PM Independent Surveyors

"I hired PM Independent Surveyors for a £450 Damp & Timber Survey. The report was prompt and detailed, diagnosing rising damp at a front bay window due to a bridged DPC and nitrate salts. The surveyor is a nice and personable man. Based on his survey, I paid for builders to carry out repairs and a chemical DPC injection. However, my builders later found a leaking stopcock in a shallow drain covered by loose gravel, 20cm from the bay window. While PM Independent Surveyors argues this diagnosis remains scientifically defensible due to the nitrates, I believe this localised leak was the primary cause of the damp. Had it been identified, the expensive chemical treatment might have been avoided in favour of plumbing repairs and removing the bridging render. Communication regarding this oversight has been difficult, as PM Independent Surveyors maintains that external plumbing is outside his scope. I found the investigation incomplete given the leak's proximity and accessibility. Ultimately, I am left out of pocket."

Trader reply: "We value your comments as customer service is our priority. For context, the property is a circa 1890 mid-terraced converted house with solid brick walls. My inspection identified evidence of rising dampness in certain brick walls characterised by a classic rising moisture profile and the presence of hygroscopic salts, including nitrates. Nitrates are a hallmark indicator of moisture originating from groundwater, as they are typically leached from the soil via capillary action. This was compounded by clear external bridging of the presumed original slate damp-proof course (DPC) due to a rendered plinth and high external ground levels relative to internal floors. While additional moisture from a leak could exacerbate visible dampness, it does not account for the diagnostic presence of nitrate salts. Mains water is essentially clean and low in ground-derived nitrates (typically <50 ppm, per UK water quality standards). For nitrates to be introduced solely via a leak, the water would need to percolate through nitrate-rich soil in sufficient volume and time to dissolve and transport significant quantities upward. Furthermore, there was a significant gap of over two months (approximately 10 weeks) between my inspection on 13 October 2025 and the client's complaint dated 23 December 2025 (with the leak discovered at some point within this period). My report was based on objective evidence at the time of inspection: a rising moisture profile, nitrate salts, and visible/external DPC bridging/high ground levels. These findings justified the recommendations independently of the subsequently discovered leak. The extended timeline further supports that the leak may not have been present or contributory during my visit. I maintain that the diagnosis and advice were correct, proportionate, and in full accordance with professional standards."

• Initial impression Initial impression: 4 out of 5.0
• Punctuality Punctuality: 5 out of 5.0
• Cleanliness Cleanliness: 5 out of 5.0
• Quality Quality: 2 out of 5.0
• Value Value: 2 out of 5.0
• Overall opinion Overall opinion: 2 out of 5.0