A few years ago, this client had converted their basement into a kitchen, which is a situation I often see.  Unfortunately, the original work seemed to be going pear-shaped due to dampness in the form of stains, mould growth and excessive mildew in cupboards etc.  Rather than go back to the original people, the client decided to ask another contractor for some advice, which is rather like asking a donkey if it wants another strawberry.

Said contractor did his survey and pronounced the room 'Damp'.  He didn't explain why it was damp, but did commiserate with them in the knowledge that several thousand pounds worth of work was needed; to cure rising dampness and rotten timbers in the ceiling (how these timbers had rotted when they weren't in contact with any masonry or free water was never quite explained).

He proceeded to rip out the old and install the new; however, the client seems to have become suspicious of all the extra tasks he found necessary - the bill was up around the 7k mark by this time!

Rather than prolong their agony, the clients bearded the chap in his lair, well in their kitchen actually, and the upshot was they had a fall-out.  Not quite nuclear but nevertheless enough for him to storm off in high dudgeon, with the threat that, unless they gave him their very last red corpuscle, his work would no longer be guaranteed (he needs to do a little reading on contract law before he issues statments like that)!

Anyhow, now in a state of despair and utter confusion, the clients asked for an independent. Lo and behold, the most obvious, common and ubiquitous source of moisture in situations such as this - condensation - had never even been mentioned.  Seven unnecessary K later and I have to break the news to them - gently.

At least the contractor was 'Permaguard' approved.  So that's all right then...

Client(s)                                   Mr & Mrs M

Property                                   Leeds,  

Instructions                             

To inspect the property and provide an opinion on the success or otherwise of recently installed damp proofing measures in the basement kitchen.  In addition, the clients also require an overall assessment of dampness in this room, both actual and potential.                                               

Background                            

The clients have lived in the house for approximately five years, and for the first twelve to eighteen months after their occupation, the basement cellar was unused except for storage etc.                                               

They then began a process of refurbishment, which appears to have been carried out by acquaintances, who may or may not have been capable of performing such works satisfactorily.  In any case, in February of 2006 it became apparent that the works were unsatisfactory and that damp was becoming a problem.  This was manifested, amongst other things, by staining at the base of some of the walls and mould growth in cupboards etc.                                               

Rather than approaching their friends again, the clients commissioned a ‘Permaguard’ registered contractor, who commenced work in June or July of this year.                                               

It is fair to say that his work in the property, although satisfactory at the outset, ran into difficulties; and the end result is that the clients’ relationship with the contractor is now in jeopardy, although contractual matters are still unresolved.                                               

This situation has led to the contractor withholding a ‘guarantee’ for his works, which the clients fear may in any case be inadequate, and that problems will surface again, at some time in the future. 

As they are contemplating selling the property, they require assurance that any work carried out is indeed satisfactory and that it will provide long-term respite from dampness.

Disclosures                             

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

Limitations                              

Limited to the instructions.

Restrictions                             

The survey was non-invasive.

Date of Survey                         

September 2008

Weather                                   

Fine, slightly overcast.  The summers of 2007 and 2008 were some of the wettest since modern record keeping began, and the relative humidities experienced were higher than normal for long periods.  These latter conditions will have had a significant effect on conditions within the property.                                                 

Viewing Orientation

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

Type of Property

Mid, back-to-back terraced house, late Victorian or perhaps early Edwardian, with accommodation over three floors, including the basement. If I understand the arrangement of neighbouring properties correctly, the only wall of this house that is below ground, i.e. earth retaining, is the lower half of the basement, front wall; other walls being party with adjoining properties.  However, it is thought that these other properties do not use their basements as habitable accommodation, and are probably unheated.                                               

There is central heating and sealed unit double-glazing in PVCu frames, at least in the basement.

External Observations

The house faces in a southerly direction and it has solid, brick walls beneath a clay-tiled roof. As noted, the front wall of the basement is below external ground level for approximately 1500mm and there is a side door, accessed via a flight of steps.  To the front is a lightwell, which faces towards the hard-surfaced garden area.

There is an outlet point for the kitchen extractor hood to the right of the building.

Externally, there are no other observations that would affect this report.

Internal Observations

The basement has obviously undergone substantial works during the recent past and the walls have either been re-plastered with gypsum based plaster, or they have been plaster-boarded and then skimmed.

Further investigation revealed that some of the plasterboards have been fixed to timber battens and others have been fixed to the wall using the dot and dab method. 

As far as I could tell, the boards themselves were standard, i.e. they are not foil backed, and I did not see any indications that a vapour barrier had been introduced between the battens and the boards. It is not possible to use either foil backed boards or a vapour barrier when dot and dab is used.

I understand that an injection damp proofing course has been installed at the base of the walls, although any injection holes that may be present are now hidden behind the surface finishes.

Moisture meter readings obtained from the wall surfaces were generally satisfactory, as was the moisture content of the skirting boards attached to the walls. However, readings were high in the small, understairs room, which is used for laundry purposes.  This area houses a washing machine, and is not vented; thus it is likely that the high moisture meter readings are a result of excessive condensation.   There may also be an element of residual moisture resulting from the recent re-plastering in this room.

I also understand that Boron Rods have been inserted into some of the ceiling joists, although once again, these are not visible beneath the plasterboards.  It is difficult to envisage a situation where these would be necessary in ceiling joists unless relative humidities in the room were continually in excess of 75%.

This room has a cooker hood extraction system, which is inefficient and will also be little used.  The window overlooking the lightwell does not have a trickle vent.

Discussion                              

It is not now possible to tell whether the recent work carried out by the contractor was either necessary or appropriate for the circumstances. If rising dampness was present in the base of the walls, the injection, tanking and dry-lining etc should have provided a resolution, and you should have no further problems with it (rising dampness).

However, and more to the point, what is almost certainly the main source of moisture in this room, i.e. condensation, does not seem to have been considered or addressed, and as it easily mimics rising dampness, this is an obvious concern.                                               

Basement rooms, particularly when used as kitchens and/or laundry rooms, are notoriously susceptible to condensation, and to embark upon expensive injection and re-plastering exercises before this issue is resolved can often be a significant waste of effort and money; unfortunately, I saw no evidence that any consideration had in fact been given to this phenomenon.

Also, as noted earlier, as it easily mimics rising dampness, its control may have been all that was originally necessary.  Unfortunately, it is not now possible to make a judgment on this.                                               

That condensation has been a significant factor in the past is obvious from the client’s description of mould and mildew growth, and also the tendency for salts and sugar etc to absorb moisture and change form.  These things only happen when the relative humidity is too high; they do not occur because of rising dampness.

In addition, the contractor’s apparent assumption that the problems did result from rising dampness seems to have led him to omit safeguards that I would consider important.  In particular, I cannot see any form of vapour barrier in the batten and plaster-boarded walls. As these walls may be party walls to unheated rooms in the adjoining properties, this is likely to lead to interstitial condensation occurring in the spaces behind the boards, and may lead to problems in the future. These problems could manifest themselves in damp stains, particularly at the base of the walls.  In addition, unless the timbers used for the battens were pre-treated, they will be in danger from fungal activity, i.e. they may rot.

In order to avoid this, punctilious attention to condensation control will now be necessary, and to that end I shall be recommending measures in the final section of this report.

Conclusions                            

It is my opinion that since its change of use to a kitchen, the main source of moisture in this basement room will have been that resulting from excessive condensation.                                               

The recent efforts by the ‘Permaguard’ contractor may have been satisfactory vis-à-vis rising dampness, if indeed that was ever a problem, but they will not have had any effect on this primary source of moisture.                                               

So that the room does not continue to suffer in the future you should make all efforts to reduce this phenomenon, and to this end I have produced a small article, which you may wish to read at: http://pdoyle.net/content/view/44 (Follow the PDF link for a more readable/printable version)

On a more practical basis, you should install a good quality extractor fan in the kitchen window, and the Ventaxia LoWatt U/KH model should be suitable for this environment.  If you can find a space on a wall, the Centrif 250hp model would be appropriate.                                               

The present situation where the washing machine operates in an un-vented space beneath the stairs is unsatisfactory.  You should either move this machine to a ventilated environment or install ventilation into the space itself.                                               

As I am not a lawyer it is difficult to advise you on the thorny issue of the withheld guarantee; but in any case, I would imagine that it only relates to the chemical injection process, not the re-plastering or any of the other works. If you contact ‘Permaguard’, they should be able to advise you on this.

Also, as I understand it, your normal consumer rights cover all of the work in any case, and you have up to six years after noting any faults before you fall foul of the statute of limitations, i.e. before it ceases to become actionable. Just because a guarantee hasn’t been issued, it doesn’t mean that the law does not protect you.

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

Sureyor                                                                                 

Date of Report                 September 2008

The above findings are based partly on the interpretation of results from a standard non-destructive inspection; this, by necessity, has limitations. If you require confirmatory/definitive diagnosis of my findings then this can be undertaken by the use of destructive methods of investigation: these will involve some damage and costs.