nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Damp Proof Course (New Build)

notaplumber

Hi all,

I'm in the process of purchasing a 'New build' property in Dublin and am two weeks from closing.

The surveyor who compiled the snag list has stated that the DPC (Damp Proof Course) is not as per building regulations. He states that the building regulations 1997, Technical Guidance Document C, states that the vertical distance between the DPC and surrounding grounds should be minimum 150mm. I have had a second surveyor carry out a separate survey and he agrees with these findings.

The builder on site ( The site being a housing estate), states that it's fine and that they've never had issues of dampness/water ingress into other properties in the housing estate. He also states that the property has been signed off by his engineers, and 'Homebond'.

The builder on site is also refusing to re-lay surrounding grounds (i.e. pathway along side of property/rear patio etc) at a lower lever so as to increase distance between it and the DPC, thereby complying with building regulations as detailed above.

Can you advise what the implications of this lesser distance between DPC and surrounding ground-level may have, if I could face possible damp/moisture ingress in the future because of this lesser distance (It's at most 75mm in the property I wish to buy), and if I do suffer dampness in the property, can my home insurance company wipe their hands of any claim as the building is not as per building regulations?

There are three other issues of non adherence to Building Regulations in this property that the surveyor has highlighted, however at the moment I'm simply looking at what my options are in relation to the DPC mentioned above.

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

house

builder

dpc

building regulations

damp proof course

Quick Links

Comments

sydthebeat

Get the builder to install acco drainage channels in any areas where the distance is less than 150mm

There are situations where this distance MUST be less than 150mm ie accessible entrances etc, so allowances should be made.

However if it's a regular path then it's simply bad workmanship

Gumbo

Any photos?
Or can you name the development?

notaplumber

sydthebeat,

Given the builder's attitude so far I doubt very much he'll install any type of drainage channels.

It's very much QUOTE: "If you don't want to buy the house, you don't have to", as was stated to me yesterday.

Having spoken with a surveyor, it was simply poor workmanship whereby the builder did not get his measurements correct during the initial building phase.

2016 and shoddy building work still being presented to house purchasers.

I would have thought those days were behind us.

Thanks for advice.

If the workmanship on this is shoddy, what's it like where you can't see? If I were you I would walk away. You may feel you have spent too much to pull out now but consider it an investment in saving you €000's down the line.

sydthebeat

you ask what are the consequences....

the main reason for a DPC is to protect against rising damp.

the 150mm is, as far as i was always made aware, a protection against rain splashing back up a wall.... or for snow drfits melting etc

so if youve at most 75mm then on a raining day your wall is getting wet above the DPC. This moisture will travel up your wall through capillary action. if the building has other bad workmanship aspects such as poor cill DPCs, incorrectly laid wall ties etc, then its quite possible for moisture to cross the cavity, make your internal wall wet and lead to a myriad of problems such as internal and external plastering / rendering bubbling and cracking off. Mould due to wet walls, the health risks which go along with that. Insulation becoming wet, and useless due to a wet internal wall, thus energy bills increased.

Calahonda52

These are not the same
He also states that the property has been signed off by his engineers, and 'Homebound'.
vs
If you don't want to buy the house, you don't have to"

I would report the matter to HB and ask to see the engineers report signing off compliance.

If you are not happy to approach HB, PM me the details of the estate and I will do it, with no link back to you.

Op: you may also run into bank borrowing problems and as mentioned earlier insurance problems and more crucially, could be a problem selling later because it not an easy fix so, as hard as it is, as you are knowingly buying trouble do a Dionne Warwick on it:

If you see me walking down the street
And I start to cry each time we meet
Walk on by, walk on by

Make believe
That you don't see the tears
Just let me grieve
In private 'cause each time I see you
I break down and cry
And walk on by (don't stop)
And walk on by (don't stop)
And walk on by

notaplumber

As a follow up to your comments, here's a reply from 'Homebond' to my querying why they had signed off on the property. (Received within the past 24 hrs)

>>>>
HomeBond do not sign off on Building Regulation issues - that's up to the certifying Architect/Engineer retained by the builder. What we signed off on was the structural stability of the dwelling.

You will have to take this matter up with the builder.<<<<

__________________________
Back to the builder so I suppose.

Thanks for your advice and replies so far.

I'm definitely taking them into consideration.

Metric Tensor

There a many threads on this forum from people who have not had any luck trying to get Homebond to rectify problems with "Homebond Covered" buildings.

I wouldn't rely on said cover very much.

If it's a housing estate there is an "Assigned Certifier" (this is the person who signs to say the the development is in compliance with the building regulations - also an employee of the builder of course) - their name should be available directly from the builder or else via the BCMS system. It would be worth contacting them to see what they say.

Gumbo

notaplumber wrote: »

As a follow up to your comments, here's a reply from 'Homebond' to my querying why they had signed off on the property. (Received within the past 24 hrs)

>>>>
HomeBond do not sign off on Building Regulation issues - that's up to the certifying Architect/Engineer retained by the builder. What we signed off on was the structural stability of the dwelling.

You will have to take this matter up with the builder.<<<<

__________________________
Back to the builder so I suppose.

Thanks for your advice and replies so far.

I'm definitely taking them into consideration.

This is normal. Homebond do not certify compliance with the building regulations. Unless of course that have been engaged to act as assigned Certifiers.

Again, if you want to send me the name of the estate or some photos I can check the BCMS system for you.

notaplumber

Hi all,

Only now updating this post as have had to follow up continuously with builder and solicitor.

Solicitor has advised against naming development on this forum for the moment as it may jeopardise any future legal action. ( I'm not intentionally ignoring those who ask).

Latest update is from the architect of the property (Which as stated is part of a housing development).

The architect states that because the property has a 'Cavity Tray fitted', as well as the DPC, the 150mm requirement for the DPC is no longer applicable.

Any thoughts?

Here's a copy of recent correspondence.

Thanks.

COPY of Architect's correspondence>>>

The Building Regulation that applies here is TGD C (4):
Resistance to weather and ground moisture C4
"The floors, walls and roof of a building shall be so designed and constructed
as to prevent the passage of moisture to the inside of the building or damage
to the fabric of the building."

There is a diagram (TGD C, Diagram 5, pg 17) that shows a dimension of "150mm minimum" from ground level to DPC level. However this diagram is superceded by our detail as we have also used a cavity tray, this prevents moisture from rising up through the wall. Furthermore this diagram is part of the Technical Guidance Document, it is not stipulated in the Building Regulation itself (i.e. the Requirement outlined above).

Our detail (C900) satisfies the building regulation requirement. As detail, no moisture will enter this building as we have detailed both DPM/Radon membrane and also cavity tray. <<<<

sydthebeat

"also" used a cavity tray?

where exactly?? straight over the dpc? is there any evidence of weepholes anywhere along the dpc line?? if not then the cavity tray is actually adding to the problems

if so, none of the issues outlined above are prevented.

have you ANY photographs?

Calahonda52

OP:
re
Solicitor has advised against naming development on this forum for the moment as it may jeopardise any future legal action.
This was never to be done in the public forum as its against the charter. by PM was the only route.:(
Typical solicitor advice, wants to be at the trough again, thriving on peoples' pain, rather than get the problem sorted now.

As requested you should post some pics, you will have to disguise the link as u have less than 50 posts
so it should look like https : // my site dot com / foto name

a link to what MT is getting at in the next post
http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Cavity_tray

The other concern in the absence of weep holes, or even the presence of weep holes, how do we know the Cavity tray is there.

Metric Tensor

It's my understanding that in a general sense cavity trays are designed to prevent moisture that made it through the outer leaf reaching the inner leaf in a case where said moisture is travelling downwards in the cavity. In such a case it does the same job as a similarly purposed DPC.

If in this case we are talking about DPC to prevent moisture rising from below it would seem like an unusual use of the tray. At the bare minimum it would be advisable to get a dimensioned drawing of what the architect says is installed and run it by your surveyor.