This is what we are up against.

[Johneds]

The director of a friendly building contracting firm asked me if I would have a word with one of the young lads who works for him about a house he is buying with his girlfriend and nearly three grands worth of damp proofing work they are having done. (mid terrace bog-standard Vic house)

What does this damp look like I ask? 'Doesn't look like anything' he says.

Well, does it smell damp, I ask? 'not really, just smells normal'.

Where is the damp, I ask? 'All along the party wall and the back wall and the bay window'.

So, if you can't see it, and it doesn't smell damp, how do you know it's damp? 'The surveyor said so'.

Which surveyor? 'From the damp proofing company', he says.

Hang on a minute, what made you get a damp proofing company in? 'Because the building society surveyor [in other words, the valuer] put it in his report and the building society insisted on it'.

To cut a long story short, I went around and had a look today and there is absolutely no sign of any kind of dampness whatsoever, anywhere in the house. Perfectly good lime plaster, original skirtings and bone dry.

Now, the upside for this young lad is that he negotiated £2500 off the price of the house and the building society didn't hold any kind of retention so he can now afford to do a bit of decorating and fit a decent kitchen before Christmas. But what a waste of time and money and hassle all because the valuer ticks a box which does nothing more than cover his ar*e.

There should be a law?

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, there should be a law...

But sad too that the vendor has lost cash.

 

[Johneds]

Quite agree, but his only concern about me convincing him not to do this work now is that he may face the same thing when he comes to sell the house in a few years time. So I tell him that in effect he has £2500 in the bank and if he has to give somebody £2500 in a couple of years he has lost nothing.

Even this illustrates the point that this nonsense just perpetuates. Something really should be done.

 

[annemorris]

This is so similar to my problem as highlighted in forum about London flat... basically the surveyors scare you into thinking you have a problem, which is what has happened with us. Something really should be done - I agree with the other postings. Our damp problem was highlighted by the surveyor, although the building society mentioned nothing about damp in its valuation.

I did a fair bit of research on the Internet and it was then that I realised that damp is a very misunderstood and much abused matter! More publicity needed about scare tactics?

 

[NT]

At what points of the process is it going wrong?

First the survey recommends a damp survey when not appropriate. Advising clients to do this unnecessary work does not strike me as a reputable thing to be doing, and I do wonder about its legality.

2nd the survey fails to offer the client any perspective on this topic.

3rd the cowboys move in, quoting for work that doesnt need doing. Claiming a defect in order to get work strikes me as fairly clearly fraud.

A legal case would surely change the landcape on this scam. But as ever, those affected are more interested in being fobbed off with a refund than taking action to stop the bs.

Clear definitive guidance on the diagnosis of damp problems and uses of a damp meter would very much help in dealing with the damp company fraud. Does such authoritive guide exist?


NT

 

[Lime]

Picking up your point NT

Clear definitive guidance on the diagnosis of damp problems and uses of a damp meter would very much help in dealing with the damp company fraud.

I think it needs to be born in mind that old house walls are designed to be damp sometimes.

 

[NT]

Not often do I hear discussion of the difference between damp and a damp problem. All walls contain some damp after all, in a climate with >0% RH indoor and outdoor this is inevitable. The question is just how much water content and is it causing any problem. Older properties have higher water content on average, but only a percentage will have any form of damp problem.

While this is also something that needs recognition, I dont expect that this in itself would be enough to stop a lot of the inappropriate and possibly fraudulent practice that sadly occurs.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

At what points of the process is it going wrong?

Surely the first point it goes wrong is with the Building Society - except, perhaps in the case of a 100% mortgage, I can't see why the Building Society should care about a bit of damp as it's not going to affect the value of the house that much.

 

[Mark]

My guess would be that the mortgage companies have a much better idea than we do of just how flakey the general financial situation is.

What they want is to be able to get the maximum amount of cash for a property as quickly as possible in the event of a default. So every little thing that might reduce the price or reduce the number of bidders at auction is a negative for them.

A bit of damp shouldnt reduce the value much on the open market, but might have a more significant impact in firesale auctions. People wondering about rot, other problems etc. And so many people want immaculate 'house doctored' stuff anyway - any character is seen as a blemish in the wider world.

 

[Penners]

There should be a law?

That is, of course, a very attractive idea. But what kind of law? How would the law be written? What would it outlaw? Do you think it's possible to formulate a law that makes it illegal to sell someone something they don't need?

If we did, I suspect the entire consumer economy would collapse - starting with the foot-spa industry!

 

[Johneds]

You are right Penners, a specific law wouldn't really be practical. But there should be a law!

I suppose what I find irritating is the valuer appears to have recommended the damp survey as a matter of course. There is no evidence of damp so it wasn't that he spotted something and thought it ought to be checked out. No, he has just ticked the 'recommend damp survey' box. And I imagine he must do this every time he walks into a period property.

The BS don't give a toss either way. If the valuer puts it on his report then they will aks for one. If not they won't.

 

[Nemesis]

I agree! But it's making some folks a fortune so it will carry on, backed by pseudo science...

 

[Penners]

I'm not even sure that any pseudo-science is involved. It's just "professionals" relying on the ignorance of the layman, and the general "race fear" that seems to accompany the word "damp".

 

[Matt Green]

What they want is to be able to get the maximum amount of cash for a property as quickly as possible in the event of a default. So every little thing that might reduce the price or reduce the number of bidders at auction is a negative for them.

The mortgage company surveyor is essentially asking for a BWPDA commissioned salesman to look at the house to suggest products that could be sold to modify the house. Why, then, stop at the damp?

By extension of the same situation:

Windows not uPVC? Lets get FENSA accredited window sellers in.

Carpet a bit worn? Demand a survey from an NICF accredited carpet fitter.

Locks not modern? That a risk for the lender! Quick, get me a survey from the local MLA accredited locksmith....

...which is all a little crazy though not beyond the realms of sanity given some of the surveys I've seen.

As to how to address it:

Get mortgage companies to put the single word 'independent' in their recommendation would be a start.

Ensure that the damp investigation recommended is flagged as being a sales pitch in the survey. I like this option as it educates the public at the same time

Get them to stop using resistance meters and, as a result, stop them acting as a sales force for the silicone and cement industries. If that means phrases like: 'no visible signs of damp' then fair enough.


Alternatively: all of the above.


Matt Green

 

[Penners]

Matt - I just hope that none of the mortgage providers read your post - I have this uncomfortable feeling that they might take it seriously!

 

[Sue Wilkinson]

And so many people want immaculate 'house doctored' stuff anyway

Mark has hit a nail on the head with his comment. Not only do we have to contend with the building society recommending wholesale distruction of period plaster in the name of damp removal, we have the problem of over renovation caused by the current trend for everything to be perfect.

Not a single house has been sold in my village for about 5 years now that hasn't been more or less gutted immediately, often before the new owners move in. Not because these places were hovels, but because they weren't the latest in interior decoration and style. Too much expendable income makes matters worse. Whereas just 20 years ago people were prepared to accept things that were nice but a bit in need of care, rather than perfect, now we have the magazine shoot as the minimum. This is distroying a lot of beautiful period houses. Many cottages that I love have gone by the wayside in the last 10 years and now I wouldn't want them.

Its all very sad. Laws are needed for period home owners full stop, let alone to do with damp.

Sue

 

[Lime]

Many cottages that I love have gone by the wayside in the last 10 years and now I wouldn't want them.

Its all very sad. Laws are needed for period home owners full stop, let alone to do with damp.

Sue

I agree, I wouldn't want many of them either.

As for a law to protect older property I think we will never get anything like it.
While laws are passed by MPs who spend most of their time consuming energy and living in a palace that costs us millions to keep in it's splendour there is no hope.
The recent farce concerning non-renewable timber used as temporary protection for the palace is a classic example.
It would appear that not one of those MPs or their advisers recognised hardwood under their fat feet when they saw it.

 

[thiambal]

On the up side and just to add a speck of light at the end of an otherwise dark tunnel....

....I recently phoned a local damp proofing firm for advice about some damp coming through the concrete floor which has been poured by some moron in our kitchen. His response, give for free was.....

.... I could come and dig up the concrete, put in a damproof course, relay your concrete floor for you, but it would cost you thousands, your problem does not sound that bad, if I were you I would monitor it but essentially forget about it and save yourself the money, your house is not about to fall down in the meantime.

Ok, he could have suggested digging up the concrete had returning to a nice breathable floor. But here is a man who earns a living selling damproofing suggesting that I do not give him money because the work really does not need doing.

There is hope!

 

[plumbers mate]

And next time you need a job doing,you'll be more likely to call him back -- that's what a lot of builders don't want - they want the money NOW and don't care about getting 10 jobs from you in the next decade.

 

[lholman]

I agree strongly with these comments, in particular those of NT:

Not often do I hear discussion of the difference between damp and a damp problem. All walls contain some damp

First the survey recommends a damp survey when not appropriate.

Nemesis:

I agree! But it's making some folks a fortune so it will carry on, backed by pseudo science...

Matt Green:

Get them to stop using resistance meters and, as a result, stop them acting as a sales force for the silicone and cement industries. If that means phrases like: 'no visible signs of damp' then fair enough.

and Sue Wilkinson:

Its all very sad. Laws are needed for period home owners full stop, let alone to do with damp.

As a first time buyer that is now in the middle of re-negotiating a previous offer of asking price I have been upfront with the vendor of what my beliefs are of rising damp. We have had 3 "independent" damp reports done by salesmen that all conflict the first of which was commisioned by the estate agent prior to us seeign the property. It wasn't until I got a friend of a friend in that is a surveyor that he really hit on the heart of the damp problem which agrees with all the feedback I have had off this forum and from my recent research. I have now calculated the cost of the actual preventitive work which seems to be causing this "damp" problem, i.e. that of properly ventilating the suspended timber floor, digging out and filling out the cracked render and replacing the rotten soffit and barge boards (penetrative damp).
Unfortunately I seem to have a buyer that is not interested in talking to me and has not even had the courtesy to respond to my questions/concerns which I provided in writing. I have therefore had to assume the worst case scenario that I will have rotten joists under the floorboards that will need replacing and that I will have this supposed "rising damp" along with a number of other smaller problems that could be a lot worse after inspection.

It is my view that both buyers and sellers, particularly of period properties need to be more aware of what is going on. If you want a period property as thiambal and Sue suggest you need to expect to do work and take on continued maintenance. I think a forum like this is worth its weight in gold and has certainly helped me to make an educated decision, if only my seller would read it as well! Maybe we could then come to a sensible agreement with us both looking over the house in detail together drawing on each others experience and knowledge.