Damp Survey by PCA Member Kenwood PLC

Unicorn_cottage

Terry9999999 said:

I only discovered the fraudsters after a conversation with Pete Ward yesterday! I think everyone knows who you represent! My advice is clear only use a RICS Surveyor and avoid SCAM operations like PCA and its members. Funny how Grumpy Chap suddenly appeared having two job undertaken by Kenwood and singing their praises. We are not stupid, thank god for Pete Ward!  

Peter Ward does not champion RICS surveyors. In fact if you look at an advert that his company put out recently they said you do not need to be RICS they just want someone who is competent therefore if someone came via a different route then they would employ them.

Grumpy_chap

Terry9999999 said:

The experts cannot be wrong! 

I don't know Peter Ward, but you have made your own assessment of his credentials.
If you class Peter Ward as an "expert" he is only one expert (singular), not "experts".
There is also no need for you or others to cast personal dispersions and insults simply because I have reported an experience that doesn't support your apparently pre-determined narrative.

Doozergirl

No one is casting aspersions or personal insults.  

Yes, Peter Ward is only one expert.  How about RICS, Historic England and, interestingly, the PCA? 

https://listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk/agreed-methodology-for-moisture-investigations-in-traditional-buildings/

There is no mention of chemical damp proof courses in the British Standards Institute guide to dealing with historic buildings either.  

https://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/File/MTUvMDQwMDQvT1VULDEyMDE3NDc=

There is some serious retraining needed, admittedly, and no one is going to blame a lay person for believing the industry, but it's time to stop promoting it.   This is not about a narrative, it's about learned experience and expertise.  It took me a good 10 years to get my head around it. 

Grumpy_chap

Well, everyone seems to be jumping in headlong to fully support the OP, yet, we have:

Terry9999999 said:

avoid SCAM operations like PCA and its members.

and

Doozergirl said:

Peter Ward is only one expert.  How about RICS, Historic England and, interestingly, the PCA?  

You can't both be correct.  Are PCA a scam operation or experts?
It is unfortunate that many trade associations are funded by and staffed from people with links (current or former) to the member businesses.  That is simply a fact of life as there is no-one else to fund these bodies.

Terry9999999

The Property Care Associations only functions are:
1. To sell their Chemicals to the public for misdiagnosed problems.
2. Scam their own members by selling them courses for non existent problems. All one big Con, there is no such thing as Rising Damp as Pete Ward has exposed to everyone's advantage. 
3. Run the Association for the financial benefit of its Directors. 
I have to hand it to them they got me for £10,000! You live and learn!
 https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-and-condensation/all-about-the-pca/property-care-association-rising-damp-and-facebook.html

Terry9999999

Yet more exposure for Safeguard Chemicals run by the PCA:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteWard7?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Trading Standards must Act soon!  

Doozergirl

Grumpy_chap said:

Well, everyone seems to be jumping in headlong to fully support the OP, yet, we have:

Terry9999999 said:

avoid SCAM operations like PCA and its members.

and

Doozergirl said:

Peter Ward is only one expert.  How about RICS, Historic England and, interestingly, the PCA?  

You can't both be correct.  Are PCA a scam operation or experts?
It is unfortunate that many trade associations are funded by and staffed from people with links (current or former) to the member businesses.  That is simply a fact of life as there is no-one else to fund these bodies.

It's why I said interestingly.  Of course they'd
want to be involved in the say on how traditional buildings are treated and RICS surveys still refer to using PCA members, but if you read the documents, there is zero mention of chemical damp proof courses and there is acknowledgment that retraining needs to happen, for RICS surveyors, particularly.  

The training around timber and damp for a PCA technician is the grand total of 2 days, including the exam.   For a PCA Surveyor, 3 days plus the exams.  You don't need to have any experience in construction, yet they like to say that they're the gold standard.  

This industry is entrenched in the British psyche, but it has to change.  Other countries don't have an industry like it.   

Salemicus

@Doozergirl you say "No one is casting aspersions or personal insults" and I agree that you are not. But Terry accused @Grumpy_chap of being a paid industry shill. He should apologise. 

It is quite possible that Grumpy is quite sincere, and that injected chemical dpcs are a waste of money. Scams like this would not work if they didn't leave some (temporarily?) satisfied customers. 

Doozergirl

Salemicus said:

@Doozergirl you say "No one is casting aspersions or personal insults" and I agree that you are not. But Terry accused @Grumpy_chap of being a paid industry shill. He should apologise. 

It is quite possible that Grumpy is quite sincere, and that injected chemical dpcs are a waste of money. Scams like this would not work if they didn't leave some (temporarily?) satisfied customers. 

Ah, I missed that!  

I think scam is a strong word.  Peter Ward doesn't
mince his words!  I think people often genuinely believe they're helping but I've seen so many terrible jobs, on here included, where there's an obvious problem that's
been totally ignored, yet the homeowner has necessarily paid a fortune for injections and rendering.  They have been ripped off.

Whether the 'specialist' has been complicit in that or not, who knows, but there's a serious amount of ignorance out there amongst people who do solely this for a living.  

Sometimes these issues are solved with very simple, low to no cost solutions.  There is no benefit to those offering free surveys to suggest that it's often a matter of patience.  The business model is based on selling their own chemical solutions.  
 

Grumpy_chap

Salemicus said:

@Doozergirl you say "No one is casting aspersions or personal insults" and I agree that you are not. But Terry accused @Grumpy_chap of being a paid industry shill. He should apologise. 

It is quite possible that Grumpy is quite sincere, and that injected chemical dpcs are a waste of money. Scams like this would not work if they didn't leave some (temporarily?) satisfied customers. 

I did not state that @Doozergirl had cast insults.

I confirm, again, that I am not a paid industry shill.  Nor in any other way linked to the industry.

I am quite sincere, that the chemical dpc at my property has done a good job and lasted - it was done in 1999 and I am still satisfied with the work.  So I am a satisfied customer.  TBH - it is largely irrelevant whether the chemical dpc is the best solution or not, it was the only type of solution I could afford (the other option was far more expensive to cut round the house and insert a physical dpc).  It was a condition of the mortgage at the time that I had a damp course professionally installed and the mortgage company both withheld the funds related to the cost plus loaded the interest rate until such time as I presented them with evidence of the work done by a reputable contractor.  I had a professional RICS survey carried out to define the works and then obtain several quotes before settling on Kenwood and I was pleased with the way the Kenwood team completed the work.  It got me the certificate and got me the mortgage rate penalty removed, so I was happy and I remain in the property and no issues with damp.

For what it is worth, I was also satisfied with the same company when there was a damp issue at another property.  Based on the first experience, I was happy to engage Kenwood to carry out a survey and report.  That report identified a solution that was virtually zero-cost DIY.  Not surprisingly, Kenwood also offered a solution that they could provide at a cost, but that was identified as a second step only to follow if the first identified solution did not fully resolve the problem, which the report was clear the first solution would be fine.  Did the DIY solution and all OK ever since.  If the company were only an "unprofessional" scam, they would not ever do a survey and provide a report recommending a virtually zero-cost DIY solution.

Like any large company, Kenwood will have unhappy customers.  That does not mean that they cannot have satisfied customers also.  It is also likely that, with the high number of surveyors they employ, some are less good and some are better.  All I could do is to reference my personal experience of one company that I have used.

Before today, reading this thread (and others by the same OP), I had never heard of Peter Ward and I know very little about him.  However, very brief internet searches show that "Heritage House Building & Restoration" (HHBR) is apparently a "trading as" name and the individual so revered by others in this thread also seems to have other business interests that will benefit from the comments on the HHBR main website.  I am not sure how that is materially different from a trade association that exits to promote its members.  Given the tone of this conversation, I refrained from mentioning these observations earlier as I do not need further abuse from other contributors to the thread.  However, as I have no reason to promote or detract from chemical dpc companies, I have no reason to promote or detract from Peter Ward either - I simply mention the apparent discrepancies levelled by others against dpc companies may also apply to companies promoting alternative solutions.

The problem that the OP raises of wondering who to trust on this type of matter is really more deeper inherent to the lack of regulation in the UK as a whole for technical trades.  Anyone can set themselves up in business in all manner of trades (I learned recently even offer medical service such as ultra-sound) without any regulation, where the average person would expect that a company offering such services was legislated for.