One criticism you see often about Surveyors and Home Surveys in general is that we are often too negative, finding faults where they are none or making small issues seem like a major problems. I am not sure that is completely right but I do think it has a nugget of truth because too many Surveyors don't distinguish enough between defects and deficiencies. This slate DPC is a good example of the difference and why it matters. There is no problem with the DPC (slate is amazing and lasts forever) but the position is not ideal. Current regs require a DPC to be 150mm above ground level (two brick course plus mortar). This is to prevent it being bridged and also to stop water splashing up over the DPC and causing damp inside. Based on that it would seem reasonable to point at that and say "That does not meet the regs and could cause damp so it is a defect, CR3 Further investigations required!". Except of course those regs do not operate retrospectively and also in this case there are no damp problems so is it really a defect? It may not be ideal, it may have the potential to cause a problem but right now it is fine. It is a deficiency but it is not a defect. If I get that wrong and start to treat this like it is a defect the end result is having to suggest to the client that they get the ground around the house dug down by about 100mm just so that DPC will be at the right height. That would be the only way to remedy the defect. Wasted money that my client probably put towards something more exciting like a new kitchen (this house definitely needed one). However, if I take the right approach and treat it like a deficiency then it is reasonable to just make a note in my report of the low height and the potential risk but say it is not currently causing a problem. I could advise the client to take care not to let the ground rise up any higher but no repairs are currently required. No cost, no stress and my client knows how to prevent a problem occurring. #RICS #RPSA #Damp #Defects
I have not checked the documents, but I am fairly sure that the advice back in the late Victoria and Edwardian period was that the dpc be placed two courses (or 6 inches) above ground. Therefore, strictly speaking this would not have complied then (not that there were any enforcement procedures). The other thing with this situation is that over the passage of time the ground level has probably increased incrementally. It could be that it was built two courses above ground, but the ground level has changed. Therefore, even if something is built correctly the situation may have changed. The surveyor then has to consider whether this matters and, if so, what to do about it, if anything. In your image for example, if ever there was a problem in future it would seem simplest to lower the ground. I agree with what you say. In my training I get delegates to consider what defect means (there are variations in definition). Also, just because something has a defect, it does not mean any action is required. I see too many reports that assess what they see judged against modern regulations and/or 'standards', resulting in recommending investigation or some form of action, completely inappropriately and unnecessarily.
Jim Brown
5mo
Is 150mm a regulation?
The bigger problem is that no qualifications are required to call yourself a surveyor. Or structural engineer, or architectural designer. To lower the risk do appoint chartered professionals.
Matthew Noble
5mo
Exactly what I do. Why would you say further investigation needed, into what exactly? Always a bizarre thing to write in such a scenario.
Martin Stiles
5mo
Tim, thank you and it’s interesting you raise this issue. There is an art to being a good building surveyor and the key to this is good reporting and how we relay information to clients. Many perfectly good houses receive unnecessarily harsh survey reports and this is a real problem particularly with inexperienced surveyors. With the passage of time the reports can improve but this comes with a deep knowledge base and confidence. I’m not a lover of L2 surveys. Clear and concise reports are what clients require and should get!
External ground levels tend to rise over time, so the correct deficiency is "external ground levels too high adjacent to the wall " rather than DPC too low.
Giuseppe Di Leo
5mo
in olden days, we would dig out a 100mm wide trench, deep enough to fill with gravel to within 150mm of the DPC, etc.. No need to reduce adjoining ground levels, and only ever precautionary if the adjacent service is impermeable. 'Splashes' are de minimis imo.
Sharron Woodward
5mo
Very interesting Tim and a deficiency which my house has too!
Structural Engineers Reports Limited AKA SERL:POLE
5moAll great comments. My favourite recommendations I read in some pre purchase Surveyor’s and other Structural Engineers but mainly bank valuation standard wordings include; A) Monitor the crack for a year ( pre purchase ?!) B) Undertake all such repairs as nesessary to ensure the cracks never happens again ( Eg don’t allow future seasonal movement so had better underpin every period house on clay soil/ near a tree…etc The above is both brief and tongue in cheek but we all know what is meant by it… Whilst we all need to manage client expectations and protect our own interests professionally and commercially ( PI etc), the industry does not do itself any favours by offering impractical advice. I think a lot of it stems from commercial pressure from lenders to be so risk averse that standard wording is imposed upon Surveyors with insufficient “ kick back” to explain quite how impractical some of the lenders standard phrases really are. When it comes to advising private clients however the same excuse is not appropriate. It would be interesting to know what others think about all the standard wording imposed by lenders and what can be done about it to make it more realistic and “ real world” ?