devastated if it happened to me. But why should tax payer's money help fund the rebuilding (materialistic rebuilding) of people's contents when that is exactly what insurance is for? Ok not all insurances are good, some are worthless, but I pay mine and can barely afford it. We had none when dh was made redundant. Twice. Nobody helped us. He claimed Jobseeker's and had a job within 2 days, because he had to. That wage that he then brought in for 7 months didn't even pay the mortgage (and ours isn't huge), we used up all of our savings, £5,000, in those months. 2 months in to it we had our ds, our first baby after 4 mcs, god damn it was hard. I was driving him to work at 10am, picking him up at 3, taking him back at 6 pm and picking him up at 1am or whenever he could get the bar shut, with a brand new baby and a disjointed pelvis. No body helped us. And I wouldn't have expected any more than job seeker's allowance. We've just started a new business and are paying more per month in insurance than I have ever earned (I worked the same full time job for 11 yrs). And it's simply because it's our place to do so. And I'm very aware we could lose our house if the slightest thing goes wrong, but that's the gamble we take and if it does I'm damn sure the government won't help us.

I really am very sorry for you though. Honest but probably not believed.

"But why should tax payer's money help fund the rebuilding (materialistic rebuilding) of people's contents when that is exactly what insurance is for?"

That is the whole point of my posts! Tax payer's money isn't helping fund any thing like that. It is for the very bare essentials and in some cases emergency housing. That's all.

Do you really begrudge the government paying for a 2nd hand cooker and fridge for someone?

That is what the emergency fund is for and then only for a small slice of the population.
"Those with a disability, the elderly or people on their own with very young children", quoted directly from the government leaflet issued in the area.

it's so odd SG. You are typing "food", and "a roof", and "a cooker without poo in it" and folks are reading "plasma tv", "hi-fi", and "leather Chesterfield".

How weird is that. Must be a computer virus of some sort.