Problem with roofing job

Page 2 of 2  


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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wow not too many companys like that anymore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

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

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.)

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mRansley wrote:>The roofer should have noticed and charged extra , but since he didnt

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe a photo would help,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

could be more applicable.
Of course, this is only my opinion, and i'm not a professional.
--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
By the way, does the fascia need painting behind the gutters? Might be a good time to do it.

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

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

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

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

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

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.