"Rising damp myth" statement - the true story

Following the recent publication of the ‘Joint Position Statement - Investigation of moisture and its effects on traditional buildings’, I have noted my name sometimes quoted in the context of the “surveyor who does not believe in rising damp”. For many years this has followed me, and whilst it is often mis-quoted or quoted out of context, this has rarely bothered me. However, in view of this recent publication and as I am reaching the point of retiring from surveying, I think it is time that I set the record straight.

History of my involvement

Back in the 1980s I was a surveyor undertaking a wide range of work including mortgage valuations. As with most surveyors at that time, we were “trained” to put a moisture meter against the wall and if it registered above a certain level then to call for further reports from ‘timber and damp companies’. However, during the latter part of the 1980s, as I became more interested in building conservation and read about historic buildings, I became aware that this approach was inappropriate. At the same time, I had begun to note that such treatments did not always seem to work. I came to a realisation that what we commonly diagnosed as rising damp, and required treatment for, might be something else altogether.

In the early 1990s (c. 1991) I wrote to the RICS asking what they were going to do about this, because I felt that part of the problem was the process by which a surveyor (usually undertaking a mortgage valuation) would routinely ask for further reports and this nearly always resulted in some form of chemical treatment regardless of what form of dampness actually existed. This was about 4 or 5 years after SPAB had published a pamphlet about the need for old buildings to breathe. The issue was not a new one but was not something widely discussed within the professions – at that time.

That letter brought about an invite to sit on the board of the Building Conservation Forum at RICS and over a period of c.25 years, I remained involved at various levels with RICS.

My building conservation training and experience through the 1980s helped me to recognise that over the centuries many different materials and techniques had been used for building. In general terms, prior to the turn of the 20th century buildings generally managed moisture rather than trying to exclude it. Of course, there were exceptions, but the general principle was to manage the moisture. By contrast, during the 20th century we changed to design buildings that specifically excluded moisture. By the early 1990s I had come to appreciate that there was a conflict between these approaches, with the potential to cause problems for buildings if not properly understood.

As I had been a speaker at conferences and training days, I found that by the mid-1990s I was being invited to speak specifically regarding historic buildings and issues of pathology. On one such occasion I had the slot after the lunch, knew that this was often regarded as the “graveyard slot”, and that I needed to try to ensure that the delegates were awake. I decided to start my talk with the statement "there is no such thing as rising damp". This was intended to be a form of discussion starter. Little did I know that this was to then dog me for the rest of my career. However, in that talk I went on to explain that it was not “rising damp” as such, but much more about proper diagnosis of what was happening to the building, and what was causing the damp. I concluded that it was inappropriate to presume that damp at low level was automatically rising damp. I took the view that rising damp was probably more often misdiagnosed than correctly identified, and therefore that inappropriate treatment and work was being undertaken. As such treatment and work was irreversible it had the potential to cause damage and future problems.

I should mention here that a view I have subscribed to for many years (regardless of building type or age) is ‘minimum intervention’. By this I mean that the work undertaken should be as much as necessary, but as little as possible.

I became chair of the Building Conservation Forum at RICS in 2000 and at this time it was a topic often discussed and various articles were published. As I was associated with the term "rising damp myth", people often thought I did not believe that rising damp existed. I state here and now, and did so at the time, that I am not a scientist, and it was not for me to declare definitively whether a phenomenon such as rising damp actually occurred to the bases of walls or not. I did question a lot of what was being said by the timber and damp treatment industry, but it was surprising that no-one had really undertaken any detailed scientific research at that time.

A lot of what I said at that time (and now) arises from experience and observations of many buildings of varied type and age. What did concern me, however, was that in most situations damp was misdiagnosed - I shudder at the number of times I saw chemical treatment at the base of a wall that did not resolve a problem, because it was in reality for example a gutter leak, or perhaps high ground level, or a condensation problem. Whilst it is easy to bash the treatment companies for this, I believe that professionals are equally (perhaps more so) to blame for not undertaking proper diagnosis in the first instance.

My main focus was then, and has always been, the proper diagnosis of what is happening to a building that gives rise to a damp problem (or indeed any other defect).

Damp or moisture?

In recent years there has been discussion as to whether we should avoid the term rising damp or even the term damp at all. Use of the word damp gives rise to concerns that this is a problem. Indeed, the Cambridge dictionary definition of damp is “slightly wet, especially in a way that is not pleasant or comfortable”. I often find that this results in thinking that materials should be dry and without any level of moisture. This is of course incorrect. Moisture is “… water in the form of very small drops, either in the air, in a substance, or on a surface”. My preference is to use the word moisture as a more neutral term without the implication that the water involved is a problem. Materials will naturally have moisture in them, as many materials and substances require a level of moisture to exist and survive. The issue is not whether there is moisture but whether that moisture is excessive and causing a problem. It is when it is excessive and causing a problem that the term damp could be used. This is of course my view on the terminology that you may or may not agree with.

Building pathology

I have gained over 30 years’ experience dealing with historic buildings, and, in fact, I have been surveying over 40 years. I have seen many buildings (in the thousands) and have been able to observe many situations. I have come to realise that it is very rare for a situation to be absolutely black and white. Often the situation is far more nuanced, whether this be in dealing with moisture or indeed any building defect.

It must also be appreciated that during the 20th century many historic buildings will have been altered, extended, and works of repair undertaken. This is a problem that affects many buildings and I recall being told that when English Heritage (as was) gave out grants, 75% of them were to sort out problems caused by 20th century works.

However, this leads to problems of diagnosis and assessment of what to do.  I have seen historic buildings with damp problems where simple reversion to traditional materials etc., would not necessarily resolve the problem because of the past 20th century works. This can also be the case where perhaps works have been undertaken in neighbouring properties, impacting the subject property. Where such 20th century works are irreversible, they might have had a permanent detrimental effect on the building under consideration meaning that a different approach has to be taken, that is not necessarily a simple reversion to traditional materials.

Of course, there are other considerations such as the views of the property owner and their financial position. It is sometimes necessary to accept a compromise position, on the understanding that whilst the problem might not be resolved now, if it is managed so that it does not worsen, then in future years someone else (perhaps a future owner), might then be able to tackle the problem. This managed approach might be appropriate for some buildings, but of course needs careful consideration and discussion with the client/owner. It is important that the client understands the options.

My views now

So, you may be sat there thinking "what does Stephen believe now?". The situation remains that I am not a scientist, and I cannot categorically state whether rising damp is something that really does happen in some situations or not. I have seen various research papers in recent years that suggests that rising damp can occur in some situations. As I have not conducted my own experiments I am not in a position to dispute such research.

What then follows is the question (as succinctly put by a surveyor friend of mine), so what?

With modern technology it is possible to identify moisture levels in materials that would not have been determinable years ago. If one relied purely on visual assessment there would be no sign of a problem. This is why I refer to the situation often being quite nuanced. One can inspect a property and find absolutely no visual or other tangible sign of a damp problem, but when using modern technology, it is possible to identify that there is moisture contained within a wall, or other element. This results in a conundrum  as to how to advise a client and whether there is need for work now, in the foreseeable future, or whether the situation can simply be monitored and managed. Too often I see professionals worrying about something that is not actually a problem at present.

It is not the purpose of this piece to go into detail about the assessment of moisture in buildings, but from what I have said my view is that it is often far from straightforward. It requires a detailed understanding of the nature of the building, its construction, and materials, as well as what has been carried out to it in the past (alterations and works) because this could indeed have a significant influence. It then follows that you need to understand what is actually happening, and this includes whether there is damage occurring, or whether it is a potential future issue rather than a present active problem.

Only when you have all of this information and properly understand what is happening can advice be given to a client.

The future

When we sat down to discuss the proposed document that has become the recent Joint Position Statement, the one thing that became clear was that the assessment of moisture is a holistic exercise. The publication reflects this and requires a proper and full assessment. It is no longer acceptable to simply use a handheld meter, get a reading, and then declared that there is a problem that requires treatment or works.

I am not saying that there will never be a situation where some form of intervention might be appropriate, and this could even include modern materials and treatments, but in my experience, I look back c.30 years to see that I have not recommended modern chemical intervention. I do not state this as a matter of pride, but simply as a factual statement, it is my view that the vast majority of situations can be resolved in other ways. I find perhaps the most common issue is simply lack of maintenance and careless works being undertaken.

Of course, my approach is very much dictated by the view that we should exercise minimum intervention.

Conclusions

I do not know, and am not bothered, whether rising damp exists or not, but it remains perhaps the most talked about issue, and perhaps the most misunderstood and misdiagnosed problem with buildings.

[There you are, an up to date quote for those who may be interested, but do not quote it out of the context of this article!]

In my view it is a moot point and non-issue, because the most important thing is to take a holistic approach to building pathology. This means to properly understand the building, its nature and construction as well as any changes; to properly understand what is actually happening to that building by way of observation, monitoring and investigation where necessary. Only by following this process can one reach a point where informed decisions can be made. What I really care about is the proper analysis of problems within buildings.

In fact, in many surveys that I undertake, I find myself recommending no action for now, but keep an eye on matters and monitor the situation. Of course, I warn the clients about what might be necessary in future, and the need for maintenance and obvious works (e.g., clear gutters, lower high ground, etc), but I do not revert to a knee-jerk reaction and quick fix solutions.

So, there you have it, how this quote arose, and my present thinking.

I should of course point out that after being Chair of the RICS Building Conservation Forum (a small part of RICS), I became Chair of the Building Surveying Faculty (seemingly a very influential role, but not in reality). At that time those identifying as Building Surveyors numbered around 36,000 from a membership of c. 110,000. Interestingly, conservation was not a major part of what this role involved. In fact, the single issue that was a constant agenda item at the time was commercial lease dilapidations! 

My direct involvement on committees, steering groups etc., finished some years ago. That said, I was privileged to be involved on the RICS team looking at and commenting on the recently published Joint Position Statement. I remain involved regarding a new practice statement relating to conservation, but I rarely have contact with the ‘powers that be’ at RICS nowadays.

My future career lies in coaching and training relating to building conservation, hence my new company – www.beconservation.com .

As for working with other bodies and perhaps those that in the past were seen to be at odds with my views (e.g., PCA), I welcome the opportunity to talk to anyone. In fact, in recent years I have enjoyed helpful and positive discussions with members of PCA. I believe that dialogue and communication between parties, even those at opposite ends of the spectrum, is always the best way forward. I welcome constructive debate and discussion, where and when appropriate. Therefore, I am so pleased that the Joint Position Statement has been published and I look forward to the possibility of working with those from various bodies to see how we can progress this matter in future.

#risingdamp #stephenboniface #damp #buildingconservation #buildingpathology #rics #pca #spab #historicbuildings #traditionalbuildings #beconservation #jointpositionstatement #dampinvestigation #risingdampmyth