Rising damp and home insurance cover

Type 2 Rising Damp in wall

The issue of “rising damp” and home insurance is something I stumbled upon quite recently and quite honestly hadn’t given it much attention.

I want, very briefly, to share with you my thoughts. Please bear with me; this could save you a lot of money. This post is slightly longer than my usual, at 636 words.

Part 1 identifies the weakness in the usual definition of “rising damp”, while Part 2 exposes the risk of using the term in the context of home insurance.

Part 1 – Defining “rising damp”

“Rising damp” is commonly defined as the capillary migration of moisture from the soil up a porous wall.

However, this is a slightly incomplete definition because crucially, it doesn’t actually define or differentiate the route the moisture takes as it attempts to rise above the level of the damp proof course (DPC) buried within the wall.

The crucial question remains???

Does the moisture pass straight through the DPC, or does it pass around it. This question lies at the heart of my dislike of the term “rising damp”. It’s a “catchy” term for a complex problem.

To help differentiate these two types of “rising damp”, I think it’s helpful to split “rising damp” into two groups. The first, where the water actually penetrates a defective DPC could  be called Type 1 Rising Damp; while the second, where the water by-passes the impermeable DPC could be called Type 2 Rising Damp.

This clarification is important as it helps with the next part of the discussion.

—————-

Part 2 – Rising damp and home insurance

It’s common practice amongst insurance companies not to insure for “rising damp”. This is because the insurance industry considers “rising damp” to be wholly and exclusively associated with the gradual breakdown of a DPC (e.g. Type 1 Rising Damp). This type of “rising damp” should be excluded from home insurance cover.

HOWEVER, what happens if you have Type 2 Rising Damp, it’s still “rising damp” (if you adhere to the strict definition) but not as a result of a defective DPC. Should this type of “rising damp” be covered under home insurance and how do you differentiate it from Type 1 “Rising Damp”?

The insurance industry may therefore consider (and possibly prefer) “rising damp” to cover all types of base of wall dampness (Type 1 and Type 2), since this would greatly reduce claims. However, this approach completely ignores the fact that Type 2 “Rising Damp” has nothing whatsoever to do with a defective damp proof course.

I think the insurance industry needs to re-visit its use of the term “rising damp” in policy documents, because the true definition makes no mention of a defective DPC. This is merely the insurance industry’s narrow interpretation of the term.

It could be that insurance companies are quietly content with the status quo, relying on people’s ignorance to avoid pay-outs for Type 2 “Rising Damp” as well? Surely not!!

However, I note that one large insurance company has even tried “upping” the threat that “rising damp” poses by stating on their website that… “rising damp is the most common form of dampness”.  Despite this being not true, could this be an attempt by the insurance industry to “manage expectations”?

Conclusion

The lesson to this discussion is that just because your wall has “rising damp”, it doesn’t mean you have Type 1 Rising Damp which would be excluded from Home Insurance. It may be Type 2 “Rising Damp” which could be covered.

However, whatever the type of “rsing damp”, if your wall is wet you need to find out why it’s wet? Just being told your wall has “rising damp” is completely meaningless. See Rising Damp is not a source of dampness.

More useful information can be found in BRE 245 (2007 edition):  Rising Damp in Walls – Diagnosis and treatment. (See BRE Books).