There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.

Damp advice from the faq:

http://www.axp.mdx.ac.uk/~john49/dampfaq.htm

Ed_Zep wrote:
There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.

both those options are a waste of time.

NT

wrote:
Ed_Zep wrote:

There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.


both those options are a waste of time.

NT


Very helpful, as usual.
Can the OP give a bit more info? Where is the room? Where in the room is
the damp? Is it permanent or more obvious after wet weather?

In message . com,
Ed_Zep writes
There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Where is it? Ground level? Ceiling level? interior wall? exterior wall?
Do you have cavity or solid walls? Is it always damp?


Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Thanks.

There are 3 very prominent patches of damp - two in the kitchen and one
in the dining room, low down but extending up to about 3 feet. I don't
see that they're particularly worse after a lot of rain (like today).
They're permanent (till I get it sorted out).

Ed.

I would like to do that but I live near the bottom of a hill and am
wondering if it's a combination of that and a compromised DPC.

In message .com,
Ed_Zep writes
I would like to do that but I live near the bottom of a hill and am
wondering if it's a combination of that and a compromised DPC.

You'd like to do what? You need to quote the post you're replying to
otherwise it makes no sense.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message .com,
Ed_Zep writes
Thanks.

Quote the post you're replying to, otherwise it makes no sense.


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Ed_Zep wrote:
Thanks.

There are 3 very prominent patches of damp - two in the kitchen and one
in the dining room, low down but extending up to about 3 feet. I don't
see that they're particularly worse after a lot of rain (like today).
They're permanent (till I get it sorted out).

Ed.


So ground floor then? Solid floor or boarded? Are all 3 on the same
exterior wall? Are the kitchen patches on the same wall as the sink? Is
it a brick wall, rendered, painted on the outside?

Hi. I was quoting your post:

"I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it. "

In message .com,
Ed_Zep writes
Hi. I was quoting your post:

"I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it. "

Hey, I wrote that. You were replied to my post, there was certainly no
quoting.

Having looked at your headers it seems you're using the Google
interface[1] to Usenet, probably the best thing to do is to start using
a proper newsreader, otherwise, somewhere in the Google interface
there's an option that allows you to quote the post you're replying to,
if you quote context you're more likely to get useful responses to your
posts.

[1] The Google interface to Usenet is pretty much as bad as it gets.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Answer: the Google interface to Usenet
.. . . . err what was the question?

I had rising damp in a ground floor corner and under window of a
victorian terrace with solid brick walls. Suspected that DPC laid in
1895 had been compromised. Hired the injection kit and injected 25l
gunge 18 years ago. No damp since.

In article . com,
wrote:
I had rising damp in a ground floor corner and under window of a
victorian terrace with solid brick walls. Suspected that DPC laid in
1895 had been compromised. Hired the injection kit and injected 25l
gunge 18 years ago. No damp since.

What did you do plaster wise?

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stuart Noble wrote:
wrote:
Ed_Zep wrote:

There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

both those options are a waste of time.

Very helpful, as usual.

Yes, it is helpful to be aware there are reasons not to waste ones time
and money on something that wont work. Are you having a stupid day
today?

NT

bof wrote:
In message .com,
Ed_Zep writes
Hi. I was quoting your post:

"I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it. "

Hey, I wrote that. You were replied to my post, there was certainly no
quoting.

Having looked at your headers it seems you're using the Google
interface[1] to Usenet, probably the best thing to do is to start using
a proper newsreader, otherwise, somewhere in the Google interface
there's an option that allows you to quote the post you're replying to,
if you quote context you're more likely to get useful responses to your
posts.

[1] The Google interface to Usenet is pretty much as bad as it gets.

With google, click 'show options' then 'reply' at the top, not the
bottom reply.

Rising damp is a rarity, despite the many sales based on its diagnosis.
Such patches are usually penetrating damp or condensation. I'd start by
looking outside to see if you get water running down the wall in heavy
rain, maybe due to a gutter problem etc.

NT

Ed_Zep wrote:
Hi. I was quoting your post:

"I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it. "
Whose post?

Is this the one about that woman who sailed around the world?

How come she's an heroine with a multi million pound machine and all
the accoutrements?

Show me a non original American that will dare shark infested waters
carrying her hopes and her babies on a 50 mile trek with no radio never
mind Sat Nav; on a used, patched innertube and I will show you an
heroine.

Unfortunately, the only men or women doing that today on a regular
basis are just illegal immigrants. (Who would want people capable of
such activities living near them?)

Or were you referring to the incredible abilities of the US electorate
to learn nothing?
They have just reelected a proven imbecile as mayor of New Orleans. No
sign of any hope of a future fix for the larger problem there*. (Not
that I think the UK will fare better in some future election. Things
might impove there if on the soundbites given to cabinet ministers and
their oppo's, a background reminding us of their retirement funds was
shown.)

(*It might be a valid argument the electorate of New Orleans had bette
things to worry about other than their disenfanchisement. Boy am I
going to look a silly sausage if it turns out this post is about the
latest weather forecast for the UK.)

Stuart Noble wrote:
wrote:

both those options are a waste of time.

Very helpful, as usual.

Yes, it is helpful to be aware there are reasons not to waste ones time
and money on something that wont work. Are you having a stupid day
today?

Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work.

Why is it arrogant to state what has been scientifically demonstrated?


I'm no fan of that particular industry but you
can't dismiss it out of hand.

Why, when the evidence seems fairly conclusive?


At the same time as saying what won't work, why don't you suggest
something positive now and then?

I do, quite often, but sometimes I cba and really its down to the OP to
do a little more reading. I dont see much point spending time rewriting
the same stuff over and over, and theres certainly no requirement to do
so.


And don't call people who disagree with
you stupid

Its not because we disagreed, its because I though you were missing the
rather obvious and not helping much. I'm sure we all do that on
occasion.


NT

wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

wrote:

Ed_Zep wrote:


There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?


both those options are a waste of time.


Very helpful, as usual.


Yes, it is helpful to be aware there are reasons not to waste ones time
and money on something that wont work. Are you having a stupid day
today?

NT


Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work. I'm no fan of that particular industry but you
can't dismiss it out of hand.
At the same time as saying what won't work, why don't you suggest
something positive now and then? And don't call people who disagree with
you stupid

bof wrote:
In message .com,
Ed_Zep writes
Hi. I was quoting your post:

"I'd fix the cause of the problem rather than trying to mask it. "

[1] The Google interface to Usenet is pretty much as bad as it gets.

Hardly. It is possible to make posts on usenet with a news downloader
and compiler that keeps the files on your computer, in a way that
garbes the thread just as you can with Google.

However if you want to be a responsible poster the Google interface is
as good as it gets if you prefer to read the thread online and attach
your posts to it directly.

One hits the Options link in this sort of panel:

14 From: bof - view profile Not yet rated
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 9:23 pm show options
Email: bof
Groups: uk.d-i-y

To reveal the following:

14 From: bof - view profile Not yet rated
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 9:23 pm show options
Email: bof
Groups: uk.d-i-y
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hit the link to "Reply" and edit the amount of script shown to credit
the poster you are replying to and to quote enough text to allow your
reply to contain enough sensible context.

I admit the reply box default given under each message in Google Group
postage, can be misleading.

wrote:

Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work.


Why is it arrogant to state what has been scientifically demonstrated?


By whom? Where? Do you trust it more than similar demonstrations
pointing in the other direction? Why close you mind when you don't have to?



I'm no fan of that particular industry but you
can't dismiss it out of hand.


Why, when the evidence seems fairly conclusive?

*Seems* *fairly* conclusive. That sounds like politicians' talk. Can you
have degrees of conclusivity?
I'm sure the principle of dpc injection is valid for rising damp (in the
odd instance where it does exist). The fact that it has been hijacked by
cowboys and touted as a cure for penetrating damp is another issue.

In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work. I'm no fan of that particular industry but you
can't dismiss it out of hand.

If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:

Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work. I'm no fan of that particular industry but you
can't dismiss it out of hand.


If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?


I guess because being constantly wet degrades the plaster, especially
old lime stuff, and it becomes hygroscopic for some reason. In fact it's
probably only the new internal render that keeps the damp at bay, and
nothing to do with injection. However, that could be because it's been
used to cure what I call falling damp, which is indistinguishable from
the rising variety. Outside wall gets wet all the way up, weight of
water takes it down inside the wall till it hits the perfectly
functioning original dpc whereupon it is forced outwards on to the
surface 2-3 ft above the floor. Not a widely held theory but it makes
sense to me.

In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:
If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?


I guess because being constantly wet degrades the plaster, especially
old lime stuff, and it becomes hygroscopic for some reason.

Lime plaster always is. That's how it works - by breathing.

In fact it's probably only the new internal render that keeps the damp
at bay, and nothing to do with injection.

It keeps the damp in the wall, certainly, but is this a good idea?

However, that could be because it's been used to cure what I call
falling damp, which is indistinguishable from the rising variety.
Outside wall gets wet all the way up, weight of water takes it down
inside the wall till it hits the perfectly functioning original dpc
whereupon it is forced outwards on to the surface 2-3 ft above the
floor. Not a widely held theory but it makes sense to me.

By that theory, if it can't get out it might just top up to over the
waterproof part of the plaster?

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ed_Zep wrote in message
ups.com...
There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.

The Rising Damp question from all the angles
http://www.buildingconservation.com/...risingdamp.htm
http://www.specifypga.com/index/faq/...Questions%20An
swered/
http://www.dampness-info.co.uk/tests.htm
http://www.buildingpreservation.com/...al%20dpcs2.htm



-

I had rising damp in a ground floor corner and under window of a
victorian terrace with solid brick walls. Suspected that DPC laid in
1895 had been compromised. Hired the injection kit and injected 25l
gunge 18 years ago. No damp since.


What did you do plaster wise?

I only drilled 10mm holes for the probes. Left the plaster and it
dried out, plugged the holes.

Stuart Noble wrote:
wrote:

Arrogant to state categorically that something as well established as
dpc injection won't work.

Why is it arrogant to state what has been scientifically demonstrated?

By whom? Where?

There are folk that have stood walls of various compositions in water,
with nothing rising. There are buildings standing in water, again with
no rising damp. There are various discussions about the physics of what
does, doesnt, can and cant happen. And the prize for rising damp that
nobody managed to claim. Then there are stories such as the dpc company
that injected tap water and never had any complaints, and the steady
stream of reports of cases of alleged rising damp successfully treated
by more realistic means.


Do you trust it more than similar demonstrations
pointing in the other direction?

I cant think of any, what have you in mind?

Why close you mind when you don't have to?

why be childish when you can just discuss the evidence?


*Seems* *fairly* conclusive. That sounds like politicians' talk. Can you
have degrees of conclusivity?
snip waffle

I'm sure the principle of dpc injection is valid for rising damp

based on what though?


NT

In article . com,
wrote:
I had rising damp in a ground floor corner and under window of a
victorian terrace with solid brick walls. Suspected that DPC laid
in 1895 had been compromised. Hired the injection kit and injected
25l gunge 18 years ago. No damp since.


What did you do plaster wise?

I only drilled 10mm holes for the probes. Left the plaster and it dried
out, plugged the holes.

At what point in ownership did you do this work? Ie, can you be sure the
plaster and damp wouldn't have dried out anyway?

It's just that all the pro firms always replace the plaster - regardless
of its condition.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote:

If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?



I guess because being constantly wet degrades the plaster, especially
old lime stuff, and it becomes hygroscopic for some reason.


Lime plaster always is. That's how it works - by breathing.

Breathing and drinking aren't the same thing. Lime in good condition
isn't hygroscopic or it would never have been used externally.


In fact it's probably only the new internal render that keeps the damp
at bay, and nothing to do with injection.


It keeps the damp in the wall, certainly, but is this a good idea?


However, that could be because it's been used to cure what I call
falling damp, which is indistinguishable from the rising variety.
Outside wall gets wet all the way up, weight of water takes it down
inside the wall till it hits the perfectly functioning original dpc
whereupon it is forced outwards on to the surface 2-3 ft above the
floor. Not a widely held theory but it makes sense to me.


By that theory, if it can't get out it might just top up to over the
waterproof part of the plaster?

I think then it's an easier route to the outside wall

Mark wrote:
Ed_Zep wrote in message
ups.com...

There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.


The Rising Damp question from all the angles
http://www.buildingconservation.com/...risingdamp.htm
http://www.specifypga.com/index/faq/...Questions%20An
swered/
http://www.dampness-info.co.uk/tests.htm
http://www.buildingpreservation.com/...al%20dpcs2.htm



-


As usual the 2 sides have a vested interest in their point of view.
Building pathologist indeed!

Stuart Noble wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
Ed_Zep wrote in message
ups.com...

There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.


The Rising Damp question from all the angles
http://www.buildingconservation.com/...risingdamp.htm

http://www.specifypga.com/index/faq/...Questions%20An
swered/
http://www.dampness-info.co.uk/tests.htm
http://www.buildingpreservation.com/...al%20dpcs2.htm



-


As usual the 2 sides have a vested interest in their point of view.
Building pathologist indeed!

Absolutely, but with so many _Experts_ how the hell is joe public expected
to make a reasoned decision on this issue.



-

Mark wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

Ed_Zep wrote in message
groups.com...


There's an obvious damp problem in one on the rooms of my house.

Can anyone tell me if it's necessary to have the bricks injected with
the damp-proofing stuff
or if there is a paint-on solution that a plasterer could do for me for
a fraction of the total
price and then replaster?

Thanks, Ed.


The Rising Damp question from all the angles
http://www.buildingconservation.com/...risingdamp.htm


http://www.specifypga.com/index/faq/...Questions%20An

swered/
http://www.dampness-info.co.uk/tests.htm
http://www.buildingpreservation.com/...al%20dpcs2.htm



-


As usual the 2 sides have a vested interest in their point of view.
Building pathologist indeed!


Absolutely, but with so many _Experts_ how the hell is joe public expected
to make a reasoned decision on this issue.



-

Do your own tests. Draw your own conclusions

Unfortunately, those conclusions are going to be pretty useless when
the homebuyer pack comes out and the surveyer's report says "damp".

In article .com,
Ed_Zep wrote:
Unfortunately, those conclusions are going to be pretty useless when
the homebuyer pack comes out and the surveyer's report says "damp".

As all usually do. Even on a property with one of these 'damp courses'
recently installed.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ed_Zep wrote:
Unfortunately, those conclusions are going to be pretty useless when
the homebuyer pack comes out and the surveyer's report says "damp".


Surveyors' reports say "damp" by default. It's just another negotiating
tool for the buyer. If you know you've got damp, try and sort it out
yourself and, when the time comes to sell, tell them to shove their report.
If it's damp coming through the walls, paint the exterior with an oil
based masonry paint. If it's coming up from ground level, check for
plumbing leaks, faulty rainwater system, lower the the ground level and
possibly dig a ditch and fill with gravel. If it's condensation, don't
be so stingey with the heating :-)

Stuart Noble wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?


I guess because being constantly wet degrades the plaster, especially
old lime stuff, and it becomes hygroscopic for some reason. In fact it's
probably only the new internal render that keeps the damp at bay, and
nothing to do with injection. However, that could be because it's been
used to cure what I call falling damp, which is indistinguishable from
the rising variety. Outside wall gets wet all the way up, weight of
water takes it down inside the wall till it hits the perfectly
functioning original dpc whereupon it is forced outwards on to the
surface 2-3 ft above the floor. Not a widely held theory but it makes
sense to me.

good god

wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


If it does work, why is it necessary to remove all the plaster up to about
1 metre on treated walls and replace with a waterproof sand/cement mix
under a final skim?


I guess because being constantly wet degrades the plaster, especially
old lime stuff, and it becomes hygroscopic for some reason. In fact it's
probably only the new internal render that keeps the damp at bay, and
nothing to do with injection. However, that could be because it's been
used to cure what I call falling damp, which is indistinguishable from
the rising variety. Outside wall gets wet all the way up, weight of
water takes it down inside the wall till it hits the perfectly
functioning original dpc whereupon it is forced outwards on to the
surface 2-3 ft above the floor. Not a widely held theory but it makes
sense to me.


good god


What's your opinion then?