Why should rates not go up? The event risk has increased *sharply* (from a one-in-150-year event, to a one-in-five-year event), so it naturally follows that the cost of insuring against that event should also go up in a corresponding manner. Anyone who believes otherwise should join the Communist Party of Mother Russia.

JJ, Eindhoven, NL

Britain is not alone! ~~~~I am writing from Canada's West coast ,Vancouver Island to be exact, & am located on the east side of this beautiful place. ~Canada has also been experiencing extreme weather ever since the ghastly-wind & torrential rains which blew down& up-rooted over 2,000 trees in Stanley park alone last winter,on the mainland of British Columbia!!This carried on across to the Island & up north~no one can remember such storms! Seems as though our summer is going to be a "washout" too!Usually we have lovely Spring & summer weather here & is most reliable!~~I am an uprooted Brit who was often very defensive when Canadians used to tease me about "the RAINS in Britain"~nonsense I used to say,"perhaps you have never lived there''!Well any way,They cannot say too much now!~

Iris Shikatani, Fanny Bay BC, CANADA

Britain is overpopulated, it has been overpopulated for at least 30 years, we are one of the most densly populated countries in the world. This rain has nothing at all to do with the ozone layer, using 60 watt bulbs instead of 100 watts, or recycling your newspapers, bottles and plastic bags. The reason why we have this extremely heavy rain is because of the jetstream which moves northwards or southwards as it wishes. This has trapped many of the depressions we have had between two areas of high pressure. Countries in Europe are experiencing extremely high temperatures which are moving northwards from the Equator. This weather we have will be trapped until the high pressure areas in Europe move. The reason why the rain is so heavy is because the clouds are almost not moving, just have a look and you will see for yourself, big black clouds are stationary in the sky. Britain has many rivers and this is the reason why the M5 was flooded in the middle of the country

Phil de Buquet, Newport, England

In response to Colin from Bournemouth's comment, yes home insurance has been cheap. Your insurers may have to indemnify up to hundreds of thousands of pounds and how much do you pay them? Probably in the low hundreds. Sounds like a good deal to me. Most major insurers do not make their profits from general insurance, they make it from investments.

Sam, Woking,

Intriguing that this articles does not refer to climate change. Disruptive weather patterns have long been seen as a consequence, with the subsequent increased insurance premiums. But does this get a guensey? No.

John Ambrose, Stockholm, Sweden

The other problem is that builders are allowed to build houses in areas that are known flood risks. No actions are taken to protect areas from flooding, so it will always be the householder who takes the risk when they buy the property.

CA, Manchester, UK

People buy houses in flood plains or by pretty rivers should pay more if they are flooded. I bought my house 5 years ago and one of the things I checked was the likelihood of flooding - which is non-existent.

Peggy Webb, Blyth, England

Martin of Welwyn has a point. Now apply the same logic to Buncefield. Which bright spark, excuse the pun, permitted development to encroach on a fuel storage depot that, when built in the 1960s, had been sited specifically to give a buffer zone in case of explosion? The same who give planning permission to build on flood plains? Make them responsible for the consequences of the errors in granting those permissions?

Robert, London,

All these floods are most surely part of the effects of climate change and so we people are be blamed for these floods by the way we have been damaging the environment and ozone layer. We will have to drastically reduce the use of cars, the use of our energy and everything else that causes damage to the environment.

Tom Krosing, Wembley, UK

Why should every householder in the land have to subsidise those who live on the flood plains? Houses should never have been built on flood plains (unless on stilts), and insurance premiums in those areas should reflect the risk of flooding inherent in such an unsound choice of location.

Martin, Welwyn Garden City,

Insurance has always been a con. They only want to insure against something that will never happen. If it does, they fight tooth and nail to resist paying out and reduce the payment as much as they can with their odious assessors. Someone I know who has been flooded has been told that his insurance will cease after his claim is settled.

CA, Manchester, UK

Presummably premium increases will be risk based and those households living on flood plains will see the biggest increases. Buyers will realise that owning a house sited on a flood plain is a bad idea and eventually house builders will realise this too, when they can't sell with sufficient profit. The main losers will be those who own a house on a flood plain now who will suffer from high insurance premiums and lack of interest if they try and sell. I wonder when building societies and banks will start refusing to finance houses built on flood plains?

Frank, Winchester,

This incompetent government has got form in not protecting the tax paying public. Besides, it's more interested in the 2012 Olympic Games than people's flooded homes.

SRB, Abergele, UK

maybe the government should build the infrastuctures needed in the UK first, rather than build infrastuctures in Iraq and Afganistan....much cheaper and no loss of lives.

Bjorn, Swindon,

Its not the insurance companies profits that need to be focused on. Its the Supermarkets and banks that take most of our money! Insurance is a risk area, in order to survive they must make profits for the rainy days.........

david, Colchester, UK

LIVING AND BUILDING IN HARMS WAY: It takes a major and almost catostraphic disaster to make us act. The government and local authorities have known of the dangers of flooding. Most importantly individuals must take the full responsibility for the cost and management, its caveot emptor when you buy the house or rent the house. People should learn to keep drainage clear and ensure their local authorites outsource the services who do not shirk from doing a proper job (budget controls are not an excuse). One blocked drain, can block the whole system.

The government appoints lame administrators who lack the leadership and initiative to drive forward real and effective changes, often to be just nconsensus forming in a cosy club attitude but not forceful and assertive to the point of draconian to meet the task. We are at war not only with nature but selfish and selfserving individuals who block the common good.

Let us leave aside fluffy politics and photo shoots for celebrity doll

caesar, Gloucester, Gloucestershire

It is no use whining and sniping at government over this issue. People want housing in towns, and towns in this country are built on river banks because of our history.
Trying to move new build to other areas naturally means the Green Belt Brigade come out howling, and refusing planning permission just means protracted court battles and appeals.
Put the blame where it exists, house buyers and builders wanting to locate on these flood plains, and charge them accordingly for insurance risks.

Roy E, Salford, UK

You will soon care about flooded fields if you have no food!

Peter, Jedburgh, Roxburghshire

phil, usa

So London, the financial capital of the world, should consist of fields then?

Howard, Swansea,

Why increase premiums by stealth? Just openly increase them. If the risks and damages increase, then so should the premiums - it is simple mathematics. It is not the insurance industry's role to protect the public; that is the duty of government. If we are looking to the industry to cover personal losses from government inneptitude then we must expect to pay for this additional service.

jonathan Mills, Brighton,

As if for the last ten years house insurance has been cheap! This is the usual opportunist scam, lets see their profits first!

Colin, Bournemouth, UK

Lets spend more on flood defenses. Hmmm. Did we not "cause" these floods in the first place by building where we should not have built?

If there were no houses in these risky areas, would anyone care? Yes the times would run pictures of flooded fields, but no one worries about that too much. Its only a catastrophic flood because we have made it a catastrophe by putting houses in harms way.

Better planning, reduced need for flood defenses..

phil, sacramento, ca, usa

As of January 2008, State Farm Insurance ( we are NOT in good hands!) will not continue with any policy holders who live in any coastal state subject to hurricanes! This no doubt will be followed by anybody living where there are storms of any kind, or weather of any kind experienced by carbon-based units. State Farm will then join YouTube and dance around in their undies. Even after your insurance companies pay out all their claims, they are left with billions and billions, freezillions and gadzillions of pounds, never forget that! Don't let them tell you that they are broke, and thus, you must refill their coffers. (Their coffers are behind Harrods). At least you are not being thrown out entirely. And there should be a limit to how much higher they can raise your rates. Ranting and raving called for here. Cheers!

Mom, San Francisco, USA