Moisture in the kitchen

[lethargic_man]

After five and a half years in my place, there may be a house move on the cards for me in the medium term future—but before that, I have to face up to the task of doing the place up. bluepork says it'll improve the place's market value; my father says it won't add to its value, but will make it easier to sell. (Can anyone comment on that from their own experience?)

The biggest problems with it are a tendency towards mould on the walls in damp weather, and the paint peeling off the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. (I had the place painted when I moved in, and I'm convinced the painter didn't do the job as it should have been done for rooms exposed to moisture.) These problems manifest jointly in the kitchen, and I need to get the underlying problem in this room (moisture) addressed before I do anything else there. I think a large part of the problem is because I haven't been cooking with the fan in the cooker hood (initially through choice, so I could listen to music or the radio, and latterly because it's broken).

However, I'm not convinced using the cooker hood would have solved the problem of moisture, as it's not connected to an air outlet anywhere. I suspect to solve the problem properly, I'm going to have to get someone in to punch a hole in the wall (or possibly the window, though that will cause problems with the secondary glazing I put in) so an air hose can be put through for a fan outlet. Again, does anyone have any experience who can advise me if this will be necessary before I go to the expense?

Comments

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

I know these problems from rented flats. Wasn't it obvious how rubbish the place was when you bought it? You should get expert advice how the place can be improved. Maybe get some handymen around to tell you what can be done who comes with a free quote. So you don't have to pay anything unless you want to hire him.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it obvious how rubbish the place was when you bought it?

Yes, but beggars can't be choosers: at the time, it was the only flat in Golders Green I could afford that didn't require £15,000 worth of repairs. If you recall what happened in the previous few places I lived in—got kicked out when the landlord made aliyah, mass exodus due to unscrupulous letting agent, landlord who wouldn't let me make the place my home, landlord who kicked me and everyone else out because he was getting married and wanted the place back to live in—you can see why I let myself be talked into buying a place and being in charge of it myself.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Ok, I get it. I often did not realize how rubbish the rented flats were. I realized too late that it was cold and moist especially at winter times and sometimes I had leaks. At one place I was almost killed by the ceiling. If I hadn't payed attention all night to the load cracking and rolled out the moment it came down I would have been or ended up in hospital.
In your case you just wanted to be secure and not being kicked out again.

[liv]

I'm not sure you should be complaining to someone living on benefits about how poor you are! You could have afforded something more salubrious if you had been willing to borrow more, and you bought before the lending crisis so with your job you'd have had no problem with that. You chose to minimize your debts, which is a reasonable decision, but you can't then go around complaining that you couldn't afford a decent place to live. (Yes, I know you used to be poor when you were a PhD student, but that hasn't been your situation for a long time.)

Given your experiences with your place, I'm not sure you were right to judge that it didn't require £15,000 worth of repairs. You didn't want to invest in it because you were intending to get married and move out soon. Again, that's a reasonable decision but you have to accept the consequences of your decision: living in a place that has a lot of problems which aren't really fixed by small, inexpensive patches.

It's almost self-evident that if you own your own home you are responsible for repairs and they are sometimes expensive; you can't have your cake by being in charge and eat it by letting someone else take care of the related expenses. The general rule is that if you make a good decision in buying a place in a decent condition, you can expect to spend about 1% of the value of the property per year in repairs, maintenance (and modernization if you live there for more than a couple of years). That's the sort of money that is big enough for you to resent spending it, I know, but it's the premium you pay for avoiding having to deal with landlords.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you should be complaining to someone living on benefits about how poor you are!

I wasn't; I was explaining why I bought the place I did.

You could have afforded something more salubrious if you had been willing to borrow more

No I couldn't have; I think I borrowed four times my salary at the time, which was above the typical available mortgage of three and a half times salary, so that was as good as I was going to get.

You chose to minimize your debts

I've been trying to minimise my debts since, not at the time.

Yes, I know you used to be poor when you were a PhD student, but that hasn't been your situation for a long time.

Yes, and I've grown out of the attitude that I can't afford anything; your knowledge of me is out of date.

I'm not sure you were right to judge that it "didn't require £15,000 worth of repairs".

It didn't at the time (and I don't think it requires that much now), and it certainly didn't require £15,000 worth of repairs simply to be livable in, which was what the flat I was referring to did.

It's almost self-evident that if you own your own home you are responsible for repairs and they are sometimes expensive; you can't have your cake by "being in charge" and eat it by letting someone else take care of the related expenses.

Well, duh.

The general rule is that if you make a good decision in buying a place in a decent condition, you can expect to spend about 1% of the value of the property per year in repairs, maintenance (and modernization if you live there for more than a couple of years).

OTOH, if anyone had quoted that 1% figure at me at the time (this is the first time I heard it), I'd have most likely balked.

[liv]

What I've always been told about making cosmetic improvements to a property is that the improved property sells faster but you rarely recoup your expenditure directly in the selling price. Most people have a set budget and an area they want to live in; they will choose the nicest place that fits their criteria. So if your place is the nicest in the area and price-band it will find a buyer quickly, but people won't spend more money than what they originally budgeted. It's possible that this advice is out of date, and that's why you heard it from your father as I did from my parents.

[bluepork.livejournal.com]

People used to say that you get back £3 for every £2 you spend on your property. However, there are two flaws in applying that to your own situation. First, that wisdom came about during a time of great property price inflation. That period may be coming to an end. Depends a lot on demographics, I think. Whilst property will continue to go up in value, it may not appreciate as quickly as it once did. Or, I could be completely wrong, and in another 20 years, no-one at all will be able to get on the bottom rung of the property ladder.

Reason number two, is that you are talking about spending to maintain your property, not improve it. This also explains the apparent difference between my opinion and that of OUR father!

It's more the case, I think, that the price you will get for your place would be downgraded because of its poor state of repair. Tarting the place up a bit should bring it back to par. So it will improve the value, but only in that it will return it to its proper value. Its obvious that there is a ceiling price for any property, determined by its location, and the other properties in the area.

Returning to your original problem, that of damp, I am more than happy to punch a hole in your window for you. It sounds like fun, provided that you pay for the requisite surgery afterwards.

[miss-whiplash.livejournal.com]

An answer based on physics and biology rather than personal experience.

If the damp is condensation the answer will be to ventilate. Recirculation of moisture within an enclosed space will not remove it. Moisture migrates to the coldest point in the room where it will condense if the air is saturated with it, and on colder days, moisture is less soluble in air than on hot days.

Heating and ventilation combined will allow you to relocate damp outside. Failing that you can condense it out of the air using a purpose built chiller.

If it comes from penetration you will need to get damp-proofing done which can be relatively cheap. Moulds will need chemical treatment.

I think there is a requirement that each ground floor room (where most kitchens are located) has at least one opening window to act as a fire escape. While breaking the window might be fun, replacing it with one that opens and eliminating the breaking stage from the plan might make some sense.