I completed an inspection of on-going dampness for a client after work was done by a national damp-proofing chemical sales company appeared to have failed.  The chemical salesman re-inspected her property (only after payment of £90 to come out) and declared that the wall was still drying out – 2 1/2 years after waterproofing works were completed!!!  It was clear that the work had failed and I reported as such.   My client again arranged for the salesman to attend but also asked me.

First thing he did?  He used a ping-prong damp meter on the plaster declaring that the wall was only slightly damp!!  When I pointed out that it was the wrong type of meter he was using I was told that it was “‘calibrated’ for use on timber but it gives an ‘indicative’ reading” No it isn’t and no it doesn’t, it is designed for use on TIMBER ONLY and should not be used, indicatively or not, on plaster.  After being shown the saturation reading from my own surface meter (which is designed for use on plaster) he insisted in carrying out a destructive test which meant a bolster and hammer knocking lumps out of the kitchen wall to expose the brickwork.  This was done and the exposed areas tested using a Calcium Carbide (Speedy) meter which showed the underlying brickwork to be ———— you guessed it – saturated – not as the ‘indicative’ timber meter measured it.  The result is that the work to this client’s house is being repaired at no cost and her payments for his re-attendance being refunded.

However my client made an excellent observation that the Speedy meter was used to ‘refute’ the on-going dampness but wasn’t used to diagnose it in the first place – a timber ‘ping prong’ meter was!!!

BEWARE of free surveys – You have been told!