I am looking for some advice on dealing with damp in my Victorian house. I've had some contractors in to look at the problem and I think I need a third opinion! I want to take sensible steps to try to make the situation better but don't want to do anything that would worsen the situation and I don't know how much of what the contractors say I should believe. I apologise in advance for the length of this post!
The back of the house is build into the ground outside and the ground level inside the house is, in parts, about 4ft below ground level outside. The floor and walls don't seem too bad apart from in the rooms that are effectively below ground level, where they seem pretty wet. Having lifted the 1960's linoleum tiles in the kitchen and utility areas of the house (and the black screed on which they were laid, which looks like some type of asphalt) we found a mixture of concrete and flagstones underneath. I suspect that the concrete was also put down in the 60's. In some places it looks pretty good and in others it is really patchy. The flagstones in some places look ok and in others look like they were patched with concrete. I am fairly sure there will be no damp proof course underneath.
I need to decide what to put down on top of the existing floor (I would really like to lay stone tiles) and whether to do anything about the back walls but I am getting conflicting advice. So far I have had two companies in to look at it. One were a specialist screed contractor and were just looking at the floor and the other were recommended by an organisation that deals with renovating historic buildings. So far the advice I have had is:
First company: put down a latex screed that is waterproof and tile on top of that. This will mean that the floor is dry and the tiles will adhere properly
Second company: waterproof membrane on the floor, injected damp proof course into the walls plus digging out the earth at the back of the house and putting in a waterproof membrane and backfilling to stop water coming in. They took damp readings and said that the walls at the back of the house were 99.99% saturated with water. When I asked for clarification on this, i.e. is this the same reading you would get if you put a stone in the bath and then took a reading, they said "yes", which sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. The other walls also had high readings but not as bad as that.
Of all the advice I have had, the only thing that makes sense to me is to dig out the earth at the back and put in a membrane and proper drainage. It seems sensible and I can't imagine that it would harm the house in any way.
Regarding the floor, should I put down a damp proof treatment or is there anything that I could lay on top of the concrete and flagstones that would be breathable? I appreciate that the "breathability" of the floor is already reduced due to the concrete but am working on the basis that if it has been there for 50 years and there aren't too many problems with the floor as long as I don't lay something less breathable on top then things should be ok...
If I put a dampproof treatment or waterproof screed down on the floor, will that cause more problems in the walls, i.e. with damp from underground collecting in the walls instead? If so, how do I deal with that? I hate the idea of the injected damp proof course and I have read in various places that this is a bad thing to do in old houses, for reasons which seem quite sensible to me. The walls at the back of the house look like they have a thin skim of plaster on top of something that looks quite sandy and then the stone must be behind that. I have been thinking about taking the plaster off, seeing what the walls is like underneath and then replastering in lime plaster in the hope that once the external draining is improved the walls will be dryer anyway. I wasn't planning to do anything to any of the other walls.
Thank you very much for any advice you have - it would be most appreciated!
The back of the house is build into the ground outside and the ground level inside the house is, in parts, about 4ft below ground level outside. The floor and walls don't seem too bad apart from in the rooms that are effectively below ground level, where they seem pretty wet. Having lifted the 1960's linoleum tiles in the kitchen and utility areas of the house (and the black screed on which they were laid, which looks like some type of asphalt) we found a mixture of concrete and flagstones underneath. I suspect that the concrete was also put down in the 60's. In some places it looks pretty good and in others it is really patchy. The flagstones in some places look ok and in others look like they were patched with concrete. I am fairly sure there will be no damp proof course underneath.
I need to decide what to put down on top of the existing floor (I would really like to lay stone tiles) and whether to do anything about the back walls but I am getting conflicting advice. So far I have had two companies in to look at it. One were a specialist screed contractor and were just looking at the floor and the other were recommended by an organisation that deals with renovating historic buildings. So far the advice I have had is:
First company: put down a latex screed that is waterproof and tile on top of that. This will mean that the floor is dry and the tiles will adhere properly
Second company: waterproof membrane on the floor, injected damp proof course into the walls plus digging out the earth at the back of the house and putting in a waterproof membrane and backfilling to stop water coming in. They took damp readings and said that the walls at the back of the house were 99.99% saturated with water. When I asked for clarification on this, i.e. is this the same reading you would get if you put a stone in the bath and then took a reading, they said "yes", which sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. The other walls also had high readings but not as bad as that.
Of all the advice I have had, the only thing that makes sense to me is to dig out the earth at the back and put in a membrane and proper drainage. It seems sensible and I can't imagine that it would harm the house in any way.
Regarding the floor, should I put down a damp proof treatment or is there anything that I could lay on top of the concrete and flagstones that would be breathable? I appreciate that the "breathability" of the floor is already reduced due to the concrete but am working on the basis that if it has been there for 50 years and there aren't too many problems with the floor as long as I don't lay something less breathable on top then things should be ok...
If I put a dampproof treatment or waterproof screed down on the floor, will that cause more problems in the walls, i.e. with damp from underground collecting in the walls instead? If so, how do I deal with that? I hate the idea of the injected damp proof course and I have read in various places that this is a bad thing to do in old houses, for reasons which seem quite sensible to me. The walls at the back of the house look like they have a thin skim of plaster on top of something that looks quite sandy and then the stone must be behind that. I have been thinking about taking the plaster off, seeing what the walls is like underneath and then replastering in lime plaster in the hope that once the external draining is improved the walls will be dryer anyway. I wasn't planning to do anything to any of the other walls.
Thank you very much for any advice you have - it would be most appreciated!
