I hired a roofer to tear off my roof and I assumed he was going to
replace the paper. I told him I wanted it stripped so that the decking
could be inspected.
When I stopped by to see how the decking looked I noticed he had
reused the old paper, he said he only replaces it if it is bad, and
none was bad,it crumbles into small pieces if you crush it
The roof was 2 thirds done by the time I noticed,
Anyway any opinions?
This is very bad news.
Moral of Story: (1) never be anywhere but *on* the roof when roofers are
working. I've never seen a trade so rife with slipshod practices. I know
this advice is too late for this job, but you can apply it in the future.
(2) Never assume anything, especially verbal "indications" of intent to do
things. (3) Get written contracts, so you have recourse if you find faults.
It may not specifically say new felt, but it may promise some standard of
workmanship that you could argue has been violated -- but that's the
problem, you *might* prevail if you spend the time and money to argue a
case. Having the specifications spelled out clearly in advance takes a
little more time and expertise up front, but saves far more in the end.
email@example.com is Joshua Putnam
Shouldn't need to be specified to win this one. New felt on a re-roof
is expected workmanship. I don't understand any contractor not useing
it as it is a very minor cost for the job. I wonder what other things
he cut corners on? 20 yr vs 30 or 40 as requested??
Not necessarily. There is a continuing discussion over whether felt
is necessary or not. I think it is, but there are many who specify
no felt under shingles. It is not a standard industry practice.
Are you saying that there is no discussion of whether or not felt is
needed? I know what the codes and manufacturers requirements are.
I am just saying that there is a discussion about the necessity of
underlayment. You can't just say that felt is an industry standard
if there are opposing views in the industry.
I personally think that it is necessary, but right now there is not
a complete consensus. It could be argued in a court of law which is
where many of you are directing the OP.
Do you want all the info, or do you just want to be right?
You haven't paid him yet, I hope. Fire him. Let him eat the cost of
the dumpster, shingles, etc. that he's already paid for.
Even if you do this, you'll end up in court eventually, because he will
try to put a mechanic's lein against your house.
On 9 Nov 2004 06:21:04 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (don) wrote:
There is little chance you can win this one. A roofer that doesn't
put new felt down is not likely to have assets that you could attach
to get your judgment paid so you will never get a penny if you win a
lawsuit and there is some chance that he will get a lien on your house
if you do not pay him - at least for most of the amount of the
improvement value. You can probably attribute your problem to your
own lack of good judgment in using the "low bidder" process.
You are between a rock and a hard place. I'd work it out if at all
Did his proposal say tear off and replace old shingles or old roof.
Shingles would mean you are screwed but arguably if it says roof that would
include shingles, flashing and felt. You could go to HD and look thru their
do it yourself books there and find some that define roofing job as
including shingles, flashing and felt. Then when he sues you for payment
you have his unsigned proposal as evidence of what was discussed plus the
books you bought which describe the common terms.
Maybe it is time to consult a lawyer? Followed by a consult to a
licensed, bonded, insured roofer?
IANAL but here goes, offer something for the tear off that was
completed, and let him eat the shingles for a job effed up. Putting this
into nice words, is what the lawyer is for.
Your gonna have to pay to have it re-roofed right.
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.