Repairs monitored and Peace of Mind found

Barry Gray came to Moisture Detection after first using other methods of house inspection. Using Mdu Probes he was able to accurately track the progress and ascertain the success of repairs he has made on the back of a WHRS report.

Dear MDC, Please find attached the latest moisture readings for our house. The probes marked with * are in areas where I have carried out further repairs, i.e. cutting away the plaster below where the Hardibacker finishes. You will notice that there has been an average 34\% reduction in the moisture readings for the repaired areas versus 5\% for areas that had been repaired prior to the insertion of the probes or areas yet to be repaired. Also, I was a bit disappointed with Anne Gibson’s article of the 18/1/05. I felt it lacked any input from the people that have installed the MDU probes and the reasons why they chose to do so. This may have been because nobody wanted to talk to her or they all wanted to remain anonymous. She certainly didn’t approach me for comment. Anyway, I have e-mailed the above figures to her along with my opinions on her article. In summary, I outlined my disappointment with the WHRS and the industry that has been created around the pursuit and defense of claims that in many instances have no chance of success. I disputed the comments of ……………. who I consider a hired gun, who changes his opinion depending on whether he is being paid by a homeowner pursuing a claim or a builder defending one. I also took issue with ……………’s comment that the probes were not calibrated. In our case the readings obtained from the probes are consistent with my own readings and those of WHRS. I explained that I considered that the MDU probes were cost effective and as far as I was concerned, offered the most constructive method of determining if my repairs were effective or not. Regards Barry Gray

#336