Council has bridged DPC

Bobolog

I'm buying a Victorian property which is in reasonably good condition. We've just had the full structural survey done which has highlighted significant damp along a side wall which lies against the public footpath. It then transpired that the damp proof course has been covered by the footpath pavement all along this side of the house.

We're not sure whether or not we should proceed with the purchase now, as we can't repair the dpc (it would require digging up the footpath which is council property). We know this means the council have rendered the property non compliant with buildings regulations but over a telephone call the council have stated it is the property owners responsibility to maintain the property. This is obviously very frustrating as there doesn't seem to be anything we can do.

Any advice? It's a fantastic property otherwise so we're very disappointed to be throwing in the towel and we've already paid loads of various fees.

EachPenny

Sorry, but based on that information I wouldn't touch the house with a bargepole.

To effectively deal with the problem for the long-term you would need to get the Council to agree to lower the footpath to about 150mm below the DP level. The odds of them agreeing to this are slim, even if it was a practicable solution, and even if you agreed to fund the cost of the work (probably 5 figures).

Depending on the floor level in the house it might be possible to install a new DP system at a higher level, but this would be highly disruptive and expensive unless you went for an injected option and accept a limited life span.

It would need to be a very special property for me to want to deal with that.

Are you absolutely sure the cause of the damp is the footway? How long ago was it surfaced?

Bobolog

Thanks for the reply. It's a Victorian house with single brick wall so don't think injection is an option. Surveyor is damp expert and seems pretty sure it's the footpath that's causing the issue. We're not sure exactly when the footpath was raised but we're trying to find out.

I'm not familiar with installing a new DPC at higher level. Would this entail lifting floorboards all through the ground floor?

EachPenny

Bobolog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. It's a Victorian house with single brick wall so don't think injection is an option. Surveyor is damp expert and seems pretty sure it's the footpath that's causing the issue. We're not sure exactly when the footpath was raised but we're trying to find out.

Just for clarity, are you talking about a public footpath (a path which runs between the houses and off to some other place) or a footway (which is the area for pedestrians to walk on next to a road)?

If it is a public footpath, then have you checked the deeds for the property to see who owns the land the path is on. Don't assume it is the council just because the path is open to the public.

Bobolog wrote: »

I'm not familiar with installing a new DPC at higher level. Would this entail lifting floorboards all through the ground floor?

Realistically what I was talking about is if the floor level was significantly higher than the existing DPC already. That might give you some scope to move the DPC up and for it to still be sufficiently below the floor level. That would involve taking the floorboards up to do the work (what you may mean by 'lifting') but not changing the level permanently.

If you needed to raise the floor to a higher level permanently (which some people might call 'lifting') then it really would be a non-starter in my opinion.

Furts

Bobolog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. It's a Victorian house with single brick wall so don't think injection is an option. Surveyor is damp expert and seems pretty sure it's the footpath that's causing the issue. We're not sure exactly when the footpath was raised but we're trying to find out.

I'm not familiar with installing a new DPC at higher level. Would this entail lifting floorboards all through the ground floor?

This worries me. It could across as "salesperson who is out to fleece me for expensive damp proof treatment does not know exactly how to do this. But they geasticulate, or imply, or waffle about the path".


The analysis does not stand up to scrutiny. Even if the council own the path, even if it has been overlaid over time, then one still has to think about levels. Originally the dpc should have been at least 6 inches above the path, and I doubt the council has added 6 -12 inches to the path level to cause the perceived problems.



If it is a private path put in by DIY/bodging builder types a problem may exist. But this is capable of remedial work. However, all round, I suspect your damp surveyor may be a rogue.

SG27

Furts wrote: »

This worries me. It could across as "salesperson who is out to fleece me for expensive damp proof treatment does not know exactly how to do this. But they geasticulate, or imply, or waffle about the path".


The analysis does not stand up to scrutiny. Even if the council own the path, even if it has been overlaid over time, then one still has to think about levels. Originally the dpc should have been at least 6 inches above the path, and I doubt the council has added 6 -12 inches to the path level to cause the perceived problems.



If it is a private path put in by DIY/bodging builder types a problem may exist. But this is capable of remedial work. However, all round, I suspect your damp surveyor may be a rogue.

Im not sure, the damp surveyor has nothing to gain by suggesting the path is problem. If it were a salesman type they would have just recommended the injection and replastering.

Tom99

Since its victorian are you sure it has a dpc in the 1st place?

SG27

If I owned the house I would dig up the council path abutting the property about 10 inches wide and install either an open gully or a french drain. This would lower the ground level back down below the DPC, aiming for about 150mm below. This would need to drain somewhere though so it doesn't fill up with water. I wouldn't ask council permission I would just do it. Its very unlikely to get noticed.

Furts

SG27 wrote: »

Im not sure, the damp surveyor has nothing to gain by suggesting the path is problem. If it were a salesman type they would have just recommended the injection and replastering.

I see it differently. A proper surveyor, qualified and competent, woiuld know the cause. A salesperson may not. Regardless, this surveyor is remaining vague and iffy which is a sign of a sales person. The next stage is likely to be "you have rising damp so injection of my products and system is required". It is just that OP has not yet reached that stage!

EachPenny

SG27 wrote: »

If I owned the house I would dig up the council path abutting the property about 10 inches wide and install either an open gully or a french drain. This would lower the ground level back down below the DPC, aiming for about 150mm below. This would need to drain somewhere though so it doesn't fill up with water. I wouldn't ask council permission I would just do it. Its very unlikely to get noticed.

This would be illegal though, and if it is noticed (you would be surprised how observant highway department officers are) then at the very least you would be landed with a bill to put right the damage you'd done.

The problem with lowering the surface/installing a drain below the level of the DPC (if there is one) is that would create a longitudinal 'step' in the footpath, perfect for someone to twist (perhaps even break) an ankle if they do not notice it. That would be what the highways department would be concerned about, since a compensation claim for that kind of injury is quite likely. If you've carried out the work illegally then you would be the one ultimately facing that bill.

Advising people to do work on the public highway without consent is a bad idea.

EachPenny

Furts wrote: »

The analysis does not stand up to scrutiny. Even if the council own the path, even if it has been overlaid over time, then one still has to think about levels. Originally the dpc should have been at least 6 inches above the path, and I doubt the council has added 6 -12 inches to the path level to cause the perceived problems.

We don't know the details in this case, but I can see what's described in the OP being feasible.

One job I was involved in was building a new footway along an old road, at one point against an old cottage constructed with soft red bricks and no visible DPC. By the time we'd put in a kerb with a standard 125mm face, plus a decent crossfall on the footway, the amount we'd raised the ground level next to the house was alarming. We paid the owner's costs to have professional advice which came back as 'apply bituminous waterproofing to the wall below the level of the footway' ...and that was it. The owner then gave us no option but to follow the advice of their 'expert'.

In the OP's case we don't know what the DPC was, and where it was relative to ground level before the latest surfacing work was done. It might not take much making up or overlaying to have the finished level above any DPC.