Flat-Living.co.uk
help & advice
The ARMA Surgery Bruce Maunder Taylor, a chartered surveyor and member of ARMA’s Council, provides answers to readers’ questions. If you have a question, email it to info@flat-living.co.uk. (All names and addresses are withheld). Question: I am the chairman of a resident management company (RMC). We have a long-running dispute with a leaseholder concerning the causes of damp in her flat. According to our surveyor the problem is caused by condensation but according to the leaseholder’s surveyor it is caused by penetrating damp. In your article on page 45 of the spring issue of the Flat Living magazine you say that “It is important to reliably tell the difference between condensation and penetrating dampness”. But if two members of the RICS cannot agree on this matter, it seems that there is no reliable way of telling the difference. Do you have any suggestions on how we might resolve this problem? Answer: Whatever judgment a professional or expert makes, it is the reasons for the judgment that are important. If you take the example of a court case, judges do not accept expert testimony on the basis of “I am Mr Know It All – I’m Right”, they want the supporting evidence and reasons. When they have looked at that supporting evidence and reasons they will decide which of the experts they believe to be right. My advice is to ask the RMC surveyor why he says it is condensation and to ask the leaseholder’s surveyor to say why he believes it to be penetrating dampness. Penetrating dampness does not come from nowhere. If the surveyor blames rainfall, then he will be expected to have monitored the dampness in relation to rainfall patterns. If he blames a defective water pipe then he should be able to identify the location of the pipe and demonstrate the point of escape, exactly if the pipe is exposed, within a reasonable area if the pipe is encased. If there is condensation then humidity levels can be measured (if it really comes to that) or a dehumidifier can be installed for a temporary period. If the dehumidifier dries out the dampness it is likely to be condensation. If there is penetrating dampness, then that penetration is likely to continue, despite the best efforts of the dehumidifier. Two sensible surveyors who genuinely want to find the reason for the dampness should not have difficulty in devising appropriate tests for the precise circumstances of the case in question to establish which one of their opinions is correct. Please bear in mind that it is quite possible for both of them to be correct and for the dampness to be caused by more than one source. Any opinion from any advisor that is not supported by evidence and reasoning is of little or no help or value to anyone. In the circumstances of your particular case it should not be difficult for each surveyor, having different opinions, to set out in a report their evidence and reasoning for coming to their conclusion that it is condensation, on the one hand, or penetrating dampness on the other hand. If that does not resolve the issue between them, there should be no difficulty for two surveyors, both of whom want the problem to be resolved, to meet on site and agree what tests or observations should be made in order to establish evidence and reasons with which both of them can agree. The possibility of more than one cause contributing to the dampness should not be overlooked: it is possible that both surveyors are at least half right!
Q: I am a director of an RMC. Our block has not been well maintained for some years and, at our AGM, the lessees asked for a 10-year major works programme to assess reasonable reserve fund needs. We obtained a report from an experienced chartered surveyor and if we followed the advice we would bankrupt some of our lessees. It seems that the surveyor has followed a new-for-old policy. What are our obligations and what do we do? A: Your lease probably requires you to “repair and maintain”. In interpreting that obligation, the Courts have long taken account of the age, character and location of the property: a modern luxury prime location block would be treated differently to an old building of basic quality in a modest value location. The instructions given to any surveyor asked to prepare a 10-year forecast should carefully set out the basis of the advice to be given or, yes, you may find that the report you receive will cause anxiety and merely shift the problem from unknown repairs to unknown financial resources of individual lessees. The standard approach is what you have done: instruct a competent surveyor to inspect the whole building and its services, report to you and suggest a 10-year major works plan with costings based on current building prices. The surveyor should be instructed to be concerned only with major works and not ordinary repairs which will be paid for from the annual service charge payments, and to take account of the age, character and location of the building. An alternative instruction, which is sometimes followed, is along the lines of: this is what we can afford to collect in the reserve fund each year, prepare a costed 10-year plan with that in mind. Yet a third option is to instruct the surveyor to identify those major items which will require some work over the next 10 years and place them in order of priority with a cost indication. The intention will be for the lessees to then have a meeting and agree amongst themselves what will be fitted into a 10-year programme and when. A 10-year programme should never be regarded as “writ in stone”. Bouts of extreme weather tend to speed up the rate of deterioration of some components; long periods of mild weather tend to slow it down. Circumstances can change: different lessees may be appointed to the board of directors with a different agenda either to raise repair standards or reduce repair costs. Q: We are a small block of eight private flats, post-war bomb damage, in an otherwise 19th century square, designated a conservation area. Recently a gas leak was traced to an underground pipe in the road outside. The utility company said that the pipe-work both in the road and leading to the flats would have to be replaced, and that it was no longer their policy to replace pipes inside multiple occupancy buildings. We had no consultation on the possible sitting of such pipes. Internally the supply pipe that ran upwards through the kitchen of each flat was cut off, and the gas meters were relocated near the front wall. We now have vertical and horizontal pipe-work running across the façade. Continued on page 12
11
