Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Insurers edge closer to deal on flooding

The government has revealed details of a possible agreement with the insurance industry over the future of flood insurance.

Environment secretary Caroline Spelman confirmed last week that the government is considering an adjustment to the existing cross-subsidy that enables insurance companies to raise money from all policy holders to cover the cost of insuring homes at high risk of flooding. 

The insurance industry has asked the government to formalise this arrangement, and also to correct an imbalance in the current market that allows some insurers to only offer policies to low risk customers while others have to cover many high risk properties.

The government claims the proposed changes will not place extra costs on policy holders or taxpayers, as the money already exists within the insurance industry.

Spelman said: “We are now considering a cross-subsidy mechanism that would ensure high risk households can get affordable insurance without extra costs being placed on policy holders or taxpayers.”

However, surveyors organisation RICS, which described the new proposals as “vague and unfair”, says householders in low risk areas should not have to subsidise those at high risk of flooding.

 RICS associate director Alan Cripps said: “Not only does this penalise homeowners in low flood risk areas, but it is forcing homeowners and families who are already under financial pressure to pay extra to their insurance companies. And there is no indication of how this extra money will be used or managed.”

 He added: “Once again, the government is passing the buck and is leaving others to pick up the pieces.”

 Cripps said that a levy on all policies is unlikely to be sufficient to pay out if there are extreme flooding events. However, government is opposed to using public money to underwrite flood insurance, arguing that government funds are better spent on flood defences.

 “The best and most sustainable way of keeping insurance affordable in the long-term is to help prevent flooding in the first place,” said Spelman.

Readers' comments (3)

  • If insurance policy costs were used to reflect the true flood risk of a property, developer would not be so keen to build in unsuitable area. Exisitng properties would have a price tag that relected the risk and solicitors could be forced to reprot flood risk as part of the standard searches. The market would soon regulate the problem of houses at risk from flooding. But theres more money in higher premiums for all to cover the risk!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tonygoddard

    Insuring a house in a high flood risk area should be much like insuring an 18 year old in a sports car where the premium reflects the risk. I don't see any cross-subsidy there. This will only serve to increase development in high flood risk areas. Unsustainable? Insurance could be offered but with no cover for flood damage.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or perhaps people could spend a realtively small amount of money to flood-proof ther own properties. In pretty much the same way that people spend money on home security systems to avoid paying higher premiums for burglary?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.