Damp in old building with NO DPC

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Damp in old building with NO DPC

    Hello, Could I ask you for your perspective on damp in old buildings? It seems that new buildings have a DPC (damp proof chemically injected) whilst older buildings dont have them so how do the freeholders manage the repairing obligation for the damp? If there is inherent damp which is part of the building structure then would the freedholder be obligated to repair and maintain or would the ground floor flat under their demise agreement? I understand they are responsible for the plaster but what about the damp when their internal floor is lower than the external ground level?

    #2
    This website may help you know more about damp :

    https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-...buildings.html

    Comment


      #3
      Injected chemicals are a workaround for old old buildings with no DPC. Buildings built in what must be getting one for the last 100 years, will have a waterproof layer between courses of bricks. Google "damp proof course" for examples.

      Comment


        #4
        Here is some more information about "ground floor lower than external ground level" :

        https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk...oof_course_DPC

        https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk...n_be_needed.3F



        Comment


          #5
          The primary question is about whether the freeholder has any repair responsibility, not about how to mitigate the problem.

          For a start, the answer will depend on the lease.

          I would tend to expect that the freeholder would have no more responsibility than they would have when the property was built, and presumably it wan't an issue then. However, I'm not certain enough, which is why I didn't answer the main question the first time.

          Comment


            #6
            It is complex.
            Was the lease bought in the knowledge it was a damp flat ? Was the price adjusted ? If the Freeholder accepts responsibility and pays it will become a permanent responsibility.
            I suggest sending the issue to LEASE for free qualified legal advice. I have always found them excellent.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post
              This website may help you know more about damp :

              https://www.heritage-house.org/damp-...buildings.html
              Thank you Gordon

              Comment


                #8
                leaseholder64,

                I have been learning and becoming aware that very old buildings would not have a damp proof course installed, they did not in those days,the buildings would be made of traditional material designed to breathe...lime plaster breathable paints etc...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Gordon999,

                  Thank you for the links

                  Comment


                    #10
                    scot22,

                    Yes it is complex...the person who bought the flat was not aware of issues, told it has a DPC injected however now transpires only partly done and should not have been done..long story

                    Comment


                      #11
                      leaseholder64,

                      Lease states ...permit the Lessor and each Lessee of a flat in the Building with or without workmen and all persons authorised by any of them at all reasonable times and whenever possible giving seven days notice in writing ( but at any time in case of emergency) during said term to enter upon the Demised Premises or any part thereof for the purpose of repairing or altering any part of the building or executing repairs or alterations to any adjoining or contiguous premises or for the purpose of making repairing maintaining supporting rebuilding cleansing lighting or keeping in good order and condition all roofs foundations damp courses tanks sewers drains pipes cables watercourses gutters wires party or other structures o other conveniences belonging to or serving or used for the building or any part thereof..

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The first cause of action contemplated by section 1(5) includes a cause of action against the builder or developer for failing to see that the work is done so that the dwelling will be fit for habitation. The proviso to section 1(5) says that if "a person who has done work . . . does further work to rectify the work he has already done, any such cause of action in respect of that further work" (my emphasis) accrues when the further work was finished. "Such" cause of action refers back to the words "any cause of action" at the beginning of section 1(5) and, therefore, includes a cause of action for failing to see that the work is done so that the dwelling will be fit for habitation. If that failure still exists after the further work done to rectify the work already done, it is a failure for which the statute gives a remedy and the cause of action in respect of that failure is a cause of action in respect of that further work and accrues when the further work is finished.
                        1. Take the common law position of a house-owner who contracts with a builder to build a house. The builder is obliged to build a house fit for habitation, see Hancock v Brazier [1966] 1 WLR 1317, 1332F per Lord Denning MR. If the house is not fit for habitation because it is damp and if the builder comes to rectify the work that he has done but fails to eliminate the damp because he misdiagnoses the cause of the damp he will be liable for that failure. It would be surprising if, in such circumstances, the house-owner did not have a second cause of action for failure to rectify the work previously done in such a manner that the house will be fit for habitation cf [1966] 1 WLR at page 1325E per Diplock LJ. Whatever the ordinary common law might be, however, there is no doubt that the 1972 Act grants a second cause of action and, on the facts here to be assumed, the second cause of action arises out of the failure properly to rectify work already done, since the damp proof system was not properly rectified despite efforts made to do so. It is, therefore, a "cause of action in respect of that further work" and accrued in May 1995 at the earliest. These proceedings are thus brought in time.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Under the terms of your lease, what is the starting date of lease ? who is the lessor ? and who pays of the repairs ?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                            Lease states ...permit the Lessor and each Lessee of a flat in the Building with or without workmen and all persons authorised by any of them at all reasonable times and whenever possible giving seven days notice in writing ( but at any time in case of emergency) during said term to enter upon the Demised Premises or any part thereof for the purpose of repairing or altering any part of the building or executing repairs or alterations to any adjoining or contiguous premises or for the purpose of making repairing maintaining supporting rebuilding cleansing lighting or keeping in good order and condition all roofs foundations damp courses tanks sewers drains pipes cables watercourses gutters wires party or other structures o other conveniences belonging to or serving or used for the building or any part thereof..
                            That clause is not relevant. It imposes no obligations on the the freeholder and no financial obligations on the leaseholder.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Gordon999,

                              Lessor is the company run by two directors, no management company

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              • New landlord being awkward.
                                petworld123
                                Hi
                                We currently own a flat above a takeaway which we are trying to sell. There is a current 80 year lease on the flat. The previous owner of the shop downstairs sold it on last year. The new owner of the freehold is unwilling to give us a copy of the landlords lease and refusing to give his solicitors...
                                17-07-2019, 16:14 PM
                              • Freeholders breach of the lease
                                surreygirl
                                We had a surveyor in last year in April 2018 which said that the outside render was now porous and needed to be repaired as a matter of urgency and should be a priority. At a meeting they voted to wait for a year until people had saved up the money and also they needed to have an asbestos test done....
                                16-06-2019, 09:39 AM
                              • Reply to Freeholders breach of the lease
                                surreygirl
                                I will start a new thread and thank you for your advice. Thankfully my tenant has a head on her shoulders and is not easily intimidated....
                                17-07-2019, 16:11 PM
                              • Reply to Freeholders breach of the lease
                                surreygirl
                                Yes I will call the citizens advice tomorrow in the UK and ask them what they think. A letter is out as he will see it is from me and send it back, so an email and get someone to post a letter from me from the UK. I will threaten legal action. However I will start a new thread as we are going off track....
                                17-07-2019, 16:10 PM
                              • Disputes with present freeholder
                                hexu
                                Hi there,

                                It's really a nightmare if the freeholder is bad enough!

                                When I purchased the property in 2006, the freehold was held by the Council. In August 2007, the Council sold the freehold of the building to a housing association. Major works of the building were planned...
                                15-07-2019, 21:08 PM
                              • Reply to Disputes with present freeholder
                                Macromia
                                Sadly this is too often the case - but the correct action in response to 'unreliable' freeholders is to take appropriate action relative to specific failures.
                                In this case, if major works are the issue, the relevant action is likely to be to challenge the reasonableness or quality of the works...
                                17-07-2019, 15:19 PM
                              • Solicitor incorrectly defined lease terms
                                rjb021080
                                Hi all. looking for some advice.

                                When buying a shared ownership property, the lease I thought I was buying into was 125 years. This was the paperwork received from the solicitor. The property was purchased in 2008. 11 years down the line and having recently decided to sell the property...
                                17-07-2019, 08:01 AM
                              • Reply to Solicitor incorrectly defined lease terms
                                Gordon999
                                Did you buy the property without seeing the solicitor ?

                                If you have proof you were informed of 125 years lease, then make a formal complaint against solicitor to SRA
                                17-07-2019, 15:08 PM
                              • Lease extinguished on purchase of freehold?
                                cymro123
                                1 building, 5 Titles - 1 freehold and 4 leasehold - I own one of the leases. If I purchase the freehold what happens to the lease that I own? does that lease extinguish and with it my need to pay service charges and ground rent? Thank you in advance.
                                17-07-2019, 13:06 PM
                              • Reply to Lease extinguished on purchase of freehold?
                                Macromia
                                As leaseholder64 has said, if you own a lease in a building that you own the freehold of, the lease will still require service charges and ground rent to be paid to the freeholder (the service charges being reimbursement for money that the freeholder has paid, or is intending to pay, for services/maintenance...
                                17-07-2019, 14:59 PM
                              Working...
                              X