How to avoid paying for unnecessary treatment (Part 1)

If my email box and countless newsgroup discussions on the Internet are anything to go by, then house buyers, sellers and people who are re-mortgaging their properties are unwittingly paying for damp proofing and timber treatments that are completely unnecessary. What’s more, they’re probably doing their bank accounts, and our environment, a lot more harm than good.

Often, their problems stem from the misapprehension they suffer when they receive their building society valuation or Homebuyer’s Survey, which leads them into the belief that they must get treatment for ‘problems’ even though it may be completely unnecessary.

When a surveyor carries out an inspection in an older property he will invariably be on the lookout for issues relating to dampness and timber that may affect the property’s value. But unfortunately he is neither equipped, nor has enough time, to establish the extent and severity of anything he may discover.

For instance, when checking for dampness in walls his only implement is a small electronic moisture meter whose real purpose is to check for moisture content in timber. In all other materials, such as masonry or blockwork etc, it can only give a vague guide and can even indicate severe dampness when in fact very little, or none at all, is present. When this happens further investigations are asked for to ascertain the true extent of the problem. Similar difficulties, especially those of identification and severity, also apply to timber defects.

The surveyor’s biggest enemy in getting to the bottom of these issues is undoubtedly time. To carry out even a basic damp and timber survey on the average house will take at least two hours and very often a lot more. This is a luxury that is not available and the result is that clients are only told that ‘signs of dampness were found’ or some other tantalising phrase such as ‘ an insect infestation was noted’.

Surveyors then often advise that a ‘specialist contractor’ be contacted to give a further report and sometimes they even go as far as to say ‘provide estimates’. Quite often they even recommend that money be withheld from any advance until any problems are resolved. This latter suggestion, unless addressed, not only threatens the whole deal, it hurries and flusters people into making mistakes.

That’s because; when they read such comments on their valuation report, clients naturally think a problem has been definitely identified, otherwise why would the surveyor have mentioned it and threatened such drastic action? And a lot of people who contact me - in the mistaken belief that I’m a damp proofing contractor, as opposed to a surveyor - are absolutely convinced they have something wrong and what’s more, only a contractor, can solve it - usually by drilling holes in their walls!

What they don’t appreciate is that the building society surveyor isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be saying they have a problem that requires remedial treatment. He’s merely saying, quite correctly, he has his suspicions and needs further enquires to confirm or dismiss them.

Unfortunately, some clients just cannot see this and all they’re looking for is an estimate to right a problem. The thought that there may not even be a problem to right doesn’t occur to them. What’s more, quite a few of them will never consider it and unfortunately they’re the ones who usually finish up paying for something they don’t need!

Let’s be clear, the surveyor doesn’t know the true situation because he hasn’t the necessary time, nor, it has to be said, the expertise, to find out, and he can easily be led into believing something is serious when in fact it’s nothing of the kind. For example, rising damp only occurs in about five per cent of properties in the UK but it’s the problem most often diagnosed by remedial treatment companies, usually after a cursory examination that mimics the one carried out by the building society surveyor.

In an ideal world the applicants would be told that although ‘signs of dampness’ or ‘insect infestation etc’ were noted, these were not investigated and their source, severity, and therefore relevance, are unknown. Further: a qualified and independent surveyor, whose expertise lies is in this field, should carry out an in depth survey. In particular, ‘someone who has no interest in any work that may be necessary as a result of that survey should carry it out’.

But unfortunately this doesn’t happen. Instead people are encouraged to ask a contractor for an opinion on the need for any treatment – and that’s a bit like asking a donkey if it would care for some strawberries!

Contractors make their living by - amongst other things - spraying lofts and injecting damp proofing chemicals into walls. To expect them to spend two hours or more carrying out an exhaustive survey only to say that no treatment was required because the property suffers from nothing more serious than condensation, or that the last beetle turned the lights out when it left just after the war, is, to say the least, a little naïve!

Furthermore, a lot of survey reports don’t give any further guidance on what sort of company to ask, just a ‘specialist contractor’. The more thoughtful ones insist you use a company affiliated to the British Wood Preservation and Damp proofing Association (BWPDA), but many still don’t and are quite content to accept the word of any unqualified, unknown and all too often ‘fly-by-night’ operation that infers the respectability of a ’30 year guarantee’. Hmm…have you ever tried to claim on such a guarantee when the company has gone bust!

I have always been puzzled by this attitude. What is the point of telling someone they have a problem, which is often seen as serious enough to withhold money from the mortgage advance, and then leaving them to the dubious ministrations of companies that make their living by selling cures - whether they’re needed or not! It seems that as long as something is done - it doesn’t matter what it is or who does it!

Most people have no more an understanding of dampness or timber infestation than they do of the law and, of the two issues; it’s damp and timber that is much more likely – statistically - to cause them considerable expense.
However, if the surveyor suspected a boundary dispute, he wouldn’t advise you to consult one of the neighbours, you’d be directed to a lawyer. This difference in attitude is disturbing and leads to unnecessary expense on client’s behalf.

Next time, I’ll tell you what you can do to make sure it doesn’t happen to you…

© P Doyle CSRT 2005

Patrick is a BWPDA affiliated remedial treatments surveyor, qualified to CSRT standards, and is a Member of the Institute of Remedial Treatment Surveyors. He has had many years experience in the built environment having spent his working life renovating older and period properties as well as building new houses. Whilst carrying on these activities he also owned and operated a joinery company, a remedial treatments company and, laterally, an estate agency. He has achieved the coveted ‘Best Candidate’ award, which is given by the BWPDA and IWPD to the surveyor who has achieved the highest marks, nationwide, in examinations. He has also received awards from the National House Energy Ratings authority for excellence in energy efficient construction. He lives in Holmfirth in West Yorkshire and can be contacted via his website www.pdoyle.net, where further information and advice is also available.