mRansley wrote:>The roofer should have noticed and charged extra , but since he didnt
I _ mostly_ agree, ransley. Roofer should have noticed the fascia problem, and 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!
Maybe a photo would help,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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 !
wow not too many companys like that anymore.
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?
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
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 prevail.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.