The flood report you acquired via enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk showed the home as being in an area of very low flood risk.
You forwarded the report to Barclays but it said its insurer preferred the opinion of the hydrology company it employed. Aviva, it said, had told the bank there was a flood risk to the west of the property.
A Barclays spokesman said: “We’ve reviewed Mr T’s case with Aviva’s flood specialist department and our original decision remains.”
It says the different conclusions are based on different methodologies.
• 'Why did insurer increase car premium when 91-year-old was removed from policy?'
• 'Insurer won’t pay for cancelled trip'
Barclays said it wanted more quantifiable evidence such as of flood defences being in place or a property-specific report from a surveyor or hydrologist, with spot heights and floor levels taken from around the site and immediate area to suggest that its model was not predicting “out of channel” flow effectively.
You contacted hydrologists about getting a report but the cost quoted, of around £600, is, you estimate, about the same as any refund would be. Aviva said it was not convinced by the relevance of the further evidence you did produce. This included details from the Environment Agency about flood prevention that was put in place when a new road and housing were built.
Meanwhile, you obtained insurance costing just under £40 for the year from Saga. I find the contrast in premiums very disturbing.
A Barclays spokesman said: “We’ve reviewed Mr T’s case with Aviva’s flood specialist department and our original decision remains.”
It says the different conclusions are based on different methodologies.
• 'Why did insurer increase car premium when 91-year-old was removed from policy?'
• 'Insurer won’t pay for cancelled trip'
Barclays said it wanted more quantifiable evidence such as of flood defences being in place or a property-specific report from a surveyor or hydrologist, with spot heights and floor levels taken from around the site and immediate area to suggest that its model was not predicting “out of channel” flow effectively.
You contacted hydrologists about getting a report but the cost quoted, of around £600, is, you estimate, about the same as any refund would be. Aviva said it was not convinced by the relevance of the further evidence you did produce. This included details from the Environment Agency about flood prevention that was put in place when a new road and housing were built.
Meanwhile, you obtained insurance costing just under £40 for the year from Saga. I find the contrast in premiums very disturbing.
No comments:
Post a Comment