Buying a house with flood risk

budgemook

Hi,

I was viewing a house for sale the other day and someone mentioned that the area might have a flood risk and therefore house insurance could be an issue.

I entered the house details into an insurance website and, sure enough, I got the response saying that they couldn't give me a quote due to flood risk.

So, I was hoping somebody on here could help me out with some questions that I have about this.

- Will the banks give me a mortgage if there is potential flood risk / insurance issues?
- Can I get insurance for everything except flooding? Will the banks accept that?
- When is the last time this area, Sandymount / Irishtown, flooded anyway?
- Are there some companies that will give full insurance regardless of the flood risk and just charge a higher premium?
- Is the premium much higher?
- Are Dublin City Council doing anything about resolving the flood risk in this area?

Many thanks in advance.

Johnniep

budgemook,

Can't comment in the bank/insurance issues but for records of the flood history of the area, have a look at www.floodmaps.ie, which is a portal to the OPW's records.

There are a number of flood prevention works ongoing/planned for the area but am not sure what stage they are at.

D3PO

IMO even considering buying a house that is a flood risk is insane regardless of weather the bank will loan you the money or not.

the_syco

Do you intend on never putting anything downstairs, and/or don't mind if you loose everything to the flood?

budgemook

I live in a nearby area. Everyone talks about some massive flood about 20 years ago. I'm not aware of any flooding since, not even when the rest of Dublin was. I know flooding is no joke but just not sure how big a risk it actually is in this area.

Thanks for the link. I'll check that out now.

xper

budgemook wrote: »

- Are Dublin City Council doing anything about resolving the flood risk in this area?

Knock yourself out:
http://www.dublincity.ie/WATERWASTEENVIRONMENT/WASTEWATER/Pages/Flooding.aspx

gurramok

budgemook wrote: »

I live in a nearby area. Everyone talks about some massive flood about 20 years ago. I'm not aware of any flooding since, not even when the rest of Dublin was. I know flooding is no joke but just not sure how big a risk it actually is in this area.

Are you taking the mick?

The last flooding there was on Oct 2011, I lived there at the time. I was not affected but I know particular streets that were, the Dodder and the Liffey rivers were very high, it was frightening for residents with panic in the air. It was worse in Feb 2002 and back in 1986, that's why insurance is so high.
http://www.storm-surge.info/dublin-floods-2002
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0201/22770-esb/

EricPraline

After the floods around Sandymount/Ringsend in 2011, it seems there has been ongoing work on flood defences along the Dodder. Might be worth investigating:

http://www.dublincity.ie/WATERWASTEENVIRONMENT/WATERPROJECTS/Pages/FloodDefenceUnitLowerDodderFloodDefenceWorks.aspx

That said, I'd be inclined to avoid even with any new defences. If you see a house in Sandymount at a price that seems to be good to be true (relative to other parts of Sandymount or D4 in general), there's a reasonable chance that it's due to associated flood risks.

gurramok

Here's an article about the hard to get insurance cover, about 1,600 homes affected.
http://www.dublinpeople.ie/article.php?id=1643

Its not just streets next to the river or sea or canal that can flood. There are countless underground streams in the area which have caused particular streets to flood while some other streets do be fine, its hit and miss but the insurance companies label the whole region as a flood risk whether you like it or not.

budgemook

Thanks gurramok.

So this guy in the article says his house was never flooded since it was built before 1900. He lives just down the road from the bridge they are flood proofing at the minute.

This is what I'm getting at - just because an insurance company says it is a risk, doesn't mean it really is.

djimi

Having seen the aftermath of the flooding in the estate in Sallins a few years ago I think you would want to be out of your mind to even consider buying a property in a flood risk zone. I watched people put virtually everything they had in the ground floor of their house into a skip, I saw cars destroyed; why would you risk putting yourself through that?

Thoie

budgemook wrote: »

Thanks gurramok.

So this guy in the article says his house was never flooded since it was built before 1900. He lives just down the road from the bridge they are flood proofing at the minute.

This is what I'm getting at - just because an insurance company says it is a risk, doesn't mean it really is.

I'd look at the word risk and redefine your last sentence to "Just because an insurance company says it is a risk, doesn't mean that it has already happened".

Realistically, you could say everything has a risk of everything. Fred's 7th floor apartment has a risk of flooding, but that risk is 0.01%. Mary's bungalow that's built down into the riverbank has a 97% risk of flooding. Neither have actually flooded, but insurance is a bet. The insurance company, looking at a variety of factors, gives higher odds to Fred. They may not even take Mary's bet, and if they do, it won't be favourable.

K.Flyer

I would be ultra cautious, at the end of the day, irrespective of any reports, if you cannot get home insurance then you are taking a huge risk. Maybe they have a good reason to believe its too high a risk.
Would you spend thousands on a car that you cannot get insurance on?
I have seen the damage that flood water has done to peoples homes and their personal belongings and for me no matter how good the offer looked, it would not be worth the risk.

desertcircus

budgemook wrote: »

Thanks gurramok.

So this guy in the article says his house was never flooded since it was built before 1900. He lives just down the road from the bridge they are flood proofing at the minute.

This is what I'm getting at - just because an insurance company says it is a risk, doesn't mean it really is.

The insurance company could be wrong. But you're talking about gambling a six-figure sum on it, which is madness

the_syco

budgemook wrote: »

So this guy in the article says his house was never flooded since it was built before 1900. He lives just down the road from the bridge they are flood proofing at the minute.

Please link to this article?

Del2005

budgemook wrote: »

Thanks gurramok.

So this guy in the article says his house was never flooded since it was built before 1900. He lives just down the road from the bridge they are flood proofing at the minute.

This is what I'm getting at - just because an insurance company says it is a risk, doesn't mean it really is.

Flood prevention in one area can cause floods in different areas. So by building flood defences on the bridge that persons house could be flooded next time.

I can't remember if was the recent UK floods or the ones on the Continent last week. But people who had houses in flood zones had spent thousands flood proofing the outside of their homes, the water came up through the ground into the buildings.

budgemook

the_syco wrote: »

Please link to this article?

It's in gurramoks post.

budgemook

Del2005 wrote: »

Flood prevention in one area can cause floods in different areas. So by building flood defences on the bridge that persons house could be flooded next time.

I can't remember if was the recent UK floods or the ones on the Continent last week. But people who had houses in flood zones had spent thousands flood proofing the outside of their homes, the water came up through the ground into the buildings.

Yeah the fact that they are changing things is putting me off for the reason you described