Damp not highlighted in surveyors report

[Andrew King]

I'm sure you get questions regarding Damp all of the time, but here is another one none-the-less.

First a bit of background info.

I bought a 1920s 2 up 2 down terrace on the north west of england a few months ago, with the aim of refurbing it and then selling it in 2 years.

I was aware that there were visible signs of damp problems before buying the house, but to be honest they were fairly minor in comparison to most other houses that I looked at before buying.

My survey returned no comments regarding damp or damp proofing, despite it being very obvious that there was or at least used to be damp of somekind in the house.

I bought the house trusting that the survey was accurate and that a basic damp test had been conducted.

However upon moving in, I tested all of the walls with an electrical conductivity meter, and all ground level walls registered a low resistance current, caused by significant moisture in the walls, up to about a metre in height.

A plasterer came around (who was recommended to me, and didn't charge me a penny for all his advice) and took one look and said that the cause of damp in the walls was that the plaster was touching the floor, apparently 'bridging' the damp course and all I needed to do was bolster chisel the plaster so it no longer touched the floor. (the floor is solid by the way)

Sure enough having bolster chiseled the plaster off upto skirting board height, the walls appear to be drying on the exposed areas of plaster.

All of the bricks at floor level, which were previously underneath the plaster, have 2 drill holes in them which the plasterer has told me are signs of a chemical damp proofing. However he has also said that this was rendered ineffective when they plastered over it down to the floor, and it needs redoing.

As the damp problem was not indicated on my survey, I am now considering claiming negligence on the part of the mortgage lenders surveyor, and will ask that they pay the fees for any work incurred as a result of the damp.

My questions are;

1) Does the Chemical Damp proofing need to be redone? 2) Does the plasterers advice seem accurate, and is it likely that plaster touching the floor is the cause of damp in the walls?? 3) Have you heard of any similar occurances of damp problems not being highlighted in a survey?

Thanks in advance,

Andrew King.

[Andy Hall]

This would rather depend on the nature of the survey. If you just paid for the basic lender's survey, it is done on behalf of the lender and the main purpose is to determine whether the figure being loaned for the property is realisable should you default. It is quite possible that only serious structural issues would be of concern.

If this is what you have paid for as opposed to a full survey, then don't even bother to call them.

Probably not. Have you checked the ground level outside and whether that is bridging the DPC? If so, then it needs to be lowered, even if only by creating a trench about 200mm wide all the way round and filling with gravel.

It is possible if it has been bridging the DPC.

I am sure that it happens all the time. Unfortunately people tend not to understand what a lender's survey isn't

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[David McNeish]

It's not your survey, it's your lender's survey - the surveyor can be sued if the mortgage lender suffers a loss because of the surveyor's negligence - which will only happen if and when (a) your house is repossessed and (b) your lender suffers a shortfall on the sale and (c) they can show that the shortfall is because they wouldn't have lent you as much money if they had known about the damp.

Even if it had been _your_ survey, you would have to demonstrate what your loss has been i.e. if the surveyor had picked up on the damp, would that have made a difference to the price you paid? Or would you have paid the same but just been made aware of an extra job to do when you moved in?

David

[Mark]

HO HO you get what you pay for. that survey said the house was worth the mortgage loan if you defaulted and it had to be repossessed.

*Nothing More*

[Grunff]

Quite - our lender's survey involved a chap turning up, noting that the house is actually there as described, then leaving. He didn't even go inside.

[Paper2002AD]

OK then. My daughter paid for a Homebuyers Survey, which faied to note that:

The dwarf wall of the sizeable conservatory was a)single skin concrete blocks, b)laid directly onto the pre-existing flagstones, with no footings, and c)able to be demolished with a push of the hand.

Similarly, the full-height side wall was a)single skin, b) laid without footings, and c)not keyed into the main structure of the house, so that d) it fell over with a push of the hand.

The electrical system was a nightmare, with double sockets installed in a number of places by running a peice of flex from other sockets.

An outside 'storm drain' (the surveyor's words) turned out not to exist.

The company employing the surveyor has offered to cough up for remedial electrical work, but refuses to make a contribution to the cost of rebuilding the consevatory. They also failed to inform of their society's complaints procedure. Negligence?

[N. Thornton]

even though it was perfectly obvious that the survey didnt mention the damp you knew was there? Why would you need the survey to tell you what you already knew?

Such readings are almost meaningless. What leads you to believe those low R readings were due to moisture in the walls, and not due to building materials that have some conductivity? Or due to ali foil behind the paper or plaster? Or surface condensation? Or lack of meter calibration? To gain any info from damp meters you need to understand what their readings mean.

debatable diagnosis, but it should help some.

yup. I doubt it was giant mutant brickworms with a penchant for patterns :)

it was bridged.

no reason to at all.

Sounds like you put these folk on a pedestal.

no, plaster bridging has no effect on whats inside the bricks. But there are plenty of folk who wont mind you paying them to do stuff.

Most of them never even needed doing in the first place.

no

no, but its possible.

Youre too trusting. For a knowledgeable forum about damp in old houses, I would suggest

NT

[Peter Parry]

Throw the meter in a bin - they are completely useless.

Going around outside and clearing all the debris/plants from the walls will probably do more good.

Chemical "damp proofing" is more of a psychological than chemical treatment. To do it the installer has to clear all the rubbish from around the walls - it's that which stops the damp. A few years back a local damp proof company was in some financial difficulty and for about a year before it failed used water rather than the silicone fluid used in damp treatment. Not one single customer complained that the treatment didn't work.

How is the mortgage lenders surveyor responsible to you?

No.

Probably not..

More usually surveyors include it whether it exists or not.

[Andrew King]

The fact that the conservatorys poor structural integrity had not been pointed out in the survey must be negligence on the part of the surveyor, as structural integrity is one of the preliminary checks that is/should be carried out.

Having spoken to my solicitor about my situation with the damp, she says that beacuse it seems that I was asked to pay for a 'homebuyers' survey, which includes both valuation and condition assessment, then I should be able to claim negligence. However she also pointed out that all surveyors have access to previous survey records, and that he probably never even visited the house in the first place, he probably just checked the old records.

here is an interesting exerpt that I found on google, detailing what conditional assessment should cover in a homebuyers survey.

The items you need a clear view on, because they are costly to remedy, include:

• structural soundness; evidence of settlement, subsidence and implications for the future * quality of woodwork; evidence of dry and wet rot, woodworm and attack by other insects * quality of the roof; the timber inside, the soffits and fascia, guttering, the roof covering, flashing, and the state of flat roofing * the management of damp; exterior and interior wall coatings including render, paints and wallpapers, soil levels, and damp proof course * internal plastering; type and quality, state of decorative mouldings * pointing and state of the brickwork; the use of lime, state of chimneys * windows and doors; quality of wood or metal and their fitting * the state of the drains

Any inspection of the drains has its limitations, and there are obvious constraints on access to floors, roofs and other areas which will often only be apparent upon arrival on site. Access to underneath the ground floor is also useful; bouncy floors often indicate a problem but diagnosis is only possible by lifting a floorboard.

A general view on the electrics, boiler and other issues should still be included in a survey since this provides a balanced picture of the property as a whole.

[N. Thornton]

I thought the homebuyers survey was for the lender not for you. But since theyre offering some kind of compensation, that doesnt seem to tally.

Regards, NT

[IMM]

When Madonna was attempting to buy a house in London, she complained about the damp in our homes. She had turned down many houses because the surveyor said there was damp because his probe said so. This led to condemnation of these devices.

[Paper2002AD]

The Homebuyers Survey is just that - for the home buyer. It is the intermediate survey, in between a simple valuation and a full structural survey

[AJ]

Testing with a "standard" multimeter can, depending on the setting, make a dry piece of wood look conductive. The reading you are getting may even be caused by damp in the surface of the plaster due to condensation and possible absorption of natural humidity from the air.

That said I am sure there is damp in the house you have bought, older houses that were not built with modern style damp proofing will almost always have damp return within a few years of these chemical treatments. Solid floors tend to amplify the problem as well and have the tendency to "push" the moisture into the base of the walls.

AJ

[N. Thornton]

Damp meters are actually very usful items, but to imagine that they directly read off damp level is a gross simplification. Once you understand what they do and dont, and whqt their readings means and dont, theyre very useful tools. For some strange reason, even surveyors dont seem to have much comprehension of what they do and dont mean.

Regards, NT

[Dougie Nisbet]

I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing. If the other sockets are part of the main ring, then the double sockets are just a spur of the ring main.

[Paper2002AD]

But white three-core flex, trailing around the floor from one room to the next?

[Dougie Nisbet]

After I posted I did think to myself - the poster said flex and not cable.

[Owain]

"Paper2002AD" wrote | > > The company employing the surveyor has offered to cough up for | > > remedial electrical work, but refuses to make a contribution | > > to the cost of rebuilding the consevatory. They also failed | > > to inform of their society's complaints procedure. Negligence? | > I thought the homebuyers survey was for the lender not for you. | > But since theyre offering some kind of compensation, that doesnt | > seem to tally. | The Homebuyers Survey is just that - for the home buyer. It is | the intermediate survey, in between a simple valuation and a full | structural survey

It's possible the Homebuyers Survey excludes conservatories, greenhouses, sheds and outbuildings (check the small print). Thus the electrical work should have been noticed as part of the house survey, but the condition of the conservatory simply is outwith the terms of the survey.

Owain

[Peter Parry]

They are simply resistance meters.

Unfortunately by the time you have finished with the "interpretation" you might as well have cast bones or examined tea leaves for the answer. The meter is a very simple device - if interpretation of its readings are so complex it isn't a suitable device for the job. Damp is very simple and doesn't need electrickery to work out.

what they do and

On that we agree!!

[N. Thornton]

Not at all, but this is the next popular wave of thinking that is steadily replacing the equally unlikely notion that they directly read damp in walls.

Firstly they are calibrated to read moisture content in wood. Using them on walls wont give any sensible result. If youre testing for damp you need to test the woodwork. Moisture content in wood tells you moisture content in the environment surrounding the wood, so is a sound test method for damp.

2ndly surface condensation does not imply a damp problem, so 30 seconds with a hairdryer should be done if a high reading is obtained. This enables differentiation between damp and transient condensation.

if they give a low reading then the wood is dry, there is no damp problem. Such a result is accurate, and is indeed useful. With a high reading _on wood_ _after surface drying_ the result is over 99% conclusive. For a pocket device that gives a quick reading, which is what is normally needed for surveys, they do a very good job. If one comprehends their basic function! It is odd that surveyors that use them professionally every day dont.

It is only when they are incompetently misused - as they mostly are - that their readings are worth little. Even in such bad use, a low reading still can confirm the absence of damp, but a high reading is meaningless if misused, since there are other factors than damp that cause high readings in plaster.

Regards, NT