Insurance co. classifying my home as in flood hazard zone....(wrongly)

makeorbrake

Have just gotten a home insurance quote. It's the first time, I've encountered this =>

"
[ul]
[li]Your property presents a flood hazard according to our risk intelligence. Therefore it's outside our acceptance criteria."[/li]

[/ul]



[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It's a concern because I wonder if this is going to be adopted by other insurance companies going forward. I suspect insurance co. in question must be using some new-fangled geo mapped software profiling programme. My home is not very far from a 'large stream' (only way I could classify it - not big enough to sustain fish) - its at the bottom of the garden. However, its as far DOWN to it as it is away from the property i.e. there is a massive drop down ...probably 20 or 30 ft. Never in a month of Sundays could the house flood. It would defy physics.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They're refusing to quote on that basis. I don't mind if it's just them - but if this becomes the norm OR I start getting quotes factoring in flooding, I'd feel a bit aggrieved. Anyone else coming across the likes of this?[/font]

coylemj

Technically you will now have to inform any other insurance company that you have been declined, this means that probably everyone will now refuse to quote you.

One of the questions on most insurance proposal forms is to ask you if you have ever been declined a quote or refused cover or had conditions imposed on you. In your case you have been declined a quote.

To Elland Back

What evidence do you have that it is wrongly classified, other than your description?

makeorbrake

To Elland Back wrote: »

What evidence do you have that it is wrongly classified, other than your description?

The evidence that water doesn't defy gravity! I'm 99% certain, they're basing this on proximity to a water source (which is somewhere between a drain and a glorified stream). Furthermore, I'm pretty sure their maps or whatever the hell they're using dont show that the ground was raised considerably on the site before my house was built on it.

coylemj - its an online quote - they can go fish! In any event, I can very much live without the ability to make a claim for flooding as it's simply not a possibility without major seismic and geological change...

the_pen_turner

one of my cousins lives near a town that has a history of flooding most years. his house is up on a hill beside the town. he is looking out over the town . he looks down on the local church spire. if his house flooded there would be 30feet above the top of the spire on the church.
some how he is classified as a flood risk

makeorbrake

the_pen_turner wrote: »

one of my cousins lives near a town that has a history of flooding most years. his house is up on a hill beside the town. he is looking out over the town . he looks down on the local church spire. if his house flooded there would be 30feet above the top of the spire on the church.
some how he is classified as a flood risk

Exactly. It's one thing to be unfortunate enough to be in a flood plain and have to either pay increased premium or not be covered. It's another to be subject to that when there's no earthly way the property could flood ...simply because of the damn software/geo-mapping they're using.

To Elland Back

makeorbrake wrote: »

The evidence that water doesn't defy gravity! I'm 99% certain, they're basing this on proximity to a water source (which is somewhere between a drain and a glorified stream). Furthermore, I'm pretty sure their maps or whatever the hell they're using dont show that the ground was raised considerably on the site before my house was built on it.

coylemj - its an online quote - they can go fish! In any event, I can very much live without the ability to make a claim for flooding as it's simply not a possibility without major seismic and geological change...

Smart answer, but it doesn't prove that the AREA is not on their flood list. They are not going to define each individual house.

Anyway, as you say, it's not an issue if you are certain you can't be flooded, you don't need the cover

BobSmith128

I filled out an online quote for home insurance with BOI a few months back and they wouldn't give me a quote online.
I rang them and I was told that the area I lived in was a flood risk.
I was asked were there any river / water sources close by.
I informed them that the closest source was 1km -> 2km away from my house.
Armed with this information they went away and came back to me and told me that I was acceptable for a insurance and gave me a quote.
When I queried further why was my house flagged for flooding, the agent said that previously someone in the area made a claim on flooding.
They didn't expand was it a burst pipe from the water mains or actually a flooding event.
So if I read you post correctly, you've only filled in an online quote - so if you haven't spoken to anyone directly, then I would because as others mention here the geo software that insurers use can a very inexact reporting tool.

makeorbrake

@BobSmith128: Remarkably, nobody could come anywhere close to the renewal (not the way things work usually) so renewed with the same ins. company. I was just annoyed as technically, I'm now supposed to declare to all other insurers if I have been declined insurance and also concerned that the rest of them are going to go down this road.
Whilst I did have an 'escape of water' claim 7 years + ago, I'm thinking the ins. company in question is using some geo software that pinpoints the 'stream' behind the house at close proximity - but that geo software isn't smart enough to know that the entire development site was raised considerably before my house was built on it.
As others have indicated, given that I'm 110% confident there won't be a 'flooding' eventuality in my case, my ins. policy should stand up just fine.