These people are simply crooks.  They had targeted a vulnerable lady and told her a pack of lies.  Fortunately, she read the evening paper and took appropriate action.  From my understanding of the situation, lots more didn’t, and have paid the price.  If you’re at all concerned you are being asked to pay for treatment you don’t require, especially after being ‘cold canvassed’, either contact myself, or any of the other Independent Surveyors.

If you can’t find one, drop me a line and I’ll do my best to help you.

Client(s)                                   Ms MM

Property                                   Leeds

Instructions                             

To inspect the property and provide an opinion on the necessity for damp proofing works recently carried out at the property.

Background                            

The client was recently contacted on the telephone by a company called ‘Nationwide Property Protection’ (the Company) who offered to carry out a free survey of her property to ascertain whether any works were required.  The original contact was on the morning of Tuesday 15^th August 2006 and, with the agreement of the client, an appointment was arranged for that evening.

The ‘surveyor’ who carried out the inspection advised Ms MM that her property required a full injection damp proofing course (dpc) and that it would cost in the region of £4,000 (four thousand pounds).  After negotiations this was reduced to £1500 (fifteen hundred pounds) and Ms MM paid a deposit of £150 (one hundred and fifty pounds).

Work commenced on the morning of Wednesday 16^th of August 2006 and consisted of holes, drilled at regular intervals in the course of bricks immediately above the existing dpc. It is not known if any chemicals were injected.

Ms MM paid the balance of the estimate, which was £1350 (thirteen hundred and fifty pounds), by cheque.

After the operatives had departed she read an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post that indicated this company were bogus and that any work they carried out would be either unnecessary or ineffective.

She cancelled the cheque forthwith and contacted the British Wood Preservation and Damp-proofing association (BWPDA) who in turn advised her to contact myself.

She then instructed me to carry out a survey vis-à-vis the above works and to prepare a report advising her accordingly.

Disclosures                             

 I am not aware of any affiliation, financial or otherwise, with the client or the property.                                         

Limitations                              

Limited to an opinion of the necessity for carrying out the above works.

Restrictions                             

Nil

Date of Survey                        

August 2006

Weather                                   

Fine, sunny

Viewing Orientation Unless otherwise stated, all observations are made as if looking towards the house from the front.

Brick built bungalow, constructed approximately 11 years ago.  It has sealed unit double-glazing in PVCu frames and there is gas central heating.                                               

External Observations

The property faces in a northerly direction and has walls that are of brick and block with some external rendered panels.

The walls are standard 10-inch cavity construction and an integral dpc is clearly visible.  Above the dpc are a line of holes, recently drilled and back-filled with sand and cement.

These holes vary in depth between 30mm and full penetration of the brickwork, i.e. some go completely through into the cavity, where the cavity-wall insulation can be felt when prodded.

As the property has solid floors, there are no requirements for airbricks.

There are no high ground levels that could prejudice the integrity of the original dpc.

Internal Observations

There were signs of mould growth (Aspergillus niger) on the reveals of a PVCu double-glazed door on the northerly elevation; the wallpaper at the base of these reveals, just above the skirting boards, is beginning to peel.  

Other than for the above minor issues, there were no visible or tactile signs of distress.

Moisture meter readings were taken throughout the property with a standard Protimeter moisture meter.  None of these readings indicated that dampness was evident anywhere in the internal walls of the property, which are ‘dry-lined using the ‘dot-‘n’-dab’ principle of fixing. (The plasterboards are fixed to the wall on dabs of plaster fixing compound).                                       

I did not detect any areas of skirting board that had moisture content (MC) higher than 9%.  This is well below that at which rot could establish or flourish.  

Disussion                              

This property will have been built according to Building Regulations current at the time of its construction.  These regulations would have stipulated a dpc was installed and a Local Authority Building Inspector will have noted its installation at the time. 

This dpc is clearly visible in the property and its failure is almost inconceivable after such a short period of time.  In any case, there are no indications that it has (failed).

The walls are constructed such that they have an external brick leaf, a two-inch cavity and then an internal leaf of blockwork, which is then finished internally with plasterboard as described earlier.

If the property had a problem with rising dampness, as the report by the Company’s ‘surveyor’ implied, this would have shown itself on the internal walls.  There were no such indications.

If there had been, treatment should have been carried out internally.  This would have involved the removal of plaster to a height of approximately 1200mm, injection with appropriate chemicals and consequent re-plastering.  None of this has been carried out and the injection of the external walls is therefore completely ineffective.

Timber that is in contact with damp walls absorbs moisture from them and this is an easily noticed symptom that would clearly indicate there could be a problem.  The skirting boards in this property are entirely satisfactory.

The black mould is a result of condensation on a northerly facing wall.  This is a very common problem in houses of all ages.  The installation of an injection dpc will have no effect whatsoever on this problem.                                                                 

Conclusions                            

The work carried out recently to this property was unnecessary.  If it had been necessary, the work that was done would have been completely ineffectual in remedying the problems the Company implied were present.

I trust the above is satisfactory for your purposes but if you require further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.

Signed                                                                         Surveyor