On occasion, certain issues come up requiring some type of backup documentation, below are the code references for certain deficiencies discovered during a roof inspection.
Below are several inspection reports. All of the roofs "passed code". None are done to the code which is a "minimum standard" not a building standard. The manufacturers specifications takes precedence and none of the roofs below meet the manufactures installation instructions.
January 21, 2012:
This roof required numerous inspections and complaints to the local code official and finally, was finished.
June 6, 2007:
This is a roof that was finished in late 2006. The roofer nailed several nails through the wood drip edge. These nails will rust and cause the drip edge to rot. They will also cause leaks. The roofer also missed several trusses when nailing the plywood down. At last count, an estimated 1,000 nails missed the trusses. This is just the roof portion of a comprehensive inspection.
January 12, 2007:
This roof was installed approximately ten years ago. Although it has survived several hurricanes, as the Realtor thoughtfully pointed out, it is still wrong.
The implications of this on this roof as well as the other shingle roofs is that in the event of a high wind condition, say a category 3 or above hurricane, if the roof decking fails, an insurance investigator will be called out to determine the cause of the roof failure. When he sees all of the missed nails, he will submit in his report that the roof was not installed as per the manufacturers specifications as well as the Florida Building Code and as a result, the homeowner may not be covered.
January 10, 2007:
This is a roof completed in late 2006. I was unable to pry up the shingles, however, the improper nailing pattern for the plywood decking was present in this roof the same as the other roofs on this page. This is just the roof portion of a comprehensive inspection.
October 24, 2006:
This home is owned by a couple of very nice ladies. The city inspector and the roofer have obviously made some sort of deal. After the inspection, the roofer and city inspector met the homeowner.
Here are some "pearls of wisdom" regarding the installation.
Regarding the over-driven/under-driven nails, Roofer: "That is very common"!
According to three different manufacturers, including the one who manufactured these shingles (Elk), the installation is improper. Just because it is "common" doesn't make it correct!
Regarding the turbine fan installation, Roofer: "We just use the old holes"!
Regarding the vent stack sleeves, Roofer: "They are all new, your inspector must have been on another roof"!
Regarding the rotted wood, Roofer: "Wood rots from the bottom (attic side) up to the top side"!
Last time I looked, gravity causes water to run down, not up. The rot was caused by previous roof leaks and the roofer was too lazy to replace it as well as the wood around the turbine fans.
UPDATE: October 26, 2006:
Just received a call from the homeowner. After speaking with the actual owner of the company, the homeowner informed me that the Owner has had several complaints regarding the work performed by the sub-contractors.
"After reviewing the inspection report performed by Magnum Inspections, the photos clearly show the improper installation and as a result, a new roof will be installed including replacement of all damaged decking."
The above quote was also relayed to me by the homeowner. She is going to call me next week to hopefully state that the roof has been successfully replaced.
September 19, 2006:
This roof is also under investigation by the city. Although it was passed, there are obvious defects that need to be corrected.
UPDATE: January 11, 2009: This roof has finally, after attorneys were involved, been replaced.
March 5, 2006:
UPDATE: September 29, 2006
The flat roof above has failed the city inspections. The roofer did not provide pictures of the roof decking to prove that all of the rotted wood was removed. The vent stack at the parapet wall must also be moved. The entire roof has to be replaced and the roofer is not to pleased about it.
UPDATE: October 4, 2006
The mansard portion of the roof has failed the shingle inspection. Several shingles have fallen off as a result of poor installation methods.
UPDATE: October 26, 2006
The roof is finished and has passed all of the city inspections.
February 26, 2006:
After numerous complaints to the building department, the Chief inspector came out and recommended replacement of this roof. As of yet, it has not been replaced and the roofer is not returning any phone calls. Fortunately for the homeowner, he has not paid this roofer. There is the possibility of a mechanics lien being placed on the home, however, at this time, this has not happened.
These are just a few examples of the type of roof work that is occurring. The first problem is that there are not enough roofers to do the work. The roofers are pulling unskilled laborers off of the street to perform roof work.
Next the city/county inspectors do not go in the attics to verify that the nailing has been performed properly. They also do not go on the roof to examine the shingle installation. Some even rely on pictures and affidavits.
If your roof has been replaced recently, it may be in your best interest to have an independent inspection performed.
Magnum Inspections Inc. will be glad to help you in this area.
The fee for a comprehensive roof evaluation like the ones above is $225.00.
For any questions, please call or e-mail Eric Van De Ven
Phone: (954) 340-6615
Copyright Magnum Inspections Inc. 1994-2013--All rights reserved