Roof lining - is it a deal breaker?

efirox

Hi all, our survey highlighted the need for roof lining and some damp. The seller got a survey for the damp, the issue is estimated to cost £650 + VAT so nothing major (unless there are hidden issues of course).

Our surveyor highlighted the need for roof lining, which the house doesn't have. It's a 1930s mid terrace and the quotes we have are around £6k + VAT, so this is a significant cost. The seller insists this is not required and that most houses in the area don't have roof lining.

They agreed to come down £3k on the price for both of these issues, which is really less than half. Their argument is the lining is a "good to have", not a necessity.

I don't want to be the overly cautious FTB but I also don't want to have a house with a roof that's 100 years old and at risk of flooding or whatever.

Does anyone have experience with this? Or any comments from roofers maybe?

Thank you

Doozergirl

When it is ready for a new roof, you can change the roof lining.  

Your vendors are kind of right.  If you had a choice, you'd definitely have one but yes, there are still many, many houses with old or missing lining.  If they aren't leaking, it's not a concern. 

The damp problem probably won't even cost £650 if you deal with stopping what ever is causing it rather than waterproofing the area.  Has your survey mentioned what is causing it?  

I think £3k off is fair all round.  

canaldumidi

Many many houses have no roof lining. The question is, does rain/water get into the attic? If there is no damp in the attic, then no real need for roof lining. Add it if/when the roof itself is replaced. On the other hand,if the roof joists are damp because rain is getting in, then something needs doing!

Impossible to comment on the damp issue as you don't say where it is, what is causing it, or what solution has been proposed! But relying on the seller and/or the seller's survey seems rash......

FreeBear

Doozergirl said: When it is ready for a new roof, you can change the roof lining.  

Your vendors are kind of right.  If you had a choice, you'd definitely have one but yes, there are still many, many houses with old or missing lining.  If they aren't leaking, it's not a concern.

Still got the original reed & lime mortar torching (whats left of it) under my tiles, as do several of the other houses along my road. Occasionally, a tile will slip (usually after some real high winds) which can let a bit of water in. It has been like this for nearly 100 years, and would probably last another 50... That said, hopefully having the roof stripped & retiled later this year as part of a (long term) refurbishment project.

As for a damp "survey", I would not put any trust in it if it was a "free" jobbie from one of these damp treatment companies. Damp usually has an obvious cause such as leaking gutters/downpipes or elevated ground levels breaching the DPC - Fix these, the damp will dry out, and the cost will be minimal.

efirox

Thank you both, the damp was caused because they moved the render at the front of the property to ground level and bridged the damp proof course. 

The solution proposed was to remove the skirting boards, hack off the contaminated plaster, install chemical damp proof course and then fix the wall and boards.

The roof seems to be ok now, the survey didn't notice any moisture but in my eyes it's a bit of a ticking bomb, which is why I'm concerned. 

FreeBear

efirox said:

Thank you both, the damp was caused because they moved the render at the front of the property to ground level and bridged the damp proof course. 

The solution proposed was to remove the skirting boards, hack off the contaminated plaster, install chemical damp proof course and then fix the wall and boards.

The roof seems to be ok now, the survey didn't notice any moisture but in my eyes it's a bit of a ticking bomb, which is why I'm concerned. 

The correct fix for the damp would be to cut the render back above the DPC and fit a bellcast to the bottom. No need to hack off plaster internally or inject goo into the walls - Neither of which will actually cure the problem.

The roof should be fine for another 10-25 years, so you can put that on the back burner for now. Just keep an eye on tiles slipping and make sure flashing around the chimney & any parapet wall is in good order.

canaldumidi

efirox said:

Thank you both, the damp was caused because they moved the render at the front of the property to ground level and bridged the damp proof course. 

The solution proposed was to remove the skirting boards, hack off the contaminated plaster, install chemical damp proof course and then fix the wall and boards.

The roof seems to be ok now, the survey didn't notice any moisture but in my eyes it's a bit of a ticking bomb, which is why I'm concerned. 

That seems a likely cause of your damp, however I wouldn't recommend the chemical dpc. Far better to remove the reason for the damp! ie remove the external render to a height just above the existing dpc thus removing the 'bridge'. The wall will then dry out naturaly and no further bridging will occur so no further damp penetration.

Whether the internal 'contaminated plaster' needs hacking off/replacing really depends how damaged it is. It will dry out slowly in time once the render problem is removed.

That time bomb has been ticking since 1930. What makes you think it's about to go off.....?

edit: here's a picture of a rendered property. Note how the render stops just aove dpc height so as not to bridge the dpc. That's your solution, not chemicals.

TripleH

Plus from the sellers' view they lived in the property with the highlighted issues, why should they bear the full cost with no benefit to themselves?

I think their offer is a good one especially as the above seem to indicate that is a good deal. Its the nasty surprise about home ownership for FTB's that you can have unexpected repair costs. So glad my parents guided me away from some of the properties I looked at when I was a FTB.

efirox

I am not a big fan of the chemical damp proof course idea either from the little I have read, the surveyor recommended the below, which matches what was discussed above:

The render should be cut back at least 150mm above the damp-proof course and finished with a proper bell-cast detail to throw water clear on the wall.

My main concern is the roof but I think we will take the risk, I can't go back to the market and start this nightmare all over again.

SusieT

I have a roof with no lining, it is over 100 years old, and I have no intention of doing anything to it in the near future. It works very well at keeping the weather out, tiles rarely even slip so unless something happens that means work is needed rather than a nice thing to have it will stay as it is for a good while.
In your position I would be getting the render cut back to above the damp course and save a bit each month into a roof fund, then in a few years if you still want the lining you will have the money there to get it done at a convenient time.

JReacher1

I bought a 1910’s mid terrace. Had a slate roof and didn’t have a roof lining. Was fine and eventually reslated the roof and did it then.