Problem with roofing job

[Boboed]

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?

[Art]

I agree with you . Typical "I don't give a sh t" attitude by a contractor.

[Randd01]

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

[Phisherman]

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.

[Joseph Meehan]

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.

[B]

[Robert Allison]

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.

[m Ransley]

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 .

[Art]

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.

[lou]

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.

[Philip Lewis]

[...]

The question I would ask is: "Is this situation one which the contractor would feel is out of order."

If they removed the tar paper and there was damaged roof decking, and replaced the roof it without fixing it, then i think that would be yes.

I thought the last few rows "ski sloped" up because of being double thick. (Don't they put 1 row at the bottom with tabs up first as standard practice?)

For all the roofer knows, this might have been an aesthetic and intentional choice. Have any other roofers/architects seen or specified this for the swooped edge look?

Do you know that water will collect in the valley? if so, then i believe the roofer should have noticed is as being a problem as i cannot imagine leaving a place for standing water to collect is an acceptable roofing job.

You are attributing malice where indifference or misunderstanding could be more applicable.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and i'm not a professional.

[Art]

By the way, does the fascia need painting behind the gutters? Might be a good time to do it.

[Joseph Meehan]

Apples and oranges.

[Art]

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.

[Josh]

I'm familiar with the condition of the raised fascia board. I'm also from Ohio, and have run into this situation numerous times. I can only guess of the _why_ behind the work and won't go into it.

The roofer should have had in their contract about additional work and fees associated with it. This is to protect all parties involved. To not notify you of a problem is on the roofing company not wanting to get involved in additional work. A typical example just bang the job out.

When this problem was observed (which it was, there is no way it can be overlooked), the most cost effective way to _fix_ the problem is like you suggested. With a sawzall, the leading edge it can be trimmed down without removing the gutter. However, it does take longer than the time you suggest, especially if the work area is a steep pitch. Consider it takes 20 minutes just to set up, then the actual cutting, and of course clean up. A few additional hours on a normal pitch roof should be allotted along with new blades used and tool used. Neither here nor there, you should have been notified with additional costs.

Since they installed drip edge, there is no cost effective means of reducing the _hump_ since you can not use a sawzall at this time. The most cost effective way would be remove gutter, and attempt to remove fascia and reinstall. Chances are they will have to install new fascia since the existing may break, or they will damage the existing removing the fasteners with a claws foot (but would not be visual since the gutter would hide the damage).

This correction costs should be shared by you and the roofing company. Since they passed up the chance of a cost efficient remedy, I feel the majority of the labor burden should fall on them on any amount over a couple hundred dollars (labor).

[Robert Allison]

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.

[Banty]

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

[Joe Wilkins]

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.

[Chet Hayes]

I agree. If this occurred as the OP stated, here is no excuse for this to have happened. This problem was clearly visible and had to have been spotted when they removed the old shingles. Anyone who says that just because it wasn't specified in the contract means that the contractor is not responsible is wrong. The roofer is the expert and it is up to him to do the job right. Things like this are discovered after the job starts all the time. Upon finding this, he should have informed you and negotiated an additional charge. By not doing that, he has made it a lot more expensive to fix now. IMO, a couple hundred is all you should have to pay to get it done, since that was about what it should have cost if you were properly informed.

[Joseph Meehan]