I need to have an inspection and possibly some remedial work to address some evidence of damp where an outdoors shed adjoins the house.
Has anyone had experience of a company called Preserva in Nottingham?
Any horror-stories, praise etc?
Not heard of that company but suggest you make sure they are members of an association that offers a guarantee on behalf of its members. British Wood Preserving and Damproofing Association or British Structural Waterproofing Association both have websites.
Notice they offer gaurantees on behalf of their members. A guarantee from a contractor himself is only good for the time he is in business.
Good luck
I used them about 8 years ago and they were OK and the damp proofing worked with no probs. Not cheap but they did the job. Am awaiting a quote from them at the moment on another job, the chap they sent seemed to know what he was talking about - will let you know the outcome On the other hand the building I'm on at the moment had another Notts firm dealing with damp and dry rot called Bagguley & Jenkins. Everything they did was appalling - a completely failed expensive bodge rip off. Don't touch them with a barge pole - you'll get dry-rot in the pole!
cheers
Jacob
Thanks. I think they've been in business for quite a while, but I'll make the appropriate checks. It may not come to actually paying them to do the work, just asking them to test for damp and give an estimate for any work required (I'd happily pay for an honest estimate)
That's encouraging, I'd rather spend more for a decent job than take a risk and skimp. And I'll make a warning note of Bagguley & Jenkins.
I'm about to get them out to do some work in Derby. They were recommended by a surveyor, who was farily certain that they don't carry out unnessary work.
First site visit (last Sep/Oct), their guy (the MD I think) assessed the situation and stated that he was confident there was a leak causing the damp and any work at this point would be unnessecary until the leak had been found and/or discounted. He was right and there was a leak in the CH which we sorted.
Unfortunately, that didn't cure the problem. Second visit, and I'd got up a few more floorvaords and he recommended some remedial work and costed it up. His parting shot was along the lines of, I'll send you a written quote and specification for the work but you are under no obligation to use us to do the work.
Charge to us so far is nil. I'll see if I'm as happy in a month's time as I am now, once they've lightened my pockets!
Rob
When I bought my house in Nottingham (2001), my surveyor suggested that there were minor damp problems, but the presence of a current guarantee from Preserva meant that I would be able to remedy this without charge after purchasing the house.
After completion I contacted Preserva (stupidly not contacting them beforehand), who said that the guarantee was not valid unless supported by a copy of the survey which they made at the time the work was carried out (this was not stated on the g/tee certificate). Not having a copy, they said they could retrieve a copy from their archives for a fee (~=A350?). Additionally, if I wanted to claim, I would have to pay (~=A3120?) for a survey by them, which they would refund if they found their work to be faulty. I asked whether this was likely, and was told that 'hardly anyone was correct in thinking the work was faulty, it was usually some other problem like condensation'. I did a bit of more thorough research into my specific problem and found that the treatment employed was not suitable for the type of damp present, and decided that it would be pretty easy for them to state that the treatment hadn't failed (even though it was inappropriate to begin with). I couldn't have found this before buying the house, as I had to remove kitchen units to see exactly what was going on.
In short - for a simple treatment their work is probably fine, but I wouldn't hope to claim against the guarantee unless the wording has changed significantly, and I certainly wouldn't pay any extra for a longer/insurance backed guarantee. There are others posting on this board who may suggest that you hire the kit and do it yourself, which is apparently not that difficult.
Hope this helps, Jon.
reply-to user13954 at yahoo dot co dot uk 'from' address is a spamcatcher
I'm a bit of a fraud in this case, as I don't have the slightest intention of engaging in any DIY to solve this particular problem, I'm more interested in coming to a fair arrangement with the people buying my current house, and that presupposes an accurate assessment of the situation.
When I come to buy the next one, and can take a few more chances relying on myself, I'll bear this in mind, thanks.
I've not seen the damp problem, but I can say that in the majority of cases whats been mentioned so far is somewhat wrong footed. To explain a little:
1=2E Damp surveys routinely diagnose healthy walls as having damp problems. 2=2E Damp surveys are usually done with a damp meter, as a result of a widely criticised court ruling, but these meters quite simply do not measure damp. They measure resistance, and the relationship between dampness and resistance is not as simple as is routinely treated. In brief, a damp meter can not diagnose a damp problem. It can provide some information, which may or may not be useful, but thats all. 3=2E Rising damp, although it exists, is a rare beast. Most cases of real damp problems are condensation or penetrating damp. 4=2E Most damp surveyors are in reality salesmen 5=2E The widespread false diagnosis of rising damp and offering of exorbitantly priced injection and tanking is a business activity, ie carried out for money. 6=2E Injected dpcs are usually not useful. 7=2E There are 2 quite diferent methods by which houses handle damp. The approach required depends entirely on which type of method the building is designed to use. The 2 approaches are not cross compatible. Very briefly, modern builds rely primarily on impermeability, old buildings rely primarily on evaporation.etc etc
If you want to get more into it, Im not writing the book here, you can read and ask in
NT
I'll read and digest, and this will be excellent information when I come to buy my next house (likely to take a while, as I want exactly the right location).
I wouldn't argue with any of your points (and I'm not qualified to), in particular the damp-meter reference. This seems to me like a bit of a silver bullet for people who want to put an exact figure on things, rather than the application of common sense and experience.
Unfortunately, reasoned argument is unlikely to go far with the mortgage company of the buyers, so I'm still likely to have to engage in the right ritualistic dance and token payment to make sure they're satisfied.
It's an older house, and we do get a bit of very mild damp due to condensation if some of the rooms aren't used for a while, but there's no sign of any discolouration, damage to plaster, etc.
I have a friend who lives in a converted forge, and the ground floor is partially underground. Theres a bit of a damp problem that manifests itself as a small patch of plaster becoming discoloured every couple of years, and flaking away once in a while. He as quoted 6,000 - 7,000 pounds to get the root of the problem, but he takes the view that you can buy a *lot* of 10pence sized lumps of new plaster and enough paint to cover it for that amount.
I agree with most of that. Guarantees have to be worthless as even with the best intentions the work is a bit of a gamble, and the cost of remedying failure would be very high and not always successful. I wonder if you'd get a better deal if you said no guarantee required but the work to be done in good faith as well as possible.
cheers Jacob
In message , Nottingham Jon writes
Very similar to Rentokills' way of doing things.
If you're selling as you say in another post, can't you just take the shed down? It fix fix the problem.
MBQ
It's a bit more substantial that a shed, and something of a selling point for the people we've agreed a sale with. Also it's not certain that the shed *is* the cause of the problem; that's just my interpretation of the surveyors vague report.
Which is a very valid point. When we bought our current house we were told as a result of the building society basic survey that there was damp in one small stretch of wall. The building society gave us the mortgage "on the condition that we sorted out the damp problem as soon as possible after moving in" (which we didn't, but they haven't come round to check!)
The suspicious part was that not only did the survey tell us about the damp, it also came with a quote from an "approved" contractor to do the required work to cure the problem (about £400 I think it came to).
Anyway, being aware of the skepticism surrounding the whole damp issue, I was very dubious. The wall in question was covered with unpainted blown vinyl that has to have dated back to the 70's/early 80's judging by the style, and the paper showed no signs of damp.
We were fortunate because the old dear who was selling was so worried about losing the sale that she was quick to knock the £400 off the price of the house. (I suspect I will get lots of abuse for saying that!)
Unfortunately, reasoned argument is unlikely to go far with the mortgage company of the buyers, so I'm still likely to have to engage in the right ritualistic dance and token payment to make sure they're satisfied.
This is not so. If you employ an independent surveyor, such as myself, you'll get a thorough appraisal of your property and a report based solely on its needs. I have no financial interest whatever in any recommendations my surveys make; although I have to say that in the main they recommend very little work and most of what is required can be done either by the client or by a general builder. The main problem is that people prefer a 'free' survey to the ones I and my colleagues provide and the fact that they may then embark on several thousand pounds worth of unnecessary activitiy, involving all sorts of chemicals and potions, seldom seems to enter into it!
My website
Patrick
I know what you mean about the ritual dance, and its something I always find annoying. Although Patricks comments seem to come from a commercial point of view, I quite agree with him. A properly qualified individual could report on a small issue like that for around =A370. If there are no signs visually of anythng wrong, this is likely the route I'd choose. Youve then got the full initial survey followed by the genuinely expert say so on the on issue raised. This should be enough to dismiss the fun and games, and at much less expense than hundreds or thousands of pounds.
I'm somewhat forgetting the original situation: if you genuinely do have damp, its a bit different... tiring day :)
NT
In message , Patrick writes
You are probably "one in a million"
The problem is that the buyer chooses the surveyor, (chartered), for the mortgage valuation, the valuer invariably sees his damp meter needle go into the red in various places, and insists/recommends a T & D report.
The lender then INSISTS on a T & D report, which buyers can get for free, and they dont care whether they can get a better one by paying you to do it.
The lender is happy with the free report, and either insists or recommends that its' recommendations are carried out, and the valuer is happy with the free report because his backside is covered.
It doesnt matter that bad advice is received, because the free thing works, (or is perceived to work), for all parties, so this is how it is.
You could suggest that the seller commissions your services and presents your conclusions to the buyer - but the buyer doesnt trust anything provided by the seller, particularly if it suggests a lower cost alternative, but also because everyone they know, and talk to, goes down the free report route.
I spent years trying to get buyers, and/or sellers, to pay for an examination of core samples, or whatever, and it rarely happened.
The fact is that there is a timber and damp game, where the rules are well known, and which is played out almost every time a second hand property is sold.
But you know all that.....
It must be very frustrating
It isn't that bad actually RIchard - I'm too old to be frustrated!
the situation was; that's what I'm doing here in the first place.
The absurdity of it beggars belief; chartered surveyors actually encouraging people to take advice from completely unknown quantities with vested interests is something from Wonderland. But, probably because of the Internet, more and more people are beginning to question the whole setup and I have to say: business is brisk!
Your post also seems to assume that it's always the seller who pays for the work. This isn't necessarily so and buyers themselves become extremely interested in the results of surveys when it's they who are paying! Even when it is the poor old seller who has to cough up, sometimes, either because of environmental concerns or just the fact they don't want their future home messed about with, buyers too get interested.
The new Seller's Pack rules will also be interesting: D & T companies are going to have to provide more estimates knowing they stand very little chance of getting any work from them, at least until the property has actually been sold. And punters may actually wake up to the fact that they're being mislead when they have to confront the putative costs before they get their dosh from the sale. Attitudes are incredibly different when you're chasing a sale rather than when you're first setting out your stall!
As you say, unless they're paying for any work, it isn't much benefit to the buyer to know the truth. At least not until they've had the wrong treatments done, the firm they used went bust and, in case of both the previous situations (which happens all the time) they're then in the position their seller was when it's their turn to put the board up!
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'free' 'survey' eventually recedes into the distance, certainly the BWPDA would like to see it go, But I'll probaby have done that myself by then (receded into the distance)!
Kind regards
Patrick
I noticed this on your web site.
"when cavity insulation was installed (the owner forgot to tell me about this). the installers had surrounded the airbricks with what resembled bottle-brushes. These were supposed to keep them clear of the insulation but were as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapots."
A relative recently bought a 1930s house that had cavity insulation installed prior to purchase, and had exactly the same problem. Unfortunately Dry Rot had taken hold and spread to 2/3 of the ground floor before this became apparent. Wonder how many other similar installations hold ticking time bombs under people's floors.
BTW your web site appears quite broken using Linux/Firefox ;-(
-HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.