Memories of 2007 will be scarred for many by the terrible flooding that afflicted lowland river plains. People affected naturally look to their insurers to retrieve the situation financially in the aftermath of a flood, yet it has been well reported that many were not happy with the way their claims were processed. This state of affairs has been brought to public attention by the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service).

In 2007 claims relating directly to flood damage totalled three billion pounds. In the face of so many claims it is perhaps inevitable that the number of customers ostensibly dissatisfied with their insurer?s response should rise accordingly. The bone of contention is all too often not whether a claim is justified but rather the question is the compensation adequate?

It was reported in the National Press at the end of last year that Hull City Council had complained about the service rendered to flood victims on the part of major insurers. A council spokesman observed that the approach between the various providers of home insurance was far from consistent. However in some cases the claimants themselves must take responsibility for the problems that follow in the wake of a flood. Many property owners have purchased house insurance that does not offer comprehensive cover.

For example, some policies offer protection up to the rebuild value of the house. However, with time, a gulf opens up between this figure and the market value. Furthermore the rebuild total itself can quickly become obsolete when the increased cost of materials is factored in. If the home insurance provider has not been notified of extensions or other significant improvement work undertaken, then they cannot reasonably be accountable for these losses.

08.04.08