| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
I have just had a Homebuyers Report on a property that I am buying.
Under the HBR layout items are rated in three categories. Most of the items are 1, and a couple of small items 2 ( i.e ridge tile pointing etc). However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Is it acceptable to ask the vendor to remedy this? How would others handle this? |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
"Simon" wrote in message k... I have just had a Homebuyers Report on a property that I am buying. Under the HBR layout items are rated in three categories. Most of the items are 1, and a couple of small items 2 ( i.e ridge tile pointing etc). However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Is it acceptable to ask the vendor to remedy this? How would others handle this? Ask for disclosure of any guarantees and invoices relating to the damp proofing treatment. Ask if the vendor can invoke the guarantee (if there is one, and if the company is still in business) which in practice means they might inject the treatment again, free of charge. Failing that (and most common) you should get an estimate for the cost of having the damp rectified, and ask for the sale price to be reduced to reflect that work. Most houses have some dampness. Have a look and see whether it is obviously unsightly. And whether it looks as if the vendor has done a quick paint job to disguise the damp. If they won't reduce the price, you might decide it is still worth the money and that you can get the damp sorted out in a year or so when you have more cash to spend. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
In article ,
Simon wrote: However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Just about every report says this. Are the decorations new? If not, any signs of damp? If the decor is new and confined to the ground floor there might be grounds for suspicion. The 'instrument' used for measuring water content in plaster is notoriously unreliable and more so if not correctly calibrated for the type of plaster/wall construction. I'm not saying there can't be damp. Just don't take a cheap survey's word for it. You need something like a structural engineer to give a true picture. -- *No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Simon wrote: However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Just about every report says this. Are the decorations new? If not, any signs of damp? If the decor is new and confined to the ground floor there might be grounds for suspicion. The 'instrument' used for measuring water content in plaster is notoriously unreliable and more so if not correctly calibrated for the type of plaster/wall construction. I'm not saying there can't be damp. Just don't take a cheap survey's word for it. You need something like a structural engineer to give a true picture. Well said. AIUI, the instrument only measures surface resistivity, which is no reliable guide to the dampness in the structure behind, they are calibrated for one material and used in others, and in this respect most "users" (surveyors) are clueless. The OP would be well-advised to visit http://www.askjeff.co.uk/ and click on the rising damp link. There's also a report somewhere documenting how a testing body actually built some walls in saturated ground and failed to detect any significant rising damp, but I can't find that right now. -- "Say it with flowers - Give her a triffid." |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Simon wrote:
I have just had a Homebuyers Report on a property that I am buying. Under the HBR layout items are rated in three categories. Most of the items are 1, and a couple of small items 2 ( i.e ridge tile pointing etc). However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Is it acceptable to ask the vendor to remedy this? How would others handle this? When we bought our house, the survey the building society did (which claimed there was damp in one wall) conveniently came with a quote from an "approved" contractor to rectify said damp. The cost of the quote was around £400. We simply got the vendor to drop the price of the house, bought it and did nothing as there was no noticeable signs of damp anyway. Nice to save £400 though! |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
John Laird wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Simon wrote: However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Just about every report says this. Are the decorations new? If not, any signs of damp? If the decor is new and confined to the ground floor there might be grounds for suspicion. The 'instrument' used for measuring water content in plaster is notoriously unreliable and more so if not correctly calibrated for the type of plaster/wall construction. I'm not saying there can't be damp. Just don't take a cheap survey's word for it. You need something like a structural engineer to give a true picture. Well said. AIUI, the instrument only measures surface resistivity, which is no reliable guide to the dampness in the structure behind, they are calibrated for one material and used in others, and in this respect most "users" (surveyors) are clueless. The OP would be well-advised to visit http://www.askjeff.co.uk/ and click on the rising damp link. There's also a report somewhere documenting how a testing body actually built some walls in saturated ground and failed to detect any significant rising damp, but I can't find that right now. Hear hear, damp on survey means as much as the paper ts written on. Anyone can determine whether theres a damp problem for themselves simply by looking up the symptoms of a damp problem and seeing if there are any. If there arent, there isnt one. And this is frequently how it turns out to be. I believe it was the BRE that built various walls standing in water and found no rising damp. If OTOH there is a damp problem, its very unlikely to be anything to do with the dpc, or absence of one, since most of what is diagnosed as rising damp isnt, its generally condensation or penetrating damp, hence retrofitted dpcs are rarely effective. And chemical injection doe not provide a full dpc, despite what may be claimed. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith if you say so NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith if you say so after all theres no possible question of you not having read up on the subject. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
|
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Lobster wrote:
wrote: Stuart Noble wrote: You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith if you say so after all theres no possible question of you not having read up on the subject. It's pretty academic whether you believe it or not AFAICS because the mortgage lenders do, and are likely to insist on remedial (or not) work being undertaken as a precondition of the mortgage. David Grown ups can engage somebody with greater expertise who can report on the real extent and cause of the problem, and the result is not normally a dpc. In a lot of cases there simply isnt a problem in the first place. The result is solution of the problem and saving most of the cost of pointless work. The real solutions to condensation and penetrating damp usually, but not always, cost peanuts. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
|
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith I think the BRE's own estimate is that 90% of "rising damp" is some other problem (most likely a leak, penetrating or damp, or condensation). The "old chestnut" is not that rising damp doesn't exist, but that its diagnosis is widely over-stated, and leads to many house-owners having expensive and unnecessary work done (which will probably not cure the real problem either). -- "PI seconds is a nanocentury. - Tom Duff, Bell Labs" |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Richard Conway wrote: Simon wrote: I have just had a Homebuyers Report on a property that I am buying. Under the HBR layout items are rated in three categories. Most of the items are 1, and a couple of small items 2 ( i.e ridge tile pointing etc). However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Is it acceptable to ask the vendor to remedy this? How would others handle this? When we bought our house, the survey the building society did (which claimed there was damp in one wall) conveniently came with a quote from an "approved" contractor to rectify said damp. The cost of the quote was around £400. We simply got the vendor to drop the price of the house, bought it and did nothing as there was no noticeable signs of damp anyway. Nice to save £400 though! I think the questions with damp should be: 1. Does it smell? 2. Is there mould on the wall? If not get over it. Fortunately the surveyor who did my place recognized that whilst there was some damp, people had been living there quite happily since ~1750 so didn't make a big deal of it. My personal experience is don't get a homebuyers survey done at all. The minimal valuation usually causes less problems since they aren't looking so hard. Then if you want the information from a homebuyers survey pay yourself to get it done separately. The problem with a normal homebuyers survey is that whilst you're paying for it the surveyor is not working for you. This is madness. The basic valuation is often done for free by the mortgage company and why would you want to give them more information than they need, so that they can use it against you. If the OP had had a private survey he could still use it to negotiate with the vendor but the Bank/BS couldn't also use it to clobber him. All house surveys are generally crap unless you own the place since they can't move furniture, look behind the wall paper etc. This is also why they're filled with caveats like "we were unable to ascertain that..." "The purchaser should check that...". Waste of good money. Fash |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On 14 Dec 2006 06:10:27 -0800 wrote :
I believe it was the BRE that built various walls standing in water and found no rising damp. I've done my own experiment: it's called my extension. Soft red bricks on the quoins, now disintegrating from frost damage below dpc level where they are wet and 100% sound above dpc level. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Lobster wrote:
wrote: Stuart Noble wrote: You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith if you say so after all theres no possible question of you not having read up on the subject. It's pretty academic whether you believe it or not AFAICS because the mortgage lenders do, and are likely to insist on remedial (or not) work being undertaken as a precondition of the mortgage. Our mortgage lender did, but have so far not checked to make sure we have (two and a half years so far). I know of at least two other people who have done the same. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
John Laird wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote: You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith I think the BRE's own estimate is that 90% of "rising damp" is some other problem (most likely a leak, penetrating or damp, or condensation). The "old chestnut" is not that rising damp doesn't exist, but that its diagnosis is widely over-stated, and leads to many house-owners having expensive and unnecessary work done (which will probably not cure the real problem either). I have to agree. I've never seen a case of rising damp. The BRE 90% sounds like a don't know but cover my arse kind of figure. Maybe this would all be a bit more relevant if it rained as much as it used to. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
I believe it was the BRE that built various walls standing in water and found no rising damp. You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith My recollection of the report was that they found rising damp was far harder to create than was expected. They did find some evidence of it in walls built with very soft bricks and sandy lime mortar. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:48:42 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Simon wrote: However under "Dampness, rot" categories, this is rated as "3". Dampness is affecting the ground floor walls. I suspect this is due to defective damp proofing treatment and/or contaminated plaster" Just about every report says this. Are the decorations new? If not, any signs of damp? If the decor is new and confined to the ground floor there might be grounds for suspicion. The 'instrument' used for measuring water content in plaster is notoriously unreliable and more so if not correctly calibrated for the type of plaster/wall construction. Correct - it is intended to measure the dampness in wood. I have a similar damp problem here in the house I bought last February. I knew about it but the price reflected it. Investigating further I discovered that attempts had been made to damp proof the one wall in question (from lots of holes drilled) but had clearly failed. I had another go and the very expensive damp prooof liquid just drained away between the mortar joints which had long turned to dust. Most damp proof companies also rerender using damp proof render, which is tantamount to an admission that the damp proofing exercise is a waste of time and they are simply sealing in the damp. The only problem is that the render is so dense that it encourages condensation and so we are back to a damp problem!!! Maris I'm not saying there can't be damp. Just don't take a cheap survey's word for it. You need something like a structural engineer to give a true picture. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:48:38 +0000, John Rumm
wrote: Stuart Noble wrote: I believe it was the BRE that built various walls standing in water and found no rising damp. You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith My recollection of the report was that they found rising damp was far harder to create than was expected. They did find some evidence of it in walls built with very soft bricks and sandy lime mortar. This may well be true. Where I have a damp problem, the bricks appear to be very soft red stocks, which crumble into pieces when removed (as I did when installing French doors where there was a sash window). Maris |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Maris wrote:
I have a similar damp problem here in the house I bought last February. I knew about it but the price reflected it. Investigating further I discovered that attempts had been made to damp proof the one wall in question (from lots of holes drilled) but had clearly failed. I had another go and the very expensive damp prooof liquid just drained away between the mortar joints which had long turned to dust. Most damp proof companies also rerender using damp proof render, which is tantamount to an admission that the damp proofing exercise is a waste of time and they are simply sealing in the damp. The only problem is that the render is so dense that it encourages condensation and so we are back to a damp problem!!! Maris If you want to solve it try http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...wforum.php?f=1 NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On 18 Dec 2006 07:50:17 -0800, wrote:
Maris wrote: I have a similar damp problem here in the house I bought last February. I knew about it but the price reflected it. Investigating further I discovered that attempts had been made to damp proof the one wall in question (from lots of holes drilled) but had clearly failed. I had another go and the very expensive damp prooof liquid just drained away between the mortar joints which had long turned to dust. Most damp proof companies also rerender using damp proof render, which is tantamount to an admission that the damp proofing exercise is a waste of time and they are simply sealing in the damp. The only problem is that the render is so dense that it encourages condensation and so we are back to a damp problem!!! Maris If you want to solve it try http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...wforum.php?f=1 NT I'm not sure I saw any obvious clues as to how to solve it but lots of comments backing up my thesis. Thanks anyway for a very useful website. My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. Maris |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith I think the BRE's own estimate is that 90% of "rising damp" is some other problem (most likely a leak, penetrating or damp, or condensation). The "old chestnut" is not that rising damp doesn't exist, but that its diagnosis is widely over-stated, and leads to many house-owners having expensive and unnecessary work done (which will probably not cure the real problem either). Does anyone agree that living near the bottom of the hill can make rising damp much more likely? |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Ed_Zep wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote: You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith I think the BRE's own estimate is that 90% of "rising damp" is some other problem (most likely a leak, penetrating or damp, or condensation). The "old chestnut" is not that rising damp doesn't exist, but that its diagnosis is widely over-stated, and leads to many house-owners having expensive and unnecessary work done (which will probably not cure the real problem either). Does anyone agree that living near the bottom of the hill can make rising damp much more likely? On clay soil quite probably |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Maris saying something like: My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. That'll be it. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. -- Dave |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
In message . com,
Ed_Zep writes Stuart Noble wrote: You really must stop bringing up this old chestnut. If there's no such thing as rising damp, then all dpcs are a waste of time and should be removed from the building regs forthwith I think the BRE's own estimate is that 90% of "rising damp" is some other problem (most likely a leak, penetrating or damp, or condensation). The "old chestnut" is not that rising damp doesn't exist, but that its diagnosis is widely over-stated, and leads to many house-owners having expensive and unnecessary work done (which will probably not cure the real problem either). Does anyone agree that living near the bottom of the hill can make rising damp much more likely? Descending damp, shirly -- geoff |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Maris wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006 07:50:17 -0800, wrote: Maris wrote: I have a similar damp problem here in the house I bought last February. I knew about it but the price reflected it. Investigating further I discovered that attempts had been made to damp proof the one wall in question (from lots of holes drilled) but had clearly failed. I had another go and the very expensive damp prooof liquid just drained away between the mortar joints which had long turned to dust. Most damp proof companies also rerender using damp proof render, which is tantamount to an admission that the damp proofing exercise is a waste of time and they are simply sealing in the damp. The only problem is that the render is so dense that it encourages condensation and so we are back to a damp problem!!! Maris If you want to solve it try http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...wforum.php?f=1 I'm not sure I saw any obvious clues as to how to solve it but lots of comments backing up my thesis. Thanks anyway for a very useful website. My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. Maris Lowering the ground level is a good move. Re the website, have to try a bit harder if you want results. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:06:15 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Maris saying something like: My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. That'll be it. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. Maris |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Maris wrote:
My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. That'll be it. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. I would have thought there is less chance of it raining in the neighbours front room though... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Maris wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:06:15 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Maris saying something like: My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. That'll be it. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. Maris This is where the argument against rising damp comes unstuck. On an internal wall you can eliminate condensation as the source by increasing heating and ventilation but, if that doesn't work, what are you left with? |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
In article ,
Stuart Noble wrote: Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. Maris This is where the argument against rising damp comes unstuck. On an internal wall you can eliminate condensation as the source by increasing heating and ventilation but, if that doesn't work, what are you left with? Installing a damp course to a party wall would involve disruption to both parties since there's little point in providing a new one of any type if it is bridged at one side by porous plaster. Before accepting it *is* rising damp the obvious check is if it is showing on the 'other' side. -- *Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:09:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Stuart Noble wrote: Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. Maris This is where the argument against rising damp comes unstuck. On an internal wall you can eliminate condensation as the source by increasing heating and ventilation but, if that doesn't work, what are you left with? Installing a damp course to a party wall would involve disruption to both parties since there's little point in providing a new one of any type if it is bridged at one side by porous plaster. Before accepting it *is* rising damp the obvious check is if it is showing on the 'other' side. Unfortunately, my neighbour is not very au fait with building methods but he seems to think it has been tanked on his side after he had lots of problems with damp too. That would, of course, ensure that all of the damp emerges on my side. Not sure about the legal situation there! In any case, I have stripped back the hard render to allow the wall to breathe and dry out. Maris |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Maris saying something like: My only strategy will be to lower the ground level ouside, which is above the level of the inside floor level. That'll be it. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the party wall, which also has the problem. Ask your neighbours to stop using it as a urinal. -- Dave |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
In article ,
Maris wrote: Installing a damp course to a party wall would involve disruption to both parties since there's little point in providing a new one of any type if it is bridged at one side by porous plaster. Before accepting it *is* rising damp the obvious check is if it is showing on the 'other' side. Unfortunately, my neighbour is not very au fait with building methods but he seems to think it has been tanked on his side after he had lots of problems with damp too. That would, of course, ensure that all of the damp emerges on my side. Not sure about the legal situation there! In any case, I have stripped back the hard render to allow the wall to breathe and dry out. What's the construction of the party wall? How much of it is below floor level? -- *Many people quit looking for work when they find a job * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:18:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Maris wrote: Installing a damp course to a party wall would involve disruption to both parties since there's little point in providing a new one of any type if it is bridged at one side by porous plaster. Before accepting it *is* rising damp the obvious check is if it is showing on the 'other' side. Unfortunately, my neighbour is not very au fait with building methods but he seems to think it has been tanked on his side after he had lots of problems with damp too. That would, of course, ensure that all of the damp emerges on my side. Not sure about the legal situation there! In any case, I have stripped back the hard render to allow the wall to breathe and dry out. What's the construction of the party wall? How much of it is below floor level? It's a 13 and a half inch brick wall, built of mainly multi stocks. It is, like most Victorian houses in London, built on brick spreaders, which may extend to about 50 cms deep below lower ground floor level. Maris |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Maris wrote:
the damp emerges on my side. Not sure about the legal situation there! In any case, I have stripped back the hard render to allow the wall to breathe and dry out. That may well turn out to be enough, though it can take a long time to dry right out. If it works, using a porous finish will enable it to evaporate any traces of damp and keep dry. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
Stuart Noble wrote:
This is where the argument against rising damp comes unstuck. On an internal wall you can eliminate condensation as the source by increasing heating and ventilation thats not a very satisfactory approach, and may or may not be adequate but, if that doesn't work, what are you left with? In 99% of cases, reducing RH to stop the condensation. In the last 1%, salt contamination or rising damp. NT |
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
|
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
|
Homebuyers Report: Dampness
In article ,
Maris writes: In my previous house I used something called Limelite renovating plaster for the first metre of brickwork that is usually hard rendered by the damp proofing companies. It was lightweight and therefore there was no condensation. It was also non-hygrospcopic unlike Carlite. Sadly,the company don't seem to be around any more, although there are similar products on the market, I believe. I have areas where the outside ground level is too high, and it's not realistic to drop it. I removed the damp plaster back to the brickwork. For scratch coat, I used 1:1:6 (cement:lime:sand) with a waterproofer additive. This can breath, but won't wick moisture through. For finish coat, I used regular gypsum finish coat, and it's stayed bone dry for years now, in spite of the brickwork behind still remaining slightly damp. Decorative finish must allow wall to breath though (e.g. matt emulsion paint or paper-based wallpaper). -- Andrew Gabriel |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter