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.
They always misdiagnose, every report is the same
That's not a surprise! All they want to do is sell their "Damp Proofing" treatments
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.