Видео

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment! I completely agree that unpainted external bricks are ideal for evenly absorbing and evaporating rainwater. However, from my experience, stripping the paint back to the brick is often very time-consuming and costly, and many people prefer to keep the existing look, especially if they like the colour of the paint. This applies not just to paint but to other external coatings like render or even External Wall Insulation (EWI), which can eventually allow water to find its way in if not checked regularly for cracks (annually) and properly maintained. Regarding high internal humidity, it’s rare for cracked external paint to cause moisture to penetrate all the way through the wall to the inside. The more typical issue is that slightly damp walls cause heat loss, which in turn makes condensation worse. This is particularly common in older properties where modern lifestyles generate high levels of moisture that are difficult to remove. Managing internal humidity is key, and the most effective way is to monitor and maintain the indoor air’s dew point (vapour) - keeping it a few degrees below the outside temperature - Dews Law. This helps reduce condensation, which is a common culprit for damp problems. I am about to post 3 additional video surveys exploring the effects of hygroscopic salts, rainwater and condensation, in the coming week or so, as part of a series. Thanks again for watching and engaging with the video! I’m glad you found it interesting.

Thanks for the reply and additional comments. I appreciate that the advice given must often need to be based on a balance of cost, aesthetics and effectiveness. The videos on hygroscopic salts have been very useful, I have numerous patches around chimneys which I'm sure could have been misdiagnosed as a leak/ rising damp without seeing similar examples on this channel.Thanks!

Thank you for your feedback regarding the audio quality of my videos. I recognise that the sound levels can occasionally be low, which might detract from the overall viewing experience. I have experimented with external microphones, but have found that they can sometimes lessen the spontaneity of interactions and cause discomfort for clients. a) Primary Focus: My main priority is addressing the damp issues that clients hire me to resolve. b) Comprehensive Documentation: Documenting the survey process thoroughly, including all discussions and findings, is crucial. c) Professional Development: These videos are also intended to influence how dampness is understood and managed within the industry. Despite the additional time and effort required to produce these videos-undertaken without direct compensation-I believe their value is significant. They contribute to the discussion and improvement of accurate damp diagnosis and the adoption of appropriate solutions among key stakeholders, including professional bodies such as the PCA and RICS, as well as buyers, sellers, landlords, tenants, and homeowners.

I appreciate your observations, Aiden, and I share some of your concerns about industry practices. Here are a few points where I believe improvements are essential: 1) Accuracy of Diagnoses: I’ve reviewed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of reports from Kenwood and rarely find them accurate; they occasionally identify penetrating damp correctly, which they do not repair. An accuracy rate of at least 80% would be a reasonable expectation for any professional service. 2) Effectiveness of Treatments: Even if misdiagnoses occurred, the treatments should still resolve the damp issues effectively. Unfortunately, from my follow-up surveys on properties treated by Kenwood, I typically find unresolved or exacerbated damp problems - because their standard treatment does not address the root cause of damp. 3) Oversight by Governing Bodies: The Property Care Association (PCA), which audits companies like Kenwood, could greatly benefit from an independent, robust review process. I have proposed initiating a fair auditing programme and would willingly volunteer to assist in setting this up to ensure accountability. 4) Misleading Reporting: Kenwood’s reports typically state [the property was inspected] "for evidence of rising dampness to the ground floor walls, where accessible for inspection. This inspection revealed evidence of dampness". They don't state whether they found evidence of rising damp, presumably because they operate in London where groundwater is pumped out - the source of water in rising damp. This ambiguous wording seems designed to mitigate liability rather than provide clarity to homeowners. 5) Despite raising these concerns with both the former Chairman and the former Chief Executive of the PCA and offering to conduct joint surveys, my efforts have been met with resistance, and I have been excluded from the association. Although I no longer require membership, I remain committed to influencing positive changes within the industry to protect consumers and improve standards. Continued dialogue and critique from informed individuals like yourself are vital in pushing for transparency and integrity in our field. Thank you for bringing this to light.

Steve, Thank you very much for taking the time to comment on my video. Encouraging dialogue and collaboration among surveyors is crucial for ensuring that properties are accurately diagnosed and treated. My focus is primarily on long-lasting solutions that rely less on generic definitions and more on pinpointing the exact sources of water intrusion and addressing them directly, as this approach ensures the most durable outcomes. The root causes can generally be categorised as follows: 1) Groundwater - Consistently referred to by geologists as the water beneath the water table. 2) Rainwater - This includes water at any stage of its descent, from roof, gutters, drains, or percolating through soil. The difference between rainwater and groundwater is groundwater is bounded by the water table. 3) Leaks - Such as mains water, accidental spillages, and moisture from construction. 4a) Excess Vapour - Leading to condensation. 4b) Hygroscopic Salts - These are not a source moisture but cause deliquescence, a form of condensation at normal level of relative humidity. Groundwater Dynamics Geologists define the water beneath the water table as groundwater. Directly above the water table, the partially saturated area known as the capillary fringe typically extends about 1 to 2 meters. Bricks within this fringe can exhibit signs of partial rising damp. Above this zone, in the unsaturated area, rainwater is primarily influenced by gravity, pulling it downward. Moisture can rise up to about 10 cm here, compared to 1 - 2 meters if bricks are in contact with the saturated earth below the water table. Ironically, water found above a damp proof course (DPC), such as condensation on slate within the sub-floor void, can mimic symptoms of rising damp. This is not due to groundwater but because the DPC acts as a barrier, stopping the gravitational pull of water downwards. If condensation occurs in the sub-floor void, the initial steps should be to identify and eliminate the source, potentially a damaged drain, and improve sub-floor ventilation if required. Ignoring these steps can lead to issues like rot, woodworm, subsidence, and symptoms akin to rising damp. The Limitations of "Rising Damp" The term "rising damp" can often be misleading, as water from any source will be absorbed in all directions, including upwards. The standard definition is: "process of external ground water being drawn up through brickwork by what is known as capillary action". However, in my opinion, rising damp has often been the default diagnosis in the absence of other obvious explanations, rather than the result of actively seeking corroborating evidence. As a basic requirement, there should be confirmation that the dampness appears more or less horizontally across the entire property and extends to adjoining buildings, resembling dampness above floodwater rather than being confined to cold zones such as corners of wall. Additionally, it’s crucial to examine the ground for saturation within one meter of the base of the ground floor walls, and, if possible, around all four sides of the building. It’s important to confirm that if saturation is present, it does not display a higher concentration on one side than another, as this could indicate the presence of a leaking pipe rather than groundwater absorption. Thank you once again, the more we challenge each other and come to consensus based on facts, the better the public will be served. All the best, Simon Your comment reminds me of an exchange with a RICS surveyor see: dampsurveys.com/rising-damp-diagnosis/. For ease, I’d like to replicate that discussion here. Simon - - - - - - From Alan: BRE 245 advises that walls built of porous masonry can (only) have rising damp where they: 1) Stand in water or saturated ground, and 2) Have been built without a physical barrier to the upward movement of moisture. However you seem to be saying that only ground water can cause rising damp, (ie a high water table). Am I understanding you correctly? as it seems to me that soil saturation from any source could lead to RD and I think this is what the BRED is suggesting? I would grateful if you would be kind enough to clarify this please - as when in doubt I tend to follow BRE advice. [no need to edit this message exchange.] My responce to Alan: Alan, Thank you for reaching out with your query regarding the interpretation of BRE 245 and its application to identifying the causes of rising damp in buildings. Your understanding of the nuances of moisture absorption into porous masonry is critical, especially when considering the various sources of soil saturation and their impact on rising damp. BRE 245 indeed suggests that for rising damp to occur in walls built from porous materials, two conditions must be met: firstly, the walls must be in contact with water or saturated ground; and secondly, there must be an absence of a physical damp-proof barrier to prevent the upward movement of moisture. Your observation that soil saturation from any source could rise up a wall is astute and aligns with the broader interpretation of the guidance. I agree that groundwater (water beneath the water-table) is not the only definition of the source of water in rising damp. However, I choose to define rising damp as the upward rise of groundwater for many reasons: 1) Water from any source will rise up an absorbent material, such as kitchen paper dipped in tap water. The rise of moisture is a symptom of damp, not a source or root cause. 2) Sources of water other than groundwater, such as condensation, leaking pipes, overflow from rainwater goods, or high vapour levels in the sub-floor (often resulting from leaking drains), should and can be easily dealt with at their source. 3) There is a tendency to treat every unresolved source of dampness at the base of a wall as rising damp by default because no other source can be found, not because the source is groundwater or indeed a DPC has been breached. 4) Groundwater sufficiently in contact with a wall to cause rising damp, can be identified by drilling down about 1 metre on all four sides of a property (taking care not to damage wires or pipes) and leaving a tube to measure water levels. If the water levels are equal, then, and only then, there may be groundwater; otherwise, if one level is higher than another, it is probable that there is a leaking underground drain or similar source, which should be fixed to avoid the risk of rot or subsidence. 5) The common method of treating for rising damp is not just injecting absorption-reducing chemicals (which I am not totally against, occasionally recommending them), but also the replacement of plaster with an impermeable “slurry”. This is the main issue as it hides the damp, rather than dealing with the root cause, risking worse problems later. Clearly, if, for instance, a neighbour or the local water board refuses to fix their leaking drain, then you may have no choice. But you should be aware of the risks and mitigate those risks, such as by legal notification and by increasing sub-floor ventilation. 6) A common misinterpretation of rising damp is the presence of hygroscopic salts in a wall, which while they can on rare occasions come from groundwater, they normally results from burning coal or equine urine. Furthermore, hygroscopic salts are easy to remedy without replacing plaster. Overall, there is a tendency in UK to identify every damp issue at the base of a wall as rising damp, without evidence of groundwater. Testing to make sure the soil is saturated would be a good starting point, that would perhaps lead to more sub-floor leaks being detected and fewer insurance claims for subsidence - as well as fewer rising damp claims. Simon Alan's response 1: Thankyou very much for such a detailed and informative reply. I really cannot disagree with a single thing you have said. It really is a great pity that other surveyors do not adopt your objective approach. Hopefully one day sufficient research (perhaps by UKCMB) will be undertaken to fully clarify the rising damp debate once and for all. Alan's response 2: Thankyou for your detailed and informative reply. I think you have hit the nail on the head and I really appreciate you outlining how to test for groundwater. As you say there is a need for an authoritative and agreed guide which we can all rely on, but there are no signs of this on the horizon. In fact we dont even have an agreed definition for “rising damp.” I actually wrote to BRE suggesting they update the now old BRED 245 but they showed little interest and implied that they would only do this under government or other significant influence.

Matthew, thank you for your insightful comment. You've highlighted an important aspect of PIV (Positive Input Ventilation) systems: while they can be beneficial in lowering indoor vapour levels in some scenarios, they are often seen as a standalone solution when in fact, they should be part of a broader moisture management strategy. Extractor Fans: It's crucial to have and actively use good-quality extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom. If these are functioning efficiently, the necessity for a PIV system could be reduced or eliminated. Positioning and Airflow: Improper positioning of PIV units can lead to issues such as air short-circuiting, where fresh air exits through nearby trickle vents with minimal impact on indoor vapour, or even worse, vapour being reintroduced into the property if the unit is placed near a bathroom extractor outlet. Environmental Conditions: PIV systems were originally designed to take advantage of solar heat gains in loft spaces, presupposing that the air introduced would be both dry and warm. Unfortunately, in flats or during rainy conditions, these benefits are negligible, as external vapour levels can approach those indoors, precisely when ventilation needs are highest. Costs: Installation, ongoing maintenance, and the necessity to offset the heat lost due to the continuous introduction of new air can make PIV systems a costly option for ventilation. Comfort: The continuous influx of cold air, especially if heated electrically, can be both uncomfortable and costly, reducing occupant satisfaction with the system. Targeted Solutions: A more effective approach often involves directly addressing the sources of moisture with robust extractor fans and dehumidifiers. Monitoring internal vapour levels relative to the dew point and external temperatures allows for tailored adjustments in ventilation and humidity control. On the positive side, PIV systems do offer the advantage of filtering incoming air, which can significantly reduce the ingress of allergens like pollen during late spring, potentially easing symptoms of hay fever. By considering these factors, you can ensure a comprehensive approach to indoor air quality that addresses specific needs while optimising comfort and cost.

Clearly they wouldn’t learn grammar!

Thank you for your comments. I agree that PIV systems can be highly effective when used correctly. However, in my opinion, it is easy to set PIVs up incorrectly. It is crucial to ensure that the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans are expelling sufficient air and are being used consistently, as this helps remove most of the vapour. I still maintain that a more effective, aesthetically pleasing and economical method of removing unwanted vapour is with a dehumidifier, considering both installation and annual running costs.

Trim bathroom door as well?

@@nadznadz5630 yes all the doors

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your revised comment is excellent and provides a more comprehensive and balanced view on the use of lime in construction and restoration. The additional pros you've included (flexibility and mold reduction) and the more specific examples in your conclusion greatly enhance the informational value of the comment. Here's a slightly refined version that maintains your key points while improving readability: "Thank you for your comment. While lime might not be directly relevant to this video, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. Lime in construction and restoration has several pros and cons: Pros: Consistency in repairs: Ideal for maintaining material homogeneity in lime-based structures. Stone preservation: Preferable for repointing stone, acting as a sacrificial layer to protect the stone. Flexibility: Better at absorbing water without cracking. Mold resistance: Reduces mold risk in indoor applications. Cons: Lower strength compared to modern alternatives. More challenging to work with than cement. Generally more expensive than common alternatives. From my experience repointing stone on my property, lime-based mortar effectively stopped leaks and preserved the stone. However, the choice to use lime should consider existing materials, intended purpose, budget, and long-term preservation goals. It may not be necessary for all applications, such as plinths, render, brick pointing, or as a substitute for internal plaster. Ultimately, the decision to use lime should be made on a case-by-case basis, weighing its benefits against its drawbacks for each specific project.

@@dampsurveys769 if you can’t understand that would stop condensation and chimney breast salt than your just another cowboy selling injecting chemicals and snake oil treatments

Thank you for your insightful comment. You're right that misdiagnosis of damp issues isn't new, and it's a persistent problem in the UK property market. Your analogy about the umbrella salesman is quite apt! You've touched on several important points: The prevalence of "damp fraud" or misdiagnosis in the UK The common issue of impervious materials trapping humidity in old properties The lack of understanding about how older buildings should function These are all crucial aspects of the problem. However, I'd like to add some nuance to the discussion: While experienced professionals can often make educated guesses about a property's condition, it's important to conduct thorough, on-site inspections to provide accurate diagnoses. Each property can have unique factors affecting its moisture levels. In this case, the buyer's damp survey was conducted by a plasterer. While plasterers are skilled professionals in their field, they may not have the specialised knowledge required to differentiate between various types of damp accurately. This highlights the importance of consulting experts with specific training in building pathology and damp diagnosis. It's difficult to describe it as fraud when all the plasterer is doing is trying to sell a product. In my opinion, RICS, the PCA, and the government should improve the scientific research, training, regulation and proper auditing of damp surveyors. The plasterer's damp survey lacked crucial evidence to support a rising damp diagnosis. For instance, there was no reference to geological surveys that would have indicated the presence (or absence) of groundwater - the source of water in rising damp. It's understandable that the property buyer was concerned by the plasterer's damp survey. Most people aren't experts in building physics and rely on professional advice. This underscores the need for responsible, well-informed professionals in the industry. The key takeaway is the importance of education - for homeowners, buyers, and even some trades professionals - about the complexities of moisture management in buildings, especially older ones. It's crucial to seek opinions from qualified experienced experts who can provide evidence-based diagnoses and solutions. Thank you for contributing to this important conversation. It's through discussions like these that we can raise awareness and hopefully improve practices in the industry.

@@dampsurveys769 I was merely being tongue in cheek with my comment regarding diagnosis without visiting. You are totally correct in stating that a good diagnosis being served by a competent person and many homeowners are like an open book in the hands of some more unscrupulous people. I've been in this industry for 18 years and have come across many badly diagnosed damp issues and unfortunately many people who have been charged the best part of a fair bit for unnecessary works. I've noted similar damp issues abroad to here in the UK . The symptoms can be very similar, dew point, over reliance of impervious materials but the difference is mainly due to over scaremongering, sales figures, banks demanding action or unscrupulous individuals or companies. The levels of money spent here in comparison in resolving some basic physics is quite astounding. My years of experience has taught me to know that when it comes to a period property, the majority of damp is actually caused by plasterers, builder's and architect's. From this point during the renovation process the problems start to progress and the homeowners call in the "so called" damp expert who will typically suggest one type of diagnosis and treatment. So, in effect the real problem never actually gets resolved and the merry go around continues. Its without doubt an area that needs regulation and control and one such measure, I my opinion, is to only allow plasterers with at least a level 3 NVQ to be allowed to work on period properties and listed buildings. The builders should also have some firm of heritage accreditation. Obviously non of this would however control the humidity created inside be individuals but with the correct or mediating materials on the walls and balanced heating, ventilation and extraction,go along way in replacing the merry go around with some sustainable grounding.

@@dampsurveys769If plasterers are ‘skilled professionals’ who isn’t? In any normal use of the word, plastering, building etc are trades, not professions.

Thank you for your comment. I apologise for the voice. I was somewhat under the weather when voicing up the video, but soon recovered.

Thank you for your insightful comment. I completely agree with your points about humidity and moisture creation. You've highlighted some crucial aspects of indoor moisture management: Moisture sources: As you correctly point out, tenant activities often contribute significantly to indoor humidity. This is a common misunderstanding that can lead to misplaced blame on the property itself. Ventilation importance: Your emphasis on proper air extraction or pressure input is spot on. Adequate ventilation is key to managing indoor humidity levels. External moisture ingress: You're right that this is a landlord's responsibility to address. I'd like to add an important point about penetrating damp and leaks: While these issues may look concerning, they typically don't contribute as much to indoor air moisture as everyday activities. For example, a drying T-shirt often adds more vapor to the air than most cases of penetrating damp. This means that even when there are visible damp patches or leaks, they're unlikely to be the primary cause of condensation or mold growth. This distinction is crucial because it helps focus efforts on the most effective solutions - usually improving ventilation and managing indoor moisture sources, rather than solely addressing visible damp areas. Of course, any water ingress should still be fixed promptly to prevent structural damage, but it's important not to overestimate its role in overall indoor humidity and associated issues like condensation and mold.

Thank you for your kind words about the videos! I appreciate your interest in applying these concepts to Welsh stone cottages. You're right that the fundamental principles remain the same, regardless of the building material. Here's an expanded explanation and some advice: Stone walls and dampness: The primary cause of dampness at the base of walls, even in stone cottages, is often condensation rather than rising damp. This applies whether there's a damp course or not. Brown stains: The stains you're seeing might be related to penetrating damp (rainwater) or hygroscopic salts, which can absorb moisture from the air and create damp patches. These don't necessarily indicate rising damp or serious water ingress. Applying Dew's Law: The key is to keep internal vapor levels (as measured by dew point) below the outside temperature. This prevents condensation on cold surfaces like stone walls. Monitoring: Use data loggers to track temperature and relative humidity both inside and outside. This will help you understand your cottage's specific moisture dynamics. Dehumidification: A larger dehumidifier can indeed be helpful, but it's important to use it strategically. Focus on maintaining overall good ventilation and managing moisture sources first. Ventilation: Ensure your cottage has adequate ventilation, especially in high-moisture areas like the bathroom and kitchen. Heating: Consistent, gentle heating can help keep wall surfaces above the dew point, reducing condensation risk. Breathable materials: When redecorating, use breathable paints and plasters that allow the stone to 'breathe', helping manage moisture naturally. For more detailed information and strategies, you can check out damp.ai, which provides in-depth guidance on managing moisture in various building types. I hope this helps with your Welsh stone cottage! Let me know if you have any more specific questions about your situation.

@@dampsurveys769 Thanks for that , definitely a work in progress. We have installed fans on the bottom of our radiators in the living room to get the air circulating , relatively new invention , works quite well at circulating the heat , they just clip on with magnets and come on when the temperature gets above 40.

Thank you for your suggestion about installing a louvre grille. While that can be an effective solution in some cases, I typically ensure there's at least a 10mm gap at the base of the bathroom door. This approach achieves several important things: It allows sufficient airflow for the extractor to work properly, preventing the 'sealed room' issue you mentioned. It enables air filled with internal vapour to be drawn from the rest of the house and replaced by air with external levels of vapour. It's worth noting that in the UK, our humid climate means external air typically has a dew point just below the outside temperature. This external air has a lower moisture content than the warm, humid air inside the bathroom. This method effectively manages humidity while maintaining fire safety and the door's integrity and appearance. It's a simple yet efficient solution that works well in most residential settings.

Your insights on trickle vents provide an excellent starting point for deeper consideration of how we manage air quality and humidity in our homes. As you’ve outlined, while trickle vents are designed to help, they often fall short due to issues like blockage, inadequate installation, and behavioural factors that limit their effectiveness. This discussion underscores the importance of considering a variety of ventilation and humidity control strategies that can be tailored to specific environments and weather conditions. Alternatives like monitoring relative humidity, using dehumidifiers, and adjusting window settings can often offer more reliable and controllable solutions. I'd love to hear more about your experiences or any additional strategies you've found effective in managing indoor air quality and preventing dampness. Let’s keep this conversation going to share knowledge and improve our approaches!

Thank you for your comment. I removed the excess ducting, leaving sufficient ducting (about 300mm) to ensure vapour didn't condense into the brickwork. This reduction in ducting length significantly improves the fan's effectiveness by reducing air resistance. The original 1m of ducting was causing unnecessary friction, significantly reducing the fan's efficiency. Often simple adjustments can solve otherwise complex damp problems.

Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. As part of my survey, I will ensure there's at least a 10mm gap at the base of the bathroom door. This approach achieves several important things: It allows sufficient airflow for the extractor to work properly, preventing the 'sealed room' issue you mentioned. It enables air filled with internal vapour to be drawn from the rest of the house and replaced by air with external levels of vapour. It's worth noting that in the UK, our humid climate means external air typically has a dew point just below the outside temperature. This external air has a lower moisture content than the warm, humid air inside the bathroom. This method effectively manages humidity while maintaining the door's integrity and appearance. It's a simple yet efficient solution that works well in most residential settings.