21/10/2026
Not every leak investigation should end with a repair.
Sometimes the most useful outcome is a clear account of what was checked, what couldn't be seen, and what should happen next.
That was the case at a multi-storey residential building in Basingstoke.
The property managers had reports of water ingress in one flat. Inside, our moisture readings sat at around 48 to 50. That was enough to confirm moisture was present, but not enough to say where it was coming from.
Water rarely enters a building where the damp appears. It travels.
So the team worked outwards, using the scaffold already on site to inspect the roof, the gutter line and the surrounding rendered wall.
Two things stood out:
➡️ The wall beside the gutter line had only recently been rendered. The original route in may well have been the bare wall, and the new render may already have closed it.
➡️ Secured scaffold boards crossed part of the gutter line. That section couldn't be inspected without moving them, and they weren't ours to move.
Rather than guess, or recommend repairs the evidence couldn't justify, we recorded exactly what had and hadn't been seen.
The recommendation was simple: monitor the flat through the next spell of heavy rain. If it stays dry, the render has likely done its job. If the damp returns, the next step is to inspect beneath those boards.
While on site, the team also extended the leadwork along the side upstands of a second balcony.
Upstands are the raised edges where waterproofing turns up against the wall. It was a separate job, finished without a second visit.
One day on site. Two flats assessed. 33 photographs. And a plan in proportion to the evidence.
Good investigation isn't always about finding something to fix. Sometimes it's about knowing what not to fix yet.
The full case study is in the comments.
