Level 3 RICS survey: rising damp diagnosed, £7,500 to fix?!

[jmo]

Hi,

I'm grateful for any advice, thanks for reading. I have just received the results of a level 3 RICS survey for an end terrace built around 1908. The only concern from that is 'evidence of rising damp to the majority of the ground floor walls' detected using 'a proti-meter'. When I viewed it I had no concerns about damp, the building seemed sound to me. No visible damp patches or damaged plaster. No smell of damp.

Since the only evidence the surveyor could offer came from this meter, and I've reason to doubt their accuracy based on the reading around I've done, it seems off to me. I live very close so have been round today as it was raining heavily, to check the guttering and roof. Everything looked fine. The walls even looked very dry. I've come to disbelieve this diagnosis of rising damp detectable from inside the house. However, I did see something that concerned me -- see pic, by far the worst one I took.

The house did have DPC injected around 2008 and I suspect the cement (? sorry if wrong, I'm no expert on this!) below the injection holes was applied at that time. It is now clearly flaking off and vegetation is growing there which is obviously not ideal.

My worry really is the soundness of those bricks under the cement. They look damp and mossy to me. What the surveyor told me feels wrong, and he never mentions this issue in the report.

My tentative conclusion is if something is wrong, it might be this and perhaps the cement can be removed with potentially the bricks replaced? I really want to buy this house but am afraid it's clouding my judgement.

in about

 

[stuart45]

The only advantage of a survey like that is that it gives you some bargaining power in the price negotiations. I'm surprised that a RICS surveyor is still giving advice like this. Although the meters can detect damp, they aren't really a reliable thing to use on masonry.

 

[noj]

If you've got a strip of cement up to the injected damp stuff, inevitably waterproof render for 1m on the inside (and possibly a concrete slab?) then any bricks below this have nowhere to dissipate any water apart from to their face which is guaranteed to be wet!

Removing the bit of cement would help them dry out. If (a big if) the injected dpc works then you couldn't have rising damp! But if they fully worked the process wouldn't also involve tanking inside...

I'm convinced it's this tanking that causes the build up of water in the wall. Assuming there aren't any leaks and the exterior ground levels are at least 15cm below floor the wall should naturally dry.

 

[Lacan07]

My opinion on rising damp is even if one wasn't to question its very existence its most likely very rare and in most situations an alternative cause can be found. And on that basis its usually pretty easy to fix at small expense and a fair amount of elbow grease. The trick is to get your head around what can be quite a complex topic and this is why it scares the bejesus out of people.

As others here have already stated the DPC companies like to 'tank' the interior wall as well as inject the liquid DPC and this probably causes far more damage. I don't know why they do it other than to make double sure you'll never notice a failed injection. Lets face it, pick a fight with water and eventually your going to lose! And those concrete 'plinths' on the exterior of the wall are often another bad idea as they nearly always 'bridge' the original DPC providing moisture unfettered access into the wall. Fortunately the 2008 DPC is above the plinth.

For me the difficult part about owning a house labelled as 'damp' isn't fixing the causes, the difficult part is how you propose to put the house back together again afterwards. Is it going to be a breathable house or a non-breathable (modern) house? And crashing into this comes a whole load of associated considerations like finances, how long do you expect to be living at the house, etc. You could argue this report you received was rather irresponsible in the way its 'clouded' your judgement. 1000's of people live very happily in solid brick walled houses that may show no evidence of damp, maybe those walls are damp, maybe they're not. And maybe the people living in those house will never give it a second thought.

 

[jmo]

The only advantage of a survey like that is that it gives you some bargaining power in the price negotiations. I'm surprised that a RICS surveyor is still giving advice like this. Although the meters can detect damp, they aren't really a reliable thing to use on masonry.

Exactly, and if it's basically duff advice then I'm not about to go back to the seller and try to lower the price, not fair. Thanks.

 

[jmo]

If you've got a strip of cement up to the injected damp stuff, inevitably waterproof render for 1m on the inside (and possibly a concrete slab?) then any bricks below this have nowhere to dissipate any water apart from to their face which is guaranteed to be wet!

Removing the bit of cement would help them dry out. If (a big if) the injected dpc works then you couldn't have rising damp! But if they fully worked the process wouldn't also involve tanking inside...

I'm convinced it's this tanking that causes the build up of water in the wall. Assuming there aren't any leaks and the exterior ground levels are at least 15cm below floor the wall should naturally dry.

Thanks, I think this is my real concern. That what's been done has been done to solve an 'issue' that doesn't really exist but has caused problems itself. Interestingly, I think this happened around the time when the house was sold a few owners back, probably as a result of a survey that detected 'rising damp'... The current owner has been in for 10 years, reported no issues to me.

 

[jmo]

My opinion on rising damp is even if one wasn't to question its very existence its most likely very rare and in most situations an alternative cause can be found. And on that basis its usually pretty easy to fix at small expense and a fair amount of elbow grease. The trick is to get your head around what can be quite a complex topic and this is why it scares the bejesus out of people.

As others here have already stated the DPC companies like to 'tank' the interior wall as well as inject the liquid DPC and this probably causes far more damage. I don't know why they do it other than to make double sure you'll never notice a failed injection. Lets face it, pick a fight with water and eventually your going to lose! And those concrete 'plinths' on the exterior of the wall are often another bad idea as they nearly always 'bridge' the original DPC providing moisture unfettered access into the wall. Fortunately the 2008 DPC is above the plinth.

For me the difficult part about owning a house labelled as 'damp' isn't fixing the causes, the difficult part is how you propose to put the house back together again afterwards. Is it going to be a breathable house or a non-breathable (modern) house? And crashing into this comes a whole load of associated considerations like finances, how long do you expect to be living at the house, etc. You could argue this report you received was rather irresponsible in the way its 'clouded' your judgement. 1000's of people live very happily in solid brick walled houses that may show no evidence of damp, maybe those walls are damp, maybe they're not. And maybe the people living in those house will never give it a second thought.

Thank you for this response, it echoes my feelings. Get a survey and put your mind at rest, they said! I'm going to enquire with the surveyor why the meter was used, as this suggests it's not proper: https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-and-condensation/the-ping-prong-meter-guilty-of-fraud.html

I have no intention of trying to fight nature, I fell in love with the house with its original features, it would feel criminal to treat it as if it's a new build. At least this survey experience has given me a crash course in learning about older houses! Any work I commission to rectify this and any other problems will have to be suitable.

 

[RBailey]

The damp meter wallies are responsible for massive amount of money wasted and damage done.
Peter Ward (who's web-site Heritage-House website you have linked) have a good book on the subject.

Book: The Warm Dry Home – Heritage House Shop

I would also recommend the Haynes manual as a more basic / gentler read.

Period Property Manual (New Ed): Care & repair of old houses: Amazon.co.uk: Ian Rock: 9780857338457: Books

Buy Period Property Manual (New Ed): Care & repair of old houses Reprint by Ian Rock (ISBN: 9780857338457) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Cheers,
Richard B>

 

[jmo]

Thanks for those recommendations, I have already ordered another book by Rock (!) on Victorian and Edwardian houses

 

[Lacan07]

Thank you for this response, it echoes my feelings. Get a survey and put your mind at rest, they said! I'm going to enquire with the surveyor why the meter was used, as this suggests it's not proper: https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-and-condensation/the-ping-prong-meter-guilty-of-fraud.html

I have no intention of trying to fight nature, I fell in love with the house with its original features, it would feel criminal to treat it as if it's a new build. At least this survey experience has given me a crash course in learning about older houses! Any work I commission to rectify this and any other problems will have to be suitable.

The trouble with those meters are they give you a positive reading in one place and a negative reading a few inches away or even below. There's many issues with the waterproofing industry but for what its worth I think the concept of a liquid DPC is probably sound but the people who apply it / push it less so. The technique certainly has its uses. I had one done on my house just after purchase when I was naive, if I had my time again I wouldn't have bothered but I only paid 1.9K and that included a whole load of other work like new air bricks, fixing some of the floor, etc. If they go round a house with a moisture meter and condemn every wall then effectively they're saying the entire slate DPC has failed, at the same time, simultaneously, which makes no sense to me. A slate DPC shouldn't fail. in a way it may have been easier if you'd had plaster wet and blown off the wall as then you could tell if it were high external ground or in fact rising damp. It almost always isn't rising damp, its usually a combination of high external ground and crappy screed / concrete floors.

 

[jmo]

The trouble with those meters are they give you a positive reading in one place and a negative reading a few inches away or even below. There's many issues with the waterproofing industry but for what its worth I think the concept of a liquid DPC is probably sound but the people who apply it / push it less so. The technique certainly has its uses. I had one done on my house just after purchase when I was naive, if I had my time again I wouldn't have bothered but I only paid 1.9K and that included a whole load of other work like new air bricks, fixing some of the floor, etc. If they go round a house with a moisture meter and condemn every wall then effectively they're saying the entire slate DPC has failed, at the same time, simultaneously, which makes no sense to me. A slate DPC shouldn't fail. in a way it may have been easier if you'd had plaster wet and blown off the wall as then you could tell if it were high external ground or in fact rising damp. It almost always isn't rising damp, its usually a combination of high external ground and crappy screed / concrete floors.

Thank you, I'm going to view the house again early next week and see if there is any visible sign of damp inside. (There wasn't when I viewed it). The ground floor rooms are a mix of laminate and carpet, so I'll have a think about if bare floorboards are better for ventilation. I've a lot to learn about looking after an older house, but I'm so glad I found this forum!

 

[Lacan07]

Thank you, I'm going to view the house again early next week and see if there is any visible sign of damp inside. (There wasn't when I viewed it). The ground floor rooms are a mix of laminate and carpet, so I'll have a think about if bare floorboards are better for ventilation. I've a lot to learn about looking after an older house, but I'm so glad I found this forum!

Floors are quite tricky in my opinion. Like you I plan to go utilise the original floorboards because I can't envisage another practical option. My house certainly smelt damp at the beginning. The previous occupant, Ruby, had carpet down everywhere and I'm convinced that was where the smell was coming from. I'm sure a lot most of the moisture in my house rises up from the sub floor which can get damp after prolonged periods of rain. Ruby's carpet had simply become damp.

You'll find differing opinions on this subject, some people wish to insulate beneath the floor and you can understand why in this day and age of high energy prices but I see it as difficult and somewhat risky. At the very least you'd need to lift all the floor boards which can cause a lot of damage when its soft pine.

 

[jmo]

I think my best bet is to move in and think about it. I don't need a red hot, super insulated house anyway; happy to ventilate as required.

 

[Drayton]

If you can, living in it for a while will help you get the feel of the building and assist with prioritising issues. Equally importantly, possibly, you will get a better idea of how you want use the space.

 

[Cubist]

The previous occupant, Ruby, had carpet down everywhere and I'm convinced that was where the smell was coming from. I'm sure a lot most of the moisture in my house rises up from the sub floor which can get damp after prolonged periods of rain. Ruby's carpet had simply become damp.

Seconded. I had to to remove all the old carpet before we finally got rid of the ghostly wet dog, and cat, that haunted this place.

 

[Lacan07]

I think my best bet is to move in and think about it. I don't need a red hot, super insulated house anyway; happy to ventilate as required.

A good idea, as Drayton points out, you'll get a feel for the place. One of the few advantages of the slow pace of my renovation was I didn't make too many rash decisions, and it took me 3 or 4 months to realise the only way to style / decorate the house (whenever that happens) is to keep it as period as possible. Anything else just looks silly.

 

[Zebra]

In a way, the bricks being wetter below the injected DPC would seem to suggest the DPC is working, though I'm not here to sing the praises of injected DPCs. The mossiness you point out doesn't look that bad, although I can't see the point of that plinth, it looks like it's trying to replicate the effect that a drip bead has with render - of throwing the water away from the wall, but I don't imagine it's terribly effective. All it's doing, probably, is preventing evaporation from that part of the wall.

 

[malcolm]

As pointed out the damp industry is a con. Mortgage companies may ask for damp surveys, someone comes along with a device with 2 prongs that measures electrical conductivity. The devices work for wood which is not very conductive when it is dry. They are bad for plasters which can be very conductive when they are dry.

So the damp people can extract a few thousand pounds from you as a condition of the mortgage. They'll say it's damp so obviously it needs waterproofing and they'll squirt stuff in and tank the inside, maybe waterproof the outside. Oddly that will create damp problems and make it easier to justify selling these solutions to the next new owner.

What the building really needs to do in the vast majority of cases is to breathe. Water will get in no matter what. If you waterproof everything then water will have no way out and will build up. You get a cold wet wall.

I would be concerned about the concrete applied to the outside of your wall. That wants to come off. The pointing appears to be cement which is bad. Cement won't allow water to evaporate. You need lime for that. The ground will be wet so it's important that interior floors are maybe 6 inches higher than exterior ground level and it's that 6 inches that is most important to evaporate away the water from the ground before it tries to find a way out further up. It's an own goal to waterproof that bit.

I'm not a real surveyor but have a search for Peter Ward on youtube to get a feel for real damp issues. (And damp proofing companies.)

 

[jmo]

As pointed out the damp industry is a con. Mortgage companies may ask for damp surveys, someone comes along with a device with 2 prongs that measures electrical conductivity. The devices work for wood which is not very conductive when it is dry. They are bad for plasters which can be very conductive when they are dry.

So the damp people can extract a few thousand pounds from you as a condition of the mortgage. They'll say it's damp so obviously it needs waterproofing and they'll squirt stuff in and tank the inside, maybe waterproof the outside. Oddly that will create damp problems and make it easier to justify selling these solutions to the next new owner.

What the building really needs to do in the vast majority of cases is to breathe. Water will get in no matter what. If you waterproof everything then water will have no way out and will build up. You get a cold wet wall.

I would be concerned about the concrete applied to the outside of your wall. That wants to come off. The pointing appears to be cement which is bad. Cement won't allow water to evaporate. You need lime for that. The ground will be wet so it's important that interior floors are maybe 6 inches higher than exterior ground level and it's that 6 inches that is most important to evaporate away the water from the ground before it tries to find a way out further up. It's an own goal to waterproof that bit.

I'm not a real surveyor but have a search for Peter Ward on youtube to get a feel for real damp issues. (And damp proofing companies.)

Yes I think I've seen most of his youtube output in a few days! I'm not convinced by the survey that there actually a problem, but at the very least it's made me learn about this stuff. Agree about the concrete, it will be one of the first things I address.

 

[jmo]

Just to finish this off, I viewed the house again today. No sign of damp to me (though I admit I didn't bother with a protimeter). Going ahead with purchase. Thanks all, for advice.