Insurance likely to rise again

TallGlass

Due to the flooding down along the Shannon, government set to follow UK model and add up to 15€ per policy.

I wouldn't mind but considering there are already government charges on my policy, due to Sean Quinn and his buddy's. I don't particularly see why this is a valid option? Insurance companies yet again picking and choosing who they want and again playing the poor man's card, that they have no money. Would they ever fùck off, how about the government force them to give a quote. If they can force tax payers to pay for water and new pricing on alcohol I am sure they can force them to.

Yet again, no one to blame for poor planning and yet again tax payer/insured people foot the bill.

But let me set this straight I have no problem giving 15€, my problem is government and there poxy Levy's and again no one held accountable for this mess. I feel very sorry for the people caught up in this mess, if this is the level of thinking the government have to help people out, well it is going to happen again.

biko

Is there a source for this?

Chippy01

It was mentioned on SixOne News.

Nothing set into stone as yet.

TallGlass

biko wrote: »

Is there a source for this?

Sorry missing link, I am on mobile; nothing set in stone yet and it mentioned only house hold policy's but I imagine it will hit that motor market to make the mark up.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/1214/753508-govt-levy-floods/

flyingsnail

TallGlass wrote: »

Sorry missing link, I am on mobile; nothing set in stone yet and it mentioned only house hold policy's but I imagine it will hit that motor market to make the mark up.

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/1214/753508-govt-levy-floods/

I imagine there will be plenty of motor claims for flooding damage along with the household claims.

To Elland Back

Money should really go towards rectifying the flood plains or putting in flood defences. Not a great idea to keep shelling out for damage when it is just going to reoccur. I agree those affected should be given some assistance until it gets sorted

Truckermal

They should start digging at the shannon estuary and keep going to Co. Leitrim to clear the whole lot. They could use all that silt to make a few tropical islands. .

corsav6

To Elland Back wrote: »

Money should really go towards rectifying the flood plains or putting in flood defences. Not a great idea to keep shelling out for damage when it is just going to reoccur. I agree those affected should be given some assistance until it gets sorted

I totally agree, stop the cause or its just money down the drain.
Insurance companies should be more transparent with their quotes anyway, just plucking numbers out of thin air is unfair on us customers.

smash

No doubt a percentage of this will go to Irish water.

Liam McPoyle

TallGlass wrote: »

Due to the flooding down along the Shannon, government set to follow UK model and add up to 15€ per policy.

I wouldn't mind but considering there are already government charges on my policy, due to Sean Quinn and his buddy's. I don't particularly see why this is a valid option? Insurance companies yet again picking and choosing who they want and again playing the poor man's card, that they have no money. Would they ever fùck off, how about the government force them to give a quote. If they can force tax payers to pay for water and new pricing on alcohol I am sure they can force them to.

Yet again, no one to blame for poor planning and yet again tax payer/insured people foot the bill.

But let me set this straight I have no problem giving 15€, my problem is government and there poxy Levy's and again no one held accountable for this mess. I feel very sorry for the people caught up in this mess, if this is the level of thinking the government have to help people out, well it is going to happen again.

That is one of the most absurd things Ive ever read.

You expect the government to make insurance companies take on risks that will probably cost them money.

Ok, so how will the insurance companies cover the costs of all these extra claims? You are complaining about having to pay more for insurance but if insurance companies are forced to take on business that will lose them money do you think your premium will stay the same?

Its not the insurance companies fault that developers built vast trances of houses on flood plains.

Its not the insurance companies fault that the government have not done more to correct problem areas or carry out remedial works.

TallGlass

Business Cat wrote: »

That is one of the most absurd things Ive ever read.

You expect the government to make insurance companies take on risks that will probably cost them money.

Ok, so how will the insurance companies cover the costs of all these extra claims? You are complaining about having to pay more for insurance but if insurance companies are forced to take on business that will lose them money do you think your premium will stay the same?

Its not the insurance companies fault that developers built vast trances of houses on flood plains.

Its not the insurance companies fault that the government have not done more to correct problem areas or carry out remedial works.

But it our fault the policy holders then? How is it absurd, force them to give a quote to these people or at lease have some decent ****ing plan of action, rather than 'ah sure the other policy holders will pay it, just like the other levies, tax and vat they pay already on there policys'. Get a grip, I am sick and ****ing tired of paying for other people's mistakes and incompetence. You seem to have no problem with this, we just pay up and no one is hung out my the balks to dry on this one. I'm sick to death of this crap, no I won't be forced into paying, unless proper changes are made. You can be sure as hell if insurance companies where forced to pay there would be proper protection put in so they don't have to pay out. Why? Cause its there money footing the bill.

To Elland Back

I read it as the Government will act as insurer for flood areas, funded by this levy, not insurance companies. Expect another quango where the money taken in is used up in administration of the fund with very little money being spent quickly and wisely to alleviate hardship

Liam McPoyle

TallGlass wrote: »

But it our fault the policy holders then? How is it absurd, force them to give a quote to these people or at lease have some decent ****ing plan of action, rather than 'ah sure the other policy holders will pay it, just like the other levies, tax and vat they pay already on there policys'. Get a grip, I am sick and ****ing tired of paying for other people's mistakes and incompetence. You seem to have no problem with this, we just pay up and no one is hung out my the balks to dry on this one. I'm sick to death of this crap, no I won't be forced into paying, unless proper changes are made. You can be sure as hell if insurance companies where forced to pay there would be proper protection put in so they don't have to pay out. Why? Cause its there money footing the bill.

You do realise that the more that insurance companies have to pay in claims, the more insurance prices will rise. There is no bottomless pit of money to pay claims, the money paid in premiums is what is used for paying claims so by you suggesting that companies should be forced to quote for policies that they are going to have to pay claims on then obviously costs for everyone will have to rise to cover these.

Valetta

Business Cat wrote: »

You do realise that the more that insurance companies have to pay in claims, the more insurance prices will rise. There is no bottomless pit of money to pay claims, the money paid in premiums is what is used for paying claims so by you suggesting that companies should be forced to quote for policies that they are going to have to pay claims on then obviously costs for everyone will have to rise to cover these.

TBH I think you're wasting your time.

It's been explained numerous times here and elsewhere how insurance works, but people just don't want to understand, as it would negate their illogical arguments.

The aim of all should be directed at reducing risk, and this will then feed down into lower premiums.

Blaming insurance companies for high claims is ludicrous .

@Tallglass. - there is no Vat on insurance premiums.

quadrifoglio verde

Business Cat wrote: »

That is one of the most absurd things Ive ever read.

You expect the government to make insurance companies take on risks that will probably cost them money.

Ok, so how will the insurance companies cover the costs of all these extra claims? You are complaining about having to pay more for insurance but if insurance companies are forced to take on business that will lose them money do you think your premium will stay the same?

Its not the insurance companies fault that developers built vast trances of houses on flood plains.

Its not the insurance companies fault that the government have not done more to correct problem areas or carry out remedial works.

They have no problem doing it for health insurance...granted it would mean people will have to pay more


Health insurance would be a great money spinner if they were allowed insure only those in the 18-40 age group

Every other aspect of home insurance, the insurer should be allowed pick and chose, but your flood risk is based on your location and its unfair that people who live in a flood prone zone should see their lives hard work washed away.

However either way its going to cost the tax payer money, whether administered by insurance companies or a levy on each home insurance policy and passed onto the government.

Personally Id support an increase in home insurance policies for all so that those who live in a flood risk area can get flood insurance along with their general home insurance.
If its a levy and funded directly by the government, then people who don't pay for any sort of home insurance would be able to claim

Valetta

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

They have no problem doing it for health insurance...granted it would mean people will have to pay more


Health insurance would be a great money spinner if they were allowed insure only those in the 18-40 age group

If there was only one insurer, then yes, it would be a money spinner.

However, as with any business, competition would ensure that any profit margin would be small.

visual

Valetta wrote: »

If there was only one insurer, then yes, it would be a money spinner.

However, as with any business, competition would ensure that any profit margin would be small.

Cartels stop that happening

But I will add flood planes flooding isn't something new.

TallGlass

Valetta wrote: »

TBH I think you're wasting your time.

It's been explained numerous times here and elsewhere how insurance works, but people just don't want to understand, as it would negate their illogical arguments.

The aim of all should be directed at reducing risk, and this will then feed down into lower premiums.

Blaming insurance companies for high claims is ludicrous .

@Tallglass. - there is no Vat on insurance premiums.

If there's no VAT appolgies.

My point is invalid regards forcing insurance company to be forced to quote.

But my point still stands regards just placing a 15€ levy on every insurance policy in the country on top of the other levies. Would it not be better investing so this doesn't happen again to people. And why are funds from a levy and not from LPT why not raise that 15€ ? Do you see my point, why just target policy holders again and again.

Vic_08

To Elland Back wrote: »

Money should really go towards rectifying the flood plains

How do you rectify a flood plain?

It is a natural formation that is supposed to flood in times of excess water. The only thing that needs rectifying is the ability for developers to build on these areas without providing for the fact that these plots will flood on a semi-regular basis.

Should the taxpyer end up having to foot a massive bill now for every dwelling that is on low lying land in the Shannon basin? 10ft high waterproof embankments around every one-off house in the wesht?

The developers should have done their jobs properly.
The house buyers and their representatives should have done better research.
The insurance companies should have also made suer the properties they were ensuring weren't high flood risk.

Skatedude

Truckermal wrote: »

They should start digging at the shannon estuary and keep going to Co. Leitrim to clear the whole lot. They could use all that silt to make a few tropical islands. .

That's against current European laws due to the perceived damage to wildlife in the rivers.

Skatedude

Vic_08 wrote: »

How do you rectify a flood plain?

It is a natural formation that is supposed to flood in times of excess water. The only thing that needs rectifying is the ability for developers to build on these areas without providing for the fact that these plots will flood on a semi-regular basis.

Should the taxpyer end up having to foot a massive bill now for every dwelling that is on low lying land in the Shannon basin? 10ft high waterproof embankments around every one-off house in the wesht?

The developers should have done their jobs properly.
The house buyers and their representatives should have done better research.
The insurance companies should have also made suer the properties they were ensuring weren't high flood risk.

There are records going back centuries stating that they are flood plains, didn't stop idiot politicians / governments from ignoring them when it suits them, Unfortunately the insurance companies actually know this.

But i still feel for those who assumed the councils etc had a clue when granting building rights in those area's.
Since the records from decades or centuries ago are in public reference, people should have a legal case to peruse against the councils etc. Individual claims wont work, but joint claims or class actions might hold more water, forgive the pun.

topmanamillion

There's alot of people paying a high price now for disastourious planning decisions in the past.
If it wasn't so devastating for people I would laugh every time I turn on the news and see pictures of the industrial estate in Carrick on Shannon flooded.
It was built on a flood plane/reclaimed swamp.
The local Tesco and woodies are on stilts and water flows underneath them.
People are then surprised when these places flood?

People who live beside a train track can expect to hear trains.
People who live beside a farm can expect to hear animals.
People who live on flood planes.... Well they are going to be fecking flooded!

coolbeans

topmanamillion wrote: »

There's alot of people paying a high price now for disastourious planning decisions in the past.
If it wasn't so devastating for people I would laugh every time I turn on the news and see pictures of the industrial estate in Carrick on Shannon flooded /quote]

It's the dodgy councillors that are the source of this in cahoots with builders.
I've seen them walk into planning departments, take good advice re flood projections plus 30 percent for climate change, and still vote to build on flood plains. Yet, Irish people reward these types by voting them back in.
You'll then have these same bent councillors take credit for the wildly expensive flood remediation scheme that wouldn't have been needed in the first place had the experts been listened to.
You then see the public reaction to RTE's investigation last week which is blasé and basically nothing to see here.
People should take local elections more seriously as corruption at this relatively low level does enormous damage to your ordinary Joe and Co.

cruizer101

This is something I'm really torn on. On one hand I have sympathy for those effected by flooding, on the other why should I have to pay for others mistakes. Mistakes have been made on all levels, those most to blame are the ones who gave permission for houses in flood prone areas and the generations of people in charge who did nothing to reduce this risk (dredging shannon, building flood defences etc) however they are not going to be held accountable and joe soap is going to have to pay for those mistakes. But there is also people who bought and built houses in flood risk areas and they don't deserve the same compensation, they took a risk and it didn't work out, I feel sorry for them but they took the risk not me.

Tis a ****in mess anyway. Also is this actually going to effect motor insurance I thought was just house insurance.

TallGlass

cruizer101 wrote: »

This is something I'm really torn on. On one hand I have sympathy for those effected by flooding, on the other why should I have to pay for others mistakes. Mistakes have been made on all levels, those most to blame are the ones who gave permission for houses in flood prone areas and the generations of people in charge who did nothing to reduce this risk (dredging shannon, building flood defences etc) however they are not going to be held accountable and joe soap is going to have to pay for those mistakes. But there is also people who bought and built houses in flood risk areas and they don't deserve the same compensation, they took a risk and it didn't work out, I feel sorry for them but they took the risk not me.

Tis a ****in mess anyway. Also is this actually going to effect motor insurance I thought was just house insurance.

Similar in a way to the traveler fire a while back, people all full of sorrow until they move into there neighborhood.

Mind you I don't mind 15€ on my policy, its the principle of this governments thinking of taxing and levying there way out of everything.

As someone else point out, a lot of cars damaged in the floods so I assume it will.

smash

We're still paying for Quinn even though the debt has no doubt been paid off. This will be another similar case. It's just another tax.