The story behind the Peter Ward / Heritage House attacks

Peter Ward from Heritage House has been spreading malicious information and lies about us since early 2018. We had no previous interaction with him in any shape or form. As the leading voice behind the "rising damp does not exist" movement, he decided to attack us just because we had a different professional opinion on the existence of rising damp - although we never met or spoke previously.

Anyway, here is the timeline and some facts of the story that Peter prefers to keep hidden as it would reflect on him negatively:

April 2018: out of the blue, he wrote and posted online a negative article about the Aquapol building dehydration system we were distributors of, calling it a damp scam. This article was published based on a quotation I gave to an old building owner (let's call him Mike) who was about to restore a fairly large listed building, who decided to contact Peter Ward for some other advice. He sent to Peter my quotation who based on the quotation wrote his story.

The interesting part is, Peter published this article WITHOUT having any first-hand experience with this system, or ever informing us about his intent, or reaching out to us to at least maintain the appearance of fair-play. 

I tried to contact him by various means but he did not reply. I also sent him a friendly email, trying to get a peaceful resolution to this issue. See that below.

When I called the client (Mike) whom I quoted, he was shocked upon hearing how his quotation has been mis-used by Pete Ward, ensured me he had nothing to do with it, and when I have shown him my reply to Peter Ward, he though my response was very fair. This is what he wrote me back:

Finally, a few days later, after not receiving any response, I visited Peter Ward and we had a good long professional conversation. I must admit, after we "broke the ice", I enjoyed the conversation; we went into a lot of technical details about:

  • Rising damp, its mechanism, whether it exists or not
  • Movement of moisture in old buildings
  • Damp meters, how they work, pros and cons
  • Building diagnosis techniques
  • Some material science
  • Best practices
  • Difficult building cases and ways to handle dampness in them
  • etc. etc.

Anyway, to keep it short, towards the end of our discussion, Peter also mentioned his own cellar, which was damp despite all measures undertaken and despite having a professional bi-directional ventilation system installed. I looked at it and I estimated that an Aquapol system could further improve the cellar. However some additional pointing work would also be needed to stop some of the sideways water penetration which I spotted on certain areas.

Peter was receptive to the idea and a few days later, we have installed an Aquapol system in his cellar, which has been in now for a few months. We initially estimated that it would take 1.5 to 2 years to reach equilibrium levels with a gradual decrease of the moisture content.

Here are some pictures of his cellar, installation and measurements taken:

After the trial in place I asked him politely to remove or at least amend his online article, indicating the fact that we have agreed on a trial project. He did not do that and did not rely to any of my emails.

November 2018: six months later I tried to contact him again for the first set of follow-up measurements, he was very hard to reach. After finally being able to speak to him, he was very unfriendly, hinting he did not want us to go back - though last time when we spoke we were friends, and from time to time I stayed in touch with him with an occasional email. None of my emails got any response nor get acknowledged.

April 2019: further attacks on twitter, calling us scam publicly.

August 2019: further attacks, he has damaged the DPC unit, our property, which was left at him on consignment - writing another article and publishing a YouTube video full of lies to promote his own agenda, calling us again scam and frauds.

The only logical explanation behind that - even if he does not admit it - is that if the damp proofing unit, based on follow-up measurements, would have proven workable, and his professional views could have been discredited on at least 2 points:

  • By (at least) improving his problem of rising damp - which, according to him, does not exist
  • With a technology that he labelled upfront non-workable and as such, a scam.

If he TRULY believed what he wrote, that our DPC technology is non-workable, wouldn't have been easier for him to just let it in place, let us go back for follow-up measurements and based on no-results, let us fail miserably. Then he would have had the perfect opportunity to write a sensational story demasking the latest damp scam. Obviously, he did not do that, he did not want us to go back and chance a positive outcome, as he feared that based on the large number of real case studies and testimonials, the unit might work and his views would be professionally discredited.

Here is our reply to his recent video:


In closing, some information about the work we do: we have been operating in the UK since 2013. We are monitoring long-term about 150 live projects in the UK, many of them listed buildings where invasive damp proofing measures are not an option. During the past few years we have done a lot of hands-on research on damp, collecting live data from a lot of buildings, monitoring the dehydration of various materials according to the highest standards over several years until the air-dry or equilibrium level is reached.

Although there are several building research organizations in the UK, we are not aware of any of them doing the type of work and monitoring we do on such a high number of buildings for such extended periods of time. We specialize in this and the research is ongoing. 

For any more information, please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to help you.