new owner to listed building and 'damp work'

[legstrap]

Hi, new to this forum and to a circa 1750 timber framed grade 2 listed building with a long list of stuff to do.
One of the many things discovered is that in the past it has had some damp proof work done when the previous owners bought it in 1990. I'm waiting to hear back from the company who did the work to find out exactly what their process involved.

I'm pretty certain it would have been totally unnecessary and misdiagnosed with the usual pronged resistance meter, and probably would have damaged the building to some degree through not allowing it to 'breathe'

My question is.. at the time of the work (1990) would the damp proof company had needed to get listed building consent for the work, or would that fall on the owners of the property at that time?
I'm prettty sure no consent was asked for and given as there is no record of it with the paperwork of the house.
Depending on the exact methods used (assuming some sort of chemical injection) can this be classed as damage to which they can be held liable for costs to put right?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm really against this sort of work carried out after a 'free' survey they offer the estate agents to which they get to do the work they themselves advise!

cheers

 

[Flyfisher]

Welcome to the forum and for the interesting question.

I'm not legally qualified in any way, but based on my own dealings with LBC and our CO, my understanding is that the owners are responsible for the property and for obtaining any necessary permissions. Any contractors would be the 'agents' of the owners and acting under the owner's instructions. I suppose those instructions might include requiring the contractor to obtain the necessary consents - for example if a project was wholly managed by an outside party - but ultimately I believe the owners are legally responsible for everything they do, or authorise to be done, to a listed property.

I don't know whether chemical DPC injection would be classed as actual damage or an unauthorised alteration, but my understanding is that if a CO decides to pursue anyone for rectification of any unauthorised works, then it would be the current owner. Even if they could prove they were not directly responsible for the unauthorised works, they would still be liable for any corrective works. Of course, they could pursue the previous owners themselves but I understand this would be a technically separate action.

No need to apologise for the rant though, this is exactly the sort of uninformed work that ends up harming our dwindling stocks of historic properties. Fortunately, from what I understand of injected DPCs they are unlikely to have caused any significant harm to the building, beyond a few unsightly holes in the walls, because the process is basically useless and rarely forms a continuous chemical barrier to water migration anyway, and even if it did actually work then it would be no worse than a physical DPC, which is often retrofitted during renovation works anyway, and should not harm the basic breathability of the walls.

But that's just my amateur musings. A suitably qualified surveyor experienced in historic properties would be needed to inspect the actual building for a professional opinion . . . especially if legal action is being contemplated.

I'm sure other replies will come along in due course, but do keep us up to date with what happens.

 

[88v8]

Hello and welcome.

I agree with FF's observations.

And unlike some forms of 'improvement', most dpc work at least does not involve loss of historic fabric. I would be far more concerned if I walked into a 1750 house and found fitted carpet, for instance, as that means there will be a modern concrete floor with a dpm underneath, and I would wonder what was destroyed to create it, and where the damp is going when it gets into the walls.

We found a cement floor under one room which we had to have removed before we even moved in. That dated back to 1972, before the building was listed.

As regards legal action, you would have to quantify the damage to the building, find a way to reverse what was done if that is even possible, and then take action against the then owners with no guarantee of success. After all, 25 years is quite a long time and if no ill effects are manifest it might be successfully argued that the works were not in fact actively detrimental. And of course you'd need to get LBC for whatever you planned to do which might also not be forthcoming.

The current obsession with insulation has added another damaging element to the damage wreaked on old houses, and is no doubt storing up a good deal of trouble for the future.

Anyway, good luck with the house. Hope to hear from you again.

Ivor

 

[legstrap]

Thanks for the replies chaps, and Ivor, no fitted carpet, but there is a not too nice laminate floor downstairs which shall be removed in due course. We haven't moved in yet, another 2 weeks to go!
One strange feature of this house is it is timber framed, rendered (concrete render!!!!!! arghhhhh) BUT mock timber framing put over the rendered original frame.
Although new to old properties I find this strange.. hoping this extra wood isn't holding up the front of the house.
Anyway, I'm sure it'll be an interesting 'journey'

Steve

 

[Keithj]

I hope you'll enjoy yours as much as we do ours!

We had some of that injected damp proofing. The next owner slapped concrete over all the incipient rot, which made the problem far worse. When the rotten timber was removed, we found the "damp proofing". It turned out to be like little plastic corks which clearly achieved nothing whatever.

We also had planks nailed over some of the structural timber. It turned out to be hiding the foam that had been injected to replace missing or rotten timber.

 

[skier-hughes]

We had fitted carpets everywhere, but they just covered the old quarry tiles and wooden floors.

 

[Penners]

I, too, agree with FF's thoughts above, on the same professionally unqualified basis.

If the damp treatment did indeed involve injection into the brick plinth of the property, it's possible that you may be able to see this for yourself. If you are able to do so, look for a horizontal, regular line of filled holes in one of the courses of bricks, extending partway or all the way around the plinth. These would confirm your suspicions.

 

[xanthe]

Our POs had a useless DPC done - the main problem was putting a metre of gypsum up the walls inside. Nothing I can do about the row of holes, but the gypsum is on the ever growing list of things to do.

No LBC documents were sent through for it - the only ones we got were for a kitchen and bathroom extension. There were none for the DPC, the dodgy dormer window, the huge tv aerial on the gable wall that had damaged the C17th brick-work and a variety of other sins. I asked the CO to come round the property with me a week after the survey and we discussed the lot and given I want to put it all right, he said he won't be asking the council to take action.

 

[MatthewC]

My question is.. at the time of the work (1990) would the damp proof company had needed to get listed building consent for the work, or would that fall on the owners of the property at that time?

I agree that it all now falls on the current owner, and would have been down to the owner at the time. However, I reckon that what is needed is a change to the law to make the contractor liable if s/he carries out work on a listed building (or anything in a conservation area) which does not have the relevant consent. That would cover both "damp proofing" and uPVC, not to mention plastic rainwater goods and the wrong tiles. A few stiff fines and I'm sure the "industry" would fall into line pretty quick!

Anyway, I'm sure it'll be an interesting 'journey'

...and expensive!

There's lots of advice on this forum, of which I think the best is "don't do anything major in a hurry". Penners will say "don't do anything in a hurry - have a KitKat".

 

[Flyfisher]

However, I reckon that what is needed is a change to the law to make the contractor liable if s/he carries out work on a listed building (or anything in a conservation area) which does not have the relevant consent.

Arguable, the recent changes to the VAT rules have made things worse in this respect. In the 'good old days' when VAT was zero-rated on alterations to listed buildings, the LBC paperwork was effectively proof that the works were indeed alterations and a copy would be given to the contractors to satisfy their accountants (and any VAT auditors) that VAT was legitimately not chargeable.

Sadly, those days have now gone so there's less incentive for owners to bother with LBC and for contractors to ask about it.

 

[Penners]

Penners will say "don't do anything in a hurry - have a KitKat".

Penners will also say, "if there's a Kit-Kat in the offing, never mind the hurry - just don't do anything."