FIRST it trebled Brian Simmonds’ home insurance premium after official maps showed his property was at risk of flooding – even though it is five metres above the nearest stream.

Then insurance giant Legal & General apologised and agreed his home in the picturesque Ryedale village Hutton Le Hole was not at high risk of flooding.

Then it turned round and told him it would not insure his home at all – because it was at significant risk of flooding. The Press reported earlier this month how the Environment Agency’s flood map had apparently led to Mr Simmonds’ annual premium with Legal & General soaring from £325 to £904.

He said while he had subsequently managed to find another insurer prepared to give him cover for £327, he remained concerned it too might hike its premium at renewal and he was concerned many other householders across the country could be affected by the same problem. The agency said it would be updating its map for Hutton later this year.

Legal & General subsequently investigated Mr Simmonds’ complaint, and recently told The Press his premium had increased at renewal due to a combination of loss of no-claims discount and a higher “load” for flood.

A spokesman said: “It appears the latest, improved version of the Environment Agency flood data that we use no longer shows the property as high risk, although nearby properties are high risk. This backs up Mr Simmonds’ view that, although he might be near water, his particular property does not represent a high flood risk We apologise and would be happy to re-quote, although understand if he doesn’t want to.”

But the saga then took a new twist when Mr Simmonds rang L & G independently to find out what quote he would be given now.

“After taking my details – address and postcode – and putting me on hold while they checked, the operative informed me that my property is at significant risk of flooding and they would not be able to offer me any form of insurance at all,” he said. “Nothing. This just goes from bad to worse!”

After being contacted again by The Press, the company investigated once more, and came back saying: “We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused. We accept that we made a mistake and that we should have offered Mr Simmonds cover.”