No damp proof course

davidmcn

OP, it would be helpful if you used the quote button so we know who you're replying to.

Davesnave

As GM says, you should go through the surveyor's company complaints procedure in the first instance to establish exactly what their position is on these matters.

Remember, the seller does not have to answer any questions on the TA6, but answers that are given should be truthful. There is no sanction for being vague.

You are not claiming that the matter of Grade 2 listing was hidden from you, so with that knowledge, it would be reasonable to expect you'd gain an understanding of what that meant in your due diligence..

FreeBear

Doozergirl wrote: »

Chemical injection is BS and does nothing.

Just been reading up on some of these chemical injection systems - One was a thick cream that is pumped in to 12mm Dia holes drilled into the mortar bed with a mastic gun. Quite how they expect the chemicals to penetrate horizontally along the mortar is anyone's guess.

As for injecting under high pressure with a pump - If you have ever used an expanding wall bolt, you'll know it is all too easy to fracture the brick if it is done up too tight. The pressure needed to get any appreciable penetration of (dubious) chemicals will most likely cause the bricks to explode.

Milly2016 wrote: »

Listed buildings don't have damp proof courses, they never did

Erm, not quite true. Around these part, flint was a popular building material. Impervious to water, and if napped & shaped, very thin mortar joints are required. In other areas (Wales & Cumbria spring to mind), slate was widely used - Slate has been used as a DPC in a lot of buildings as a DPC on its own.
Plenty of other types of stone can be used as footings & DPC depending on what is available in the locality.

antrobus

Doozergirl wrote: »

Chemical injection is BS and does nothing.

.....

I would agree with you. Rising damp is a fiction.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Driver Group - a global construction consultancy - state that "chemical injection to listed buildings is normally permitted, as drilling takes place through mortar joints not the masonry units".

Therefore I'm not necessarily convinced that the seller committed a criminal offence by having one done.

RelievedSheff

I'm not sure what you are expecting to achieve from complaining to the surveyor.

You bought an old house. Surely you didn't expect it to not require any work?

Older buildings need constant attention and maintenance to keep them in good condition.

FreeBear

antrobus wrote: »

But that doesn't change the fact that the Driver Group - a global construction consultancy - state that "chemical injection to listed buildings is normally permitted, as drilling takes place through mortar joints not the masonry units".

Therefore I'm not necessarily convinced that the seller committed a criminal offence by having one done.

Driver Group have a vested interest in generating work within the construction industry. What that one individual has to say in his opinion piece is at odds with much of the advice from official sources. From https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/6690/adopted-listed-buildings-spd.pdf

Installing a chemical or physical damp proofing will require Listed Building Consent and will need to be supported by an assessment and justification from a suitably qualified independent professional with experience of historic buildings taking this approach.

Modern damp proofing methods, such as chemical injection, are only appropriate in very specific circumstances. On the rare occasions where the use of a chemical injection dpc is supported, the injection should take place in the mortar joints and not the brick itself.
8.37 Chemical injection is not suitable for materials such as clunch, clay bat, or timber. This process relies on modern plasters with salt inhibiting solutions to ‘mask’ some of the symptoms of rising damp. Such works are generally not appropriate in an historic Listed Building.

From multiple other sources (I suspect all quoting the same original text) -

The walls of many historical buildings are constructed with an irregular mix of materials that could not be expected to accept or sustain contemporary injected chemical damp proof courses (DPC’s). Due to the wall thickness and the sparse population of physical mass, modern, injectable chemical DPC’s do not achieve an even distribution throughout the substrate.

Bottom line - If the seller has not obtained Listed Building Consent, then an offence has been committed and the new owner may be liable for rectification. If LBC approval had been granted, the work is unlikely to cure any damp issues, only mask them for a few years.

G_M

FreeBear wrote: »

Erm, not quite true. Around these part, flint was a popular building material. Impervious to water, and if napped & shaped, very thin mortar joints are required. In other areas (Wales & Cumbria spring to mind), slate was widely used - Slate has been used as a DPC in a lot of buildings as a DPC on its own.
Plenty of other types of stone can be used as footings & DPC depending on what is available in the locality.

I'm on border between West Midlands East Anglia. My house was built in 1851 acording to the roman numerals above the door.


There is a slate dpc between the stone.