1st post - Choosing a property; what to look for?

[PointySticks]

Hello!

I've been lurking for several months now, and have so enjoyed reading your stories and looking at pictures of your projects. What a fabulous group of enthusiasts you are!

My partner and I are currently hunting for a not-so-grand period property in need of love and restoration. We've seen a number of properties over the past few months, none of them quite right for us, but this week have found a listing that seems to tick most of the boxes.

I've had a lifelong interest in old buildings, and am both willing and eager to get my hands dirty. My biggest concern is a complete lack of knowledge of basic building methods here in the UK. I hail from the US originally (though I've lived in west Wales for the past 14 years, and it's home now) and timber frame construction is the norm there. When it comes to wood buildings I can sketch a wall section from foundation to roof on a cocktail napkin, but stone buildings, I don't quite know how those go together, much less the things that might possibly go wrong with them due to age and neglect.

I'm planning on bringing a camera, a notebook, a tape measure, and wellies when I view the house tomorrow. Is there anything else you can recommend? I realize it's hard to predict potential problems from pictures, but is there anything in those listing photos that throw up red flags for you? If you were to make a check list of things you would look for when viewing this property for the first time, what are some of the things you'd put on that list?

(Edited for silly typos.)

 

[PointySticks]

Since last posting I've been in the building. I spent about an hour poking around, and takings pictures, and can share the good the bad and the ugly.

The good:

Original stove! (Timber surround looks wrong to me. Opinions?)



Also, red and black quarry tile floors downstairs are intact in every room. There is some slight unevenness to the floor, but if I wanted perfect I wouldn't be looking at a house this age.

The bad:

The roof is original, so no felt underlay. Broken and missing slates have let water into the building, and the flashing is cobbled together around the left chimney. I'm thinking a temporary patch and mend might be possible until the weather improves, but we'll need to sort this soon.

There are some exterior render issues. There is some good news here in that the end wall (not the one pictured, but just around the corner) is the only one with a concrete render, with the rest being rendered in lime. Sadly, that is the wall that's taking a hit from the leaky roof, and there's no where for the water to evaporate but inside the building.



Here is a close up of the lime render.



Is there anything I can I do to protect the building through what's left of the winter? I think it's likely that the render issues in this area of the building have been caused by the pitiful state of the guttering. Once the roof has its temporary fix, and the gutters are sorted, and water is no longer running down this wall, do I need to do anything else to this wall to save it from further damage.

I have a secondary set of forensic type questions relating to the timber inside those very wet walls. Is it possible to gauge how long water has been coming in from the state of the interior? I mean, we (meaning others who study this sort of thing, not me) know how long it takes a body to decompose. What about houses? Given the wet year we've just had, and the fact that the property has been empty for most of that year,would it be right to be concerned about damage to the lintels or the joists in the walls? Am I correct in thinking (hoping) that rotten wood inside the walls is something that we could deal with over time, one room at a time? I'm trying to get a sense of where the money would go the first year after taking this building on.

As for the ugly, well there is black gloss on all the interior trim, and fire engine red gloss on every single ledged door in the house, and they are basically hideous. But I'll spare you the pictures. :wink:

 

[Penners]

Hello PointySticks and welcome.

If you're considering what to do to protect the building for the rest of the winter, I think the best/most important thing would be to make it watertight. Anything to keep the water out - even simple tarpaulins - over the damaged part of the roof is going to do the building a big favour. If the flashing around a chimney stack has failed, then assuming you won't be lighting a fire, just throw a well-weighted and tied-down0 tarpaulin over the whole stack.

As for the failed rendering, I really don't think there's much you can do about that until the weather warms up, but don't worry - the building's not going to fall apart in a few months.

If it's been unoccupied and leaking for some time, you'll also have the problem of damp inside. So once the roof is covered it might be a good plan to get a dehumidifier going to try and gently dry out the building a bit over the coming months.

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "rotten wood inside the walls". If this is a stone building, then it's very unlikely that there will be wood inside the exterior walls. A stone building is normally built simply by stacking chunks of stone one on top of another (plus a bit of mortar in the sandwich)! The only place where unseen rotten timber might perhaps be lurking is as lintels over the window reveals. Of course there may be studwork partition walls inside the house, but they will probably be clad simply in lath-and-plaster or plasterboard.

I hope that you will give the roof timbers a really close inspection, particularly where they've been open to the weather.

It's probably going to be difficult to determine how long the building has been letting in water, but in a sense that isn't too important. It's the state of the building now that matters, not how long it took to get into that state.

Once you start work, the roof must obviously take priority. Only when that is sound can you begin to dry the building out fully. And once you've done that, then you'll be in a position to make a realistic assessment of the work that needs doing, and the order in which it needs to be done.

Good luck - keep us posted!

 

[MdB]

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "rotten wood inside the walls". If this is a stone building, then it's very unlikely that there will be wood inside the exterior walls.

We have various random lumps of wood in our stone walls. I'm not sure why they were put there - my guess is they were to hand so just got built in. They certainly aren't lintels or obviously put there for a particular reason. I seem to remember reading somewhere (here?) that it isn't that unusual.

 

[markm]

Hi

Being new to the game myself and a bit of a Ludite, I have found the book by Roger Hunt and Marianne Suhr: "Old House Handbook" - a practical guide to care and repair, very useful.

Merry Christmas

Mark M.

 

[Zebra]

Those pink walls are really quite something too, aren't they? If the house feels right for you then I hope you take it on, even with all the unknowns, and I'm sure there will be some nasty surprises in store for you, as well as some delightful ones. PP is a fantastic resource, so I look forward to reading you posts in future. Welcome.

 

[MatthewC]

Hi Pointysticks. Sounds like you are where I was 30 months ago (see my blog on the blue button on the right). I am actually still surprised by what I dared to take on - what was I thinking? Did I really do all that myself? etc.

Your choice of house is directed by just how much work you want do - either yourself or paying/managing contractors - as well as your budget obviously. This one sounds as though there will be a good deal of work, one of which will be lime plastering - if it's been damp with water coming through the roof then you could easily find that the entire house needs it; don't underestimate the cost of this, and don't plan on living there until it's all done as it is VERY messy and dust gets everywhere.

As Penners says, as soon as possible you should simply get tarpaulins over the entire roof if it's leaking - it sounds as if all the slates will need to come off and be re-laid with a membrane (with Building Control approval, btw).

My house has some wood in the walls - sometimes explainable, sometimes baffling. In general there shouldn't be much of it in a stone building; I replaced a lot of odd bits with stone and lime mortar, but in some cases I replaced it.

Use the time before you complete to sort out as much you can about permissions, especially if it's listed or in a conservation area. Mine (both listed and in a conservation area) needed a driveway with trees felled, new gap in old wall and a new dropped kerb; if I did it again I would have done all that first, not after seven months. At the same time, think jobs through - the house (sort of) grows on you as you work on it, so your plans and ideas will change.

If you're in a position to move quickly, you could use that as a bargaining tool. The owner is probably well aware that the house will deteriorate before the weather improves (and so the value will fall), but probably doesn't want to spend a penny on it. Mine had lath ceilings which would have collapsed as you see the sky though them, and I was able to complete just before the winter, so my offer was preferred.

Good luck, and keep us informed

Matthew

 

[plasticpigeon]

The house you are thinking of buying looks like it has lots of original features and has suffered neglect more than inappropriate repair. I think this is the preferable situation. The floors are lovely. So many houses are cement rendered too so it's great that it has escaped that for the most part. I can't add much to what people have said, apart from that there was a post on here earlier this year about wood in the walls, with a detailed explanation of why it was put in by one of the knowledgeable people on here. Getting the building watertight is paramount, then deal with the rest. It is amazing what a DIYer can do if committed enough and willing to give things a go. It's hard work, but the end product will be better than anything you could buy!!!

 

[MatthewC]

I can't add much to what people have said, apart from that there was a post on here earlier this year about wood in the walls

I think you mean this one http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13438&p=183265 but there were some earlier as well

 

[PointySticks]

Thanks, all, for the warm welcome!

Since my last post I've been back in the building again, this time with my builder, and am also in receipt of the surveyor's report. The areas of concern in the house are about what I expected, with the roof and render repair topping the list, and the possibility of water damage to things we can't see until we delve deeper into the building. The report mentioned the likelihood of rot in lintels and first floor joists, caused by water ingress from the leaking roof, and failing render. (Penners, this is what I meant by "wood in the walls". Sorry for the confusion there.) The surveyor's recommended courses of action are consistent with what I know of old buildings, namely those that improve breathability of the house. He specifically recommended lime render, lime interior finishes, removal of the windows as not in keeping with the character of the building, and was quite hilariously sniffy about the ultra modern bathroom fixtures. In general I'm pleased, and feel it was money well spent. Plus he managed to squeeze the inspection into his last working day before leaving leaving for France for the holidays, and deliver the report before Christmas, which was extremely nice of him.

There was one part of the survey that I found a bit confusing, however, with regard to the quarry tiled floors. This is the section in question:

The ground floor is of solid construction with the majority of areas provided with a quarry tiled finish. These finishes are likely to be original and are in a fairly basic state of repair with significant unevenness noted throughout. In addition however, these floor finishes do not benefit from a damp proof membrane and evidence of rising dampness was noted with high moisture levels throughout the accommodation.

Given the need for a more extensive programme of refurbishment internally, we would recommend that you allow for complete excavation and replacement of the solid floor areas. The provision of a damp proof membrane and insulation to current Building Regulation requirements will be required at this time. It may be possible to re-use the quarry tiled finishes where appropriate.

Granted, my knowledge of old buildings is limited, though I have been reading quite a bit in the past few months, and it seems to me that this particular recommendation contradicts the standard "Let It Breathe" mantra that one usually hears with regard to dealing with damp in old buildings. There are two open fires on the main floor, at opposite ends of the house with an entrance hallway between them. I had been thinking that once the roof and render issues were sorted, rising damp could be addressed with the lighting of cheerful fires, coupled with strategic placement of dehumidifiers. And then once the building dries out, we see where we are. Excavating an original feature floor that is, to me, one of the key characteristics of this house, just seems... well, a bit overzealous. I do not expect perfectly level floors in a house this of this age, and if I wanted a house with a guarantee of no damp, under any circumstances, ever, then I wouldn't be looking at an old Welsh cottage.

That said, the surveyor came highly recommended as one who is sympathetic to old buildings, and the rest of his recommendations for this house seem spot on. My builder has given me an idea of what the repairs to the roof and render are likely to cost, and the work needed to make the house liveable is within my budget. However, tearing up the floor is kind of a deal breaker, on grounds both financial and aesthetic. I really like the house. A lot. I'm prepared to take it on, but I worry that it's unwise to blithely ignore this section of the report, just because I don't like what it says.

Once again, thanks for your replies, and the warm welcome.

 

[TheForge]

Hi Pointysticks,

I'd tend to agree on the floor, it's an original (or at least historic) feature and probably deserves preserving.

You'll never entirely stop moisture from the ground causing damp on a floor laid directly onto earth but with heating in the house this moisture will likely be evaporated before you notice it. (As long as you don't cover it too much)

If you lay a DPC or a non permeable floor you run the risk of this moisture tracking along the DPC and into the walls where it will be more problematic.

If you did want to improve the insulative properties of the floor but maintain breathability you could investigate a limecrete floor - this will meet building regs but is expensive and involves a lot of excavating. I think Mike Wye have info on their website and there's a section in the Old House Handbook.

Good luck!

Ps Be wary of publishing extracts from surveyors reports, I think you are contractually bound to 'keep it to yourself'! Some surveyors can get uppity!

 

[MdB]

If the ground moisture levels are low then a breathable floor will allow the moisture in the top layers to evaporate and you will have a dry floor.

If the ground moisture levels are high however, no amount of breathability will give you a dry floor, the moisture levels are just too much. In our house, our floor would originally have been sand and you don't get more breathable than that. It would however, been running in water on occasion when the water levels rose - our ground water levels are just so high. It would have dried out quickly enough when the water levels went down but it isn't an arrangement that would be considered acceptable now.

If you have this issue, then there are two main methods of solving it.
Option 1: lower the ground water levels such that the breathable floor can cope with the lower levels of moisture. To do this, you need to lower outside ground levels and install lots and lots of drainage.

Option 2: Dig up your floor, insulate and install a DPM. This will give you a dry floor but it will also increase the moisture levels under the DPM as you have lost the breathability and hence no moisture can evaporate. In a modern house this doesn't mater as the DPM runs right the way across the house including the walls. Retrofitted to an old house though, the DPM is often not fitted to the walls, this then means you end up with increased moisture content in the walls and hence rising damp in the walls. We had this as have others which is why option 2 isn't favoured. Our solution was to take the rather drastic step of rebuilding the entire wall with a DPM, others have installed a DPM properly into the wall - not easy. It is generally thought here that injected DPCs do not work in old buildings and are not a shortcut to get a DPM into the wall.

We did both.

Currently, in your house, it sounds like you have so much moisture coming in via the roof and I'm guessing the house hasn't been lived in for a while - hence little warm / ventilation. All will cause the moisture levels to rise. I would suggest you ignore the floor for a while and live in the house for at least a year (after fixing the roof etc) and see how the floor performs. It could well be the floor is fine in normal living and you don't have to do anything.

 

[Zebra]

Your surveyors report says that rising damp is evident - how bad do you think it is? It may be that, expert on old houses or not, he's saying this to cover himself against you later finding a problem which he should have noted in his report. Whilst the excavation of the floors and insertion of a damp proof membrane under the floor would possibly be of benefit, unless you lap this in to a damp proof course inserted in the walls (injected ones don't count!!) then as MdB says, it could cause increased damp in the walls. Solving one problem could exacerbate another.
Just because your surveyor suggests it doesn't mean you have to do it. His job is to ensure there aren't some glaring horrors which you are walking blindly towards. Opinions vary so much as to the correct course of action in any given circumstance, even amongst conservationally minded professionals, that your surveyor can't possibly tell you the "right" thing to do, he can only warn you of what might be ahead. I had a conservation architect come up with a detailed remedy for my house, which I've taken one or two suggestions from but have ignored the bulk of it.
Unfortunately, these are the kind of things that you may not be able to get a definitive answer on before buying the house, and you may have to live in it for a while before getting to know how the damp situation behaves under normal circumstances. Good luck!

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'd be inclined to ignore the rising damp bit. From the one photo of the quarry tiled floor you put on it didn't look very wet. If the floor is generally dry then the ground underneath is probably quite dry. If it was wet the tiles would look wet as chances are the tiles are laid on earth or a thin lime screed on earth. If the floor is wet underneath a covering such as lino, then removing this will probably allow it to dry out. The floor will always have evaporation from it and seem quite cold, but personally I am happy to live with that. If your walls have a damp proof course of some sort, eg slate or engineering brick then I'm sure that any wet in the walls is not from rising damp. If there is no dpc then the situation is a bit less clear cut. Surveyors reports are often very conservative because surveyors are scared of getting sued if they don't flag a problem that later occurs.

 

[PointySticks]

Thanks so much for the replies. I can exhale now! The floors were really not damp at all, so perhaps this section of the report was, as PP and Zebra suggest, a combined heads up for me, and CYA for the surveyor.

I am still getting in bids for the work needed to make the house liveable, and will probably make an offer on the house early next week. I will keep you posted!

Thanks, again, and Happy New Year!


PS: TheForge, wow. I hadn't considered that I was quoting proprietary info. Thanks for the tip.

 

[PeterI]

A bit of caution:

If you need a mortgage you may find this a tricky property and you may need to get a mortgage broker involved to get something suitable and talk to them before you put in an offer.

I've just been through a lot of pain over the mortgage I've eventually got through Barclays over damp and retentions[1], in the last couple of years they have changed their process[2] and only give a mortgage if you get any work the surveyor deems necessary between exchange and completion (for example fitting a kitchen to make it habitable or fixing the roof). I managed to get around this as we have a large deposit from sale of my flat and since the property is listed getting LBC would take too long (this may be a one off, certainly felt like it!)

Otherwise good luck and Happy new year.

Peter

[1] We might exchange next week finally!
[2] I was told this was due to people ignoring the rentention completely.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I was in the same position re damp remedial works advised by the lenders surveyor. They reduced the amount they would be willing to lend by the value of the remedial works, the retained amount to be paid on completion of works. The lender was happy for me to stump up this amount in cash and for me not to have the work done. Strange, but it seems that these things aren't logical and there is usually a way round these problems.

 

[MatthewC]

Further to MdB's post, an additional Option 3 is to lay a limecrete floor as suggested by TheForge. We did this with advice from Mike Wye (see my blog for May 2011 - blue spot on right) and I am delighted with it. However, I would NOT want to have done it after living in the house for a while as it is so disruptive for a long time ; if you decide to do one then I recommend that you do so before moving in (unless you're a real masochist!).

Matthew

 

[TheForge]

Matthew,

Is it your floor thats pictured in the Haynes Period Property manual?!

 

[Matt Green]

however, these floor finishes do not benefit from a damp proof membrane

*grinds teeth*
What is wrong with using the word 'have' in that sentence rather than 'benefit from'? The implication that all floors would benefit from a DPM annoys me.

"...given this house was built with a philosophy of allowing water to move through the finishes unimpeded at low volume, this floor does not have a damp proof membrane. However, if you are planning in refurbishing the house using a modern building philosophy of excluding all water from the finished internal fabric, such a membrane would be necessary."