Yes, I understand what you are saying danny - and I'm saying being impecunious is not reason enough to be given compensation as a result of not buying insurance.
The price of insurance will be higher in flood-prone areas, which is absolutely fair enough, but unaffordable? Nah, I don't believe that.
It's about priorities - insurance is a boring overhead that doesn't serve any purpose, until it's needed of course, so I can sort of understand why some people would rather spend their money on something else, but if I lived in an area prone to flooding, I'd make bloody sure I had adequate insurance, whether it cost £200 or £2,000, and I'd cut my cloth accordingly so that I could afford it.
In some areas it appears to be a case of not IF it floods, but WHEN it floods, and therefore if insurance is available, but not purchased, I really really struggle with the idea that they should be entitled to tax payers money.