This sounds silly but --- why would my builder / insurer insist on doing this? Are they just being conventional?
A burst pipe a year ago flooded my house. Repairs have barely begun thanks to incompetent RSA and builders. All plaster is off walls.
As part of the repairs the surveyor appointed by our insurer wants to tank the existing concrete floor (built 1908, bone dry) and walls (solid brick with lime mortar, unfortunately covered on the outside with impermeable paint but only tiny damp spots due to gypsum patching and external render, now all gone).
They plan to put black sticky paint stuff on the whole floor and 2 feet up the walls "just in case". I'm more worried about this waterproofing preventing the wall/floor breathing and creating problems. Since there was no problem before, why would we need to do this? I see no issue with omitting it and potential issues with doing it... (I know it is conventional wisdom and usual by building regs but having seen some awful results of inappropriate waterproofing, I'm nervous.)
I suspect there is a dpc below the existing dry floor. There is a slate dpc in the wall about 12 inches from the ground. The room was 98% dry before the flood (one patch of damp about a foot square on the wall, prob due to exterior render I struggled to remove, now gone. House is high compared with surrounding ground.
Any thoughts? should I just let them do it, or could their plan be bad rather than merely pointless?
A burst pipe a year ago flooded my house. Repairs have barely begun thanks to incompetent RSA and builders. All plaster is off walls.
As part of the repairs the surveyor appointed by our insurer wants to tank the existing concrete floor (built 1908, bone dry) and walls (solid brick with lime mortar, unfortunately covered on the outside with impermeable paint but only tiny damp spots due to gypsum patching and external render, now all gone).
They plan to put black sticky paint stuff on the whole floor and 2 feet up the walls "just in case". I'm more worried about this waterproofing preventing the wall/floor breathing and creating problems. Since there was no problem before, why would we need to do this? I see no issue with omitting it and potential issues with doing it... (I know it is conventional wisdom and usual by building regs but having seen some awful results of inappropriate waterproofing, I'm nervous.)
I suspect there is a dpc below the existing dry floor. There is a slate dpc in the wall about 12 inches from the ground. The room was 98% dry before the flood (one patch of damp about a foot square on the wall, prob due to exterior render I struggled to remove, now gone. House is high compared with surrounding ground.
Any thoughts? should I just let them do it, or could their plan be bad rather than merely pointless?
