Roof inspector liabilty? in Home Repair & Improvement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20659682 en Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:04:50 EDT Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:04:50 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20674777 ross :
said by PeeWee See Profile :

Rather than have an inspection the prospective homeowner should have a roofing contractor certify the roof.
Bingo! We have a winner.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20674777 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:59:10 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20672181 LeeWL :
said by KrK See Profile :

Yeah, I'm going to research the permits issues and check over the details of the inspections and disclosures. However I'm not really leaning towards towards trying to sue anyone or anything like that.... but should the addition require major modifications to be legal that may change.

Just be careful as the person you sell the house eventually to might have an inspector that is a little more thorough. It would sure suck for you to have to fix they stuff the prior homeowner left you to sell the house or have to take a big deduct for that area.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20672181 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:04:27 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671929 PeeWee : Rather than have an inspection the prospective homeowner should have a roofing contractor certify the roof.
--
My grandkids ARE cuter than yours! ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671929 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:15:55 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671385 ross :
said by Hellrazor See Profile :

said by ross See Profile :

in reply to HellRazor:

What makes you think you're qualified to have a professional opinion?
Oh I don't know. Maybe the 18 years I've worked dealing with every aspect of building maintenance at work. From a 2cent washer to a $30million new building. Needing to deal with every roof type under the sun. From shingles to steel to EPDM to TPO. Working on 3 phase up to 440/480. Troubleshooting HVAC system. Dealing with specs and bids. DDC controls and energy management systems.

I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I said I knew anything. It's not like I have a job doing that kind of work or anything :uhh:

BTW: If you bothered to read what I said. I only go check on houses for close friends. I don't charge a cent, just doing it as a favor. I've looked into becoming certified for inspections, but I don't know if I want to go that route.
I read what you wrote; you are not credentialed or licensed in any legally meaningful way, have no business or professional liability insurance, including professional errors and omissions coverage, and only work for friends at no charge. You are a maintenance supervisor, and while you seem to have a great deal of experience, most of it is not applicable to single family dwellings, and you do not do that kind of work. Thus, you are not a licensed home inspector, and your opinion is not one of a licensed home inspector; it is not paid for, and it is not backed by anything but good will. In other words, about as irrelevant to the discussion as a license is for home inspectors. Home inspectors are a waste of space, by and large. Their opinions are worth about as much as yours is in terms of protecting the prospective buyer from the consequences of relying on their opinions.

Though I sympathize with your intent to do good, home inspectors are generally worthless, as their livelihood derives from a parasitic relationship with the real estate agent/agencies, which no home inspector is going to consciously disrupt, and their opinions are usually deficient in scope and detail, totally unenforcible, without liability, legal recourse or responsibility.

Your last sentence is telling, as it indicates your misgivings about ethical standards versus need to be employed; desire to make money versus the consequences to your integrity in becoming a professional weasel.

Best to do it for nothing, for friends, without consequence to your friends or yourself, and no recrimination.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671385 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:39:36 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671149 mityfowl : Listen. I think a decent roofer will have this fixed in your area with a warranty for $450-600.

The valley isn't flashed correctley (or at all). OSB is just fine, it's the norm.

That's not worth screwing around for a law suite.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20671149 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:08:17 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670812 KrK : Yeah, I'm going to research the permits issues and check over the details of the inspections and disclosures. However I'm not really leaning towards towards trying to sue anyone or anything like that.... but should the addition require major modifications to be legal that may change.

--
"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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670812 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:04:57 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670650 whizkid3 : So, are you going to do anything?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670650 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:07:59 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670143 KrK : I appreciate everyone's advice, thoughts, opinions and experiences. It's all useful, and educational.

Even if there are disagreements, I still find the discussion itself to be very useful.

Thanks everyone!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20670143 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:05:58 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20669975 Hellrazor :
said by ross See Profile :

in reply to HellRazor:

What makes you think you're qualified to have a professional opinion?
Oh I don't know. Maybe the 18 years I've worked dealing with every aspect of building maintenance at work. From a 2cent washer to a $30million new building. Needing to deal with every roof type under the sun. From shingles to steel to EPDM to TPO. Working on 3 phase up to 440/480. Troubleshooting HVAC system. Dealing with specs and bids. DDC controls and energy management systems.

I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I said I knew anything. It's not like I have a job doing that kind of work or anything :uhh:

BTW: If you bothered to read what I said. I only go check on houses for close friends. I don't charge a cent, just doing it as a favor. I've looked into becoming certified for inspections, but I don't know if I want to go that route.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20669975 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:22 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20669103 KrK : Yes, lesson learned. First time home buy. In the future, I think I'll be a little more demanding and ask a lot more questions.... and also ask for some evidence, not just take people at their word.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20669103 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:51:41 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20668213 robbin : I don't understand where the permit issue is going. It is quite obvious from the pics that it was not done under permit. Saying that the seller is responsible is easy, proving it more difficult and getting money could be very hard and costly. Even if the buyer sued and won doesn't guarantee payment, only a judgement in favor. This looks to me rather minor and trying to enforce the contract could be both lengthy and costly. I don't believe it's worth either the time or energy needed in this negative direction. Just fix the roof and it's over in a few days. Lesson learned -- no mater how many inspectors you hire and how much you pay them -- do your own inspection. If the buyer would have climbed on the roof themselves, the damage would have been obvious.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20668213 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:52:36 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20666636 LeeWL : You might also be able to look up any permits on your jurisdictions tax site. In our area the county keeps those records and I beleiove most places that is the case as well. »services.wakegov.com/realestate/ You can check via the address and see the records for that property. THey do keep track of permits, since additions and work can affect the valuation of the property and you know the tax man wants his money.

Now, just because it is not listed there does not mean they did take a permit out, but it is a totally anonymous place to start.

I will have to say that from the pictures and everythign you are saying, I would be quite surprised if they took a permit out on the renovation.

Your inspector also screwed you over as that roof "work" should have set off alarm bells in his mind. Also, you definitely have a case against the homeowner as they clearly did some of that caulking recently and changed their answer on teh disclosure. About that, a word of advice (and I am sure you would do it differntly next time) the next time you see a disclosure form with something so important crossed out and changed, you should not buy that house without some explanation of why.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20666636 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:20:24 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20666128 whizkid3 : Simply ask for a copy of the permit and other history on the house. I have worked with the Tulsa 'building department' on a large scale commercial project, and they are really easy going folks. Unlike many other cities, they don't provide permits or inspections for many classes of work. If they ask why, simply tell them you are a new homeowner, and want to find out everything you can regarding its history. You can also explain you are considering putting an extension on the house, and want to know the process. You may also be able to perform a permit lookup using your address here:

»www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Busi···censing/

(Click on 'PermitWeb' on the right side.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20666128 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:10:01 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665720 Splitpair :
said by robbin See Profile :

Personally I think you would be opening a can of worms that you probably don't want opened.
Very excellent advise as once the authorities have wind of a problem a machine starts and a timer begins ticking and that machine gives not a hoot who caused the problem all it wants is a resolution to the problem before the bell rings.

IMHO unless the problem is a life safety or health issue the better course would be to mediate or litigate vs. getting the AHJ involved.

Wayne
--
If you cannot fix it with a buttset and some beanies you ain't a technician.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665720 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:21:18 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665488 robbin : Quite easy for an anonymous poster to tell you you have nothing to be worried about if you contact the building inspector. Personally I think you would be opening a can of worms that you probably don't want opened. From the looks of it a few hundred in materials, a little of your time and you can repair that section of roof yourself. It's not that big of deal now but if you make a big deal out of this little problem you may find you have big problems on your hands. You bought a house "as is" knowing it needed some work. This just adds a little more.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665488 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:43:52 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665359 whizkid3 : »www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Busi···censing/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665359 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:36 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665326 anon : telephone the inspection office and ask if there are any record of permit applications/inspections for your address. you shouldn't have to give them any other information other than your a new owner. if there was a permit, they will provide the date and name of the general contractor.

from your pictures it appears that someone added a roof based on the intersecting valleys. that type of alteration would typically require a permit with the applicant having to file a drawing stamped by a professional engineer or architect.

if you ask your neighbors- one of them will probably give you details.

you shouldn't be concerned about what the inspection official might do as the seller and/or his contractor have liability for any violation. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665326 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:52:12 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665312 UDubergamer : Roofs are generally rated for 10 years but some are less. So you are about due for a roof anyway.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665312 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:47:28 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665095 Kringle : I may be wrong and there's a specific OSB for roofing but:
said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriented_strand_board :
While OSB does not have a continuous grain like a natural wood, it does have a specific axis of strength. This can be seen by observing the alignment of the surface wood chips. The most accurate method for determining the axis of strength is to examine the ink stamps placed on the wood by the manufacturer.
The guy who built the garden shed on my property before I bought it used OSB (we really do just call it chip board) and, strength-wise, it really does suck compared to plywood.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20665095 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:00:30 EDT Re: Building permit? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664904 KrK :
said by builderbob :

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?
Ok, since I'm a nooby on this, is there any general way to lookup permits filed on a piece of property? I see you're talking about contacting the building inspector, but frankly the last thing I'd want to do *at the moment* would be the city ordering me to tear it down or something. Also, as for heated area.... There's a rub! This "addition" is called a "Sunroom" and my understanding is that it involved "enclosing" an existing porch. It's not a heated area at all--- but--- the homeowner did something--- he added a vent with a fan, and a piece of ducting that goes through the original roof (hole) and connects to the living room. You hit a switch and the fan pulls air from the house thru this one duct and out into the sunroom. It's by no way what I would call an adequate heating or cooling system. It's also only one way (ie no air return.)

I'll check into your recommendations.
--
"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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664904 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:27:48 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664815 KrK :
said by ross See Profile :
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?
It's in the addition itself. It's an access panel in the roof.

About the permits, etc... Wow. Ok that's a lot of info to digest. Thank you.

I guess I need to do more research!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664815 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:14:01 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664764 robbin : I don't think that's correct. The fibers in OSB are not aligned but go in random directions. I would consider it equally strong in any direction in the two dimensional plane parallel to it's surface.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664764 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:04:03 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664594 Kringle : Thanks. Must say I'm a little surprised about OSB, though, since it only has 1 axis of strength and plywood has 2. Can't argue with the code.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664594 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:36:51 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664145 dolphins : A little more info that might help you.

Here in NJ the use of and ice & water shield under tabbed shingles for any roof under a 4/12 pitch is required by code.

Unfortunately any roof repair under 25% of the total roof does not require any permits in NJ.

Kringle See ProfileWhat's with the chip board for the roof anyway? Is that even allowed by code? Ours (up here) is always 5/8 ply, often tongue and groove.
It's OSB and is allowed by code.
--
Prevent Malware]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20664145 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:08:32 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663988 ross : in reply to HellRazor:

Nope, NOT an engineer.

I assume you charge for your services. Post a copy of your complete standard contract, and let's see what responsibility you take for your "expert" opinions. What makes you think you're qualified to have a professional opinion? Are you credentialed or licensed in any profession? Do you have liability insurance, including professional errors and omission coverage? Do you indemnify your customers who rely on your judgments?

I agree engineering firms charge for their expertise, but they are also liable for their opinions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663988 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:35:02 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663668 Kringle : What's with the chip board for the roof anyway? Is that even allowed by code? Ours (up here) is always 5/8 ply, often tongue and groove.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663668 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:20 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663574 pete424 : I am a Realtor in the state of Kansas and the laws regarding home inspectors are different state by state. To begin, home inspectors are not scum and if they have ASHI certification you can be pretty sure they know what they are doing. Many states do not have license requirements for inspectors and in fact most are only liable for the amount of the inspection. Here in Kansas we just got a bill passed by the state legislature that now requires inspectors to be licensed and they now have a $10,000 liability for this kind of issue. By the way Ross, the home inspector is hired by the buyers, not the sellers. If I am the Buyer's agent and our inspector does not do a good job, I will NEVER use him again. The main issue here is the disclosure document filled out by the sellers. There is where you have recourse.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663574 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:02:16 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663535 Hellrazor :
said by ross See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663535 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:55:17 EDT Building permit? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663514 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663514 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:52:26 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663037 ross : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20663037 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:08:19 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662779 KrK :
said by dolphins See Profile :

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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662779 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:07:57 EDT Re: Roof repairs and liability http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662707 KrK :
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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662707 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:54:36 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662647 KrK :
said by tcope See Profile :

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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662647 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:40:51 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662638 KrK :
said by robbin See Profile :

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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662638 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:38:15 EDT Roof repairs and liability http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662587 anon : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662587 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:30:46 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662523 KrK : I'll have to check and see what it says.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662523 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:19:18 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662376 Andrew J : good luck ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662376 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:54:02 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662221 avd706 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662221 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:23:50 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662145 cdru :
said by dgilbert See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20662145 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:11:55 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20661525 koma3504 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20661525 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:23:44 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20661134 dgilbert : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20661134 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:04:01 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660583 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. 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660583 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:27:02 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660526 horsemouth : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660526 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:55:23 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660154 dolphins : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20660154 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:56:29 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659779 robbin : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659779 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:04:50 EDT Re: Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659705 whizkid3 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659705 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:48:34 EDT Roof inspector liabilty? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659682 KrK : 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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20659682 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:43:16 EDT