"Evidence of woodworm (not active) & high moisture" - how serious is this?

Tirian

We've made an offer on a Victorian terrace, and just received the Homebuyer's report. In general, doesn't seem to contain anything that can't be summed up in the words "You appear to be buying a 100 year old house."

However there's one "red light" issue that I'm pondering over it says

"The ground floor of the property is a mixture of solid and suspended timber construction ... there is a possibility that rot may have occurred and a precautionary check of timbers (including under floor areas) is recommended. Moderate to high moisture meter readings have been obtained from accessible floor joists within the cellar, therefore, I consider it likely that remedial works and treatment will be required. I have noticed evidence of woodworm infestation, whilst this does not appear to be

active, I would recommend that the property be inspected by a reputable timber treatment (PCA) firm, so as to ascertain whether any remedial treatment is required."

So, I know there's a limit to what anyone is going to be able to answer me on this, but - any ball-park figures for how much one of these checks would cost?

Anyone able to explain what kind of problems leaving this unchecked could ultimately cause?

Never having owned a house before, am a bit clueless on all of this ...

sandsni

My only advice would be DON'T get the inspections done by a "specialist treatment" company (unless you personally know and trust someone in that sector) as they may have a vested interest in proving remedial work is required (and hence giving themselves a job).
Also, many "experts" wrongly apply 21st Century building knowledge to 19th or early 20th Century materials and structures and the "repairs" they prescribe or materials and chemicals they use could actually lead to worse problems later. It's my understanding that a lot of moisture meters actually measure conductivity rather than water content, so readings can be skewed by salts as opposed to actual dampness. If possible, try to get an independent inspection done. I'm sure there are other posters who can point you in the right direction with that.
I live in a 19th Century house and I just love it, in spite of (or sometimes because of) its quirks. Luckily my dad's cousin is a builder who understands old houses (he lives in one himself) and gives me good advice about where repairs are genuinely required, but often a simple dose of regular heat and ventilation will be sufficient.

G_M

The woodworm may have been there 50 years ago and long since gone (but leaving their flight holes a sevidence). They usually only attack fresh wood - once a house has dried out and the wood matured, they will not be interested. However IF the wood is damp, worm can be a problem.

Under NO circumstances get a 'free survey' from a wood/damp specialist company. You'll get a salesman who will, surprise, find worm (he'll even show you those flight holes! and/or damp (using an inappropriate elecetrical conductivity meter) and then recomend treatment by HIS firm.

Get proper independant advice.

read this for more info on damp. And this for worm

Bottom line is, that
a) a house that's been there 100 years is probobly going to still be there in another 100
b) old house do need maintenance

If the wood is damp, then yes, you can get worm, or dry rot, and ultimately the joists etc can disintegrate, but that very rare. The key is to find out WHY they are getting damp. Usually it is blocked air vents so insufficient underfloor ventilation, or rainwater getting in. Solving that will often be enough to dry them out and stop the rot (pun intended), unless they are really far gone.

Tirian

The report says that they do not think there is sufficient ventilation and recommends more "airbricks".

There is also a cellar at the front of the house, which is visibly damp, so I would have thought there is certainly potential for damp to reach the ground floor timber this way.

The report also states that it's unlikely to be economical/practical to damp-proof the cellar, which seems likely. There is a small window at the top of the cellar, the frame of which is clearly rotten (again, unsurprising since it is at ground level.)

On the other hand, the report suggests to me that the surveyor could not see any actual evidence of rot anywhere, hence my wonder of whether it was actually worth getting the check done ... just trying to assess the relative cost/risks of doing the check vs. just going ahead, and dealing with any problem as and when it presents itself.

As you say, the house has stood for 100 years ...

rpc

You are buying a house costing tens? hundreds? of thousands of pounds. A couple of hundred quid on a report from an independent specialist is a drop in the ocean.

Tirian

rpc wrote: »

You are buying a house costing tens? hundreds? of thousands of pounds. A couple of hundred quid on a report from an independent specialist is a drop in the ocean.

Um, perhaps you missed the bit where I asked how much the report might cost??

rpc

Tirian wrote: »

Um, perhaps you missed the bit where I asked how much the report might cost??

Ask an independent specialist? I'd expect them to be able to quote over the phone.

You seem to be still weighing up whether to get the report. I don't see how that can be a question. If you want the house, you need the report. Otherwise, walk away.

Tirian

I am still weighing up whether to get the report. There are no end the potential reports that I *could* get on this place (or any place). Simply because it costs tens/hundreds of thousands is not a good reason of itself to spend hundreds of pounds on every report I could conceivably get.

I'm sure I could get a paranormal activity check for a few hundred pounds if I wanted. I'm not going to though. All the terms in the report refer to "potential to occur", "possibility of" and "precautionary check" - which seems to indicate that they saw no actual evidence of any problem.

If it's merely an issue of "it's possible for wood to rot" rather than "there's evidence that there may be rot" then it seems a reasonable to at least consider whether this is a worthwhile expense - which it may be. Or it may not. Saying "just do it" doesn't really help me to judge that.

tbs624

Tirian wrote: »

.I have noticed evidence of woodworm infestation, whilst this does not appear to be

active, I would recommend that the property be inspected by a reputable timber treatment (PCA) firm, so as to ascertain whether any remedial treatment is required."

So, I know there's a limit to what anyone is going to be able to answer me on this, but - any ball-park figures for how much one of these checks would cost?

Tbh, I'd be amazed if any report on a 100 year old property did not include the @rse covering comment from a surveyor " may need treatment - addtional checks recommended"

Following suggestions from Jeff Howell's newspaper columns we used an independent for subsequent checks & addtional guidance on one of our properties and his fee was a very reasonable £150. Money well spent IMO - not a huge fan of additional, possibly unnecessary, chemicals being sloshed around. It's amazing what improvements to ventilation can achieve.

As the others have said, do not use a firm whose main business is in flogging damp & woodworm treatments.

mamamoi

we are in a similar posititon to you. Evidence of woodworm detected on the valuation/home buyers report 2 weeks ago so the mortgage company wanted us to have a specialist timber survey.

It has just cost us another £180 for this timber survey although it didnt really tell us much more than what the HBR told us. Still all if's or but's to cover themselves.... so we are now trying to decipher through another report full of scary stories about what might potentially happen. I didn't sleep a wink last night for worrying about whether to carry on with purchase or pull out!

Tirian

Well, have re-read the report and it's not something that they list as requiring immediate attention. (i.e. it's a 2/yellow rather than 3/red)

I guess we'll probably wait and see whether the mortgage company request the check. If they do then it takes the decision out of our hands anyway

If they don't, well ... we'll have to think about it. I think I'm inclined to leave it on the whole, there being nothing in the report that indicates they have any evidence of a problem.