Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We have a just received our Homebuyer's report on a house (built c.1900), which red flagged high damp readings at various points in the walls of the ground floor and that at various points the damp proof internal floor is higher than the damp-proof course and should be lowered.


We will get a damp and timber report but have read that this is common with houses of this age and not necessarily a problem. The mortgage company have approved our loan without retaining any funds, which I have read they tend to do with cases of damp. Is it reasonable to infer that the damp issue may not be terrible, if they are prepared to lend?

Most houses of this age will have some damp spots. The survey is always going to flag up worst case stuff - they have to cover all bases. Unless the walls are visibly crumbling, you were wheezing, or the walls were wet with large visible patches you'll probably find you're OK.

You can never be sure of anything with houses of this age. Homebuyers reports don't even scratch the surface (both metaphorically and literally). But high damp readings are very very common and wouldn't put me off (unless there is evidence of rot to structural timbers).


I think normal procedure would be to get a quote covering all remedial works, then ask for the price to be reduced accordingly.

We had the same with our recent house purchase and took the risk. The valuation survey is bound to cover themselves. When we got a good damp company in, they said it needed work but not as much as the survey suggested, so for us it looks like the risk was worth it(touch wood)!


We're getting the work done and what we thought might be ?5-10k is going to be ?1500.

Thanks all for the good advice.


It's difficult to know what is a real problem and what we could live with for another 5-10y, e.g (not damp related) re:windows - double glazed plastic(!)of some age and some of the panes have failed and misted over. Windows are likely to require replacing at some point in the near future.

Ideally, we would rip them out and replace with wooden sash but we are uikely to be able to afford that for quite sometime and it may actually be fine for a while.


I suppose in reality, unless buying a new build or recent renovation (and even then), there will be a list of imperfections which we will have to prioritise from necessary to would-be-nice. I'm hoping for a similar outcome to yours, Edcam.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...