A 'timber and damp' survey was commissioned from Peter Cox Ltd, and written by a Mr Andy Clark, I am given to understand who claims 'qualifications' of CSRT and CSSW.
The survey claims that “visible signs of dampness were observed to a left elevation wall in the kitchen, and fireplace in reception room, supported by 'moisture profile' readings taken with an electronic moisture meter.” These apparently indicate penetrating damp. We inspected these areas and found no sign of any moisture visible, and could find no evidence of any moisture in the walls. Even when a resistance meter was used, no readings were obtained. It is claimed that high ground levels are to blame – we found no evidence of any ground levels that are excessively high – some are close to the level of internal floor levels, but external ground is well drained and sloping, and will not retain moisture.
Electronic moisture meters do not measure moisture. They are more correctly referred to as resistance meters. They measure conductivity, which is heavily influenced by conductive materials such as naturally occurring salts in brick and stone, and organic materials such as ash used in lime plaster and mortar. The manufacturers all clearly state they should not be used to measure building materials and that they are made to measure moisture content of uncontaminated green timber.
Three British Standards, BS:5250, 6576, and 7913 all clearly state that moisture meters are inappropriate for measuring dampness in building materials and that chemical methods (carbide testing) are the only way to establish if any moisture is present.
The report claims that “visible signs of dampness, supported by moisture profile readings from the resistance meter indicated the presence of 'rising dampness' in all of the walls indicated in the attached sketch”. For the purpose of this report, the sketch referred to every wall of the house barring those which were obviously timber. It further concludes that this “appears to be due to the apparent absence of an effective damp proof course”. The house was built in around 1740. Damp courses were not used then, and the house has been warm and dry for 250 years since then without the assistance of a damp course. The report then goes on to state that rising dampness is a naturally occurring phenomenon caused by capillary rise of moisture. It is not – in thousands of surveys I have never once seen it. It further states that areas of plasterwork were in generally poor condition and breaking down due to salt action. Not a single square inch of plaster was breaking down. The report is full of intentionally misleading statements which are scientifically and factually incorrect.
These claims are fraudulent misrepresentation – they misrepresent the fact that the house is 'damp', and are fraudulent in that they form the basis for a very substantial 'quotation' for totally unnecessary work. They would also leave the owner of the building liable to criminal prosecution for damage to a Grade 2 Listed Building due to the removal of historic fabric and mechanical damage to brick and stone. Such works as those proposed would never be authorised. The paragraphs in italics are standard paragraphs which we see in EVERY Peter Cox survey 'report'. They are fraud. They are untrue. They are not supported by ANY scientifically valid information.
The external walls to the house are all covered internally with timber framing, on which is very early lath and plasterwork. The plaster is in perfect condition, and there is no evidence of any deterioration or salt action as claimed in the Peter Cox report. The 'diagnosis' of rising damp in timber framed lath and plasterwork is incompetent, fraudulent, and criminal. In order to support our observations, we took chemical tests of the walls in areas indicated as having 'rising damp' and needing 'treatment'. 10mm drillholes were bored into the walls after carefully lifting wallpaper. A resistance meter was probed into the wall, which went off the scale – indicating the presence of naturally occurring salts and organic material (ash, animal hair etc). The holes were drilled and dust samples analysed by carbide meter for moisture content. Both samples were less than 3% total moisture content, expressed as weight percent of the total wet sample weight.
Published BRE figures for average natural moisture content of building materials (Charles Stirling, BRE) indicate from zero to 5% as perfectly acceptable depending on seasonal conditions. The dry dust samples all made the 'moisture meter' register around 75% - a completely meaningless figure, but one used all the time by damp companies to fraudulently sell unnecessary damp proofing. I have left a dry sample, as taken from the wall, with our clients as evidence of this for use in any court action brought against Peter Cox Ltd. Any resistance meter inserted to this dry sample will register as 'very wet' or red, or 'alarm' or whatever other meaningless reading the instrument decides to give.
The Cox report then goes on to state that the cellar was inspected, and that evidence of beetle infestation was found. It claims that timbers are in contact with damp masonry.
The cellar is dry, and well ventilated. Thermo hygrometer readings were in line with those found in the rest of the house – 15 degrees C, 50% RH and 7 g/m3. One of the driest cellars I have seen for years. All the walls are coated with thick layers of limewash. The timbers are bone dry, the walls bone dry. One piece of timber was seen with historic beetle flight holes – which had most likely left the timber before it was even placed in the cellar. Beetle are only ever found where timber is damp – in excess of 17% total moisture content – which is close to the moisture content of freshly felled timber. BS:7913 clearly states that chemical timber treatment is rarely if ever needed, and the best way to prevent any problem with timber is to keep it dry. Ridout (English Heritage – Timber Decay in Buildings) states that chemical treatment is almost never needed, and that dry timber will not suffer decay. The timbers in 20, Church Street are without exception bone dry – both in the cellar, house and roof space. Any claim by Cox that treatment is needed, or that there is active beetle, is fraudulent misrepresentation of the true situation. There is one wall of the cellar which has lost its limewash – this is because of salt action – salts from the fireplace above, have reacted with the lime and broken it down. The wall is dry.
