Surveyor's report on house with rising damp

I've put a bid on a 1930's bungalow & the survey hasn't come back too
One of the things is rising damp. It appears there's no damp proof
course. I've had 2 properties that both had damp & had damp proof
injection, with the plaster repl;aced to 1m, but neither worked.
Wwhat are the alternatives & how feasible is it to have a proper damp
course added?
Very grateful for any replies & advice
Reply to
How bad is the damp? what are the symptoms...
There's a few options if it's bad. Inserting a proper DPM is one and probably the most expensive, you'd need to find a good bricky but I don't see why it's not possible.
Also, you could:
- Lime Plaster - Plaster Membrane - Dry Line affected walls w/batterns - Do your own DPC (dryzone) and then use renovation plaster
Don't pay for a 4 figure chemical DPC. I wouldn't, I would use the damp problem as a way to get the asking price down though...
Reply to
In article , FrankW writes:
They probably didn't work because they were a misdiagnosis. Surveyors aren't very good with diagnosing damp problems. More likely to have been penetrating damp or condensation.
You need to get someone who specialises in damp to correctly diagnose the problem, if indeed there is any problem. Expect to pay for this, as you want someone who isn't tied to a damp treatment company. (A free survey by a damp company will be even less reliable than your existing survey). If you state your location, someone here might be able to suggest someone.
I also doubt a 1930's property doesn't have a damp proof course.
Reply to
Andrew Gabriel
Has the lender put a retention on the mortgage over this, ie are they insisting on the DPC being done?
Reply to
But is it actually damp?
And have you checked the outside ground level hasn't risen and is causing problems by water splashing on the wall?
Unless mortgage retention subject to remedial works is a problem, just use the absence of dpc to haggle the price down, then rejoice.
Reply to
I agree, the survey can work in your favour
We had a damp problem diagnosed as rising damp (when it's mainly penetrating damp and condensation) - there was no retention from the mortgage company and we used the survey to knock another 5K off the asking price.
We've now hacked off the affected plaster and are lowering the raised ground level outside to cure the original problem - once this is done we'll use Lime plaster and a breathable paint. It's actually quite fun and stuff you can do yourself and we've saved thousands.
Reply to
Damp problems are invariably not rising damp. You say yourself you've had two lots of dpc treatments which suggest that it wasn't rising damp in the first place.
Even Victorian houses had a dpc. I've had two and both had slate dpcs. Have you looked for soil bridging the dpc, leaky guttering etc.
Reply to
In message , Mark wrote
My 'rising damp' problem as diagnosed by the surveyor was caused by water penetrating a rotten window sill!
Reply to
No, damp problems are *not invariably* rising damp.
Sometimes they are though.
Bollocks. I used to live in a cottage built in 1901 that had no DPC.
Sure its rare, but not impossible.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
My rising damp problems were cased by water pooling under the house and soaking up the porus internal brick and lime mortar spine walls and the porous brick and lime mortar chimneys. FWIW if its more than about 9" above ground level or with modern bricks or stone and portland cement mortar, it ain't rising damp.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Dear Frank I has been a mandatory building regulation to insert a damp-proof course since 1886 and so IF your prospective purchase was built in the 1930s and really has not got a dpc it will be as a result of a failure of both the building surveyor and the builder which is a pretty long shot I would put =A3100 to a 1d that there is a dpc. Check and see if it is bridged Get a PCA (ex BWPDA) member DPC "specialist" whose surveyor has the CSRT qualification and whose firm offers the GPI backup insurance. That increases your chances of getting a correct diagnosis considerably (I guess from 1% to perhaps 60%!) but use your commonsense.
I would do the following CAll in the most prestigious expensive firms you can think off NOT using my criteria but judging by the size of the advert on yellow pages - ususlly the bigger the advert the better chance you will have of an expensive estimate Get three estimates Knock the price down
Then get in your selected guy and identify the real problem then DIY
Watch out for bridged cavities if it is cavity but that should be with your surveyor (mortgage)
Tell me more about the property and I can perhpas help
A photo even better
Reply to
Surveys are likely full of caveats and 'cover my arse' mentality. The main use is to haggle the price down.
Reply to
The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
It could be true for some places. ISTR hearing that building regulation developed in a rather haphazard local fashion so London might have had a mandatory dpc back then while out in the wilds of Suffolk it didn't come in until England and Wales got the national regulations much much later.
Reply to
Dear NP
Just googled it I was wrong I was 1875 for the Act
"The early building regulations of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ... Although the 1875 Act made it mandatory for damp proof courses (DPCs) to be.... "
In my early training I was regularly informed it was the 1880s and the figure 1886 was regularly provided.
I suspect Roger is right and that in the outer parts of the country the Act was simply not followed. I have just worked on a CDM regulated site in a certain part of N Wales and what they get away with there has to be seen to be believed!
As I said in other posts the fact that a house say built in 1902 does not have a dpc (as the one I was working on recently didnt and was built at the same time) does not mean that the law did not require it!
Reply to
Dear NP More evidence from searching
It is clear that the act was 1875 and I suspect my information on 1886 was a subsequent Building (as opposed to Public Health) regulation but will check it out when I have a moment)
See the following:
See Manchester article which shows regulation was for all England (and hence Wales)
formatting link
the 1875 Act made it mandatory. for damp proof courses (DPCs) to be provid- ..... Stephenson, J. (1995), See
formatting link
is the site that will sell you the definitive book!
formatting link
Damp is caused by moisture rising up through porous masonry from the self build land and is usually found in older buildings constructed without a damp proof course or where an existing damp proof course has failed or has been bridged. Generally all buildings constructed before 1875 would have been built without a damp proof course, after which date a Public Health Act was introduced to incorporate a damp proof course in all buildings, and this would include homes built on self build land. Early types of damp proof courses relied on the use of natural slate which was incorporated between the lower courses of brickwork and extended across the walls width and normally about 150mm above external ground level. In later years poured bitumen, bitumen coated felts and polythene based materials have become more popular.=E2=80=9D
Reply to
On 25 Dec,
From my experience of new houses built under NHBC supervision I suspect that much later houses were not built to the standard of the relevant building regulations. It's more what the builders can get away with.
Reply to
formatting link
Which is the site that will sell you the definitive book!
Right. HOWEVER somewhere in my building regs bible, there is a bit of info IIRC that says that the method of *enforcing* building regulations simply did not exist prior to the 50's
It was more or less a voluntary set of practice, if not in law.
I remember watching infill housing going up as a child in the late 50's, and although the standard was pretty good, looking back on it - double cavity, DPC, same as our '53 built house had - I do not recall building inspectors on site.
I would regard any house buildt befire that last war as potentially suspect inmany araes.
I have just looked at my 'bible'' of 20002 regulations, and it clearly states that it was teh 1984 Act which gave authority to compel destruction of non compliant buildings. Prior to that there was no ultimate sanction.
In fact the first chapter in the book details the history
1875, Public Health Act gives local authorities the power to enact local byelaws to control building work. Doesn't compel them too tho.
1890: Act is amended to allow them to enforce flushable loos, but with same provisos.
These byelaws were not operative until confirmed by ministry of health, and were only BASED on recommendations. And were considerably varied. leading to lack of uniformity - and its likely they were not applied at all in rural parishes.
1936: Repealed the latter, and provided new, but local authorities were not obliged to make byelaws. Only if the minister of health directly asked them to did they HAVE to MAKE the laws, and those byelaws COULD be extended to cover planning permission
So here we are at 1936, with no actual *necessity* for planning or building control at all. Its at the whim of the minister of health or the actual local council.
1961: This is the first real change towards the modern regulations. At a stroke the regulations become uniform and centralised, and the powers of local authorities to make them as byleaws is revoked. However they retain the authority to enforce them. Both the authority and the builder can appeal to the Minister for relaxation in any areas they see fit.
1974. First Elfin Safety directive extends powers of building regulations to cover many more structures.
1980: fees to council for planning and BCO introduced.
1984: Building act. Complete root and branch overhaul of regulations. More teeth to enforce
What this suggests to me is that prior to 1961 there were no central building regulations at all that were universally applied.
ONLY in 1984 did the sort of powers that could compel demolition of non compliant work come into effect.
As far as I can see only post 1984 work can be more or less assumed to be to regulations, de facto, although post 1961 works should be unless the law was deliberately flouted. (and IME it often was for extensions and modifications: My niece took on a building last ear with a 70's extension that was hand NO FOOTINGS AT ALL (and a large willow tree, but that's another matter. Underpinned the whole thing). In addition the brickwork over the lintels was supported by 2x4' (rotten) wooden lintels..Did have a DPC tho, although the older main building it was attached to did not. Estimate 1880's for that bit))
Prior to that its a tossup, depending on the local council the work was done under.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Site Timeline Threads

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.