Review repair points
New tiles, vents and scaffold locations enter the route assessment.

STREATHAM · LOFT MOVEMENT INVESTIGATION
Heavy morning noise may suggest a squirrel, yet birds, mice and loose building materials can sound similar through a converted ceiling. We inspect safe remaining roof spaces, look for gnawing and nesting evidence, and compare the timing with recent roofing work. Removal and proofing are sequenced only after the active animal and exit route are understood.
LOCAL CONTEXT
Streatham includes terraces, flats and high-street premises. In this house, the conversion layout determines which eaves can be inspected and which need plans or specialist access. Noise alone does not justify opening finished ceilings. The occupant marks the room and time pattern, while safe loft areas are checked for droppings, nesting, gnawing and displaced insulation. Building plans can show voids, but they do not identify the animal. Cameras or monitors may test an inaccessible pocket before a builder creates access. Bird nesting status and active occupancy affect when proofing can occur. Roof tiles, wiring and structural openings remain specialist work. Follow-up compares recurring sound and fresh physical change at the mapped roof zone before any confirmed entry is permanently closed.
The technician compares resident reports with hatch views, exterior junctions and accessible eaves. Finished voids are recorded as limitations.
Record direction and time without banging the ceiling. Clear the loft hatch landing, identify boarded areas and share recent roofing invoices or photographs. Do not block an exterior opening or send residents onto the roof.
Destructive access is not routine and requires owner approval plus a suitable building contractor.
Keep people away from damaged electrics and contact the appropriate trade. If an animal falls into an occupied room, close internal doors and do not attempt capture.

New tiles, vents and scaffold locations enter the route assessment.
Sound weight is tested against physical evidence rather than intuition.
Confirmed daytime loft use requires controlled removal before robust roof closure.
Small droppings around cables may represent a separate service route within the conversion.
Roof rats are not presumed; heavier evidence must be traced through the building.
Old nests do not prove current activity, while a live eaves flight line needs separate treatment.
Reports are aligned with the conversion plan.
Accessible eaves are checked under suitable lighting.
Visible repair junctions are observed from approved positions.
Evidence determines the lawful removal method.
Fresh disturbance is assessed after control.
Confirmed entries are marked for proper exclusion.
Residents hear movement but finished ceilings conceal most of the void and recent repairs confuse the route.
Available eaves are inspected, species evidence documented and control directed at the supported access pattern.
Noise logs are compared with fresh gnawing, droppings or displaced insulation at named points. Quietness without physical review remains encouraging but inconclusive; proofing proceeds on evidence, not a promise.
It increases suspicion but must be supported by characteristic physical signs.
Pest evidence should define the active route before permanent closure is attempted.
Cost reflects safe loft access, number of control visits and whether roofing exclusion needs a separate specialist.
| Service | Starting price | Scope factors |
|---|---|---|
| Pest inspection | From £62 | Property, access and areas inspected |
| Wasp treatment | From £89 | Nest position, height and safe access |
| Rodent control | From £184 | Activity, monitoring and visits |
| Bed bug control | From £204 | Rooms, preparation and method |
| Squirrel control | From £273 | Loft access, visits and proofing |
Final scope can change with access, activity, property size, treatment method, specialist equipment and the number of visits. Confirm the current price and inclusions before booking.
Activity varies, so logs and physical checks should cover an appropriate period.
They help identify past species but do not establish current occupancy.
They are not a substitute for evidence-led removal and structural exclusion.
Plans, adjacent access and exterior observations define whether another survey method is justified.
Yes, and suspected electrical harm requires qualified inspection beyond pest work.
Only after the control sequence indicates that an animal will not be trapped.
Both help distinguish an active animal from a building change.
Book a loft investigation