Damp in Vic flat....

[ilikecobwebs]

We have a flat in a converted Victorian house ( 4 flats altogether) that is lived in by my mother-in-law. The basement flat was recently purchased by someone who has had one of these dreaded damp surveys done, and is likely to be asking the other flat-owners to contribute to future work. Now, essentially, this is really a "block-of-flat-owners" question, but I havent had much luck finding a suitable website that might answer our question.....which is mainly, how much of the work would other owners be responsible for? I believe that the outer structural walls are "common" to all owners and that any work such as damp-course would be a shared cost......but removal and replacement of internal plaster in the basement flat? Would that not fall solely to the basement flat-owner? There is some dispute over it at present. If anyone knows a suitable URL I can go to, or maybe knows the answer, it would be very helpful.
We are not yet sure what the damp problem actually is......the previous two owners never bothered to have anything done, so it makes us wonder how bad it really is. There may be a mortgage retainer......we don't know.
Yes I am currently wading through the Damp FAQS but havent finished it yet............

 

[Penners]

For goodness' sake don't take this as expert advice, but here are a few amateur musings.

Do I infer that the new basement flat owners are pressing all other flat owners to contribute to a damp-proofing treatment? If so, is there some sort of covenant that gives them the right to do this? If so, does the covenant specify the rights and responsibilities of all flat owners, under all such circumstances?

I have no idea what the law says about such cases, but it seems to me (on a purely common sense level) that there's a strong flavour of caveat emptor about this - they should have found out whether the basement was damp before they bought it.

If this becomes a serious dispute, I suspect you may have to take qualified legal advice.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

Interestingly....we have just today been presented with a copy of the damp-survey that the new owners had requested BEFORE they went to completion on the property.....meaning, effectively, just as you have suggested; that they knew about the costs before going ahead with the purchase. Now, our flat management rules are that at least 3 quotes are required, plus a meeting, before the residents agree to any costs. As to who is responsible for what, that has still to be fathomed out. The damp course has been quoted at around a grand plus vat, BUT the replastering of internal walls and refitting of both the kitchen and bathroom exceeds 6K plus vat. At this point, we are not aware of precisely which of these costs the new owners are expecting the residents to share.......but I would personally argue against the larger amount since it all falls within the basement flat "dotted lines", so to speak, not the shared external walls.
The fact that they have presented the management committee with a quote for costs suggests that there is some expectation of payment on something.......I am hoping that we dont have to call in a solicitor to check out our exact rights,....which was why I was hopeful of finding some guidleines on the Net.

 

[DaveBrigg]

It may be worth checking what exactly the damp proofing work will involve. If it is a basement flat, a damp course in the traditional sense of the word is unlikely to be any use whatsoever for the new owners, since it cannot (as far as I know) be installed below ground level. Refitting the kitchen and bathroom may be great for the new owners, but I cannot see how it will affect the damp proofing of the building. As I understand it, damp-proofing companies usually insist on the bottom metre or so of a wall being rendered in cement, so maybe this extra cost is related to the effect this would have on a fitted kitchen and bathroom. As Penners said, if it comes down to it, the only opinion that counts will be that of a solicitor looking at the wording of a contract. However, on a personal level 'they've got a cheek' springs to mind.

 

[Penners]

DaveBrigg is, of course, quite right. A damp-proof course (normally implying a horizontal line of impervious material) will be pointless if the masonry is in contact with the soil above that line. There are several different techniques used to "tank" (or similar) a basement below ground level, but I must say that a cost of £1000 wouldn't, in my very limited experience, come anywhere near covering them.

As for the other flats contributing to the cost of replastering and fitting new kitchen and bathroom suites in the basement, I would have a two-word answer to that, and the second word would be "off".

 

[ziggy]

It's down to what the lease says.

I've got a bog-standard lease of a basement flat. The section that deals with freeholder's responsibilities for externals are unfortunately simple ie roof. walls, drains etc etc. Because they are so simple - I'm currently about to embark on damp-proofing works and all costs ( the damp-proofing & internals ) are down to me. The agent who manages the property on behalf of the limited company ( owned by the four flats/shareholders ) additionally mentioned this before I bought.

I'd say read the lease - even get a solicitor to read it. If it's a bog-standard lease I'd be surprised if the damp-proof works, much less the internal refurbishment works post damp-proofing are a shared cost.

The devil's in the detail - that's the lease.

 

[rogerh]

It depends on the wording of the lease but you can get free advice here:

http://www.lease-advice.org

I would think that you're only likely to be liable if it's a pre-existing damp course that's failed, though, and even then I wouldn't expect it to cover any internal work. My inclination would be, firstly, to persuade them to get a second opinion and, secondly, to refuse to contribute and leave them to take any legal action. Obviously you have to consider the importance of maintaining good relations with your neighbours.

 

[Penners]

It's down to what the lease says.

ilikecobwebs has mentioned "owners" but hasn't said anything about leasehold or renting, so there may not be a lease.

 

[rogerh]

With a flat there's almost always going to be a lease.

 

[Flyfisher]

We are not yet sure what the damp problem actually is......the previous two owners never bothered to have anything done, so it makes us wonder how bad it really is. There may be a mortgage retainer......we don't know.

I would treat this as the top priority, i.e. is there really a damp problem or is there just a "free" survey that says there is a problem, carried out by a firm selling DPC treatments?

The classic scenario seems to be that a survey will detect 'damp' through the incorrect use of a damp meter, which is reported in the survey, which leads the mortgage company to require remedial works, probably witholding some of the mortgage until it is done. The prospective buyers are therefore drawn into the work, even if it is not really necessary. I've also read that the effectiveness of injected DPCs is highly dubious (a polite way of saying they simply don't work, at least not with the way they are actually implemented).

This whole scenario is described in great detail in "The Rising Damp Myth" (http://www.askjeff.co.uk/books.php) and from what you've said about the previous two owners, there may not actually be a real problem, or certainly not one that requires many £1000s of 'remedial' work. If this is the case then the solution may be as simple as a letter to the mortgage company pointing out the dubious nature of the damp tests, which may well encourage them to drop the DPC condition.

I've no connection with the book, except as a recent reader. At the very least it will give you loads of informed questions to ask the survey and mortgage companies.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

Thanks for the input......I've been busy for a few days, helping with painting our nice, unmolested genuine wooden windows.
Back to the flat......well, I'm busy digesting all your words. The four flats are under a management company, run by the four owners; the usual sort of thing. So it's up to all four owners to make the financial decisions. The flat we own is ours but my mother-in-law lives in it, so strictly speaking she is a "tenant" (though she no longer pays us "rent"). We have looked at the lease for our own flat (first written in 1974) and there is really nothing to suggest that we have any responsibility for works that fall within the boundaries of the basement flat. However, we could do with getting sight of the other owners' leases, to make sure they are all about the same; communications are being planned for after the Bank holiday.
I agree that we will have to persuade the new flat-owner to get further quotes, before any decisions are made (she's been told this already); and getting actual sight of the "problem" would be helpful, although the owner seems to be elusive at the moment. The basement flat is actually not in direct contact with the soil; it's at ground level at the rear, and the front windows are below the garden but with an open "channel" separating them from the garden (I guess you could say there's a soil-retaining wall). It aint going to be physically possible to go drilling holes into the walls from the outside; no room to swing the tools.
I've certainly read a bit about these "damp cons" and I suspect that the situation we currently have is 80-90% the same. As far as I know, there is no pre-existing damp course. There's obviously more persuasive work to be done first, on this new owner, so I will note down all your thoughts and see how things develop over the coming weeks.

 

[Penners]

there is really nothing to suggest that we have any responsibility for works that fall within the boundaries of the basement flat.

In which case, why would you consider paying anything towards their damp problem? I (flippantly) suggested one two-word phrase in a post above. Here's another one: "caveat emptor". They bought the flat - they should be responsible for sorting out any of its problems.

 

[rogerh]

It doesn't really matter what other people's leases say (although it's unlikely they'll be any different) - it's only your own that defines your legal responsibilities.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

I guess the reason is.....from past experiences (not property ones), what SEEMS to be a clear-cut legal issue sometimes is not. People try so many things "on" these days (and often succeed), that I am, I suppose, very untrusting. We haven't dealt with an issue like this before in the flat management, so I am just very very wary. But it seems I should have enough ammunition now at the next meeting.