KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Roof inspector liabilty?
A serious question.
In October this last year I purchased my first home. The sellers were selling it "As is" and would not be making any repairs, however of course any deficiencies found would have been grounds for "negotiations" on price.
To cover myself, I paid for basically every type of inspection you can get. Structural, Pest, Roof inspection, etc etc
The problem is, turns out they missed a lot of stuff, some of it minor but some of it quite a bit more serious, especially the basement and the roof. This question is about the roof. The roof is 8 years old, and is single-layer.
The roof leaks very badly in heavy rain, and leaks a little in minor rain. The problem is largely contained to a new addition and patio area. The roof inspector missed this, and the thing is, there is very visible evidence of the problem being pre-existing and the sellers making repairs. IE water stained and rotten wood, and most especially the roof has all these spots where they tried to "fix" the leaks by laying roofing caulk along the tiles, etc etc.
Of course the weather was dry and there wasn't signs of wet wood or moisture at the time, but the first winter weather we had the leaks began immediately. It's not like it was "fine" before and has developed since.
I think I'll try and get some pictures to show you what I mean.
Now to be fair, the obvious wet stains and the mold weren't visible--- but the warping, bulging etc evidence of leaks were--- and I'm not a paid inspector, but even I can see the obvious "band-aid" roof sealing attempts of the owners.
So the question is, does a roof inspector have any liability or fault for missing serious roof issues?
Any advice, speculation, or just plain discussion is welcome.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
whizkid3
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| Do you have a contract or set of standard terms and conditions with the roofing inspection firm?
If so (they will almost all have standard terms), then check them and let us know what it says. It may require arbitration, etc.
Otherwise you will have to sue them on grounds of 'errors and omissions'. Any reputable, licensed firm of this nature will have insurance for this. |
|
robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
| reply to KrK
Discussion -- my sister bought a house in Oklahoma City a couple of years ago and they missed a couple of things I thought were important. Nothing like the leaks you have or the obviously patched roof. As her agent I had the inspector come out and he had a "line" for every issue I had.
The roof is an obvious issue. Was it discussed or disclosed? Do you have any pics of previous problems on the inside? You stated "the first winter weather we had the leaks began immediately". Did you complain immediately in November or December?
"but even I can see the obvious "band-aid" roof sealing attempts of the owners" Did you look at it before your bought?
Talking to the inspector I had come back out it seems liability is rather limited but I don't remember the details. I was rather frustrated and the problems I was trying to get resolved were not as serious as yours.
Was that roof repair visible from the ground? Did you go on the roof and look at it yourself before you bought? |
|
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to KrK
Your last 3 pictures seem to show that a roof tar was used under the shingles? Your 3rd picture shows that the industry standard 'California Valley' was probably not implemented which is most likely the cause of the leak?
It looks as though you have 2 low slope roofs that meet in a valley? This is where a 'California Valley' is most important.
Any roof inspector would see your roof as a red flag and would need to inspect further.
--
Prevent Malware |
|
horsemouth
Please Clarify My CSP
Premium
join:2002-03-13
canada | reply to KrK
It does not look good. Make sure that you use ice and water shield in the valleys when you get it fixed. OR do the research on it. |
|
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
·Comcast
| reply to KrK
Did the inspector make _any_ notes on the roof? He may not have mentioned seeing any evidence of leaking but I'd think he's at least mention the state of the improper repairs/patch work. Personally, I see no reason why he should not have make in-depth notes about the condition of the roof. From your post I get the impression that the water damage was not there when the home was inspected so obviously that is a moot point. But the DIY patching of the shingles should have been noted by the inspector on his report as it would be a clear sign of an existing problem.
Would he have any liability? Perhaps. This would be for either his insurance company and/or a court to determine. What I _can_ say is that most likely he will deny doing anything wrong and you'd probably have to either file a claim against his carrier or file suit in order to get anything done. |
|
dgilbert
Good Bye My Friend
Premium,MVM
join:2002-06-15
none
clubs:
| reply to KrK
t inspection contracts hold the liable for ONLY the amount of the inspection. good luck trying to get anything more out of them.
home inspection quality varies by inspector. you can hire 5 different firms to inspect the same house and probably get 5 very different reports. in many areas inspectors don't even have to be certified, though even certification does not guarantee a quality inspector.
my inspector also noted that we had a good roof with many year of life left in it. what he did not catch was that the attic was under vented and during hot weather the shingles would curl. gonna cost me a good bit of money now, but if we had caught it during inspection the estate of the previous owner would have paid to reroof the house for me like they did with a couple other issues. by the time the shingle problem presented itself to me, it was too late to do anything with teh inspector.
--
Lack of Preparation on YOUR Part does NOT Constitute an Emergency on Mine! |
|
koma3504
Advocate
Premium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to KrK
To me it looks like the valley was not weaved correctley.
I wonder if there is still a warrenty from the roofing company that installed the Roof?? Another long shot maybe talk to your Home owners insurance they may go to bat for you as well. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to dgilbert
said by dgilbert  :t inspection contracts hold the liable for ONLY the amount of the inspection. good luck trying to get anything more out of them. +1 to what David said. Unless your inspection contract says otherwise, I would expect the most that you could recover is the cost of the inspection. |
|
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ | reply to KrK
Next time hire a licensed engineer. Typical home inspection services aren't worth the paper they are printed on except to satisfy bank / loan requirements. |
|
Andrew J
Premium
join:2001-11-09
Lancaster, PA
clubs: | reply to KrK
good luck |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to whizkid3
I'll have to check and see what it says. |
|
builderbob
@cox.net
| reply to KrK
Roof repairs and liability
from your pictures it looks like multiple roof repairs had been done. there are two shades of shingles, probably as a result of the initial repair which included the sheathing (it looks new even though rotted) to be followed by someone caulking the shingle tabs. The caulking was probably done by the homeowner. I would be surprised if any contractor would seal the shingle tabs in that fashion. Repairs look like they were stop-gap in order to sell the house.
you have poor roof pitch coupled with a valley that probably wasn't properly flashed (or flashed at all/homeowner repair).
You might consider having a builder change the roof layout by raising the pitch and repairing the damage followed by new roofing with flashing or you could repair the damage and have a membrane roof installed.
You would be amazed at the homeowner repairs that have been done to get past a presale inspection. I just completed a soffit repair over the front entrance of a 4000 sq ft ranch. There was a significant shingle leak that had rotted out the soffit below. Someone replaced the panel using a 3/8" piece of interior sheetrock.
Your questions about inspector's liability might best be addressed by an attorney who does contract law. Good luck! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to robbin
Re: Roof inspector liabilty?
said by robbin :The roof is an obvious issue. Was it discussed or disclosed? Do you have any pics of previous problems on the inside? You stated "the first winter weather we had the leaks began immediately". Did you complain immediately in November or December? "but even I can see the obvious "band-aid" roof sealing attempts of the owners" Did you look at it before your bought? Ok let me answer these. The first rains and weather we had after I moved in was the bad Ice storm that hit in December. At that time, the roof was leaking--- however, ice was everywhere. As for complaining at that time, I was thinking that ice dams in the guttering and roof edges caused water backup and the leaks.... so I wasn't as concerned just yet figuring this was a freak occurance and that clearing the guttering would take care of it... however that turned out not to be the case. The guttering is well below the edge of the roof, so even if completely blocked with ice the water would still just "overflow" rather then back up on the roof.
Did I look at the roof before I bought it. Not from above. I did look at what I could see from the yard, looked fine. This portion is NOT visible from the ground, only from above. However their was visible evidence of water leaking and some repaired rot. The roof inspector said there was some minor dry-rotting. I didn't ask the inspector or homeowners anything extra pertaining to the roof.
On the disclosure statement there is a line saying "Are you aware of water seepage, leakage or draining problems with the property?" and the sellers circled "Yes" but then X'ed it out and circled "NO" and initialed it.
Something else I just noticed in the Flood/water section...
"Has the property been damaged by flood, storm-run off, sewer backup, drainage, or grading problems?" and again the seller circled "NO" but that's false. There was evidence of water damage in the basement along the bottom edges of wood, etc, and the seller told me that the sewer line used to backup and overflow and that's why the sealed it (he pointed out the old toilet ring--- plugged with cement) and stated that the city had assured him they'd fixed the sewer system since. The basement has other issues too but I'll leave it alone for now, separate issue from the roof, but suffice to say it looks like the sellers were less then complete in their disclosures of known problems.
There's a line that says "Has the roof been repaired or replaced during ownership" and they circled "Yes" but on the next line wrote roof was replaced 8 years ago. No further mention of repairs or attempts at repairs.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to tcope
said by tcope :Did the inspector make _any_ notes on the roof? He may not have mentioned seeing any evidence of leaking but I'd think he's at least mention the state of the improper repairs/patch work. Personally, I see no reason why he should not have make in-depth notes about the condition of the roof. Not really. Minor dry rotting in the eaves. Single layer, etc. Nothing about leaks, patching, DIY repair attempts, etc.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to builderbob
Re: Roof repairs and liability
said by builderbob :
from your pictures it looks like multiple roof repairs had been done. there are two shades of shingles, probably as a result of the initial repair which included the sheathing (it looks new even though rotted) to be followed by someone caulking the shingle tabs. The caulking was probably done by the homeowner. I would be surprised if any contractor would seal the shingle tabs in that fashion. Repairs look like they were stop-gap in order to sell the house. I'd agree with that. It's clear they came back and attempted to just caulk the leaking roof. I suspect they repanelled the section that the water leaks through as well, as well as cleaning the carpet very thoroughly so it wouldn't show water stains.
you have poor roof pitch coupled with a valley that probably wasn't properly flashed (or flashed at all/homeowner repair). Again, I agree. There's no flashing, and it's all cheese. In fact the whole addition was done cheaply. They just kinda "grafted" the roof of the extension onto the existing roof--- if you access the "attic" area above the extension you can see the exterior of the original roof, complete with shingles and all. This combined with the serious flaws in the basement leads me to believe the homeowners didn't seek to repair problems, merely sought to cover them up for the sale, and then failed to disclose the problems. I *might* be able to sue them but I doubt it---- "As is" and some serious ambiquity in the disclosures..... However I was under the impression sellers are very much so required to disclose issues they are aware of--- and band-aiding or covering up an issue is *proof* you knew it existed. /sigh
I wanted to use my basement, but I cannot due to serious water encroachment (and now molding) issues. It's going to take quite a bit of repair to deal with it.
The roof is more pressing issue, and it's money I don't have. Very expensive lesson here. Next time I'll ask pointed questions and make sure if I'm lied to, someone will pay for the fix.
might consider having a builder change the roof layout by raising the pitch and repairing the damage followed by new roofing with flashing or you could repair the damage and have a membrane roof installed. Thanks, I'll look into this.You would be amazed at the homeowner repairs that have been done to get past a presale inspection. I just completed a soffit repair over the front entrance of a 4000 sq ft ranch. There was a significant shingle leak that had rotted out the soffit below. Someone replaced the panel using a 3/8" piece of interior sheetrock. Sad, but seems like that's the case. It's a lot like what I have going on in the basement, too!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to dolphins
Re: Roof inspector liabilty?
said by dolphins :Your last 3 pictures seem to show that a roof tar was used under the shingles? Actually I think they just caulked along the edges of tiles trying to band-aid the leaks.... Your 3rd picture shows that the industry standard 'California Valley' was probably not implemented which is most likely the cause of the leak? Yep, no flashing. I think it's the leak alright.Any roof inspector would see your roof as a red flag and would need to inspect further. You'd think... guess not. 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
2 edits | reply to KrK
House inspectors are scum. Unless you hire a licensed engineering firm, you are wasting every nickel you spend on a home inspector. Even then, read the agreement with particular regard to general liability, errors and omissions to make sure you have recourse.
Home inspectors are generally worthless know-nothing contractor wannabes, or failed contractors no longer in business due to malfeasance. IF...IF...IF you get a knowledgeable home inspector who is competent, thorough and responsible (fat chance), you will be accepting his highly circumspect, specifically non-warranted, non-guaranteed opinion with no recourse if he is right or wrong about what he finds or misses in his inspection. Standard contract terms specifically state the inspector/inspection service/company are NOT responsible for any consequences suffered in relying on anything stated in, or omitted from, their report(s). Standard contract terms come as close as possible to stating that the inspection firm/inspector are legally non-competent idiots not liable for their actions and/or opinions in any legally compensible way, shape or form.
You will never get what you pay for in hiring a home inspector, period. Who do you think refers these people? Real estate agents! What inspector is going to jeopardize his income stream by finding major fault with a structure for sale when his income is dependent on referrals from real estate agents/agencies that earn their income from making sales? Home inspectors are a marketing tool to promote acceptance of improved but possibly defective properties that are being sold "as-is". Now there is a term to consider. However, do not despair, "as-is" is dependent on an honest representation of the facts by the seller and their agents. If their representations are false, you have recourse. Though, it may be expensive to obtain satisfaction.
The people to look to in your case are the following, in order:
1) Municipal building permit and/or planning commission having jurisdiction, to check for permits as well as city and/or county inspections/sign-offs during the building processes for the addition to the home. If the addition was added without a permit, the previous owner is liable for the costs of obtaining a building permit, obtaining city/county approvals of the construction, and resolving any deficiencies in construction by paying to bring it up to code, or for removing the illegal or non-compliant addition entirely, if necessary, with compensation to the purchaser for the decrease in value. In any such removal, the owner is responsible. The real estate agent/agency, if knowledgeable re the permit status or the leaking roof condition, may also be liable. Though pinning the real estate agent will be like trying to catch a heavily greased pig.
2) The contractor, if any, who constructed the addition, and his subcontractors, is responsible for his work and the work of his hirees, and most states required them to provide a warranty period of at least one year from the date of occupancy, or completion of construction and acceptance by the owner. Some states, like California, require more extensive warranty and guarantees lasting for up to ten years in some instances. If the homeowner did the construction himself, he is liable (see #1). Also, there is a much longer warranty for latent defects; i.e., hidden and/or not readily observable.
3) Any contractor hired directly by the homeowner is liable to the homeowner, who is liable to you.
4) Contact the state consumer agency responsible for contractor licensing and oversight, to find out if you have recourse through their office against the contractor(s), if any, involved.
5) Although the section you cited of real estate contract disclosure statement re known deficiencies reads like it refers to property drainage rather than roof leaks, there must be a section that covers the roof/structure. If the homeowner constructed the addition themselves, or effected repairs to the addition themselves after the leaks became known, they should have disclosed the leak condition, and the mold/dry/wet rot repairs they made over time, and the current status of the roof. If the repair work on the addition was done within the year prior the sale, the owner should have disclosed that circumstance and effectiveness of the repairs made during the previous winter/spring. Failure to make disclosure can void a sale, or make the misrepresenting party liable for damages above and beyond the cost of repairs. If the agent was involved in such a misrepresentation, they could forfeit their license.
----------
P.S.- I forgot to ask if there was an access door to the attic space above the addition, either from the main dwelling attic, or through the ceiling in the addition? It would be illegal for it not to have one or the other. Also, what ventilation was provided for the attic space above the addition? |
|
builderbob
@cox.net
| reply to KrK
Building permit?
Ross makes some good points, especially #1. I hadn't thought about recourse via building permits/licensed contractor warranties. If this construction is living area (heated), the construction required a building permit. Again, looking at your pictures I'm guessing that the homeowner might have been the contractor? It might be worth your time to chat up your neighbors and find out who, what, when. A personal visit to your local building inspector with some pictures to determine if a permit was obtained. If there was no permit, contact your real estate agent to contact the seller's agent re nonpermitted construction. The inspection official should be able to give you information regarding penalties for nonpermitted alterations. |
|
Hellrazor
join:2002-02-02
Abyss
| reply to ross
Re: Roof inspector liabilty?
said by ross :House inspectors are scum. Unless you hire a licensed engineering firm, you are wasting every nickel you spend on a home inspector. So I guess I am washed up scum since I work as a supervisor in a maintenance department for a commercial entity and do inspections for friends of mine when they are looking at houses? So far I haven't found a realtor or seller who was happy about my presence or my recommendations...
Engineering firms are the exact opposite kind of "scum". Every extra detail they can throw in = $$$. BTW you do smell like an engineer trying to flash his golden coat tails....
I think engineers should have to work in the field for 4-5 years like an apprentice does. That way natural selection would weed out the idiots and we might actually find one worth keeping. 
BTW: For the OP- That roof is crap just looking at the last 3 pictures. That would have been an instant writeoff against the sale or a red flag to run. No roof worth a crap looks like that. |
|
