damp on internal walls

red_llamas

Hiya, would any of you damp expert types be willing to advise me on something that came up in my survey of a house I intend to purchase re high damp readings when there is a previous dpc?

If you wouldn't mind me pm-ing you please let me know

Ta

David_Aldred

Hi red_llamas,
No problem at all just fire me a private message (pm) and I will gladly answer any query as best I might. Kindest regards, David

Dry_Rot

David's last reply does not appear aimed at the client. It seems to me to be an attempt to justify the biased view that:

The contractor is hiding something
The contractor has not answered the consumer's concern
There is trouble ahead (for the consumer)
The contractor may have engineered the test results (chose dense brick)
There are other problems which the consumer is unaware of..

Can I quote form your last reply David? Just to illustrate my point.

Obvious causes for concern:
1. Re-inspection advice appears at best misleading (AT BEST?)
2. Re-inspection investigation appears not to have gone far enough (APPEARS HOW? A site decision will not always need lab work - like a doctor will use a stethoscope in most cases - rather than calling for a CAT scan, MRI scan and Blood tests every time a diagnosis is required))
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 (MAY BE? SHOULD RE-VISIT INLCUDE EVERY JOB EVER DONE - JUST IN CASE?).
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( MAY ALSO REFLECT BRICKS MADE OF STAINLESS STEEL OR DIAMOND - HOW DO WE KNOW?)
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 (JUSTIFICATION FOR INVESTIGATION; LIKE THE WORRIED WELL SYNDROME FOR PEOPLE)
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 (ASSUMING THE NEGATIVE)
7. Concern that the true cause of the problem has not been identified nor the full extent of the problem to date (CUSTOMER IS HAPPY - THAT'S WHAT COUNTS).

Having read several posts I can see that you have adequate technical knowledge David. But your post is full of references, which as far as I can see demonstrate that far from being inedpenedent, you seem biased against contractors. You should be independent so that you can investigate problems for either side with a clear and open mind. How can this be when the statements you make seem to condemn us (yes - I'm a contractor), as a bunch of crooks.

As for free and impartial advice. Many contractors give this every day. I know I do. That is why when I do give advice to moneysavingexpert forum readers I do not do so in my name and my firm. I sell nothing but a good outcome for the consumer. If they benefit good; I don't in any way - there is no conflict of interest. That means thinking about the situation from their position - what will put the problem to rest for them and allow them to move on? I don't fill their heads with 'what if' scenarios.

This is my 24th year as MD of the company I run (33 since I started in the industry). I've learnt a lot in that time and I sincerely want to help others benefit from my knowledge, otherwise it will be wasted when I retire/die.

I am not an apologist for crap service from contractors - Independent surveyors have a crucial role. But sadly, If ever (not happened in all these years), I have to go to court to defend my firm against a claim from a client I can't agree with - I will not allow evidence to be considered if the independent surveyor who represents the client, has made similar statements to those I've seen on this forum. The statements made in the quotes above and the apparent need to bash contractors and justify opinions seem a strong indicator of a conflict of interest, based on the pre-conceved convictions and a keen desire to see these justified. before a case ever came to court.

I will be making my thoughts known to the Property Care Association on this general point.

Dry Rot.

David_Aldred

Hi Dry Rot,
Thanks for your views. It may well surprise you that I have defended quite a few contractors against claims from clients and arbitrated between client and contractor finding in favour of the contractor on several occasions when I have found that contractor has not been at fault, so no I refute your slander that I treat all contractors as crooks, I most certainly do not and each case quite rightly is treated upon its own merit to get to the truth of the matter. Within reports I write I will often give the clients a selection of competant PCA and non PCA contractors to obtain tenders from and it may also suprise you that this includes the national contractor in question which their local branch to me has some very good staff and whom I have a good working relationship with.

I have tried to end this thread a few times as I considered it was of no benefit to the original (Op) in arguing over the case any further but it appears that it is the contractors that have re-opened this thread not to assist the Op which is what the thread is for but to attack anyone who questions the current contractor based system which in my own opinion has considerable room for improvement, yet can you not see by what you keep harping on about all you appear to do is dig an even bigger hole for yourselves by what you write / the reaction of the public via the off post pm's I receive.

Make your thoughts known to whoever sir - I have on many posts within this forum promoted the PCA and recommended the PCA is where people should look for both competant qualified contractors and surveyors and if the PCA tried to muzzle folk from expressing views / helping folk out on an open public forum I would have no hesitation of publishing the details of such a gagging order to anyone I could think of including the press and the RICS who would have a field day with such a situation - god the family and I are in stitches as you keep rising to the bait - go on write some more - you just can't let it go can you? French Knight: You don't frighten us, English pig dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person! I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.

dampdaveski

Makes a change that it's not me and you argueing David

Might I suggest that if you want to carry on your discussions you do it via PM's?

moneyuser

Dry_Rot wrote: »

7. Concern that the true cause of the problem has not been identified nor the full extent of the problem to date (CUSTOMER IS HAPPY - THAT'S WHAT COUNTS).

I don't recall saying I was happy. In my last post I merely accepted the test results. I still have doubts but without an expensive survey there is not much I can do. The worst affected area has now been replastered by someone else.

As a gesture of goodwill they did waiver the £75 fee.

I am selling the house now so I will have to wait and see if anything comes up in a survey if/when I get a buyer.

Many thanks for everyones replies. Wish some had been posted before the re-inspection but never mind