Now then - bear in mind this wasn't provoked at all by me - but by an angry member of the public who had just managed to escape being defrauded of over £5,000 by Kenwood - a London based Damp Proofing firm and a proud member of the Property Care Association. I'd love to see their report - which apparently contained phrases like "Damp Course broken down"... Really - where?
Here's our friend Stephen's rant - it's worth cracking a beer and settling back for a laugh...
The annotations in italics are my repsonses to his drivel..
PCA Response to Heritage House
It is not uncommon to come across people with views that differ from your own. Variation in interpretation of observations and diversity in outlook, breeds innovation and challenges convention, often resulting in improvements that would otherwise never have happened.
In some situations, we can be faced with a maverick that seems to take up a position above reproach and without seeming to set a limit to their calls ignore convention. These people are either hailed as ‘visionaries’ or labelled as ‘nutters’, often at the same time. Eventually these people are exposed for what they are and by every measure, our boy is definitely no visionary.
The building preservation industry has been confronting highly vocal individuals for a number of years now. The most media savvy and misguided of these is Peter Ward (Heritage House and Heritage House Consultancy)
OOh! What a compliment - never knew I was media savvy... thanks!
who has been instigating a vindictive campaign against the established building preservation industry. He has utilised social media, You Tube and his own website to slander and defame professional bodies, reputable companies and the good name of countless individuals with what seems like total impunity. This brief article will hopefully provide a point of reference for both those assailed by Ward and some of those who may be taken in by his seemingly plausible yet utterly flawed rantings. Ward is not unlike an evangelical faith healer who suggests that all ills can be cured by blind obedience and the laying on of hands whilst denouncing all forms of conventional medicine as the work of the devil. A ridiculous statement you might think but look at the parallels.
Ward declares that rising damp does not exist. He fails to realise or acknowledge that rising damp has been studied, recorded, documented and remedied on every continent of the globe, other than Antarctica. This work has been done, published and reviewed by serious academic research organisations and is available for anyone to go out and find. If an experienced surveyor specialising in dampness in older buildings has never seen evidence of the process, then they are ether blind or utterly incompetent.
Yup - never seen it. Nor have any of the many Conservation surveyors I regularly work with. Nor have the leading experts in Europe and the USA. Not ONE properly documented case history of rising damp has ever been published. Plenty of academic rubbish that says in theory it MIGHT, but not a single case history. I've worked in this industry for many years and surveyed thousands of properties. Not one of them had rising damp. Funny how the search term is ONLY confined to the UK, and never appears in google in the United States. Yes folks, Rising Damp doesnt exist - its a big con, perpetuated by whatever sneaky means the damp chemical industry can conjure up.
The sources of the water rising through a wall may vary as can the mode of rectification, but those who deny the process of capillary action in masonry walls are fools.
Really! Gee - thanks. Some recent independent research done on this was done at South Bank University by Jeff Howell, a lecturer in building science there. He got his students to do a research project on Rising Damp. Only problem was, they couldnt make it rise. What they don't tell you is that when the size, or pore spacing changes, capillary action fails. Capillary action relies heavily on an even pore spacing - which just aint found in building materials - brick turns to mortar with big gaps in it, and so on - the BRE are doing a big research project at the moment analysing pore spacing and air content of solid walls - and guess what - the calculated U values of solid walls are up to 75% wrong, because no account has been made of the huge variation in pore spacing, and large air gaps found in any solid wall. Capillary action as a method of transmission is dead in the water. Diffusion is probably too big a word for the PCA - go have a look chaps...
Ward preaches that the Property Care Association (PCA) and its members are only interested in works that promote the sale of chemicals and moisture meters. This is a lie. The PCA promotes good diagnostic investigation, undertaken by trained competent people and the delivery of effective and appropriate repair. The organisation represents a wide range of professionals across a broad spectrum of specialist building related occupations.
Really! Wow - could have fooled me and the rest of the old house specialists I know.. We spend our professional life cleaning up the soppping wet houses created by your impervious damp proofing frauds
His latest threat to the establishment relies on the total and wilful misinterpretation of a British Standard. BS7913 deals with the conservation of historically and culturally important buildings. The PCA supports and condones the document in the context of its intended scope and reach. Perversely however Ward has published text that suggests that the standard must be applied to all older buildings and attempts to use it to rubbish the services provided by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and PCA surveyors. This is nothing more than a further promotion of his own commercial offerings by deliberately misinterpreting a legitimate publication.
Now this is really interesting. I think I'll leave it to the authors of the Standard to comment - their notes on Mr Hodgson's rant are as follows:
Picking up on BS 7913. There are three major aspects to this standard – significance, technicalities and process. In this context note:
Section 1 “best practice in the management and treatment of historic buildings. It is applicable to historic buildings with and without statutory protection. It is not applicable to below ground archaeology or any other type of heritage asset such as movable objects or vehicles”.
‘Technicalities’ will be the same – its only ‘significance’ that will be different – a non-designated building will have less significance that a building that does.
It is also useful to section 0.1 “British Standards that are applicable to newer buildings might be inappropriate”. There are many BS’s that support the use of cement, but BS 7913 makes the point that such BS’s may not be appropriate – for technical reasons.
The title of BS 7913 should have referred to traditional buildings not historic, but when you read the detail it refers to all traditional buildings.
Oh Dear Mr Hodgson - I believe the term is "Hoist upon Your own Petard"...
While lambasting the high quality training and qualifications that are delivered by the PCA, Peter Ward has never attended a single course and has no personal experience of what is provided. Smugly he has ignored invitations to attempt the examination at the Associations expense. He ridicules the qualifications of hard working honest men and women while failing to demonstrate any higher level academic attainment relating to building conservation himself. This seems to be the trait of a hypocrite.
Actually a very simple thing to answer. I was actually asked to attend a course - to learn all about safe handling of toxic chemicals that are not needed. To learn all about Rising Damp - and how to treat it - despite the fact that it doesnt exist. To learn all about how to spray timber with toxic chemicals - desipte the fact that Historic England, BS7913, National Trust and a host of other experts say the best way to stop fungus or insect decay of timber is simply to dry it out. Frankly I have not got the time to sit listening to a load of chemical sales codswallop when I could be having fun collecting minerals down my mine!
Could self-aggrandisement and the pursuit of personal gain be at the core of Mr Wards vitriol? In his blogs and videos we see him taking on the mantle of the “buildings friend” while vilifying the work that may have adversely affected the building before his triumphant arrival. He regularly blames the PCA or the “damp proofing industry” for what he sees as defect. At this point we should stop and draw breath. Many of the things we see in his self-promoting propaganda films are wrong and would not have been condoned by the PCA or its members or indeed those with appropriate specialist diagnostic expertise. This does not prevent him for making the connection however unfounded, inaccurate or indefensible.
Perhaps I should publish some of the hundreds of quite humbling letters of thanks from people who have seen our videos and web pages, and feel drawn to write in and thank us for saving them the unwarranted cost of damp proofing, and the soaking of their home in unwarranted toxic chemicals - I can sleep at night Mr Hodgson, thank you.
In his most recent attempt at liable he calls his You Tube offering “ANOTHER PCA Damp Wally and a Welsh stone cottage”. To begin – the PCA, as a body, does not deliver diagnostic services or undertake work! The PCA vets and verifies, trains and certifies, and provides dispute resolution and promotes best practice. The PCA are not contractors or surveyors. The organization does not undertake inspections of deliver repairs. The PCA is a Trade Association!
Great - so WHY is the PCA promoting itself to Banks, Building Societies, the RICS, SPAB and anyone else it can, as the default organisation for Timber and Damp Surveys..
Why... when a member of the public put a review of the PCA on their Facebook site and a complaint about Kenwood fraudulently diagnosing damp, did you delete their response from your Facebook page. Dispute resolution - rubbish. Best practise - rubbish. Publish your investigation into these good people's complaint.
Ooops.. Hoist on Petard comes to mind again - must be getting a bit sore in the behind by now...
Though Ward in his latest film without justification seems to blame the defects he sees on the PCA, we have no idea who installed the chemical DPC in the building or why. We agree that the walls should never have been pointed using hard cement mortars and we are left with no clue as to the cause of the water in the walls. It is right that the pointing should be removed but everything after that is conjecture aimed at damaging the reputation of an established industry that dares to question the flawed utterances of Mr Ward.
This self-acclaimed people’s champion claims that those in the preservation industry are ignorant and ill-educated and that our views have neither any scientific base or are rigorous, notwithstanding the absence of any evidence of appropriate qualifications held by himself. This from a man that says walls need to breathe. Let’s just look at that statement in some detail.
If a wall is wet, it will want to dry at the surface through evaporation. This process is usually known as drying, not breathing. If an impervious layer is placed over the surface it prevents evaporation. The wall does not suffocate through lack of breath.
Wow! Big words here. We are denying the concept of 'breathability', so enshrined in Building Regulations - let me quote Part L1B:
Part L1B of the 2010 Building Regs:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADL1B_2010.pdf .
The relevant paras are 3.6 to 3.13 (also reproduced in Part L2B). The most significant addition here is the recognition of “buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture” (3.8c). Whilst not ‘exempt’, these fall under a category where “special considerations may apply”, i.e. “The work should not prejudice the character of the host building or increase the risk of long-term deterioration of the building fabric or fittings” (3.9)
At the start of this section is a screen shot of part of Dr Colin Kings report on solid wall insulation - unintended consequences. In it he repeatedly refers to 'BREATHABILITY' Mr Hodgson. And SWI is exactly similar to your PCA tanking compounds, your cement based chemical cocktails that you smear all over peoples walls when you apply 'tanking' to seal moisture into the structure in your so called damp proofing. I'm afraid you are once again hoist on your own Petard. Must be getting quite painful..
Stopping evaporation can be good or bad. In some situations it is desirable. In others it can seriously compromise the structure and must be avoided at all costs.
We all sat and read this, and looked at each other. The office went quiet. I don't think any serious professional in the building game could actually get their head around this bonkers statement. I'd love to see the scientific basis - the research that actually says that evaporation should be stopped. Wow! Cool stuff Dr Stephen - where the heck did you get this??
Good practitioners understand this. The use of lime and vapor porous wall finishes inside and out allows a damp structure to dry through them however it is acknowledged that this process effects lime pointing or plaster walls. Limes by their nature are sacrificial. They can tolerate some dampness but will break down over time.
Lime breaks down a jolly sight less than modern materials - most lime plaster is still good after 150 years. Show me gypsum plaster that survives more than 20 years and you'll be lucky. Lime will survive under water for decades. Time does not break down lime. Nor does water. Chemical processes will break it down - the same processes that destroy gypsum and cement in about ten percent of the time. Probably the most uninformed and misguided statement about traditional materials I've ever seen. Again, Historic England, CADW, Historic Scotland, and many others, including BS 7913, all support the use of lime as a viable, breathable building material.
That’s fine if you live in a Welsh farmhouse and are willing to apply a fresh coat of distemper to the walls every year but is that right for everyone?
Uh? Actually you don't use distemper every year. Internally we use clay paints, which last a jolly sight longer than modern paints, because they are breathable (oh - sorry - they allow evaporation - silly me, breathable - tut tut..). Externally limewash lasts for tens of years - show me any masonry paint that doesnt peel after a couple of years because it is stopping the wall from breathing, and gets blown off and peels. Both Holkham Estate and Chatsworth Estate now use totally breathable systems inside and out - and it is costing them an order of magnitude less in maintenance costs, through not having to paint nearly as regularly..
There are areas of agreement between what we know and Ward’s standpoints, particularly on the use of impervious materials in older building but you wouldn’t think so reading his website. His totally hair brained idea that fog can form within walls is just rather odd.
We thought it was a really good way of describing what happens when you take air diffusing through a wall at vapour saturation point and cool it slightly so it condenses as a fog, and wets the wall - thus creating the symptoms commonly known by the damp wallies as rising damp..
Peter Ward has attempted to hold the high ground for long enough. He knows the Association would be reluctant to sue him because he has no money (his companies are basically worthless). His impact on the business of the PCA is not measurable and so the court may ask, where is our financial loss? The question remains however, what cost do we put on the truth and are we obliged to find the money to prove what we know to be right?
Perhaps our assertion that Peter Ward is no less than an ill-informed, disreputable chancer may cause him to consider taking the Association to task through the courts. We have evidence to support every element of this article and more besides.
Hey - be good to see your evidence then - all our evidence is on the site - videos, articles, information, references - all the things that thousands of people are seeing on a daily basis and using to make informed decisions NOT to do any form of damp proofing.
If we had a message to send directly to Mr Ward it would be to stop hiding like a despicable troll behind the anonymity of the internet, answer our letters, take our exam, and meet us in open debate. In short, act like an adult and a professional as he purports himself to be.
Troll I am - I think its a word applied to folk who live underground - and I love being down a mine - especially in the bone dry limestones of the northern Pennines, where rising damp never seems to reach - and capillary action from wet shales just doesnt seem to make those limestones wet - I wonder why? Good article Mr Hodgson - what a pity it is so unprofessional - it uses schoolboy language and playground tactics I wouldn't expect to see from a 6 year old - they are too mature.
