damp on internal walls

Dry_Rot

Hi all,

This is the rub - there are consumers and there are suppliers. The suppliers have their own agenda of course. That includes damp-proofing specialists AND independent surveyors. Both rely on the goodwill of consumers to make a living.

In 33 years as a specialist I've learned that prevaricating over a defect is always the wrong idea. I doub't that I am unusual in this; established firms soon realise that the best thing is to sort the problem out with a smile and move on to another profitable job quick - try and recoup what was lost on the re-visit.

Sure, contractors sometimes fob customers off, but I don't see that as the norm. This is not being nieve David. You should remember that you are only called in when things have gone wrong, so your sample of work is obviously limited to the bad jobs and the poor advice. It is easy to get the impression that this standard of service is the norm. It is not.

If it were, there would be no companies with decades of trading behind the, the weight of litigation and the poor image they aquire would kill them.

My advice is still to get a re-visit, ask them to check the whole installation whilst they're there, and see what happens.

Good luck with it.

Dry Rot.

25rts

Hi,

I totally agree with dry rot and the re-inspection fee will be refunded should the work be found to be deficient under the terms of the guarantee anyway. The PCA shouldn’t be involved at this stage until the Company has had the opportunity to inspect their work.


Keith

David_Aldred

Hi,
I have had experience of not only independent surveying but also many years experience of working for dpc contractors where we installed various types of remedial dpc's to over 15000 houses and I can tell you straight off that if you think you can get away with minimal re-treatement / fobbing the client off to reduce the cost of non profit making work this was the norm at any conference / training seminar of similar contractors we attended including the nationals.

Of course that is not the official line and this insider comment may not sit well with some of the contractors posting on here but it is a simple fact of life for all but the most honest of dpc contractors who unfortunatley remain in the minority. I can also tell you for a fact that without naming names several of the national contractors have denied liability and tried to reduce the extent of their re-treatment works on a number of cases I have dealt with until the evidence was put before them to push them very reluctantly into acting otherwise. I do not have a problem with this as it is human nature to play a cat and mouse game and the good contractor will often act appropriately in the end but I was simply stating a fact that this is often not from the first complaint / re-inspection if they feel they can get away with it.

The (Op) has a problem of dampness and suggesting there is little merit in reading up on the subject but to simply pay the re-inspection fee and hope what she is told is correct and appropriate to resolve the problem both in the short and long term I feel is perhaps not the best advise to give to somebody who is obviously that desperate for guidance that they have sought advise from others on here prior to paying such a re-inspection fee. This original post now seems to be dead and I have no idea why it was bounced up again but there seems little point in those who may offer advice arguing over their point of view under such circumstances unless such folk have some personal axe to grind with the comments posted to date which under the circumstances would not be helpful to anyone. Kindest regards to all David

Dry_Rot

Blimey David,

Relax mate, why so touchy?

I have an opinion - I am not atacking you. You are after all an independent surveyor. Independent = more honest than anyone else, we all know that.

The client needs to get a re-visit paid for so it can move on. There is no harm in reading up on damp David. As you know, it has taken many years for you to gain the knowledge you have - nobody can be expected to absorb the subtle details of damp, hygroscopic salts, dew points and such after reading one of your essays. Keep it simple I think - like me.

I'm sorry if you think I am some sort of apologist for bad service, I'm not. I hate the way the industry I love has been defiled by con artists and those who would seek to gain from the damage they've done.

That includes cowboy contractors, journalists, who damn all of us for a story and an easy target AND independent specialists who on the one hand give apparently free and impartial advice (whilst pushing their services of course), and then have the absolute cheek to say that honest people (which is what businessmen and women are), are in the mionority.

How dare you suggest that most specialist contractors are dishonest? Do the PCA, which you are a member of, condone this sort of blanket slander?

You need to mix with more honest people - They're fun, they're very common and they're helpful too.

Bryan Hindle CSRT CSSW.

moneyuser

Just an update really.

I did read up on the subject and I got them to come out again and they did a carbide test on the worst area. This showed a 2% moisture level. They would only re-treat if it was > 5%. Although it looked damp in other places his meter readings were very low to 0. Conclusion was condensation. As a test I put the heating on all day in the hall and closed the doors and the area did appear to dry out. I probably don't heat the house enough.

If this was the original problem and therefore didn't need the dpc then so be it. I wouldn't be able to prove it but I have learnt a valuable lesson.

Thanks for everyones advice.

David_Aldred

Hi moneyuser,
A low carbide meter reading on its own taken on site to give a total moisture content value within a sample is not complete confirmation in itself that you do not have a problem though it is encouraging. BS6576 suggests that readings over 5%w/w by carbide meter should be further investigated but just as importantly it does not say that readings lower than this value mean the sample is dry as it depends upon the material being sampled. For example a hard dense brick may be considered to be wet at readings as low as 1-3%w/w. In addition it does not appear from what you say that they have tested the plaster to determine whether it meets an appropriate specification and whether it is in any way contaminated by salts some of which could be hygroscopic and accordingly cause the plaster to become excessively damp for certain periods.

The conclusion that the problem is condensation to an internal wall between hallway and an adjoining room is highly suspect since it is extremely doubtful you would hit the dew point on such a wall surface. Their claim that they would never have to re-treat for carbide meter readings of less than 5%w/w is also misleading since some type of brickwork can be very wet indeed at values under this level. You do however seem happy at present and I hope the situation does not become cause for further concern. Kindest regards, David Aldred CSRT, CSSW, MIWSc, AInstSSE

Dry_Rot

Hi Moneyuser,

I agree with David on this. Though I am a little concerned that they didn't go a little furtehr. Anyway, keep an eye on it and make sure you get the findings in writing and keep them with the guarantee documents.

David is right to be worried about the 'condensation' being on the face of an internal wall. Similar symptoms can happen if the plaster is contaminated with salts, such that generally high humidity is absorbed into the plaster - giving the appearance of condensation. However, persistant condensation usually gives rise to mould growth, whereas salt derived damp usually doesn't.

Best

Dry Rot

David_Aldred

We can only conclude from the above that the client has paid a £75 re-inspection fee to a national contractor registered with the PCA who's staff are CSRT qualified / presumably professional indemnity insured to give the advice they do and that the re-inspection in this case does not appear to have gone far enough and that the advice given to the client by that company's representative appears to be at best misleading; resulting in the contractor taking £75 off the client and walking away without having to undertake any further works for now.

Referring to my earlier post: "I can also tell you for a fact that without naming names several of the national contractors have denied liability and tried to reduce the extent of their re-treatment works on a number of cases I have dealt with until the evidence was put before them to push them very reluctantly into acting otherwise. I do not have a problem with this as it is human nature to play a cat and mouse game and the good contractor will often act appropriately in the end but I was simply stating a fact that this is often not from the first complaint / re-inspection if they feel they can get away with it".

Since it is highly likely that the re-plastering will have been undertaken by the same person throughout, there is obvious cause for concern that the re-plastering to other areas where simiilar treatment was undertaken may be at similar risk of being problematic / degrading over time.

Obvious causes for concern:
1. Re-inspection advice appears at best misleading.
2. Re-inspection investigation appears not to have gone far enough.
3. Plaster may be contaminated by salts and there is a risk that if this is the case it may be a common problem throughout.
4. Readings of less than 5%w/w on a carbide meter by contractor may still reflect hard dense bricks if present may be wet.
5. Concern for the client that if they sell the house at some point in the future an electrical damp meter used by a surveyor at that time will pick up high readings to areas of dpc treatment that the surveyor / other contractors may construe as meaning another dpc is required.
6. Concern for the client that re-plastering / re-decoration may be required not only to the subject area but also to other areas of treatment.
7. Concern that the true cause of the problem has not been identified nor the full extent of the problem to date.

This is a national PCA member contractor that is supposed to be one of the best of the best. With all due respect to the posts from Brian (Dry Rot) and the other remedial treatment person (25rts) who recommended the client simply pay the re-inspection fee of £75 to the contractor in the hope that the contractor gave competant advice / admitted the full extent of any re-treatment works that may be required; this does not appear to have been the best / most worthwhile £75 the client has have ever spent in this particular case.

Within above posts concerning this issue, Brian (Dry Rot) asked "how dare I suggest most remedial treatment contractors are dishonest"? I did not state this at all but only that in my own experience I have found good honest ones unfortunately to be in the minority within the industry as a whole.

Perhaps others may sympathise that in view of the above, if this is the service from one of the nationals, a PCA contractor considered to be the best of the best, this sorry tale does nothing to dispel my personal view of which I am perfectly entitled to state without fear of being muzzled, that whilst there are some very good competant contractors out there, which may well include Brian (Dry Rot), 25rts and and dampdaveski, there are others who are not so good, especially considering the ones outside the PCA including those offering other types of remedial dpc's than just chemical treatments.

Going back to this case, if the client comes to sell the property and this problem is flagged up again, or the treated areas continue to deteriorate (as well they might), the clients options will be to either pay yet another £75 to the contractor with little optimism that the service will be any different / the problem will be resolved, at which point they will then have paid a total of £150 in re-inspection fees, assuming the re-inspection fee remains the same (which it may well not), or re-visit the option to have somebody competant investigate what is truly going on as suggested at the outset. Kindest regards to all, David Aldred Independent damp and timber surveyor

25rts

Hi moneyuser,

Is it possible to post the full extract of the re-inspection report omitting any identifying names, addresses and references numbers?

Also FYI the following link goes someway to explain the often misunderstood 5%

http://www.buildingpreservation.com/BRE%20Digest%20245.htm

David_Aldred

Hi 25rts,
Thanks for posting the extract from Graham Coleman's website whom I know well from undertaking some certified independent laboratory work on some of my cases that go to court.

The problem with posting extracts from the report on this case even omitting address etc details in a public forum is the client has already named the contractor in an earlier post and accordingly I feel that having discussed the above as best we all might, to do more by getting into the nitty gritty of this particular case with a named contractor on an open public forum might not be the best thing to help the client within such a public setting and may even prejudice the matter should the client enter into a dispute with the contractor at a later date.

The report may well be subject to copyright in whole or part and in any case will without doubt have been intended for the personal use of their client for which permission would, if one had any sense at all of the potential for litigation need to be sought from the author to publish upon a public forum where the advice contained therein could be acted upon by a third party. Under the circumstances I doubt very much indeed whether such permission would indeed be granted and accordingly the client could, if they complied with your request leave themselves quite rightly open to a counter claim against them from the author.

Accordingly based on considerable experience of dispute / court work may I suggest that in this particular case any further discussion upon the matter be best left to private messages between the client and whoever, if indeed the (Op) even wants any further advice upon the matter, which from their last post they do not appear to do at this moment in time. Kindest regards, David