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?

"Simon" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

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."

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

wrote:
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.

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 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

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

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

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"

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Someone is going to pull us up for off-topic soon (well uk.legal,
anyway)!
Just found a very useful thread discussing the various plastering
options on www.ebuilding.co.uk, which seems to be a very useful
website. Anyway, the forum was:-
http://www.ebuild.co.uk/cgi-bin/foru...3414&page=6328

Maris

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!

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