Damp course for victorian terraced house

The Real Doctor wrote:

:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dear Chris An awful lot of unscientific, unsubtantiated assertions are made about rising damp. You do not have to look further than the opinions expressed above to get a feel of it. As best I can I will give you a resume of what happens. Rising damp is caused by the migration of a solution of inorganic salts from the ground into the plaster and bricks of a wall over a long period of time - decades. It is NOT water per se that is the problem but the water that is abstracted from the atmosphere at times of high RH. The reason the BRE experiment did not work is probably because the chaps doing it could not reproduce the conditions in a building over a period of say 50 years. I happen to know most of them and they are not the only ones to have tried the idea of putting brick columns in ponds of water and testing dpcs this way. ~The University of the South Bank did a similar experiment with similar lack of sucess and drew a disimilar conclusion. Rising damp does exist. It is not particularly rare. The problem is the specialists do egg it a lot and class bridged dpcs and latereral penetration as rising damp. That may account for more than 50% of the houses treated - unnecessarily! Plastering is NOT always needed and not necessarily for 1 m - the standard distance. That is normally to protect the interests of the company rather than the client. When my firm was contracting in this field (1979) we did it for 1 year and decided that it was simply not worth doing because the profit margin was too low and most of the houses we visited did not have true rising damp needing treatment. We got calls out for condensation - pipe leaks - bridge dpcs - you name it! your friend needs to do several things 1) establish that there really is no dpc - they have been mandatory since 1886 and could have been bridged by soil and concrete paths 2) IF NO dpc - then borrow or buy a damp meter and plot readings in all walls on an isometric sketch of the affected areas over a period of several months at times of high and low RH. Any variation in the tide mark indicates RD. There should be a pattern of readings starting from the top of no damp at say 1 m down to very damp at say 800 mm then slightly damp below that at the top of the skirting. check the skirtings - are they wet (greater than say 14 w/w ) if so you may have some form of dampness 3) get at least three free surveys - select using the following criteria a) full members of the PCA (ex BWPDA) b) offering GPT back up guarantee c) most importantly insist the surveyor has the CSRT qualifiation these three will not ensure you get a good survey but will cut out an awful lot of crap 4) USE YOUR COMMONSENSE in intermpreting the results and dont take them as Gospel - most firms have their intersts at heart 5) If there is dampness but the plaster is not visually damaged - take a risk - put in the dpc but delay the replastering for a year and see if it dries out - that saves a lot of money 6) understand that the rising damp does not occur in the bricks so drilling the bricks is a waste of time- It occurs in the mortar. Ask the firm if they drill the bricks (trick question) If they say "Yes" show them the door and explain that you wanted someone who understood they needed to drill the mortar not the brick to put the hydrophobic layer in the mortar 7) the best dpc (in my opinion) is one using a silane based compound - trade name "Dryzone" from Safeguard Chemicals - you can buy it and diy See the website Costs - these vary from firm to firm but a good diy can negotiate reductions by taking off skirtings where needed for them and doing the hacking off themselves
8) read up on the BWPDA (now PCA) code of practice for DPC s which is similar to that of the BS which is also worth reading Both are a bit out of date but show the principles.
Come back to me if you need further help Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@atics.co.uk wrote:

fair bit of misinformationn here too
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

pot, kettle.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
so who's going to get the credit card out, there is a bit of an introduction http://www.brebookshop.com/details.jsp?id (7528 looks like they do believe in rising damp.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Hardly a logic based line of reasoning, but hey.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31 Oct, 10:57, snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Dear meow2, Particulars (of misinformation) please? Chris G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 1, 11:58 am, snipped-for-privacy@atics.co.uk wrote:

Don't worry he's a period property 'loony' ;)
Interesting site here BTW:
<http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/2auffen.htm
cheers, Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you Pete for your kind explanation. I was a bit suprised at the unfounded nature of the allegation and look forward to a reasoned response with facts and/or supportive evidence to substantiate what meow2 has said about my post. Absent that, readers will be able to make their own judgements. As a scientist I am always willing to listen to a reasoned argument and change my mind. Chris G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@atics.co.uk wrote:

last time I wrote about this it took a couple of hours, so not really. Theres a damp faq on http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1 , but the sites down, and no idea if it'll resurrect or not. Some things just take more than a couple minutes to sum up.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Oct, 18:02, snipped-for-privacy@atics.co.uk wrote:

Not misinformation, per se, as you could actually do this and get the right result for the building. Not the best in information either though is it?
If you did this there is a very strong likelihood you would get 3 quotes for work. You are essentially recommending that if you think you may have rising damp get an opinion from 3 commissioned sellers of them to check. Now one may be honest, but thats a risk as big as suggesting you get 3 doubleglazing salesmen to give you an honest appraisal of your windows.
How about suggesting that the person pay for a destructive test to confirm the wall is actually damp, rather than go through the whole:
resistance meter SUGGESTS it's damp, put a cDPC in wall is still showing signs of damp attempt to claim on lovely GPT backed guarentee CSRT qualified surveyor turns up again and this time does a destructive test on the wall destructive test DETERMINES its damp (...or not)
process?
Surely that has to be better than relying on commissioned salesmen and risking uneccessary works?
Disclaimer: I undertake the works described, am not currently a PCA member because the company I work for is not. The PCA has independent non-commissioned surveyors listed on their website. There are excellent surveyors working for companies that make them sell on commission, promoting free surveys perpetuates the problems described in this thread, worse still: promoting companies that have a commissioned sales business model perpetuates the poor public perception of the industry as a whole.
My opinion, not necessarily that of the company I work for.
M Green
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@googlemail.com wrote:

This really is the issue here. IME , you will be told that you have rising damp and a chemical injection plus "specialist" re-plastering is needed at xyz cost, plus an option to insure against further damp for 20 years. How good the guarantee would be remains to be tested if later tests reveal that there was no rising damp and the damp problem was attributable to other causes of damp remains to be seen.

This is what I was trying to suggest to the OP when I mentioned that a proper *independent* damp survey be done. I wish I had worded my reply more strongly and mentioned a destructive test now. To be fair though, it is unlikely that a vendor would allow such a test if they have been living with a damp problem, and even tried to disguise it for the sale.

Yep.
Fair enough and I agree with that totally.
FWIW, you have made some good points here but so has Chris who also, obviously, has a wealth of experience in this field.

:-)
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These might be of use if there is reason to believe there is a damp problem, but doing one simply because a surveyor wants to offload responsibility and a salesman says they want to do some work isnt appropriate imho. Unless theres a realistic reason to believe otherwise, the problem normally isnt damp, its the damp game.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.