Rising damp - really?

[Lindyboo]

I feel sure this topic will have already been done to death on here, but it’s new to me, so …

Is rising damp a myth? According to our post-flood damp specialist we have it big time, and I have always assumed it exists. I’ve been trying to find out more about it online and so far have learned that the jury is still out on whether it’s a real condition or just a story that builders etc like to put out to frighten and fleece the punter.

Thoughts?

 

[88v8]

OK, let's start...
Hobnob, coffee, QED

Ivor

 

[plasticpigeon]

If your house is built of biscuits!

 

[Flyfisher]

I've always understood it's a question of degree. This overview of the subject might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damp_%28structural%29

Ivor's hobnob will certainly draw up coffee by capillary action, but how far?

Also, imagine a brick sitting in a tray of water. How high will water be drawn up the brick? Now imagine a brick wall. The higher the water rises up the wall, the greater the surface area available to it for evaporation. Eventually, things will become balanced. The height of the water will vary depending on prevailing conditions such as temperature, humidity and whether the wall is wrapped up in something impermeable, but I can't imagine it rising forever.

I believe this photo is traditionally posted here whenever rising damp is discussed . . . .

 

[Lindyboo]

I have no Hobnobs so a scone will have to suffice.

I suspect, based on the tutting, sighing and head shaking of the damp assessor, that the insurance will evade forking out for the flood damage due to pre-existing rising damp. That and the fact that he actually said he was pretty certain that they wouldn't cough up.

 

[Flyfisher]

What was the extent of the flooding? Surely floodwater surging through a house is going to do a great deal more damage than a bit of rising damp in the walls?

I understand that most insurance companies exclude 'betterment' but that's really no excuse to refuse a flooding claim - Surely they should pay to have the house restored to the condition it was in before the flooding?

 

[Lindyboo]

Yes, we'd be satisfied to have it returned to pre-flood condition (damp in an old brick cottage goes with the territory) but the assessor was whingeing about not knowing what the existing level of damp was before the flood. Duh! He reckons that because they can't ascertain what it was before, they can't pay out because they don't know how much damage has been done by the flood. My argument is that the sodden floors and ruined carpets etc are the result of the flood and should be replaced. His counter-argument is that because the house may be damp because of a pre-existing condition it can never dry out adequately for them to issue a 'drying certificate' which is required before work can be authorised.

 

[Flyfisher]

My only experience of a water-based insurance claim was when a leaking pipe caused the plasterboard ceiling to collapse in our previous 1950s house. The insurance company had no problem with the ceiling repairs but would not pay for the pipe repair because they deemed that to be 'wear and tear'. Not actually a big deal because repairing a pipe is hardly a big deal anyway.

But when it came to redecoration, they initially only offered to pay for the areas damaged by the water. Sounds fair enough, but the ceiling was in the hall and the walls extended up two flights of stairs and were all painted the same colour. I claimed for redecorating all the walls on the basis that the area affected could not be effectively colour-matched and would not leave the hall/stairs in a uniform colour as they were before. The insurance company played the 'betterment' card and I resisted with the 'restore to original condition' argument. A few letters, phone calls and photographs later they agreed to the full claim. Perhaps they took the view that the entire claim was only £1600 and that the extra decoration was only a few hundred so it was not worth a battle, but I've heard many stories from friends where an initial claim is refused and they've then had to fight their corner to get it paid.

So, I'm afraid that you may need to be prepared to fight your corner on what certainly appears to be an unreasonable stance by the insurer. Besides, what have you got to lose by fighting?

Presumably the assessor was appointed by the insurance company, so there's a problem of partiality right there, but there's nothing to stop you appointing your own assessor to help fight your corner in the same way that their assessor will fight theirs. A quick Google suggests that there are lots of independent assessors out there, some of whom offer a no-fee service and presumably take a cut of the eventual claim. I've no experience of such assessors and I would be very wary of using them, but it might be an option.

This article might also be helpful: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4472323/How-to-make-your-claim-watertight.html

This info from the National Flood Forum might also be useful: http://nationalfloodforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Our-route-to-managing-remedial-work-following-substantial-damage-to-a-building.pdf

As might this government publication: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6326/1773816.pdf

And this info from the insurance industry: https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Topics-and-issues/~/media/F7D67ECDC9864FCB9F1F324604D838F7.ashx

I would guess that in your favour is that many people will have gone through a similar experience, so there must be precedents out there. Presumably an independent assessor working for you should be aware of this sort of situation. Perhaps SPAB or other similar organisations that understand period properties could help with recommending a suitably experienced assessor?

Best of luck!

 

[Lindyboo]

Thank you Flyfisher, I'll take a look at the links.

The assessor is returning on Thurs with the claims bod (who apparently gets the final say and initially said we could claim) and a builder. All these work for separate co's but are used by the insurer. I do feel that a battle of some sort is likely to ensue ...

 

[88v8]

Commiserations. Flood yuk.
Visited Boscastle the year after it was flooded, was shocked how little work had been done, but as you say it needs to dry out. Depending how long underwater, that can be quite quick or very slow.

At this time of year our intrinsically damp cottage has a RH of about 70%. In the cellar, despite a dehumidifier, 80%
In the depths of winter after both woodburners have been going a few months it will fall to a low of 45% and in the cellar 60%.

What's yours?

Ivor

 

[Lindyboo]

Commiserations. Flood yuk.
Visited Boscastle the year after it was flooded, was shocked how little work had been done, but as you say it needs to dry out. Depending how long underwater, that can be quite quick or very slow.

At this time of year our intrinsically damp cottage has a RH of about 70%. In the cellar, despite a dehumidifier, 80%
In the depths of winter after both woodburners have been going a few months it will fall to a low of 45% and in the cellar 60%.

What's yours?

Ivor

Haven't done my own measurements (no suitable kit) but assessor waved and prodded his magic thingy and came up with 100% on all walls up to a metre. Two of the four flooded floors (all concrete here) have dried out and look, smell and feel exactly as they did before the flood, but assessor reckoned they were near 100%. The other two floors have changed from their pre-flood condition. One has dark wet stains here and there about 6 inches in from the walls (interior and exterior - all brick and all supporting) and the other floor is the worst. The concrete surface is 'blown' - the top layer has shelled off like a crust leaving a wet, soft layer beneath. This has occurred in areas remote from the original water ingress in that room.

Other wet and salty patches have appeared on the floors at the other side of the house, where no flooding occurred. Oh dear.

 

[Zebra]

Hmm, you can see their point I suppose, that they don't know whether the damage to the concrete was entirely due to the flood or was really going to happen anyway given the conditions inside the house. Depends what you're claiming for I suppose.
But I hope you don't allow the builders to talk you into some drastic "remedies" when you perhaps don't have a genuine problem.

 

[Flyfisher]

I can also sort of see their but that shouldn't allow them to just walk away from the whole claim. Surely they should restore the house to its pre-flood condition and from what I've read this usually involves stripping out the wall plaster anyway to allow the brickwork to dry out, so a bit of damp in the original plaster is surely moot?

Besides, unless they have previous data on the house how do they know it was damp in the places where the flood damage has occurred?

I really dislike the way insurance companies take not responsibility for things when you buy insurance and then use speculation to walk away from a claim. It's like when they ask for a rebuilding value of a period property . . . . Well, how many owners have the knowledge for that sort of thing? But you can be sure the insurance company would be quick to claim under insurance if the house burned down. If they are such experts then they should assess the value, and therefore the risk they are taking on, themselves.

Even if you pay a qualified surveyor for a valuation, you still run the risk of the insurance company arguing that their valuation is higher. In itself that's not a problem if they stated their valuation up front, but I've never been able to get an insurer to do so.

I believe classic cars can be insured for an agreed sum, regardless of what anyone thinks the market value actually is. I wonder why houses cannot be treated similarly, especially period houses where rebuilding costs are highly variable, and especially if listed and the authorities insist on a certain type of repair.

I've read that the the worst case for a listed building owner if for the place to half burn down, which opens the door to expensive restoration, but if it is completely destroyed then all is lost and there' skittle point building a modern replica - though even if they did it would still be cheaper than expensive restoration.

 

[Keithj]

I've been told about "rising damp" several times, both for our house and for the church. I think it's a myth. How far up a brick or stone wall can capillary action lift water?
More often, it's "descending wet".

Once we'd removed the concrete that had been plastered over the house and replaced the rotten oak under it, rendered with lime, and fixed the leaking gutter outside the kitchen, the house dried out well. There is no damp now.

The east end of the south aisle of the church had been damp for over 50 years (we have PCC minutes going back that far) and a wide variety of patent cures had been attempted. It was still damp. The next expert wanted to tank the whole of the south aisle, at which point I arrived on the scene and said "hold on". I had a chat with the builder who was doing some repairs. He stood outside in the pouring rain and watched the water missing the gutter and pouring all over the buttress at the damp corner. He replaced the gutter, removed the crumbling render on the inside wall, and replaced it with lime. It took a while (about 18 months) to dry out.

 

[Zebra]

Well I think it does exist, the only reason being that I had damp walls here - it's 9" solid walls with very soft porous brick; the damp would come up to about 300-400mm or so every time we had a spell of wet weather, and fitting a proper impermeable damp proof course fixed it completely.
That's not to say of course, that every diagnosis of rising damp is correct.

 

[88v8]

If rising damp were not 'real' why does every building now have a dpc? This was a development in response to a visible problem, not an imagined one.
But I agree, it's like the spalling thread we had last week, it depends to an extent on the material. Soft red bricks and granite, polar opposites in absorption.

Back to the flood... presume you're running dehumidifiers? And you have a few hygrometers? The general rh in the house will give a clear indicator as to whether the damp level is abnormal, it's not just the damp in individual elements.
We have a hygrometer in the upstairs room where I'm sitting now, one in the cellar, the sitting room, the dining room.

Damp meters easily bought, one doesn't have to rely on incoming 'experts'. Search eBay for Damp meter or Moisture meter.

If 'they' have all the facts and you have none, you're on the back foot from the getgo.

Ivor

 

[MatthewC]

Yes, we'd be satisfied to have it returned to pre-flood condition (damp in an old brick cottage goes with the territory) but the assessor was whingeing about not knowing what the existing level of damp was before the flood.

I would think that if you can demonstrate how there was no supply of water in the wrong place then you have a chance: "The roof is good, the rainwater goods aren't leaking, the ground levels outside are well below floor levels" etc. On the other hand, if your ground levels are too high (and you do have concrete floors) then it's harder to argue that there were no previously damp walls.

Those damp meters don't measure dampness...

Also, I have to say that "damp in an old brick cottage goes with the territory" is not strictly true - it's common but not mandatory!

Matthew

 

[Lindyboo]

Well I think it does exist, the only reason being that I had damp walls here - it's 9" solid walls with very soft porous brick; the damp would come up to about 300-400mm or so every time we had a spell of wet weather, and fitting a proper impermeable damp proof course fixed it completely.
That's not to say of course, that every diagnosis of rising damp is correct.

Sounds like ours - 9" brick, soft, porous. Is it visible damp or do you use a meter? I'm considering buying one, if affordable. What sort of damp proof course did you install?

Ivor - no hygrometers but we were running dehumidifiers and fans provided by insurance. The drying assessor when he left the other day said it was unlikely to make any difference by keeping them running now. That said I'm going to switch them on again today in the worst affected room. It seems fractionally drier today and I want to see if the assessor's theory about the equipment simply drawing the water up has any value. When they were running in there, very moist areas kept appearing, so I want to see what happens now.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

If rising damp were not 'real' why does every building now have a dpc? This was a development in response to a visible problem, not an imagined one. Ivor

because of a misinterpretation of the 1875 Public Health Act and the model byelaws that accompanied them, the purpose of which appears to have been to prevent raw sewage from entering the house.
dpcs are not a requirement, and are not often used, in low-lying soggy Holland. Nor do they use those silly tubes, which are marketed over here as a Dutch system.
Damp proofing, like plastic window installation, is a lucrative trade with effective marketing, a complex pseudo-scientific background and a lot of investment at stake. That's why we have dpcs. Though the building regulations do not actually require them.

the non-mandatory guidance that follows then witters on about rising damp and dpcs, but the requirement could be met by other means.

 

[Ebenezer]

I'm intrigued by no DPCs in holland. Do you have a link for further reading? When googling holland and DPCs all that comes up is the tube system.