Dry rot - not found in full survey

Arthritic_Toe

We moved into our house 11 months ago. The house is an old and 'complicated' house with parts of it dating from 18th century and with various additions added later. We paid for the full structural survey which identified various issues in keeping with the age of the house, but which contains the words: "we found no current outbreaks of dry rot". 11 months later however we have discovered a major problem with dry rot, concealed behind dry lining.

This is obviously going to be expensive to sort out, and is exactly the reason we paid for the full survey i.e. to identify issues like this. It would certainly have affected our decision to buy the property at the price we did, had we known about it.

Of course, the survey is full of caveats, such as "The presence of dry lining meant that the wall surfaces could not be inspected and there is a risk that it may conceal dampness or defects that could not be identified".

My question is, do we have any redress against the surveyor?

Thanks.

clutton_2

how can you prove when this dry rot started ?

"""The presence of dry lining meant that the wall surfaces could not be inspected"


this is a fact...

Arthritic_Toe

clutton wrote: »

how can you prove when this dry rot started ?

"""The presence of dry lining meant that the wall surfaces could not be inspected"


this is a fact...

Well, its pretty easy to see that its well established - and obviously been there for some years.

But there should be a way of sniffing for spores or something, regardless of dry-lining.

justjohn

as far as i am aware structural or standard survey.

There are 10million get out clauses that they take responsibility for next to nothing ...

mufi

justjohn wrote: »

as far as i am aware structural or standard survey.

There are 10million get out clauses that they take responsibility for next to nothing ...

How I agree - we've been getting quotes recently and most of them write back saying what they don't do, but never seem keen to reveal what they actually do take responsibility for.

I doubt anyone has ever successfully sued one, though would love to be proved wrong.

justjohn

mufi wrote: »

How I agree - we've been getting quotes recently and most of them write back saying what they don't do, but never seem keen to reveal what they actually do take responsibility for.

I doubt anyone has ever successfully sued one, though would love to be proved wrong.

i always get a standard survey. Because they only tell you what you can already see.

Last one i got the surveyor said house may have wood worm in loft. I asked if he looked inside the loft. he said no he did not have a ladder. So i had to go and get a second look.

And even if they think they have found something they then recomend you see a specialist.

Usually just tell you what you already know.
Mind you only ever paid 90-120 for a survey, so not a major hassle just a pointless one.

clutton_2

""Well, its pretty easy to see that its well established - and obviously been there for some years."

unless you know the rate of growth, and have expert knowledge of the particular type of fungus that has caused your outbreak, and whether it originated in this particular timber, or has migrated from other timbers via concrete in other parts of your building... .. you cannot possibly know how old it is.. Dry Rot can be one of the fastest spreading of the fungal infections found in properties.... and is the most expensive to treat....


""do we have any redress against the surveyor?" - doubt it very much..

i would call in a couple of dry rot specialists... not just your local "damp profing company" as some of these are little more than builders and their certification has as much quodos as Loo-roll... .... You need to get a specialist report first.. this will cost money.. but if you ask them to take the cost off the final schedule of works, they may well do so ....

Arthritic_Toe

clutton wrote: »

i would call in a couple of dry rot specialists... not just your local "damp profing company" as some of these are little more than builders and their certification has as much quodos as Loo-roll... .... You need to get a specialist report first.. this will cost money.. but if you ask them to take the cost off the final schedule of works, they may well do so ....

Thanks. Yes thats my next move - a "dry rot survey" from Rentokill. Anyone had any good/bad experiences of this kind of thing from Rentokill?

justjohn

nice glossy summary and letter. With good detail on the survey...but it may differ regionaly...most expensive quote. but it was for dpc/woodworm only

clutton_2

i would contact the professional body which controls fungus/infestation companies BWPDA British Wood Preserving and Damp-proofing Association and look up some local smaller companies.... Rentokill are a national franchise and may be very expensive... they certainly were in the 1970's when i first used them....

I just found it....



""Many old buildings will show signs of Dry or Wet Rot. Often the attack is long gone, leaving little but a bit of crumbly wood and old, brittle white strands. Like defunct woodworm, this does not mean an on-going problem. Trained, experienced surveyors will be able to tell the difference in live or dead strands, and recommend treatment. ""

so it may not be as awful as you fear...

David_Aldred

Hi Arthritic Toe,
The question of liability of the surveyor will depend upon whether there was a paper trail of evidence to suspect decay including dry rot may have been present behind the panelling when they inspected and if there was evidence for concern did they place you on notice of the risk? It is unreasonable to expect the surveyor to open every concealed void up at time of visit but they are expected to inspect with reasonable care and skill.

What I am getting at here is whether there was any distinctive smell of dry rot and whether they metered the timber panelling that was readily accessible on its visible face and if so was the moisture content of that timber above the threshold of decay such that even if they could not look behind that panelling at their visit they should have advised you of the risk? See Hacker v Thomas Deal & Co.

The dry rot will have required a moisture source sufficient to increase the moisture content of the wood sufficiently to germinate the naturally occurring airborne spores of dry rot and this moisture needed to be sustained to promote growth of the fungus. Was the moisture source readily apparent at time of the surveyor's inspection ?

You are still within the time period for taking action against the surveyor if they have been negligent. If you are thinking of taking such action then you would need an expert witness to act upon your behalf and produce a report for the courts rather than a contractor who would be viewed as having a conflict of interest but the expert witness can work in partnership with the contractor during the opening up phase to quantify the extent of the problem and the moisture source and three quotations from different contractors for repair works to address the infection woudldlikely be required to go alongside the detailed report of the independent expert witness to give some idea of repair costings for your claim.

Take date stamped photographs of the area and preferably have the independent expert witness inspect prior to any opening up by the contractor in order to prevent evidence being destroyed by such an exercise and for the expert witness to meter the panelling and other areas in their original state.

A list of reputable contractors to undertake opening up and provision of quotations may be found by looking on the Property Care Association (PCA) website which is a division of the BWPDA. Also on that website are a list of freelance surveyors and consultants should you want to go ahead with a claim against the surveyor. Hope this helps, kindest regards, David Aldred Independent damp and timber surveyor.