My understanding of the concept of insurance is that it is based on the idea of a "pooled risk". By that token, while I may selfishly resent an increase in my insurance premium due to the loss experienced by others, I should also accept that by purchasing an insurance policy, I have agreed to bear my responsibility towards sharing a "pooled risk", which, in this case, arises from flooding.

Of course, when emotion over-rides rational thought, the customer should vote with their feet and switch insurance providers if they felt that their insurer was over-charging them. What if the entire Home Insurance sector increased their premiums by 10%? What would you do then? Would you go without it?

John E. F. O'Reigner, Wirral, England

The insurance companies have taken the premium and now have to pay for their failure to access their liability as the homes were built on flood plains. They have also declared substantial profits in the past so it is time for them to take the hit in the bad times ans well.
It is also clear that this Labour Government has failed the people who's homes are located on flood plains by reducing money allocated for defences.
The proposed increase in insurance of 10% for all is unjust given that if you are unlikely to get flooded as you home is not at risk it should not rise. So if my insurance company raises it insurance as a result of flood damage I will shop around and find one that caters for those that are not at risk.
If government, Insurance companies and local councils had lisened and planned for this situation instead of talking a lot and attending meetings that go no where a lot of the damage caused could have been avoided.
I reject the claim that insurce should rise for all.

Graham, Wakefield, UK

Please would the Insurance Companies explain why the customer always has to foot the bill during times of high claims? I thought that the Insurance Companies employed actuaries to work out the risks and then spread the risk so that the 'good' years paid for the 'bad' years. Furthermore, you never hear of the Insurance Companies paying bonuses to the customer during periods of low claims.

David, Gloucester, Gloucesteshire

I do understand that insurance companies are not charitable organisations, but why are large organisations allowed to profit from the distress of the general populous, an action not that dissimilar to the overcharging for bottled water during the recent flooding.

The premiums are probably felt by Norwich Union and Lloyds TSB to be necessary to cover their costs, however you don't tend to hear of premiums dropping by 10% during years with claims lower than the average.

I hope that not all the organisations within the industry follow suit, encouraging homeowners to "jump ship".

Matt Critchley, LONDON,

It may well have been true that in the past that there was an uniform pricing of home insurnce, based on a balancing of risks. But the modern consumer has got wiser: the risks of living on a hill in a gale involve having a few roof tiles blown off (the garden shed and its contents are not covered). The risks of flooding are far pricier in terms of writing off carpets, furniture, replastering, rewiring, temporary re-accomodation etc.

Someone who lives in a low-risk property should not be forced to subsidize someone who lives, say, in a flood plai
n, especially as property prices are influenced , we are told, by location, location, location.

Colin Berry, Antibes, France

As with travel insurance it should be possible to tailor your cover.
Why would I want flood risk cover if I live on a hill 500ft above sea level?
Another case of being ripped off!
Lets have an uprising against these illicit profit makers.
And while we are at it about the horrendous taxes we are forced to pay. (Unless you are on benefits of course)

Dek Crossingham, Birmingham, England

How can they justify this? We have a bad year so premiums must go up. What about all of those years where there were no floods or large natural disasters . . . what about all of the money, our money, they invested during those years and turned into profit making high returns? I am rapidly on a course to despising the insurance industry. What an absolute scam. The consumer always loses out - we make no claims, premiums rise, we make a claim, premiums rise.

Jason Joy, Rossendale, UK

I'm surprised Norwich Union needed to up its premiums as their business model today like many other big name insurance companies is to bounce all claims wherever possible. 25% of claimants fall at the first hurdle after being given some BS about not being covered because of some dubious small print. Of the remaining 75% who stick it out they get hit with the weasle caveats that were never disclosed and another 50% of claimants fall by the way side. With two strokes the claims department have got shot of 75% of customers by following their internal 'bibles' on how to put off claimants. These days like the banks, its just a license to print money for these companies and the risks are all borne by the consumer.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Why is this not a surprise? The companies are happy to rake in huge profits during the good times, but as soon as they have to pay out, rather than take a hit to profits, they just hike up the prices so consumers end up paying for their losses. This is typical and shows how these companies take advantage of consumers. The insurance companies should realilse that insurance is essentially just a form of gambling, where sometimes they win and sometimes they lose./ However, it seems they are unwilling to accept this and manage to rewrite the rule book to a situation where the phrase, 'Heads, I win; tails, you lose,' holds very true.

George, worthing,

Do we presume that as many of these properties and others in risky areas, will be unable to get insurance next year, (therefore there will be no claims), the premiums will come back down accordingly?

Oh! there he goes - Oink Oink

Pup, Halesowen, England

Certain areas of this country pay increased insurance premiums to cover the perceived greater threat of theft vandalism etc, and the post codes are used to impose this extra charge.
Surely the use of post codes to identify those areas at greater risk of flooding could also be used to collect increased premiums from those who should be paying them.

Frank Murphy, Liverpool, England

This is a perfect example of "rip off" Britain. These corporations must have been rubbing their hands with glee as the heavens opened - whilst uttering expressions like "double digit increase" , "increase of inflation +100%" , "go early on the increase", "increase our margin", "etc etc.

It's a disgrace and we're the only nation on earth who puts up with it.

Charles, Bristol,

Do insurance companies reduce premiums when there isnt flooding?? I dont think so. They are quite happy to rake in the money but having to pay some out, how dare people make claims. Yet another bunch of overpaid money grabbing gits.

nick, carshalton,

Surely the homes that are subject to flooding pay the hgher premiums?

Would a sixty year old driver driving a Honda Jazz with full no claims be expected to pay the same as a 20 year old with no no claims driving a Fiesta

Chris, Bham, UK

Of course, the whole principle of insurance is that risk is shared and priced through a premium. If you live on the top of a hill you subsidise the valley-dweller, in return he subsidises your additional risk of wind damage. Fair, surely.

But what happens now, of course, is that some insurance companies will load or refuse to insure houses in flood plains. This defeats the whole object of insurance.

Of course, the insurers load premiums after such a high profile, high level claim event, perhaps understandably, but do they come down when they have 2 or 3 good years? I think not.

Mark, Birmingham, UK

This is scandalous - the insurance industry make vast profits year in, year out so for them to put up premiums simply becuase their profits margins have been hit for once is simply wrong, especially after a national disaster.

Russell Bonser, Moseley, Birmingham,

I have every sympathy for those people who have been flooded. I chose not to live on a flood plain. Yet I feel aggreived that the increases in insurance premiums are across the board rather than targeting properties that have knowingly and deliberately been built in high flood risk areas.
The information about flooding and flood plains is readily available on the environment agency website.
More recently the government has encouraged house builders to build in these high risk areas with little or no regard for providing flood defences for these houses.
Even in my home town 150 houses and an Asda store have been built next to the river which has flooded in the last 20 yrs to a depth of over 8 feet, with builders claiming that they have provided flood defences.
I have not made a home insurance claim in 30 years yet I am going to be penalised along with millions of other householders who don't live on a flood plain.

Michael Martin, Frome,

there should be a separate premium for likely flood risks. my property built on a hill could not suffer flood damage. i should be able to take a policy out which excludes damage by flooding some insurers notably Norwich Union take months to settle claims. a friend of mine a Norwich Union customers has not had her insurance claim met from a storm in January.
it is the same for water rates capital projects repairs etc should be met by shareholders not by putting up bills. If water companies want to issue shares to cover extra costs I would be prepareed to pay extra on my water bill for this prive. why does capital replacement have to be covered by extra cost to the consumer. surely this should come from internal investment ie profits

philip jackson, bradford, west yorks

If only the insurance companies were as quick to respond to claims as they are to see an excuse to put up prices. Whilst it is true they have taken a financial hit over the floods this year, it was entirely predictable that they would react by increasing premiums. The problem is, having increased these premiums to recover their profit margins and keep their shareholders fat and comfortable, they will never bring them down again ... ever. Couple this with the fact that the hit they have taken, for the most part, will be a one-off as they will not insure properties at risk of flooding in the future, the result will be that in years to come they will benefit hugely from this disaster.
A lot of people faced with spiralling premiums will do a risk assessment of their own and not bother with insurance, and with the uninsured getting as much, if not more help, than those who do stump up their monthly premiums, who can blame them?

Steve Plows, Peterhead, Scotland

I think this is morally wrong , how can it be we pay for a multitude of years [ 20 at least in my case ] & claim nothing in all that time , but, as soon as there's a need to make a claim we have to pay more.
It just is not right.
Payout & premiums should go on the claimants past record, insurance companies are just like banks who give an umbrella when the sun shines & takes it back when it rains.
Insurance is a business built on fear, telling you everything is more or less covered.
UNTILL YOU MAKE A CLAIM.
They then put every argument & obstacle in the way to avoid a payout.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

The Insurance firms take the profits in good times so they should accept the losses in bad times. They are in the same position as the bookies when the favourite wins the Grand National; they have lost the bet this time but they will soon recoup the losses with all their wining bets.

Andrew Green, Shepton Mallet, England

Is this the same company who informed your article on 28th July:
"David Ross, of Norwich Union, says that it is “inevitable” that premiums will creep up, although he expects the increases to be relatively modest. Moreover, they are unlikely to happen immediately. "

Paul Scott, Southampton,

all the billions Bank of Scotlands profits just posted not enough they need more poor poor insurance companies

J.HART, Hockley, U.K. Essex

Hmm.. so Norwich Union parent Aviva made £3.24bln profit last year based on the risks they took and now they wan't customers to again pay for the risk they have effectively underwritten in higher premiums.. seems like a no lose situation for them.. they are not actually assuming any risk, just passing it on to future customers... !!

A, London,

Any old excuse......

Richard, Bexhill, UK

A flat rate across-the-board increase in insurance premiums is indefensible. Why should someone living on a hilltop pay more if their chances of getting flooded are nil ?

This is just opportunism, laziness, and arrogance on the part of the insurance industry.

If I were still living in England I would change my insurer as a matter of principle, if I felt my present one was taking me for granted.

PS I still think Ken Clarke's tax on insurance premiums was iniquitous. It's time it was abolished as being a tax on responsibility and prudence.

Colin Berry, Antibes, France

If insurance is risk-based, why is there a blanket 10% rise for all customers? Seems to me this is as much about opportunism and increasing profits as recovering losses.

Clive, Exeter,

Infaltion is what, 5%? Can they justify 10% raise? No, but who's going to stop them? The govt is in bed with big corps so don't expect any help from the so-called peoples govt.

Max Reeder, Nr. Maidehead, Berks.,

Underwriting is a risk business, one with potential high returns on investments. I do not see why the general public should suffer increases because the underwriters lost money this time, Do they pass on reductions when making huge profits? NO. there was a saying " you pay your money you take your chance" They wanted a quick high return and got caught out. The government should step in and put a stop to this increase. Why should i pay more on my insurance when i havent made a claim.

H, London, UK