personal profile: mr paranoid

background: recent purchase of 1930's house which has kitchen leanto extension built in 1943. Mortgage retention due to damp issues mainly confined to extension.

Issues: kitchen had no dpc


During investigation i found out that the makority of the damp was mainly in two areas, speaking with neighbours i found out that there was a leak from the cold tap (mains) in one corner over a period of days that flooded the kitchen in jan 10 and there was an issue with iceicles inside in another corner - further investigation found the roof leaking.
I'm comfortable these were why we had high damp readings, however didnt hurt to get a dpc.

The initial valuation called for a further survey which was completed with a quotation to:

excavate, lime, dpc, insulate, concrete then remove 1 meter of plaster and inject walls.

I did some shopping around and hired a damp proofing company to do the work. i've since found out they did not insulate.

I called building control as i also wasnt sure if i should have applied for a notice for these works, initially i asked what the requirements are, continuing the conversation with the works had been done. i told them the dimensions (2.5x3m) and that it was a solid floor totally removed and replaced. The BC officer told me that this sounded like a repair, and that the issue of thermal upgrade was 25% of the floor of the house - i asked if this counted as the rest of the house was wooden, he said that was fine and asked if we'd done any work to floors elsewhere or were planning - i said no.
He said they'd take the view that it was a small area of the house and a repair so not an issue that it had been done without insulation. although i took his name, i dont think this conversation is on record.



a final survey is required by August and i intend to send the receipt in prior to this for checking.. million dollar question, could this have any negative affect on the mortgage retention

as long as they didnt make the problem any worse, i dont see why it should... building control have let you get away with the 25% rule...
if the mortage retention was for damp issues and theyve now been resolved, should be job done as far as their concerned but if youve been quoted and paid for insulation in your floor, and they didnt do it... then you should have em in court really mate...

_________________
http://www.peterborough-plasterer.co.uk/

Thanks, these were my thoughts but never been through this before so not sure what to expect.. I thought it would be a case of the mortgage primarily ensuring the damp issues are gone

just dont tell em you got issues with the company that did the work, they will want to see a guarantee though... make sure you get it, and insurance backed at that...

_________________
http://www.peterborough-plasterer.co.uk/

Damp companies don't normally insulate, so check the contract to see if it was included in the price.

The lender should be ok with the lack of insulation on the floor as this is not a necessity, although it would have been a good idea as an improvement. Just send them the paperwork and you should be fine.

You can always insulate above the new floor if you like.

Thanks :) your comments are as I was thinking.

It's not on the quote, however the work changed during the job which has confused things slightly.

should the building regulations require insulation, and the damp company is doing the work then the the damp company should be insulating..
however, the responsibility rests with the householder to ensure this is done, a bit wrong if you ask me, how many people do the government expect to know part L word for word?
I do believe there is some legislation that requires the damp company to inform the customer of current building regs, same as in the glazing industry there is legislation for a glazing professional to inform a potential customer of the need for safety glass in certain areas, although its still the customers responsibility at the end of the day.

youve 'got away' with not having to dig the floor up due to its small size, but i would have expected it to be mentioned in the run up to the work being done, and as you state, it was quoted for and not carried out...

if that floor had been much bigger (ie. more than 25% ot the total floor area of the house) then you would have been issued with an instruction to dig it up and do it again, complete with insulation and youd have to pay building control inspection fees...
theyd want to see the excavation with the insulation installed complete with any thermal breaks,depth of hardcore etc prior to the concrete being poured...
then youd have to fight the damp company in the courts at your own expense..

the fact that its not gone in regardless of the 25% rule shows, in my opinion, a contempt for the customer (providing you havent been offered and rejected it)...

i would insulate the floor of a 3mx3m conservatory, required by building regulations or not, the cost involved in doing the job at excavation stage is easily recovered in the spiralling cost of fuel bills, not to mention condensation problems on tiled floors in unheated rooms...

the u value of that floor will be taken into consideration when calculating 'heat loss' for the room in exactly the same way the u value for the walls and ceiling are...

youd be surprised how much difference a few sheets of cellotex really does make...

as mentioned, you can insulate on top, providing the head clearance is still within limits..

_________________
http://www.peterborough-plasterer.co.uk/

Thanks for the info, that was an extremely good reply covering a lot of my concerns.

initially the scope of work was to provide DPC on top of the current concrete base, then once inspected they decided there was no concrete base. Insulation was brought up at this stage, the reply was it wasnt required, I can only assume this was because of the 25% rule.

The company appeared to know about building regs as they asked if i wanted to skip putting reinforcment in there or not (we did go with this and i have pictures)

on the day the work started they discovered a concrete base albeit very thin, they removed and poured new concrete in.

this was the first job i got a contractor in for and i was a little naieve at that time of my responsibilities, i'm well aware now ensuring compliance lies with me.

Whilst i'd prefer there to be insulation under there, had there been no damp we'd have 1940's concrete there so i'm no worse off.