Before buying my 1920's semi three years ago the Homebuyers Report
said there was rising damp in some of the walls up to three feet. To
be sure, I ordered a free specialist damp survey and it reported
severe damp in a different set of walls up to three feet. Two reports
with different results? So I paid for a third survey from a big name
company and they reported rising damp again but in a different set of
walls from the other two reports. All three had used their trusty
damp meters on the walls and none had actually looked at the
underlying plaster or brick, yet two of the reports recommended
thousands of pounds of damp proofing and replastering. I was getting
suspicious so bought the house anyway and stripped off all the
wallpaper on the ground floor to look at the walls. There was no sign
of damp anywhere. I took photos for future evidence.

Since then I've done my research on damp proofing and I now believe
it's all a big scam. The best info I found (apart from the same views
held on the uk.d-i-y and free.uk.diy.home newsgroups) is a consumer
report at http://www.onthelevel.in-uk.com/damp-proofing.htm.

I'm selling this house now and have to deal with the buyers'
surveyors. Sure enough, their Homebuyers Report says there's rising
damp. I asked the buyers to come round and look for themselves and
see the evidence I have against rising damp. They seemed pretty
convinced when they left, but my agency thought it best if they paid
for a specialist report. Now the funny thing is that the house had
some damp proofing work done on the walls 30 years ago, which although
out of warranty should still be OK, so we decided that the same
company should do the specialist report.

Trying to be helpful I listed for the surveyor all my observations
about the house: no mildew or tide marks, no blown plaster, no lifting
or discoloured wallpaper, no condensation, no damp smell, no rotting
woodwork, no water leaks or flooding, etc. I also showed him the
photos of the walls, and reminded him that the damp proofing was done
by his company and should not have failed after just 30 years.

Surprise, surprise... he didn't find any rising damp in the walls. In
fact he didn't even bother to use his meter on the walls. He told me
they were a waste of time on brick or plaster and only designed for
wood, so he used his meter on the skirting boards instead. In minutes
he'd found they contained 20% moisture so declared it must be the
floor that's damp, and recommended thousands of pounds of work.
Apparently 20% is the magic figure where they recommend work but the
house will last for a few more years if it's not done. He didn't look
under the carpets, didn't comment on how the original wood floor shows
no sign of damp, didn't comment on some of the skirting boards being
nearly 80 years old, nor how the skirting boards could show damp from
the floor when most of them don't even touch the floor (the newer ones
being at least 5mm off the floor so the carpets go under them).

Well, for me this proves the whole damp proofing industry is a scam.
Five separate reports from two building surveyors and three specialist
damp proofing companies, all with different results and the last
completely refuting the other four with it's own dubious conclusions!
None of them looked for any evidence other than the readings from
their damp meters before recommending work. I've even heard the Royal
Institute for Chartered Surveyors now recommends that no work should
be done solely on the basis of readings from a damp meter (I can't
find the actual quote as they charge for their booklets). What really
bugs me is that I'll have to go through this all again when I buy my
next house.

Anyway, I'd like to say thanks to everyone who's posted about the
realities of damp testing on this newsgroup. It's all been a real
help.

Ken

All houses are damp. The real question is, so what?




If it leads to smells, moulds, and rot, its a problem. If it doesn't who
cares?

I had all three in spades, and no chance of an effective fix, So I built
a new house.

Ive been able to contrl damp in other houses by using oil. You burn it
in a central heating system, and ventilate the rooms. That stops the rot
and mildew allright :-)

Whether its cheaper than damproofing is a moot point.

On 16 Oct 2003 02:28:20 -0700, (Kooky45) wrote:

Before buying my 1920's semi three years ago the Homebuyers Report
said there was rising damp in some of the walls up to three feet. To
be sure, I ordered a free specialist damp survey and it reported
severe damp in a different set of walls up to three feet. Two reports
with different results? So I paid for a third survey from a big name

Snip

Correct on all points I believe. My previous rants about damp proofing
can easily be found using google groups so I won't repeat them here.
This is uk.d-i-y, the home of the damp-proof company skeptic

In fact everyone I know who has a working nose to smell wetness thinks
its all a con, apart from our next door neighbours who were told they
had rising damp half way up a wall (not at the bottom!) before I had a
look and found that a section of gutter was missing from the back of
the house so rainwater from the rest of the guttering was streaming
down the wall and had found some bad pointing.....oh yeah, and the
guttering has grass growing in it!

damp schmamp. And don't get me started on T**m***x 'cos I bet that was
the big name company you had out......

cheers

witchy/binarydinosaurs

On 16 Oct 2003 02:28:20 -0700, (Kooky45) wrote:

Before buying my 1920's semi three years ago the Homebuyers Report

Yep bought/sold couple of 1900 houses, these Homebuyers reports come
up with appalling guess work and unsubstantiated nonsense specially
when concerned with damp and rot, and all the clauses and assumptions
make them totally useless. One report said that all beams under the
floor must have probably totally rotted as there were insignificant
number of air bricks for todays standards (lifted floor boards and all
dry as a bone as was brickwork and soil), another said there was no
dpc, took off the render and there was a perfectly good one in place,
and one report said 100 year old lath and plaster ceilings were by
their nature due to fail at any moment, the list goes on and on. The
one thing I have noticed is that they are totally obsessed with
skirting boards for some reason, considering the cost of a new
skirting board compared to the cost of a house who cares if they are
"barely fit for purpose".

C

In article , Kooky45
writes
What really
bugs me is that I'll have to go through this all again when I buy my
next house.

I am an estate agent and have to go through it every time we sell a
house.

The only true test for damp and its cause is a series of core samples
which are then analysed chemically.

However, this costs money, and buyers and sellers are rarely willing to
pay, so we are left with the free quickie surveys which, as you suggest,
are not worth a bean, but are valued highly by surveyors and mortgage
lenders.

--
Richard Faulkner

Hi Chris Vowles
In you wrote:
The
one thing I have noticed is that they are totally obsessed with
skirting boards for some reason, considering the cost of a new
skirting board compared to the cost of a house who cares if they are
"barely fit for purpose".

What *is* the purpose of skirting boards? Do they just fill the gap twixt
wall and floor neatly?

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Ahhh...I see the fúck-up fairy has visited us again...

"Fishter" wrote in message
...
Hi Chris Vowles
In you wrote:
The
one thing I have noticed is that they are totally obsessed with
skirting boards for some reason, considering the cost of a new
skirting board compared to the cost of a house who cares if they are
"barely fit for purpose".

What *is* the purpose of skirting boards? Do they just fill the gap twixt
wall and floor neatly?

--
Fishter


Yes.

In article , Fishter
writes
Hi Chris Vowles
In you wrote:
The
one thing I have noticed is that they are totally obsessed with
skirting boards for some reason, considering the cost of a new
skirting board compared to the cost of a house who cares if they are
"barely fit for purpose".

What *is* the purpose of skirting boards? Do they just fill the gap twixt
wall and floor neatly?


Yes. They also stop you bashing the plaster of the bottom of the wall.
--
Richard Faulkner

In article ,
Fishter wrote:
What *is* the purpose of skirting boards? Do they just fill the gap
twixt wall and floor neatly?

Must be a man who never wields a Hoover...

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Hi Dave Plowman
In you wrote:
What *is* the purpose of skirting boards? Do they just fill the gap
twixt wall and floor neatly?

Must be a man who never wields a Hoover...

Too much furniture to get the Electrolux near the skirting boards ;-))

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Dangling participle!

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:53:05 +0100, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

In article , Kooky45
writes
What really
bugs me is that I'll have to go through this all again when I buy my
next house.

I am an estate agent and have to go through it every time we sell a
house.

*gets out voodoo doll of estate agent*

Only jokin' of course )

The only true test for damp and its cause is a series of core samples
which are then analysed chemically.

Surely the only true test for damp is to look for evidence, such as
peeling paint/lifting wallpaper, rotten skirting boards, distemper,
wet plasterwork, staining and all the other ones we had in this house.

What good does a core sample do other than to show that the soil might
be wet? It's not chemicals that cause damp, it's osmosis. We've got
wet soil under the kitchen and the hall but there's no damp there.
Never has been, and this 117 year old house has only had heating in it
for the last 4 years.

I don't see how a *cause* for damp can come from a chemical report
either, but I'm not a chemist

However, this costs money, and buyers and sellers are rarely willing to
pay, so we are left with the free quickie surveys which, as you suggest,
are not worth a bean, but are valued highly by surveyors and mortgage
lenders.

Free? I paid £350 for a full survey including underfloor access once,
and while it came back saying the house was damp free it totally
missed out the fact that the living room floor support (there was only
one) was resting on damp earth and rotted completely.

Anyhoo, any rants contained in this message aren't pointed at you
personally!

--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Witchy wrote:

The only true test for damp and its cause is a series of core samples
which are then analysed chemically.


Surely the only true test for damp is to look for evidence, such as
peeling paint/lifting wallpaper, rotten skirting boards, distemper,
wet plasterwork, staining and all the other ones we had in this house.

What good does a core sample do other than to show that the soil might
be wet? It's not chemicals that cause damp, it's osmosis. We've got

I think the core sample refered to in not taken from the ground as such,
but a core sample from a wall - i.e. drill a hole and collect the
brick/plaster dust. You can then analyse that for moisture content. This
give a much better indication of the actual moisture content of the
whole wall thickness rather than just testing the surface for moisture
content (or testing your wallpaper for electrical conductivity as most
"damp proofing" companies would ;-).

I don't see how a *cause* for damp can come from a chemical report
either, but I'm not a chemist

The contents of the water you extract from a core sample can tell you a
bit about the likely source of the water. If you can detect salts that
should be present in ground water but not rain water for example, then
you should be able to identify one of the very rare genuine cases of
water being drawn up from the ground (or "rising damp" as the industry
would ungrammaticaly calls it!), a concentration of chlorine might
indicate treated tap water from a leaking pipe for example and so on. I
am sure someone who knows something about chemistry (i.e. not me!) could
give some better examples.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

(Kooky45) wrote in message om...
Anti-damp survey rant snipped

I agree with you entirely; problem is as a house-seller, how do you
refute the surveyor's findings to the buyer who is demanding 2K off
your asking price to 'get the damp fixed'? Or as a buyer, how do you
tell the same thing to your mortgage lender who are putting a 5K
retention on your loan, for the same reason?

David

(Lobster) wrote

I agree with you entirely; problem is as a house-seller, how do you
refute the surveyor's findings to the buyer who is demanding 2K off
your asking price to 'get the damp fixed'? Or as a buyer, how do you
tell the same thing to your mortgage lender who are putting a 5K
retention on your loan, for the same reason?

David

Yes, interesting questions. It's a problem I hope I don't face with
the next house. I suspect that if you got a core sample done and it
proved there was no damp despite a meter based report you could
probably use that as evidence to sue the lender for the cost of the
test and any bridging loans you needed to get the purchase done.

I also wonder what would happen if you ordered a normal damp survey
and told the surveyor that you were intending to get a core sample
done later and if his report was wrong you'd likely sue his company
for the cost of his survey and for financial loss that occured if it
put off buyers. I bet you'd find it hard to get surveyor to come at
all if they realised you'd be double checking their reports in this
way.

Incidentally, although I looked I couldn't find anyone who offered
core sample tests. Does anyone know who does them and what the cost
might be? I'd consider it a good investment.

Ken

PS. I notice that there's not been any replies to this thread from
representatives of the damp proofing industry denying our claims, yet
they're quick to post to people enquiring about what to do about
suspected rising damp (i.e. "call me, we do work in your area").

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:08:24 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Witchy wrote:

The only true test for damp and its cause is a series of core samples
which are then analysed chemically.


Surely the only true test for damp is to look for evidence, such as
peeling paint/lifting wallpaper, rotten skirting boards, distemper,
wet plasterwork, staining and all the other ones we had in this house.

What good does a core sample do other than to show that the soil might
be wet? It's not chemicals that cause damp, it's osmosis. We've got

I think the core sample refered to in not taken from the ground as such,
but a core sample from a wall - i.e. drill a hole and collect the
brick/plaster dust. You can then analyse that for moisture content. This
give a much better indication of the actual moisture content of the
whole wall thickness rather than just testing the surface for moisture
content (or testing your wallpaper for electrical conductivity as most
"damp proofing" companies would ;-).

By the time you've done all that work you could just as easily have
done the visual checks - I've not heard of 'hidden' damp before

would ungrammaticaly calls it!), a concentration of chlorine might
indicate treated tap water from a leaking pipe for example and so on. I
am sure someone who knows something about chemistry (i.e. not me!) could
give some better examples.

I can imagine chemical analysis being handy to perhaps discover a
particular form of dry or wet rot so suitable treatment can be
arranged, but even with that the visual evidence is there first.
Happily for us the one room we had that had been weevil infested could
be dealt with, according to the T**m*n*x bloke, by 'removing the
source of damp'

Now I know why they charge so much
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

On 17 Oct 2003 02:46:08 -0700, (Kooky45) wrote:

PS. I notice that there's not been any replies to this thread from
representatives of the damp proofing industry denying our claims, yet
they're quick to post to people enquiring about what to do about
suspected rising damp (i.e. "call me, we do work in your area").

I haven't seen any postings from damp proof companies here at all,
here being uk.d-i-y.....they're all obviously too busy in their ivory
towers
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

In article ,
Witchy wrote:
I haven't seen any postings from damp proof companies here at all,
here being uk.d-i-y.....they're all obviously too busy in their ivory
towers

At least ivory wouldn't need a damp course.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Witchy wrote:

I think the core sample refered to in not taken from the ground as such,
but a core sample from a wall - i.e. drill a hole and collect the
brick/plaster dust. You can then analyse that for moisture content. This
give a much better indication of the actual moisture content of the
whole wall thickness rather than just testing the surface for moisture
content (or testing your wallpaper for electrical conductivity as most
"damp proofing" companies would ;-).


By the time you've done all that work you could just as easily have
done the visual checks - I've not heard of 'hidden' damp before

Not sure about hidden damp ;-) it is perhaps more useful in detecting
"surface dampness" i.e. the wall visually appears to be damp - but in
actuality most of it is dry.

This would often be the case where the dampness is due to internally
generated moisture not being able to escape and instead condensing on a
cold wall. Fixing would be a case of adding ventilation or heating
rather than doing anything about the wall necessarily.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Witchy wrote:

I haven't seen any postings from damp proof companies here at all,
here being uk.d-i-y.....they're all obviously too busy in their ivory
towers


At least ivory wouldn't need a damp course.



Not too sure about that actually...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:42:51 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Witchy wrote:

I think the core sample refered to in not taken from the ground as such,
but a core sample from a wall - i.e. drill a hole and collect the
brick/plaster dust. You can then analyse that for moisture content. This
give a much better indication of the actual moisture content of the
whole wall thickness rather than just testing the surface for moisture
content (or testing your wallpaper for electrical conductivity as most
"damp proofing" companies would ;-).


By the time you've done all that work you could just as easily have
done the visual checks - I've not heard of 'hidden' damp before

Not sure about hidden damp ;-) it is perhaps more useful in detecting
"surface dampness" i.e. the wall visually appears to be damp - but in
actuality most of it is dry.

This would often be the case where the dampness is due to internally
generated moisture not being able to escape and instead condensing on a
cold wall. Fixing would be a case of adding ventilation or heating
rather than doing anything about the wall necessarily.

More often than not that sort of dampness manifests itself higher than
skirting board level though, so it's a bit more obvious that it's not
rising damp. In that instance you know it can only be condensation or
a breach in the external wall. We looked at a house recently that had
a damp patch at first floor level 2 feet off the floor and nowhere
near a window - there was nobody living in the house and no furniture
so a look outside revealed the street sign fastened to the wall
exactly where the damp area was......

Another time a tenant said his bedroom wall was damp at bed level,
again not under a window and again on the first floor. No visual
breaches outside, and once we found out he showered with the bathroom
and bedroom doors open it turned out the steam was condensing on the
wall in the bedroom and was being absorbed by the quilt on the bed
which was in contact with the wall! Shows you how often he moved his
quilt too
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Kooky45 wrote:
(Lobster) wrote

I agree with you entirely; problem is as a house-seller, how do you
refute the surveyor's findings to the buyer who is demanding 2K off
your asking price to 'get the damp fixed'? Or as a buyer, how do you
tell the same thing to your mortgage lender who are putting a 5K
retention on your loan, for the same reason?

David

Yes, interesting questions. It's a problem I hope I don't face with
the next house. I suspect that if you got a core sample done and it
proved there was no damp despite a meter based report you could
probably use that as evidence to sue the lender for the cost of the
test and any bridging loans you needed to get the purchase done.

I also wonder what would happen if you ordered a normal damp survey
and told the surveyor that you were intending to get a core sample
done later and if his report was wrong you'd likely sue his company
for the cost of his survey and for financial loss that occured if it
put off buyers. I bet you'd find it hard to get surveyor to come at
all if they realised you'd be double checking their reports in this
way.

Incidentally, although I looked I couldn't find anyone who offered
core sample tests. Does anyone know who does them and what the cost
might be? I'd consider it a good investment.

Ken

PS. I notice that there's not been any replies to this thread from
representatives of the damp proofing industry denying our claims, yet
they're quick to post to people enquiring about what to do about
suspected rising damp (i.e. "call me, we do work in your area").

They are very much, "here today, gone tomorrow" companies.
Mostly their guarantees are worthless because they disappear so quickly.
e.g. Relative bought a property that had had damp proofing injected twice in
the previous 10 years.
Neither company was still trading; under their old names anyway..and a
proper survey showed the damp was due to rainwater penetrating the render.

They are very much, "here today, gone tomorrow" companies.
Mostly their guarantees are worthless because they disappear so quickly.
e.g. Relative bought a property that had had damp proofing injected twice in
the previous 10 years.
Neither company was still trading; under their old names anyway..and a
proper survey showed the damp was due to rainwater penetrating the render.

Mm, my last acquisition came with a 25-year guarantee which was
ceremoniously handed over at purchase; somewhere in the small print it
said that liability was limited to the cost of the chemicals used if
they are proven to have failed (and that's just chemical failure, not
the technique used); it doesn't cover the labour cost involved. The
company who actually did the work, and who "guaranteed" the labour, is
needless to say, long gone. All part of the Great Damp Scam IMO.

David

(Lobster) wrote in message . com...

Mm, my last acquisition came with a 25-year guarantee which was
ceremoniously handed over at purchase; somewhere in the small print it
said that liability was limited to the cost of the chemicals used if
they are proven to have failed (and that's just chemical failure, not
the technique used); it doesn't cover the labour cost involved. The
company who actually did the work, and who "guaranteed" the labour, is
needless to say, long gone. All part of the Great Damp Scam IMO.

David


Update... my estate agency phoned yesterday and said that the last
surveyor is writing his report and has warned the buyers that in it
he's going to say something along the lines of

"The house shows no visual or physical signs of damp and our meter
readings of the skirting boards are inconclusive, so we recommend core
samples are taken of all walls and floors to find out where the severe
damp is."

Obviously this will cost a huge amount, totally ruin the decoration,
and take ages to come up with results, so I've told the buyers it's
not going to happen and that they've got one day to come to a decision
about buying the house.

I also had a good search around for the marks on the walls where the
first surveyor put his damp meter, and can find only one place in the
kitchen. Interestingly, this was the room where my wife was while he
was doing his survey. What's the bet that he didn't do any tests
anywhere else in the house and made up his results?!

Chalk this one up to another demonstration of how lousey the English
property business is (although to be fair, the estate agent is trying
hard to convince the buyers they should go buy).

Ken