Yes, the roofer could have believed that, but only if he's
incompetent. The situation the OP described leaves part of the last
row of shingles unsupported, with an air gap below. Just having
someone step on them while scaling the roof can lead to failure. This
guy is being paid to know how a roof is supposed to be shingled and he
doesn't know this is incorrect?
Maybe this is a better analogy. Suppose he found the flashing was
incorrectly installed originally. Should he then just leave that the
wrong way too and let it leak because he thinks someone else
originally must have done it for some unknown reason?
If this winds up in small claims court, I would get a competent home
inspector to give a written opinion and I think he will quickly point
it out as incorrect. And I doubt the design feature defense will
Recently my neighbor across the street had new premium shingles
installed and old material removed ($5200). The roofers found a spot
where the roof had rotted and brought this to the attention of the
owner. Of course the owner approved the additional work be done.
The roofing company did not charge extra for this work. I think I
know who I will consider for my new roof !
The first roof was probably replaced prematurely because of the defect. The
second did not exhibit leaks from the defect because there was a first roof
under it acting as a bridge from the fascia. Any quality roofer should have
noticed the problem after the 2 roofs were removed.
Perhaps the first roof was replaced due to damage from an alien
landing craft. (See, I can make up factually baseless conclusions
about the job too.) The second roof was installed and mitigated the
condition. The third roofer may not have been a good roofer. He
was obviously not a good businessman. That still does not mean that
he is required by law to correct preexisting conditions or to inform
the owner of the existence of such conditions. Good business sense
would require him to do so, but not law.
Since he is not legally liable for any of the conditions, he cannot
be required by law to correct them at his own expense, after the
fact. If he wants to have a good reputation and continue working in
the field of roofing, then it would be in his best interests to
reach an amiable agreement with the owner to correct the condition
at the cost of correcting it had it been discovered during the
tearoff. Many people cannot see this distinction. I think that you
are one of them. (Another factually baseless conclusion.)
mRansley wrote:>The roofer should have noticed and charged extra , but since
at least used some scrap shingles to shim out the skijump effect. The dripedge
was probably put on too tightly, also. It's an art that directly reflects the
roofer's abilities and ethics. Tom
Work at your leisure!
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
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
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.
could be more applicable.
Of course, this is only my opinion, and i'm not a professional.
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
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
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).
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.
The first roof may have been replaced prematurely because of the defect.
The second did not exhibit the problem because the first acted as a bridge
to the too high fascia. At least that would explain how the defect remained
so many years. After the roofs were removed it should have been spotted and
repaired at extra cost.
Exactly my point. This condition can exist in degrees. More
pronounced on low slope roofs, enhanced in spots by sagging roof
decking, etc. I really doubt that the OPs roof actually would hold
water. His conclusions may not, either.
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.