Damp - Treatment Companies
Can my builder do this?
Q I had a company out to give me a quote for treating some woodworm. They confirmed I have a small area (approx 1/2 of kitchen floor) affected. In the process they discovered I also have wet rot in some of my floor joists and they need to be replaced. The cause is leaking pipes under the bathroom & also the fact that some of the joists have been resting on wet masonry. I'm unsure if the masonry is simply wet because of the leak or if there is an additional cause. They have quoted me a substantial sum for replacing the joists with treated ones and replacing the floorboards. They didn't mention anything about needing to improve the subfloor ventilation so I'm not sure if this is an issue. I have another specialist firm coming out to quote but don't imagine they will be much cheaper. As I am about to start building work I ran the problem passed my builder who says he can replace the joists & sections of floor affected at a fraction of the cost (he's carried out this type of work before). I am also having a new bathroom & kitchen installed; the pipe work will be renewed & re-routed so this should solve the problem of the leak. My questions are:
1. Do I have to improve sub floor ventilation? I have a semi bungalow (approx 1930s) that currently has 4 louvre style air bricks measuring 9" x 6", 2 at the front of the property & 2 at the rear. There aren't any on the side. I have a couple of stairs at the front so it's not possible to have 1 under the front door.
2. Will the builder have to use specially treated joists? If so what should they be?
3. Can wet rot develop into dry rot?
4. Once areas affected by woodworm & wet rot have been replaced,
a) Will any type of fungicidal treatment need to be applied?
b) Should entire subfloor level be sprayed with insecticide? (Bore holes only present at sub floor level)
A We answer below your questions in the order raised:
1. You can never have too much sub-floor ventilation. We would expect there to be more than two vents in the front and rear elevations. We would also expect to see three or four in the flank wall if all floors are suspended timber floors. It sounds like, but we cannot be certain without seeing, that the wet rot was caused by timber in direct contact with damp sub floor masonry - not the lack of ventilation.
2. The builder does not have to use specially treated timber but industrially pre treated timber is the best and probably worth the small additional cost (labour will be the same)
3. Wet rot does not change into dry rot. They are totally different fungi with similar but different requirements.
4. a) It is not possible to apply by surface treatment an effective treatment that will prevent future fungal decay. Do not let yourself be talked into this. If you keep the timbers dry and well ventilated no wood rotting fungi can develop.
4. b) A sub floor area is open/interconnected and it is therefore possible that woodworm is present in other areas as well. Is it possible to crawl underneath to check? Only spray all floors if it is justified.
Reluctant to call damp company back
Q We are currently in the process of selling our house and the buyer's valuer has mentioned high damp readings. The mortgage company are happy to lend on our property and have placed no restrictions on the buyer. The buyer now wants us to recall the Damp Proofing Company who did the DPC 12 years ago. Luckily they are still trading. We have had no problems with damp, and in the mean time have borrowed a sonic damp reading meter. This meter either doesn't give a reading near ground level and on the majority of the wall, then at approx 3ft goes mad, it also goes mad in places at 6 feet. We have tried other walls in this room and even the chimney breast, which has an open fire and a concrete liner; it still gives a reading of damp. This room has no wall covering other than painted plaster. We tried the meter in our dining room which is wall paper lined then painted. No damp readings were recorded. We then went back to the supposed damp wall, placed a piece of lining paper on it and hey presto no damp reading. Could the reading be coming from something in the plaster i.e. salts etc. I have also noticed that sometimes this wall gets slight condensation on it, but this has now seemed to be rectified by having an open fire instead of gas. I just think it was the cold of the outside wall meeting the warmth of our heating and not enough ventilation. What do you think? I certainly don't think it needs a new DPC.
A We would suggest that you ask the Damp Company which worked on the property 12 years ago for their opinion. We do not understand the reluctance to do so?
One possible reason for a damp reading three feet above floor level is that the wall plaster was not removed to a sufficient height when the DPC was introduced. Another is that the DPC has not worked and moisture has now crept up and is now above the water proof render. Six feet high for rising damp is not unheard of especially if a wall has a waterproof render on it. Condensation is very unlikely at this time of the year (December).
The bottom line is you have to satisfy your purchasers and if they want the DPC company back, whose guarantee they will inherit with the purchase, then you have no choice. Also a moisture meter in inexperienced hands should be treated with caution. Do not worry - it may not all be bad news.
Damp company wants to use a carbide meter and charge me!
Q I bought a basement flat a year ago and had some damp work done on part of the building by the company that had installed the damp proof course some 16 years ago (it has a 30 year guarantee). At the time another contractor pointed out that a wall seemed to be quite damp, along with the adjacent floorboards. The damp proof specialist was present, looked daggers at the other contractor and made the excuse that damp proof meters are "hyper sensitive" and put it against his hand saying that even that gave a high reading. I thought it was a bit strange at the time - is this contractor trying to bamboozle me and avoid honouring his guarantee? Now the walls are still damp and they are, after much badgering, coming to do a calcium carbide test. I have read on your site that these should not be used as an on site instrument - what rights do I have to insist on this and is there an independent 3rd party that I can use? They are also going to charge me for doing the test - is this fair?
A You do not state if the other contractor who pointed out the wall was damp was a specialist damp contractor or a building contractor - none the less the wall is damp we assume!
Surface moisture meters are sensitive but they are very useful in experienced hands and of course you will get a reading from sweaty hands! You should ask the damp proofing company who did work 16 years ago what is different now when using a surface moisture meter that was not showing itself 16 years ago when they no doubt used the same or similar instrument? Why do they consider a Carbide (Speedy) meter test to be necessary to make their diagnosis now yet they were able to make their diagnosis 16 years ago without such a test?
You will have read our opinion about the use of a Speedy meter on site and outside the scope of the guidance contained in BRE Digest 245. Used on site it is a complete waste of time since it is not able to make any allowance for contaminant salts which are likely to be present in a wall that is known to have been affected by rising damp. To charge you for this privilege is outrageous! The bottom line is you have a damp wall surface on a wall they treated and guaranteed. You now have a problem with that wall so they must either rectify the problem or explain why it is not their responsibility to your satisfaction.
Independent surveyors are available and this will obviously incur a charge. If you let us know which part of the country you are in we may be able to point you in the right direction or even help you ourselves. Good luck and let us know how you get on.
Company wants an extra £1500!
Q I accepted a quote for damp proofing for a 1 bedroom, end of terrace bungalow. The quote stated that the plaster from the internal walls would be removed to a height of 3 feet and to full height on the external walls. The DPC and re-plastering was to cost £3500. I accepted the quote, and now the company is stating it will cost an extra (£1500) to re-plaster the external walls to full height. They have only re-plastered all the walls to a height of 3 feet, and have left the external walls with the bricks exposed above the 3 foot height. The company state that the external walls will need a Carlite plaster above the 3 foot mark. I have gone back to the company to state that I accepted their quote, and no mention was made at the time of any additional re-plastering costs. I have paid all but £800 of the original quote, what do I do now, as my house has been left as building site. This company is not a cowboy outfit; in fact it is a national well established company!
A It is difficult for us to comment without being in possession of all that facts. It will all depend what was stated in writing and therefore what you accepted. If it clearly states plaster is to be removed and replaced to full height on external walls it is difficult to see how they are justified in requesting more money. Read very carefully the content of the report and quote that you accepted. If it is a reputable large national company we would suggest that you telephone the branch manager, not the surveyor, and request a site meeting with him to sort it out. If you get stuck do come back with more information.
Treated wall damp again - What to do?
Q In 2003 I had a Chemical DPC carried out on a 1900's end terraced property that I own. All walls were treated with the exception of the section of wall behind the kitchen units. My property manager has since told me that there is a damp problem again and has had an inspection carried out and got a quote from a sovereign approved contractor to fix the problem. The contractor has said that there are high moisture readings in all the walls that I have previously had treated with the exception of the front wall of the property. I had previously paid for the sovereign 30 year guarantee and I also have the paperwork from the original contractor which indicates the work carried out.
My question is in 2 parts. Firstly - I have been advised by another contractor that the rising damp in the party wall between my property and the terraced house next door (which was previously treated on my side in full) will never be rid of a rising damp problem unless my neighbour has the work done on his side of the wall too. Is this correct? Should I have the work carried out again or will the problem keep returning? If so do you have any other suggestions as to how to solve the problem?
Secondly, if the initial DPC should be effective in all walls (as it appears to be in the front wall of the property) then I assume that the work carried out on the remaining walls is faulty and thus I should be able to go back to the original contractor and have him re-do the work free of charge. However, where do I stand if the original contractor will not return my calls yet I know that he is still trading under the same name as originally carried out the work?
A To answer your questions in the order raised:
1) It is possible to treat a party wall or any wall from one side only. The only part of the treatment process not possible on a party wall is the essential re-plastering on the neighbours side of the party wall. If someone has 'half treated' a party wall or needs access both sides then provided nothing exceptional exists they do not know what they are doing and have nothing to do with them. The Party Wall Act is of course relevant to such work.
2) You should most certainly get the original contractor back if there is a problem. Be careful however of one contractor commenting on another contractor's work. If the original contractor refuses to come back or answer calls write to him giving him fourteen days in which to investigate your problems under the terms of his guarantee. In your letter you should point out that if he fails to attend in this time you will be left with no alternative but to engage the services of another contractor and you will then seek reimbursement of your costs from him through the small claims court. We are not legally qualified and you should take legal advice or consult the citizen's advice bureau that this course of action is correct for your situation. Only write such a letter if you are prepared to go through with it.
Salts Help - Contractor admits he did it wrong
Q We just bought a 100 year old house, and had rising damp throughout the rear and side of the property. After obtaining numerous quotes we employed a company to carry out the remedial works recommended. The walls were treated in November 2007, which included the removal of existing plaster, injection of chemical DPC and re plastering etc. After a couple of weeks there was considerable presence of salts which came back and after a stressful haggle with our contractor, they agreed to replaster the dining room walls once again! The contractor admitted to the fact that they used incorrect materials in the first instance, and we allowed them to come back and rectify the fault. Although we had insisted that salts were apparent in other treated rooms, the contractor put this down to a combination of condensation and salts trapped by decorations (water based emulsion on the replastered walls) and not to the use of incorrect materials in this room! The contractor did not rectify this room on the second visit - just the works to the dining room. These works were carried out only last week!
Some 4 days after this work the salts have appeared again on this replastered wall.What can we do now? We totally feel that this contractor is clearly not very capable of doing the tasks we have already paid him for? We simply cannot have this firm coming back into the house for a 3rd time? What are our rights? What can we do next? And what is going wrong here?! Thank you for your help, because indeed we need it.
A We are curious about what the contractor applied onto the wall originally which he later said was wrong? Do you have any more details? If they did the same throughout and it is admitted that part of it was incorrect then logic dictates that it is all incorrect?
The first coat for the re-plastering following a remedial DPC should be 12 mm thick and comprise of 3 parts sharp washed sand to 1 part cement incorporating a waterproof additive in the gauging water. Second coat is the same but no additive and finally a skim finish. We do not understand how this can go wrong?
The salts that you are seeing are almost certainly sulphates which are present in all building materials, especially the skim coat plaster which is virtually neat calcium sulphate. As water used in the render and plaster evaporates off from the surface it causes the sulphates dissolved by the water to crystallise on the surface forming a white sometimes fluffy deposit that is easily brushed off. Trapped under a paint film they can become slightly hard. The formation of these salts merely indicates that evaporation is
taking place. It is important that you do not confuse the sight of the sulphates with hygroscopic chloride and nitrate salts which are seldom seen as they are usually in a deliquescent (liquid) state The formation of sulphates is very common and virtually unavoidable so do not be alarmed unnecessarily. You state that you have painted the walls already. Any redecoration in the first 12 -18 months following treatment should be
regarded as temporary and should be a trade emulsion i.e. one that does not contain vinyl.
To conclude is sounds like you may be concerned without reason since the formation of sulphates is unavoidable and normal. It can take over a year for a normal wall to dry down but this process will be very slow indeed during the cooler winter months. Basically you need to give it time but do not attempt to force dry the walls under any circumstances.
One company says DPC is OK the other says not?
Q I have had a damp test done by two separate companies on my 120yr old terraced property and the readings came out at an average of 12-14% throughout the ground floor. One company has said that the DPC needs to be redone as the damp is over 10%, the other has said that it would only need doing once it reached 20%. The house has previously had a chemical DPC done; the first company that inspected and advised that a DPC is required are a new contractor. The second that said it was not necessary to re-inject is the company that did the DPC 7 years ago so it is under their warranty. Am I being given correct information or is it a case that one company just wants my business and the other doesn't want to shell out on warranty work? Is there a recommended percentage at which a DPC is redone?
A Both of the contractors who inspected your property have a vested interest in their diagnosis and recommendations so we are not unduly surprised by their differing conclusions. We assume that both companies used surface electric moisture meters when conducting their inspections however when used on a wall it is not possible to quote a % moisture content from such an instrument since they are calibrated for use on wood. Such instruments when evaluating a potential rising damp situation should only be used as an 'aid' in the diagnostic procedure - they are not definitive.
Forgetting technical issues for a moment we understand what the figures represent and we would regard them as low. If the company responsible for the original treatment is satisfied and no visible surface deterioration of decoration is evident then we would not worry. Increased moisture meter readings are caused by a variety of circumstances but the diagnosis or significance of the cause sometimes depends upon how the user of such an instrument earns their living. The circumstances that you describe are a classic reason why we are called for an independent opinion.
Terrible attitude by damp treatment company
Q Hi, I have a 30 year guarantee for treatment of Rising Damp carried out in 1981. It's for a flat that I own and the tenant is living in damp conditions, with mould growing up the walls and a damp carpet in the bedroom. The Company in question has known about it for a week and still hasn't arranged a time to visit the property saying that they are far too busy with other work at the moment. Their attitude to this has been awful telling me that the work was done over 26 years ago and they cannot remember doing it - as if they therefore cannot be responsible for it. I told them this morning that the carpet is now soaking and I was told 'well for goodness sake lift up the carpet, you have to let it breathe!' On a previous conversation they listed all the things that may have been done to alter the property which have probably invalidated the claim! Is there a timeline for the Company to carry out any repair? If the floorboards and joists are damaged due to the delay in them attending the work, are they liable to repair these as well? I am almost certain that when they do visit the property they will take advantage of my lack of knowledge on the subject of Rising Damp and look for any excuse to use as a get out clause. Is there anything I can do to avoid this? I would really appreciate any advice you can give me.
A What you describe sounds very much like a condensation problem and not rising damp. Mould does not grow if ground water (rising damp) is present and rising damp in most circumstances would not affect a carpet. The attitude of the company is disappointing bit if they issued a 30 year guarantee in 1981 then they are still responsible for what ever the guarantee covers provided you are able to comply with any stipulations on that guarantee. They would not be responsible for condensation. Have a look at this web site about condensation which should enlighten you and you may not need to contact the company. Condensation is all about how we live in our properties the worst culprit being drying clothes inside and inadequate heating. Perhaps your current tennant lives differently to previous tennants.
Damp treated in 2003 but its back again?
Q In 2003 I had a Chemical DPC carried out on a 1900's end terraced property that I own. All walls were treated with the exception of the section of wall behind the kitchen units. My property manager has since told me that there is a damp problem again and has had an inspection carried out and got a quote from a Sovereign Approved contractor to fix the problem. The contractor has said that there are high moisture readings in all the walls that I have previously had treated with the exception of the front wall of the property. I had previously paid for the Sovereign 30 year guarantee and I also have the paperwork from the original contractor which indicates the work carried out. My question is in 2 parts. Firstly - I have been advised by another contractor that the rising damp in the party wall between my property and the terraced house next door (which was previously treated on my side in full) will never be rid of a rising damp problem unless my neighbour has the work done on his side of the wall too. Is this correct? Should I have the work carried out again or will the problem keep returning? If so do you have any other suggestions as to how to solve the problem?
Secondly, if the initial DPC should be effective in all walls (as it appears to be in the front wall of the property) then I assume that the work carried out on the remaining walls is faulty and thus I should be able to go back to the original contractor and have him re-do the work free of charge. However, where do I stand if the original contractor will not return my calls yet I know that he is still trading under the same name as he originally carried out the work?
A To answer your questions in the order raised:
1) It is possible to treat a party wall or any wall from one side only. The only part of the treatment process not possible on a party wall is the essential re-plastering on the neighbours side of the party wall. If someone has 'half treated' a party wall or needs access both sides then provided nothing exceptional exists on the other side they do not know what they are doing and have nothing to do with them. The Party Wall Act is of course relevant to such work.
2) You should most certainly get the original contractor back if there is a problem. Be careful however of one contractor commenting on another contractor's work. If the original contractor refuses to come back or answer calls write to him giving him fourteen days in which to investigate your problems under the terms of his guarantee. In your letter you should point out that if he fails to attend in this time you will be left with no alternative but to engage the services of another contractor and you will then seek reimbursement of your costs from him through the small claims court. We are not legally qualified and you should take legal advice or consult the citizens' advice bureau that this course of action is correct for your circumstances. Only write such a letter if you are prepared to go through with it.
New damp course 3 months ago - bay now wet?
Q I have had a damp proof course installed 3 months ago in my 1930 bungalow. The whole place was re-plastered, barring the front bays, which seemed dry and the plaster here was like rock. Alas know it is wet (about 18 inches from the floor which has been asphalted) as the floors were wood block and showed signs of rot, so where removed. Do you think the damp patches are because the DPC has been done in the winter months and not yet dry? Or will I have to re-plaster the bays. Thank you in advance.
A Any chemical damp course system first of all has to 'cure' before it even starts to work and dependent upon the type of material used this can take weeks and some times months to happen. Once the cure has taken place the drying down process is very slow indeed and even the often quoted 'inch per month per thickness of wall' is in our opinion very optimistic. If the damp course was installed only three months ago then it has only just started to work and very little will have changed since prior to the introduction of the new DPC. The walls will take many months, perhaps years to dry down.
It is strange not to have re-plastered the bays just because the existing plaster was hard. If it is salt contaminated then there is no way around it - it will have to come off but the damp proofing company should have known this? If as you say it is a hard dense render on the bays this would be more susceptible to condensation forming - has this possibility been inspected and eliminated?
Price variations and different opinions
Q Having purchased a neglected 1890s 2up and 2 down cottage for renewal we contacted various DPC firms for surveys. The price differences between them were immense. Finally one older contractor pointed out to us that the problem was a bridged damp course caused by the laying of a concrete path between our home and the adjoining cottage, lying 6 to 9 inches above the existing slate damp course. Having cut a French drain and left the afflicted exterior wall open to the air for 3 months, and having hacked off the damp plaster (which was the wrong type of plaster for this situation anyway, further exacerbating the problem) will we continue to see a gradual drying out of the wall?
We have certainly noticed a major improvement over the previous months. We hope that the existing DPC will be able to function correctly again in due time now that we have removed the root course of the problem, and thus avoid a chemical injection. In addition, when we line the bottom on the French drain with as suggested DPC material should we place this in contact with the wall below the existing DPC and along the base of the trench before filling it with pea shingle or similar?
A Sadly we are not unduly surprised by the huge variations in the prices, opinions and diagnosis that you received. It would seem that many contractors do not have a pricing structure and some I know vary their prices subject to how busy they are! This is why I offer an independent survey service. I am very pleased that one contractor pointed out that you had an original physical DPC. You state that you have lowered the ground level to enable the original damp-proof course to function correctly and you have noticed an improvement. It will take a very long time for any "damp" masonry to dry down and hygroscopic salt contamination will cause the appearance of a damp wall on a damp/humid day even though the capillary moisture has completely evaporated. It is very important therefore that when you re-plaster internally you use a specification that will prevent the migration of hygroscopic salts through to the new decorative surface.
With regard to lapping the DPC material up the wall prior to backfilling with pea shingle, logic dictates that by not lapping the material up the wall it would permit the escape of water vapour through the pea shingle. A compromise therefore is perhaps to lap the DPC material up the wall to a height no greater than the top of the land drain at the bottom of the trench.
Does the Schrijver System work?
Q Does the Schrijver System work? I'm buying a house built without a DPC. It has rising damp, humidity and condensation. The walls are solid granite.
A In the UK the Schrijver System does not have third party accreditation from an independent body such as the British Board of Agrement to confirm that it performs as claimed. There is an interesting article on our web site (Informative Article 9) about this system which will help you decide whether such a system is suitable for your situation.
Granite does not readily transmit moisture so we would advise very strongly that a correct diagnosis is made before spending sums of money curing a problem that might not exist. Who has diagnosed all of the problems and what do they mean by 'humidity'? Was it the Schrijver sales person? I would urge you to get an opinion from a CSRT qualified surveyor.
Problems - Damp problems!
Q We bought a house in Jan 07. It had a DPC put in prior to purchase but this failed as it wasn't injected at the correct height. We have since had another contractor come to the house. Is it possible to only damp-proof the internal walls and not the external walls? He also used silver backed plasterboard is this normal? We have a certificate, do we have any comeback, there appears to still be damp areas, we can't seem to contact the contractor. This has been going on for months.
A We conclude from your question that the first DPC was inserted within the last eight months, i.e., just prior to your purchase. The fact that the DPC is not injected at the correct height is not necessarily a reason for it to fail. If it was injected just prior to your purchase then even now residual moisture will still be present and to condemn it as "failed" would be wrong. Was any replastering work undertaken in conjunction with the first DPC prior to purchase?
With regard to the second part of your question, we are not sure if you mean the internal face of an external wall or the internal partition walls. It is possible to introduce a remedial damp course system from one side only and it is also common that exterior walls are treated and none of the internal partition walls are treated.
You state the contractor has used silver backed plasterboard. Obviously we are not fully aware of the circumstances but use of such a material has no place in a remedial damp-proof course system. The walls should be re-plastered in accordance with the specification stipulated by the manufacturer of the product injected. There is no short cut to this, even though some contractors attempt to find a short cut.
DPC installed incorrectly
Q I have just had a remedial DPC carried out using the Dryzone cream. I was told the work is guaranteed and that I will receive a certificate in the post. However, I have since realised that the manufactures specification states that the cream must be injected into the mortar to be effective. The contractor did not inject the cream into the mortar, but injected into the brick. I am worried about the effectiveness of the DPC and wondering where to go with this next. There are parts of the new plastering that are not drying out. Does this suggest the system is ineffective?
A We would be concerned about a contractor who installed Dryzone into the brick as this suggests that he has not read the instructions. The correct and most effective place to install a remedial DPC is into the mortar course and as you say the Dryzone instructions specify this. We do know that the distribution of Dryzone in brick is good as well but we doubt the spread would be sufficient to penetrate the perp mortar between each of the bricks injected. This is a significant weak spot. A wall will take very many months, sometimes over a year to dry down so do not read anything into the speed at which the surface of the plaster dries. We would expect a correctly rendered wall after a DPC installation to be visibly dry within two to three weeks but neither the wall nor the render would actually be 'dry' in such a short time.
Where do you go? Download the Dryzone data sheet from Safeguard Europe's web site, ask the contractor back and show him that he has not carried out the job in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Point out that he has therefore contravened the Agrément Certificate requirements in respect of that product and any product guarantee would also be void since the installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Ask him to do the injection procedure correctly or you want your money back. It is appreciated that this is easier said than done. Keep us posted
Have we come across the Frank Schrijver system?
Q Have you come across the Frank Schrijver system? This has been installed in my 1930s bungalow 4 years ago by the previous owners. There appears to be a lot of wetness in the four corners of the property just above skirting board level it is also mouldy with salt deposits around it. I would like to know if this is just condensation or damp rising due to lack of damp course which apparently the Schrijver system is suppose to eradicate. Can you help and advise. I have rang the company but they require a change of ownership fee as well as re-check fee which is £160 it's a lot money and I would prefer independent advice. The front of the bungalow faces north the back faces south and the problem is all around regardless. Many thanks.
A We are very familiar with the Schrijver system. Please read Informative Article 9 on this site which is all about this type of system.
You state that your property is a 1930s bungalow which would have an original physical damp proof course built in. Such properties are notorious for suffering the effects of condensation during the cooler winter months and from what you describe it sounds very likely that this is your problem. Mould will only grow on walls with a pure water source such as rain water, tap water or condensation. Mould tends not to grow where the moisture source is derived from the ground due to the fact that such water contains salts, minerals etc. which accumulate at the surface and act as a 'mouldicide'. It is possible, but we cannot say with certainty without seeing the situation, that the original problem in the property was condensation, and that it was misdiagnosed resulting in an inappropriate course of remedial action being taken. We are aware that Frank Schrijver has had to refund money due to an inappropriate diagnosis and failing to comply with advertised claims. If the problem disappears during the warmer summer months then it is more than likely condensation.
We note your comments regarding a change of ownership fee and a re-check fee. A company is only entitled to apply such charges if it is clearly stated in its documentation at the time of the original contract. If it is not it this would be regarded as a post contractual condition and would be inadmissible.