Problem with roofing job

Page 1 of 2  
    I recently had my roof replaced. The job consisted of tearing off two previous layers and replacing them with felt and architectural shingles. The roof is good sized but simple, with a low pitch and no valleys. The job was done by a large local company with a good reputation (Abel Roofing in Columbus, Ohio).     The job looked fine from the ground, but when I got up on a ladder to paint I found the last couple of shingles above the gutter curved with sort a ski jump effect with a little valley where water would collect. I called the company and a guy came out while I wasn't home. He managed to get a few nails in the drip edge which improved the situation a little bit but it looks like a problem to me.          The problem is caused by the fascia board riding proud of the sheathing a bit. This was not apparent with the old roof. The roofer wants me to pay him to remove the gutter and move the fascia down flush with the sheathing, I think it should have been done when the shingles were off. It would have been no more than a twenty minute job with a circular saw or reciprocating saw to saw it off then. It didn't have to be pretty as it would be covered by the drip edge and shingles.     I think they were negligent not to fix it while the sheathing was bare. Instead they just covered it up and hoped no one would notice. What do you think?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree with you . Typical "I don't give a sh t" attitude by a contractor.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As a contractor you have to see it from his point of few. It may not have been that noticible with two layers of shingles on your old roof. If it wasn't in the contract he wouldnt do it anyway. Some people get pissed if you do one extra thing that brings cost over the estimate. I agree with you it would have been simple to fix before the new roof was put on but they probalby didnt notice it or thought you didnt have a problem before so you wouldnt now. The guy that should come and fix it is the guy that put the fascia board on to high. I know I know he is long gone. Another typical contractor trick ! LOL! If it is actually puddling water behind the rise I would have it fixed. He should still be able to raise the drip edge high enough and prop it up and trim the excess fascia without having to remove the gutters. It will be a little tricky but with a long blade on his saws all he could do it. Or you could. Good luck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Randd01) wrote:

since there seems to be two sides on this issue, maybe you can cut a deal with the guy, say you pick up half the expense and the contractor picks up the other half. he's not without blame and yet not completely responsible, either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In reading this thread I wonder if the OP is an absentee homeowner or landlord, and/or if the roofer, while competent, may have taken the tack of "oh, well, not in the contract, finish the job; move on".
My roofer talked to me about his work (I had an addition with some question as to construction), gave me an estimate but made clear that he can't see exactly what's going on until everything is off, discussed things as he went along. I knew the price for a straighforward job; I knew that we may have to confer on more work. (It turned out to be a straightforward job.)
Same thing when he does a siding job next year for me. He'll give me the price for a straightforward job. I'll be there when he opens things up in the corner where I've had carpenter ant problems in the past, and we'll confer on what wood should or should not be replaced. That'll of course be extra.
I dunno - I've gotten to the point with this guy that I don't get competitive estimates anymore. I've done that for past jobs; he always came in about middle, and he's meticulous almost to a fault. Did my whole bathroom renovation, only one in the house, taking it down to the rafters to floorboards to studs and back, and left it so that there was only one evening I couldn't use it. I mean, I don't think the guy has it in him to do a bad job. I get his estimate for my financial planning. Everyone should find a contractor like this :-)
But the exterior painter, whom I chose through competitive bid out of four, talked with me about stuff; heck the driveway paver talked with me about stuff, and I've only had these contractors for one job.
Why didn't the OP and roofer talk about the job??
Banty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a mason like that. I just pay him per hour.... no questions asked...... except when there is a problem..... then he asks the questions and provides the options.
Randd01 says...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The roofers should have pointed out the issue at the time the shingles were removed. Also, I would expect a roofing company to include a roof inspection especially if tar paper is removed. It's water under the bridge, but you need to have the situation fixed right. Maybe Abel will give you a break in getting it repaired properly--try being assertive rather than aggressive (or passive) about it. Most companies will do what's reasonably necessary to please a customer. I'm curious how all this turns out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boboed wrote:

I have had a couple of dealings with Able Roofing (I am also central Ohio) and both were positive. However I agree that somewhere along the line, the problem should have been noticed and you should have been notified, at least if it were enough to actually cause a problem.
Now, while you have some complaint with Able, you should have an even bigger complaint with the original contractor or built it that way. Thinking about it, the original contractor is the one that is really at fault.
--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let the roofer fix it at his expense. -B

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B wrote:

So a roofer that came out and did exactly what he was contracted to do should be held accountable for a mistake made by a builder many years in the past? In this instance, the roofer may have not even noticed this problem, or thought that it has been this way since it was built it must be OK. While I would have mentioned it to the homeowner if I had seen it, you cannot expect a roofer to be responsible for not doing something that he was not contracted to do! And you cannot hold them responsible for a condition that they did not create.
Talk to them and see what can be done. It is not that hard to repair even with roof already on.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The roofer should have noticed and charged extra , but since he didnt pay him to fix it. It is not his fault and you need it done right. It was an unfortunate oversight .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So if you hire a mason to brick up a house and he gets there and there is no brickledge and he bricks it up anyway, its an unfortunate oversite? Give me a break.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

Apples and oranges.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I disagree. Puddling is a defect in a roof that will cause leaks and ruin the shingles. And I know of at least 3 brick jobs with nothing under the brick. The held several years... long enuf for the builder and mason to be long gone. Poor workmanship is an epidemic.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Art wrote:

Even though this condition has existed since the house was built at least 2 roofs in the past and no such damage has occurred? Remind me never to work for you,.... I have already spent thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to get paid for work that I did for people like Art. I have won in every case. You see, I know what I am doing. And I do it right. That is just not good enough for some people.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

If the problem had actually been pre-existing and you had done the work, I'm sure that you would addressed the problem with the owner long before your job was complete. So there would have been no reason for either party to require lawyers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Wilkins wrote:

That is correct. That said,... the roofer that did this job SHOULD have discussed it with the owner. He is not required by law to do so. He is not bound by any contract to point out existing conditions to the owner to see if the owner wants them repaired. If he continues to act this way, however,...he may not be in business very long.
The owner should discuss this with the roofer and see if a reasonable solution can be reached. If it were me, and my roofers had missed this, then I would be willing to correct the problem for what I would have charged if I had noticed it during the course of the work. Not because I am required by law to do so, but because it is good business practice.
I hope that you can see the distinction here.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you will find that most judges will likely disagree with your opinion. The roofer is the professional and is supposed to have expertise to know how to do what the homeowner is contracting for, which is a sound new roof. He is the expert up on the roof, not the homeowner. He is expected to do the job correctly, not proceed to do new work over something he uncovers which he should reasonably know needs to be fixed or it will lead to a faulty job. The homeowner contracted and paid for a sound new roof, not to have someone merely go through the excercise of wasting time and materials nailing shingles that will later fail prematurely, because the contractor didn't act professionally.
Suppose upon removing shingles, a roofer finds that two sheets of plywood are rotted. Following your logic, it's ok for him to just proceed to shingle the roof without saying a word, knowing it will fail. Or you take your car in for brake service and tell them you want new front pads. Upon inspection, they find one caliper is seized. Is it OK for them to just force a new set of pads on and send the customer on their way because that's all that was contracted for?
Any decent contractor would note any new defects uncovered and if the homeowner won't agree to a sound solution, then he would get a release to that effect in writing. And I can't believe there are actually people that think this behavior is ok. Does everyone want to be screwed?
The owner should discuss this with the roofer and see if a

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chet Hayes wrote:
<<Snipping for brevity>>

Incorrect analogy. Damaged sheathing is a defect that is readily discernable and did not get built in to the home. The defect in question was how the house was built. It had existed from day one and was not damage caused by water leaking or other acts of god or nature, but the construction of the home. Could the roofer have possibly believed that since the home was built this way that it could possibly have been a design feature?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even so, why wouldn't *that* be a reason to have a discussion with the homeowner who hired him?
Frankly, I think this is excusifying.
Banty
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.