Cracks in plaster or plasterboard? Record the facts before repairs.

Include the room and the full surface in a wide photograph, then show the crack in context and close up. Make a simple room-by-room record rather than sending an unlabelled collection of images. A close-up alone rarely identifies whether the crack follows a board joint, an opening or another construction detail.

• Room, wall or ceiling location, and which side of the surface is affected
• Crack pattern: straight along a joint, at a corner, around an opening or irregular
• Visible staining, bulging, loose plaster or previous patch repairs
• The date first noticed and any changes in appearance since
• Photographs with a reference object, where practical, without altering the defect

Avoid unsafe probing or removing material simply to take photographs. Where a measurement is taken safely, record the method and date; do not describe an approximate crack width as a verified measurement.

“Plastering” may refer to skimming over plasterboard, a backing plaster and skim system, repairs over older finishes or traditional backgrounds. On dry lining, the board type, framing, joint treatment and edge details may be relevant. The investigation should match the construction rather than applying a single tolerance to every surface.

• Scope or quotation for the original plastering or dry lining work
• Approximate installation and decoration dates
• Relevant plaster, plasterboard, jointing and finishing product names
• Drawings or details of movement joints and interfaces, where available
• Site photographs before decoration and previous snagging records
• Correspondence about earlier cracking, water damage or repairs

If you don't know the product or construction build-up, that is useful information in itself. Don't guess. An inspection can explain what remains unknown and whether a targeted check is justified.

Straight-line cracking may prompt questions about a board joint or a junction between materials. Cracks near doors and windows raise different questions about openings, supporting backgrounds and movement. Debonded plaster, surface crazing and recurring damp staining each suggest a different evidence-gathering route. None of these appearances, by itself, proves who caused the problem or that an installation breached a standard.

Manufacturer instructions and applicable project specifications should be considered with their correct editions and scope. A claim about acceptability should be supported by the actual finish, viewing conditions, location and recorded observations—not an invented universal rule.

If a contractor, owner or developer disagrees about finish quality, give each party an accurate description of the same condition. Record original photographs, the date and location, relevant communication and any proposed repairs. Where safe, avoid concealing disputed work before it has been documented, unless urgent protection is required.

• What problem was reported, and when?
• What finish or workmanship standard was actually agreed?
• Which observations can be checked directly?
• Which possible causes require more information or another specialist?
• Would a short inspection summary or detailed written report be appropriate?

An independent technical opinion should distinguish observations, hypotheses and limitations. It cannot guarantee a preferred finding, determine legal liability or substitute for structural investigation.

A remote discussion may be sufficient to identify sensible next steps from photographs and documents. Direct examination of accessible walls and ceilings may be needed to record finish quality, cracking, debonding or other workmanship issues. A full written report is a separately agreed service when a formal evidence record is needed.

Final Measure offers specialist plastering and dry lining reviews nationwide, with site visits by arrangement. Scope and any travel costs are confirmed before booking; an initial enquiry does not instruct work.

You can also see a clearly labelled fictional example of our technical report format. The sample illustrates reporting structure, not an actual finding.