Dampproof Guarantee problems

Doozergirl

Not bother with it unless there is actually a problem?!

There is no damp, you are not selling and no surveyor has pointed anything out in a new survey. There is no immediate problem to deal with.

If a surveyor did say something, then you can just produce the guarantee document and tell them there is no problem but it is guaranteed in future.

That's it. No big deal.

Furts

BenCad wrote: »

I shouldn't have described him as a builder, the man who said the damp course was in the wrong place was a surveyor from Peter Cox. I believe they have quite a good reputation, and he certainly seemed more professional than the first lot. He certainly wasn't pitching for extra work.

I was really hoping if someone could advise me on how to avoid the £195 call out fee the original builder is asking for.

A fully qualified "Chartered Building Surveyor" or a sales person masquerading as a "Surveyor"?

My puzzle is why he was there just happening to be looking at the work done by somebody else.

MisterBaxter

I'm with Doozergirl on this one. Worry about only if the damp does come back, at which point you would have something to show the original company and avoid the fee.

If and when you come to sell you will just hand over a copy of the guarantee to the buyer and they benefit from the guarantee in the same way.

Out of interest who is backing the guarantee, the installer, the chemical company or a third party insurer; if it is the first two then it is of limited value as if either company ceases trading the guarantee generally dies with them.

teneighty

Just to look at this from a slightly different angle.

If the remedial DPC has been installed at the incorrect level it is probably only the waterproof internal render that is holding back the damp. Whether this is rising damp or penetrating damp from raised ground level, condensation or any number of other causes, if indeed the wall was ever damp in the first place.

It might be a good idea to get a second opinion whilst the original installer is still around to honour the guarantee rather than wait say 5 years and it gets flagged up in a survey when you are trying to sell or it leads to further problems such as damp in the floor or spalling brickwork when the original installer has ceased trading. It depends on your attitude to risk and future plans whether you decide to pursue this now or let sleeping dogs lie.

It is interesting that OP called out Peter Cox to take a look who apparently "weren't pitching for work" which begs the question why were they called and what was their full report? Not all damp proofing contractors are crooks as those with a vested interest in selling their own services would have us believe. I quite like Peter Ward (Heritage House) and what he says makes a lot of sense but he is very clever with his own marketing so hardly counts as impartial.

MisterBaxter

teneighty wrote: »

Just to look at this from a slightly different angle.

If the remedial DPC has been installed at the incorrect level it is probably only the waterproof internal render that is holding back the damp. Whether this is rising damp or penetrating damp from raised ground level, condensation or any number of other causes, if indeed the wall was ever damp in the first place.

It might be a good idea to get a second opinion whilst the original installer is still around to honour the guarantee rather than wait say 5 years and it gets flagged up in a survey when you are trying to sell or it leads to further problems such as damp in the floor or spalling brickwork when the original installer has ceased trading. It depends on your attitude to risk and future plans whether you decide to pursue this now or let sleeping dogs lie.

It is interesting that OP called out Peter Cox to take a look who apparently "weren't pitching for work" which begs the question why were they called and what was their full report? Not all damp proofing contractors are crooks as those with a vested interest in selling their own services would have us believe. I quite like Peter Ward (Heritage House) and what he says makes a lot of sense but he is very clever with his own marketing so hardly counts as impartial.

A word of caution if taking this approach.

There is a mechanism under the guarantee to deal with recalling the contractor, if you choose not to exercise this and instead appoint a third party surveyor don't be too surprised if you have to meet all of the third party surveyors costs regardless of the outcome of the survey.

Read the guarantee carefully, you may well find a clause along the lines of "in the event of the reoccurrence of damp in the previously treated areas being confirmed", these types of clauses are used to limit the extent of the guarantee so won't cover any other defects unless damp is present. You would have to use other remedies to deal with non-damp related defects.

You could try recalling the contractor, telling him what the issue is and suggesting that the recall fee doesn't apply as you aren't seeking to claim under the guarantee but are instead suggesting that the method of installation was incorrect. I'm not sure how far you would get as the contractor is likely to point out that there is no damp therefore what he has done has worked.

If the contractor says that he is satisfied with his work then it ultimately it comes down to the opposing views of those involved and a battle of the expert witnesses.

If you do go down the third party route, try to get someone who doesn't actually undertake damp proofing works as there is an incentive for them to find fault both in terms of getting new work and discrediting the competition.

whatatotaljoke

DRP wrote: »

I can recommend the above heritagehouse website - and also the youtube channel of the guy who runs the site - it is an eye opener on the chemical damp proof industry.

Peter Ward - top top guy!

whatatotaljoke

BenCad wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I had to have the damp course installed because of the survey. I think you're right about it being a scam, there's certainly no damp problem at the moment.
However, I am worried that when i come to sell it, the surveyor will point at the damp course and say it has been installed incorrectly, and i'll have to pay for a new one.

No - you simply need an independent company to drill a hole. Then to write a report for your buyers surveyor stating that any damp issue picked up is from condensation only.

A damp course is never needed as condition of mortgage.

I have been carrying out damp surveys for over 10 years and never injected a dpc. Also never found a true case of rising damp

whatatotaljoke

teneighty wrote: »

Just to look at this from a slightly different angle.

If the remedial DPC has been installed at the incorrect level it is probably only the waterproof internal render that is holding back the damp. Whether this is rising damp or penetrating damp from raised ground level, condensation or any number of other causes, if indeed the wall was ever damp in the first place.

It might be a good idea to get a second opinion whilst the original installer is still around to honour the guarantee rather than wait say 5 years and it gets flagged up in a survey when you are trying to sell or it leads to further problems such as damp in the floor or spalling brickwork when the original installer has ceased trading. It depends on your attitude to risk and future plans whether you decide to pursue this now or let sleeping dogs lie.

It is interesting that OP called out Peter Cox to take a look who apparently "weren't pitching for work" which begs the question why were they called and what was their full report? Not all damp proofing contractors are crooks as those with a vested interest in selling their own services would have us believe. I quite like Peter Ward (Heritage House) and what he says makes a lot of sense but he is very clever with his own marketing so hardly counts as impartial.

Everything Peter Ward States - he proves.
Peter cox and every other commission based fraudster company out there base every diagnosis on guesswork.

Peter sells his independent advice which is second to none and anything recommended by him or other independents is 100% backed up with proof before any remedial work is carried out.

Peter Cox along with many bogus companies are members of the PCA - the wonderfull 'property care !!!' -which I myself have sat. It's a 1 day course! :T:

SG27

whatatotaljoke wrote: »

A damp course is never needed as condition of mortgage.

When I bought my house the mortgage surveyor insisted on a DPC being installed. The house is over 300 years old and has none. In the end I managed to convince him he was not needed and could even create more problems. After that he insisted on woodworm treatment as the house has no guarantees. So after more wasted money on surveys he eventually made us write them a letter confirming we take all responsibility for future treatment if necessary.

What I am saying is some mortgage company's do like to insist on pointless treatments. They want that worthless piece of paper that says guarantee. Our independent damp and timber surveyor even said how stupid it was that mortgage company's force buyers into pointless treatments for damp and woodworm where often there is neither.