I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods over granting permission under the Party Wall Act, and I've ended
up getting all the work done except the bits on the party wall. I've had
a letter from their surveyor over Christmas saying that we're now in
dispute, that I ought to appoint a surveyor and that those two surveyors
can go and select a third independent surveyor to adjudicate the whole
thing, all at about £100 hour per surveyor. I get stuck with the bill
for the whole lot, if it takes them 3 hours each to sort it out I end up
with a bill for £1000 in fees to do maybe work costing maybe £80.

Anyway, having read around damp in Victorian houses a bit more while
waiting for all this to be sorted out I'm wondering if I need it to be
done at all, and I'd appreciate some advice either way.

When we bought the house in August it had been empty for about a year.
The cellar is fairly damp and timbers have been replaced (in the past
and by us). Several skirting boards have been rotten when they've been
removed. When I took off the skirting board on one of the party wall
sections the inside face of the board was wet with standing water and
the timber plugs used to fix it to the wall were so rotten and wet that
water could be squeezed out of them by hand.

So really, what I'm hoping someone can advise me on (difficult I know)
is where to go with this. Is CDC a waste of time in Victorian houses, or
will it be a good idea in these circumstances? Do I need more
professinal advice and who from?

Thanks in advance

cheers

dave

dave wrote:

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

classic scam

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods over granting permission under the Party Wall Act, and I've ended
up getting all the work done except the bits on the party wall. I've had
a letter from their surveyor over Christmas saying that we're now in
dispute, that I ought to appoint a surveyor and that those two surveyors
can go and select a third independent surveyor to adjudicate the whole
thing, all at about £100 hour per surveyor. I get stuck with the bill
for the whole lot, if it takes them 3 hours each to sort it out I end up
with a bill for £1000 in fees to do maybe work costing maybe £80.

that I'm afraid is the price of your inappropriate proposed works on
what is 50% their property.


Anyway, having read around damp in Victorian houses a bit more while
waiting for all this to be sorted out I'm wondering if I need it to be
done at all, and I'd appreciate some advice either way.

no


When we bought the house in August it had been empty for about a year.
The cellar is fairly damp and timbers have been replaced (in the past
and by us). Several skirting boards have been rotten when they've been
removed. When I took off the skirting board on one of the party wall
sections the inside face of the board was wet with standing water and
the timber plugs used to fix it to the wall were so rotten and wet that
water could be squeezed out of them by hand.

then you have a serious damp problem to sort out. A chemical DPC wont
have made much difference.


So really, what I'm hoping someone can advise me on (difficult I know)
is where to go with this. Is CDC a waste of time in Victorian houses, or
will it be a good idea in these circumstances?

waste


Do I need more
professinal advice and who from?

http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/cgi-...ing/forum2.pl?


NT

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:23:16 +0000, dave wrote:

I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods over granting permission under the Party Wall Act, and I've ended
up getting all the work done except the bits on the party wall. I've had
a letter from their surveyor over Christmas saying that we're now in
dispute, that I ought to appoint a surveyor and that those two surveyors
can go and select a third independent surveyor to adjudicate the whole
thing, all at about £100 hour per surveyor. I get stuck with the bill
for the whole lot, if it takes them 3 hours each to sort it out I end up
with a bill for £1000 in fees to do maybe work costing maybe £80.

Anyway, having read around damp in Victorian houses a bit more while
waiting for all this to be sorted out I'm wondering if I need it to be
done at all, and I'd appreciate some advice either way.

When we bought the house in August it had been empty for about a year.
The cellar is fairly damp and timbers have been replaced (in the past
and by us). Several skirting boards have been rotten when they've been
removed. When I took off the skirting board on one of the party wall
sections the inside face of the board was wet with standing water and
the timber plugs used to fix it to the wall were so rotten and wet that
water could be squeezed out of them by hand.

So really, what I'm hoping someone can advise me on (difficult I know)
is where to go with this. Is CDC a waste of time in Victorian houses, or
will it be a good idea in these circumstances? Do I need more
professinal advice and who from?

I'm no fan of chemical DPC nor of people/companies being bloody
awkward so, in your position, I'd be tempted to write back to the
company and tell them you've called off the works.

Then I'd take a wander around the garden looking for drainage
problems,

Cheers,

John

dave wrote:
On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

Mmm, interesting...


When we bought the house in August it had been empty for about a year.
The cellar is fairly damp and timbers have been replaced (in the past
and by us). Several skirting boards have been rotten when they've been
removed. When I took off the skirting board on one of the party wall
sections the inside face of the board was wet with standing water and
the timber plugs used to fix it to the wall were so rotten and wet that
water could be squeezed out of them by hand.

You've got a cellar... have they, too? You have an end-of-terrace
house.. where was the other remedial work specified? Where on the
wall is the damp (cellar floor level, ground floor level)? Can
you do a quick ASCII pic., or upload pictures to some site for
perusal? A bit more info. would be very useful.

On 2 Jan 2006 16:09:02 -0800, wrote:

I bought a house that HAD been injected.

Timber frame on brick plinth. There was evidence of structural rot.

NOW waht tramnspoired was interesting.

The outsid walls solid double skin brock under te sole plates, which were
injected well, did not have any more damp problesm, but te inside walls
running across teh building, did. One had a kichen built on teyh other sde,
and it semed one patch go missed somehow.,. Ther was asmall patch orf
risingh dampo there.
But the absolutely dire problem, which I never cured, was around te brick
fireplavce. This was too big to inject, and all te palster and woodwork
around there ended up sopping wet after a storm. I thought it ws coming
d9own tey chimney, but it wasn;t.

When I demolished the whole house there was a lake under that floor.

My conclusion is that chemical DPC, done properly really does work.

However, it may not always be possible to do it properly, and, in the case
of my hoise, what might have been as effective would have been to dig a
french drain around it to lower the water table, and keep the underfloor
space dry. And then use ventialtion and heating to control the damp.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 16:09:02 -0800, wrote:

I bought a house that HAD been injected.

Timber frame on brick plinth. There was evidence of structural rot.

NOW waht tramnspoired was interesting.

The outsid walls solid double skin brock under te sole plates, which were
injected well, did not have any more damp problesm, but te inside walls
running across teh building, did. One had a kichen built on teyh other sde,
and it semed one patch go missed somehow.,. Ther was asmall patch orf
risingh dampo there.
But the absolutely dire problem, which I never cured, was around te brick
fireplavce. This was too big to inject, and all te palster and woodwork
around there ended up sopping wet after a storm. I thought it ws coming
d9own tey chimney, but it wasn;t.

When I demolished the whole house there was a lake under that floor.

My conclusion is that chemical DPC, done properly really does work.

However, it may not always be possible to do it properly, and, in the case
of my hoise, what might have been as effective would have been to dig a
french drain around it to lower the water table, and keep the underfloor
space dry. And then use ventialtion and heating to control the damp.

Sounds like an unusual case, and it sounds like you did have genuine
rising damp. The OP etc should realise that 99.9% cases diagnosed as
rising damp are in fact not rising damp. RD exists but is rare. Nearly
all cases turn out, on _proper_ investigation, to be either
condensation or penetration. Sticking a damp meter into walls and
hoping for work doesnt even begin to be proper investigation.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 16:09:02 -0800, wrote:

I bought a house that HAD been injected.

Timber frame on brick plinth. There was evidence of structural rot.

NOW waht tramnspoired was interesting.

The outsid walls solid double skin brock under te sole plates, which were
injected well, did not have any more damp problesm, but te inside walls
running across teh building, did. One had a kichen built on teyh other sde,
and it semed one patch go missed somehow.,. Ther was asmall patch orf
risingh dampo there.
But the absolutely dire problem, which I never cured, was around te brick
fireplavce. This was too big to inject, and all te palster and woodwork
around there ended up sopping wet after a storm. I thought it ws coming
d9own tey chimney, but it wasn;t.

When I demolished the whole house there was a lake under that floor.

I think some of it got into your keyboard.

MBQ

dave wrote in message
...
I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods over granting permission under the Party Wall Act,
Chemical Damp Course - is it worth the trouble??

You will never get the definitive answer to this anywhere.
FWIW my answer is no
If you are also having problems with next door PW act, I would recommend
this
http://www.newton-membranes.co.uk/System500.htm
it does work
is far less destructive to the house and has no long term replacement
problems.
Which even _IF_ CDP is done correctly, only has a life expectancy of 15 ish
years.


-

dave wrote:
I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods

scam alarm sounds!

most chemical DPCs are water based & hence initially make the wall even
wetter.

consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.

see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Firm is based in Horsham, Sussex: plenty of info on damp walls on their
web site. Highly recommend you review the info, even if you don't go
down the Dryzone route.

I used Dryzone on a damp (but not dripping wet) wall about a year ago &
it seems to have worked.

HTH

jim_in_sussex wrote:
dave wrote:

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods

scam alarm sounds!

most chemical DPCs are water based & hence initially make the wall even
wetter.

consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.

see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Firm is based in Horsham, Sussex: plenty of info on damp walls on their
web site. Highly recommend you review the info, even if you don't go
down the Dryzone route.

I used Dryzone on a damp (but not dripping wet) wall about a year ago &
it seems to have worked.

HTH


swapping one scam for another wont solve the OPs problem.


NT

Interesting.

I have used several methods of damp proofing.

Whilst I would agree that the only 100% foolproof method is an inserted
dpc barrier, Dryzone does appear to give good results for a mildly
damp wall. Are you saying it doesn't work?

By comparison, IMHE 'wet' chemical pressure insertion methods work only
moderately well (although better than nothing): Dryzone is a lot less
messy and doesn't leave the wall damper than it was when you started.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:23:16 +0000, in uk.d-i-y dave
wrote:

I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods over granting permission under the Party Wall Act, and I've ended
up getting all the work done except the bits on the party wall. I've had
a letter from their surveyor over Christmas saying that we're now in
dispute, that I ought to appoint a surveyor and that those two surveyors
can go and select a third independent surveyor to adjudicate the whole
thing, all at about £100 hour per surveyor. I get stuck with the bill
for the whole lot, if it takes them 3 hours each to sort it out I end up
with a bill for £1000 in fees to do maybe work costing maybe £80.

Anyway, having read around damp in Victorian houses a bit more while
waiting for all this to be sorted out I'm wondering if I need it to be
done at all, and I'd appreciate some advice either way.

When we bought the house in August it had been empty for about a year.
The cellar is fairly damp and timbers have been replaced (in the past
and by us). Several skirting boards have been rotten when they've been
removed. When I took off the skirting board on one of the party wall
sections the inside face of the board was wet with standing water and
the timber plugs used to fix it to the wall were so rotten and wet that
water could be squeezed out of them by hand.

So really, what I'm hoping someone can advise me on (difficult I know)
is where to go with this. Is CDC a waste of time in Victorian houses, or
will it be a good idea in these circumstances? Do I need more
professinal advice and who from?

We are not great believers in chemical damp treatment here for various
reasons. Google the group for more, but it can work in some
circumstances, However before you even consider remediation you must
determine the source of the damp. Rectification varies greatly according
to the source of the wet. Anyone who just says "its damp, you need our
XYZ treatment" is a cowboy (and most damp treatment companies are).

Give us a lot more detail of the property construction, symptoms and
especially what is outside the house. Can you see the damp proof course
outside or is it buried? What is under the floors. What is the cellar
like?

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

jim_in_sussex wrote:
Interesting.

I have used several methods of damp proofing.

Whilst I would agree that the only 100% foolproof method is an inserted
dpc barrier, Dryzone does appear to give good results for a mildly
damp wall. Are you saying it doesn't work?

By comparison, IMHE 'wet' chemical pressure insertion methods work only
moderately well (although better than nothing): Dryzone is a lot less
messy and doesn't leave the wall damper than it was when you started.

What I mean is that damp proofing chemicals are not imho a good
solution in most cases of damp, whether water based or not. Usually the
right solution is to locate and resolve the cause of the damp. When
that proves impossible, encouraging evaporation tends to be a good
approach. Sealants/waterproofers/chemical dpcs do the opposite of
course, sometimes making the wall waterlogged. Which is not always bad,
but often is.


NT

On 11 Jan 2006 05:35:43 -0800, in uk.d-i-y wrote:

jim_in_sussex wrote:
Interesting.

I have used several methods of damp proofing.

Whilst I would agree that the only 100% foolproof method is an inserted
dpc barrier, Dryzone does appear to give good results for a mildly
damp wall. Are you saying it doesn't work?

By comparison, IMHE 'wet' chemical pressure insertion methods work only
moderately well (although better than nothing): Dryzone is a lot less
messy and doesn't leave the wall damper than it was when you started.

What I mean is that damp proofing chemicals are not imho a good
solution in most cases of damp, whether water based or not. Usually the
right solution is to locate and resolve the cause of the damp. When
that proves impossible, encouraging evaporation tends to be a good
approach. Sealants/waterproofers/chemical dpcs do the opposite of
course, sometimes making the wall waterlogged. Which is not always bad,
but often is.

I agree with that but it should be pointed out that injected damp proof
courses are very dependent on the material they are injected into. In a
good material they work (given that you do have an inherent damp
problem, not something else like a bridged DPC), but in an unsuitable
wall, say with a rubble core, or many cracked bricks etc, it is useless.

More details here
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....7084d801fb522f

Most DPC cowboys don't know (or care about) this.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

On 5 Jan 2006 14:33:35 -0800, in uk.d-i-y "jim_in_sussex"
wrote:


dave wrote:
I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods

scam alarm sounds!

most chemical DPCs are water based & hence initially make the wall even
wetter.

Not the white spirit based chemicals. It does stink for several days
after application though.

consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.

see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Firm is based in Horsham, Sussex: plenty of info on damp walls on their
web site. Highly recommend you review the info, even if you don't go
down the Dryzone route.

I used Dryzone on a damp (but not dripping wet) wall about a year ago &
it seems to have worked.

Interesting. I had a look at the Dryzone site and they talk a lot of
sense. I was quite impressed with their document "RISING DAMP AND
ITS CONTROL"

http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co..._damp_book.pdf.

It starts off well with "Rising damp is not the most common form of
dampness encountered in buildings; this is left to condensation.
However, it is very likely that a high proportion of older buildings are
affected by rising damp to some degree or another, and it does cause
problems with positive identification, appropriate remedial action and
ancillary works."

Interestingly they concentrate on damp proofing the mortar rather than
the brickwork, since the mortar separates each course of bricks, and if
waterproof will block the damp. That sounds very plausible to me.

They also address the rubble wall problem, though not rigourously enough
IMO.

Shame they don't actually explain how the cream migrates and cures.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

On 6 Jan 2006 05:52:14 -0800, in uk.d-i-y wrote:

jim_in_sussex wrote:
dave wrote:

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods

scam alarm sounds!

most chemical DPCs are water based & hence initially make the wall even
wetter.

consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.

see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Firm is based in Horsham, Sussex: plenty of info on damp walls on their
web site. Highly recommend you review the info, even if you don't go
down the Dryzone route.

I used Dryzone on a damp (but not dripping wet) wall about a year ago &
it seems to have worked.

HTH


swapping one scam for another wont solve the OPs problem.

There is nothing wrong with the materials sold for this damp proofing,
only in their misuse.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Phil Addison wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 14:33:35 -0800, in uk.d-i-y "jim_in_sussex"
wrote:


dave wrote:
I'm pretty sure this topic has been done to death here, but I'd
appreciate a bit of help...

On buying our 1900 end terrace house in August the Building Society
insisted on a damp survey, which ended up recommending a chemical damp
course in a few areas of the house, including two lengths of the party
wall with next door (about 7 feet total).

The owners of next door, a large property management company, have been
sods

scam alarm sounds!

most chemical DPCs are water based & hence initially make the wall even
wetter.

Not the white spirit based chemicals. It does stink for several days
after application though.

consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.

see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Firm is based in Horsham, Sussex: plenty of info on damp walls on their
web site. Highly recommend you review the info, even if you don't go
down the Dryzone route.

I used Dryzone on a damp (but not dripping wet) wall about a year ago &
it seems to have worked.

Interesting. I had a look at the Dryzone site and they talk a lot of
sense. I was quite impressed with their document "RISING DAMP AND
ITS CONTROL"

http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co..._damp_book.pdf.

It starts off well with "Rising damp is not the most common form of
dampness encountered in buildings; this is left to condensation.
However, it is very likely that a high proportion of older buildings are
affected by rising damp to some degree or another, and it does cause
problems with positive identification, appropriate remedial action and
ancillary works."

Interestingly they concentrate on damp proofing the mortar rather than
the brickwork, since the mortar separates each course of bricks, and if
waterproof will block the damp. That sounds very plausible to me.

They also address the rubble wall problem, though not rigourously enough
IMO.

Shame they don't actually explain how the cream migrates and cures.

Phil

or tell the truth about rising damp, that less than 1% of damp cases
are rising. The main causes are condensation and penetration from high
ground levels. Thus making the use of DPCs usually ineffective.


NT

wrote:
Phil Addison wrote:
"jim_in_sussex" wrote
consider using Dryzone which is not water based and is a cream which
disolves into the wall over a few weeks.
see http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co.uk/index.php

Interesting. I had a look at the Dryzone site and they talk a lot of
sense. I was quite impressed with their document "RISING DAMP AND
ITS CONTROL"

http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co..._damp_book.pdf.

It starts off well with "Rising damp is not the most common form of
dampness encountered in buildings; this is left to condensation.

The main causes are condensation and penetration from high
ground levels.

"What they said".

I'll have a look at their rising_damp_book.pdf when I've a mo.

On 12 Jan 2006 02:30:56 -0800, in uk.d-i-y wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:
It starts off well with "Rising damp is not the most common form of
dampness encountered in buildings; this is left to condensation.
However, it is very likely that a high proportion of older buildings are
affected by rising damp to some degree or another, and it does cause
problems with positive identification, appropriate remedial action and
ancillary works."

Shame they don't actually explain how the cream migrates and cures.

or tell the truth about rising damp, that less than 1% of damp cases
are rising. The main causes are condensation and penetration from high
ground levels. Thus making the use of DPCs usually ineffective.

A case of reading what you thought it said perhaps?

Phil

Chris Bacon wrote:
Phil Addison wrote
http://www.safeguardwaterproofing.co..._damp_book.pdf.

I'll have a look at their rising_damp_book.pdf when I've a mo.

Looks pretty good to me.