High nailing shingle failure

[Eric Williams]

Shingles on this house were high nailed, that is, secured well high of the self sealing strip. Looks like the wind has ripped many of the shingles off right through the nail heads. I am thinking complete replacement. Anyway chance this roof covering could be salvaged (resecured)?

[John Kogel]

False economy for the home owner to reuse those shingles. He could stack them carefully and sell them for a shed roof job.
Those shingles where over-exposed as well, from the looks of it. What a mess!

[Jack Feldmann]

If I only saw the 1st photo, and it was only those couple of shingles, then i would say it would be OK to reuse them and just nail them properly.
But when its pretty obvious the roofing job was an unprofessional cluster..., then a total re-do is probably in order.

[Rick Cantrell]

"then a total re-do is probably in order."

Probabaly??

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

How old is that roof, it doesnt look like the sealing tabs have even adhered yet? In my opinion it should be replaced. My questions are was it inspected, and if so was a licensed contractor used? If so is it under warranty. The big issue is that the roofing manufacture will not warranty an improper installation. Honestly all you have to do is read the friggin package and follow local codes, not too hard.:mad: Shed is a great idea as long as you buy lots of tar and read the instructions. The only way it could be repaired is if you, sealed all the existing wholes with manufactured approved sealant and properly secured each shingle, but the warranty would still be voided. Then you have to deal with the exposure issue. My other question is are you in a potential high wind area? There are special requirements for the application of fastners also. usually at least two extra fastners per shingle which they didnt even do that:mad: Sorry i hate seeing people get ripped off by shoddy work just my 2 cents

[Jerry Peck]

Needs to be replaced.

Municipal roof inspections as we know them (as I know them and as I do them) will likely be changing very soon.

OSHA recently issued some new changes which require municipal inspector to have personal tie-off equipment, the roof to have fall protection, railings, etc., which takes effect next June 16th. I have a class on this on June 15th.

The likelihood is that municipal inspection departments will no be allowing their inspectors up onto roof where the fall from the edge is greater than 6 feet (versus the other option of purchasing and maintaining fall protection equipment).

With that said, rof nailing, roof dry-in, roof final inspections may become the way of the dinosaur (as related to municipal inspections).

I fail virtually every roof nailing, dry-in and final inspection the first time around, some a second time. In place of those inspections may be notarized affidavits from the roofing contractors attesting that they did that work properly ... like, yeah, man, of course I did that properly. :rolleyes:

I hope that is not what this comes to, but it certainly is one of the options which will be considered after the new OHSA rule takes affect on June 16th.

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

Needs to be replaced.

Municipal roof inspections as we know them (as I know them and as I do them) will likely be changing very soon.

OSHA recently issued some new changes which require municipal inspector to have personal tie-off equipment, the roof to have fall protection, railings, etc., which takes effect next June 16th. I have a class on this on June 15th.

The likelihood is that municipal inspection departments will no be allowing their inspectors up onto roof where the fall from the edge is greater than 6 feet (versus the other option of purchasing and maintaining fall protection equipment).

With that said, rof nailing, roof dry-in, roof final inspections may become the way of the dinosaur (as related to municipal inspections).

I fail virtually every roof nailing, dry-in and final inspection the first time around, some a second time. In place of those inspections may be notarized affidavits from the roofing contractors attesting that they did that work properly ... like, yeah, man, of course I did that properly. :rolleyes:

I hope that is not what this comes to, but it certainly is one of the options which will be considered after the new OHSA rule takes affect on June 16th.
That is really sad for the homeowner, when part of the purchase price of the home is a municipal inspection, yet the inspector cannot do their job correctly. hey why even have inspections at all:mad:

[Eric Williams]

How old is that roof, it doesnt look like the sealing tabs have even adhered yet? In my opinion it should be replaced. My questions are was it inspected, and if so was a licensed contractor used? If so is it under warranty. The big issue is that the roofing manufacture will not warranty an improper installation. Honestly all you have to do is read the friggin package and follow local codes, not too hard.:mad: Shed is a great idea as long as you buy lots of tar and read the instructions. The only way it could be repaired is if you, sealed all the existing wholes with manufactured approved sealant and properly secured each shingle, but the warranty would still be voided. Then you have to deal with the exposure issue. My other question is are you in a potential high wind area? There are special requirements for the application of fastners also. usually at least two extra fastners per shingle which they didnt even do that:mad: Sorry i hate seeing people get ripped off by shoddy work just my 2 cents

Roof not as new as it looks in photo. Quite a bit of granule loss. It's an estate sale and nobody seems to know exact age. And no, this is not considered a high wind area.

[Michael Gantt]

Excellent timing of this thread. I have a roofer in his truck, at this moment, waiting for the general contractor who built my house to show up. I think this is the problem! :)

[Jerome Schrenker]

Jerry I had a conversation with a OSHA inspector just a month ago about the requirement for inspectors to have fall protection. He said nothing about this new requirement. This is a real game changer for code inspectors. Do you have a link for this online?

[Jerome Schrenker]

This would apply to home inspectors also I would think.

[Jerome Schrenker]

Sheathing inspections also. Well really anytime your on a roof.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry I had a conversation with a OSHA inspector just a month ago about the requirement for inspectors to have fall protection. He said nothing about this new requirement. This is a real game changer for code inspectors. Do you have a link for this online?

Jerome,

I'll see what I can find out next week when I get back to work. I know I will have more information on June 15.


This would apply to home inspectors also I would think.

I suspect that it may not, not unless the home inspector is an employee of a larger home inspection firm, then probably yes.


Sheathing inspections also. Well really anytime your on a roof.

Yep ... "Well really anytime your on a roof.", but not only on roofs, also on balconies, decks, any surface where the surface below is greater than 6 feet lower than the surface you are on.

I can see this being applied to second floor areas, which will require a proper guard rail, etc. Yeah, they should have already been having a guard rail, but now it will be a requirement for the next inspection.

I will try to find out what I can and far this is going to be applicable - but my guess is that is going to be: "to all surfaces which you are on that are 6 feet higher than the surface below".

[Garry Sorrells]

Eric,
No thinking about it.
If this is not your house and you do not want to be dragged into litigation for your recommendation, the only answer (recommendation) is to have the entire roof torn off and replaced. Unless the incorrect nailing is localized. But to determine that you would have to lift all of the shingle and check. I would think that a representative number over the entire roof would be sufficient in court.

If it is your house and you are willing to accept the risk and are willing to do the work, go for it. You could get a system of two or tree guys for lifting, nailing and sealing to make the job go quicker. Add to the enjoyment of risk and find some illegal aliens to do the work for you.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Nailing isn't the only major problem with these shingles!

Obviously a non-professional, legitimate, installation - who couldn't or chose to not read even the most basic of instructions that come with any composition shingle bundle,

This photo displays such a multitude of basic, and horrid, failure-to problems it isn't really worth addressing!!!

Roofing contractors are required to be licensed in Illinois, this should not be news to you. Unless the now deceased H.O., or prior "flipper-type" did the "work" themself, or had the job done "on the sly" without a permit, there should be some sort of "trail" - as obviously more than a small percentage of the roofing surface was "worked on".

There is NOTHING salvagable about the architectual shingles "installed" that you have photographed. A complete tear off minimally, required.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachments/roofing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/22290d1306427304-high-nailing-shingle-failure-img_2782.jpg

I really don't understand why you'd even "care" how old or how long these materials are, or when the so-called "work" was done - there is nothing warranty-wise from the mfg that would apply the materials weren't installed correctly - and the roof covering is toast! If the HO is now deceased - seems it would be more trouble, and financial waste (civil atty, probate atty - filing costs - plus time delays) than it is worth to even think about persuing this unless its an easy "slam dunk" as to who to go after and they have a pocket worth plucking - the roof needs to be worked on PDQ. Seems you're getting more than your fair share of rain, wind, etc. this Spring anyway - wouldn't be surprised to find problems within after this weekend, if not seen prior.

I might suggest that the estate administrator/probate attorney/executor/excutrix should FOIA inquuiry, of course you could do the same, contact the authority having jurisdiction and do a permit search, can also look for liens, court cases, etc. searchiing at the county court house. Additionally, requesting a CLUE report and/or if the property has a mortgage with escrow provisions for paying out homeowner's insurance - the exec. can requrest escrow history to identify past indeminities - and inquiry made with the current and former agents of same.

Your stated locale has had tornadic and straight wind events in the past, as well as hail claims and been subject to more than a few waves of "hail damage scammers" regards to roof repair scams.

Not all that long ago (within the last few weeks), I recall having read a forwarded news story from your area about actions the state was seeking regarding a particular out of state entity/company - name may have started with a "G", didn't save the email or the attached story, which was aledged to have engaged in unlicensed activity with a host of substandard hail damage roof repair/replacements. May have been the A.G.'s office or the Division/department that licenses roofers in conjunction with a county State's attorney's office - if not your own, an adjacent county.

The irregular coarses, over exposures, common seams, etc. pictured are unacceptable, esp. with this type of shingle/shangle.

Frankly, am surprised the question was asked, as you have indicated subsequently the other condition issues. You didn't try walking this roof did you ??? :eek: (and folks are looking to you to "correct or repair" the unattached shingles in the first photo)??? Wouldn't have even THOUGHT about stepping off the ladder with what is pictured!!! Heck there's enough debris, slippage elsewhere, cupping, etc. that would have been a no-brainer - not a roof worthy of walking in the pictured condition.

[John S]

Just want to throw my 2 cents in, dont consider a roofs age by the loss of granules. I had a 5 year old roof with 30 year premium shingles that had lots of bald spots right down to the paper. lots of granule ended up in gutter. Just a thought.

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

Just want to throw my 2 cents in, dont consider a roofs age by the loss of granules. I had a 5 year old roof with 30 year premium shingles that had lots of bald spots right down to the paper. lots of granule ended up in gutter. Just a thought.
Sad part is the roof could only be a week old,but the improper install voids the warranty from the manufacturer. I agree, i have a roof on my own shop with 50 year shingles and its only two, already losing granules down to paper. I know my was installed correctly because i did it, and believe me i will be calling in the warranty.:mad:

[Eric Williams]

Nailing isn't the only major problem with these shingles!

Obviously a non-professional, legitimate, installation - who couldn't or chose to not read even the most basic of instructions that come with any composition shingle bundle,

This photo displays such a multitude of basic, and horrid, failure-to problems it isn't really worth addressing!!!

Roofing contractors are required to be licensed in Illinois, this should not be news to you. Unless the now deceased H.O., or prior "flipper-type" did the "work" themself, or had the job done "on the sly" without a permit, there should be some sort of "trail" - as obviously more than a small percentage of the roofing surface was "worked on".

There is NOTHING salvagable about the architectual shingles "installed" that you have photographed. A complete tear off minimally, required.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachments/roofing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/22290d1306427304-high-nailing-shingle-failure-img_2782.jpg

I really don't understand why you'd even "care" how old or how long these materials are, or when the so-called "work" was done - there is nothing warranty-wise from the mfg that would apply the materials weren't installed correctly - and the roof covering is toast! If the HO is now deceased - seems it would be more trouble, and financial waste (civil atty, probate atty - filing costs - plus time delays) than it is worth to even think about persuing this unless its an easy "slam dunk" as to who to go after and they have a pocket worth plucking - the roof needs to be worked on PDQ. Seems you're getting more than your fair share of rain, wind, etc. this Spring anyway - wouldn't be surprised to find problems within after this weekend, if not seen prior.

I might suggest that the estate administrator/probate attorney/executor/excutrix should FOIA inquuiry, of course you could do the same, contact the authority having jurisdiction and do a permit search, can also look for liens, court cases, etc. searchiing at the county court house. Additionally, requesting a CLUE report and/or if the property has a mortgage with escrow provisions for paying out homeowner's insurance - the exec. can requrest escrow history to identify past indeminities - and inquiry made with the current and former agents of same.

Your stated locale has had tornadic and straight wind events in the past, as well as hail claims and been subject to more than a few waves of "hail damage scammers" regards to roof repair scams.

Not all that long ago (within the last few weeks), I recall having read a forwarded news story from your area about actions the state was seeking regarding a particular out of state entity/company - name may have started with a "G", didn't save the email or the attached story, which was aledged to have engaged in unlicensed activity with a host of substandard hail damage roof repair/replacements. May have been the A.G.'s office or the Division/department that licenses roofers in conjunction with a county State's attorney's office - if not your own, an adjacent county.

The irregular coarses, over exposures, common seams, etc. pictured are unacceptable, esp. with this type of shingle/shangle.

Frankly, am surprised the question was asked, as you have indicated subsequently the other condition issues. You didn't try walking this roof did you ??? :eek: (and folks are looking to you to "correct or repair" the unattached shingles in the first photo)??? Wouldn't have even THOUGHT about stepping off the ladder with what is pictured!!! Heck there's enough debris, slippage elsewhere, cupping, etc. that would have been a no-brainer - not a roof worthy of walking in the pictured condition.

H.G.,

Thanks for having my safety in mind. Look, the roof was obviously in awful condition. Thought it made for a good thread. I personally have not run into a "recent" roof replacement failure to this degree. Just be careful with your assumptions. The client was not given any false hopes that the roof could be salvaged. The questions was for my own personal benefit and as a thought starter. Lot of great comments, yours included.

[John S]

Don't sweat it Eric. I liked the pics, thats what everyone including myself learns from. And not to beat a dead horse, I am a licensed pilot and we read stories all the time about plane crashes. Why? To learn why it happened and to avoid these things from happening again. Keep 'em comin'.

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

H.G.,

Thanks for having my safety in mind. Look, the roof was obviously in awful condition. Thought it made for a good thread. I personally have not run into a "recent" roof replacement failure to this degree. Just be careful with your assumptions. The client was not given any false hopes that the roof could be salvaged. The questions was for my own personal benefit and as a thought starter. Lot of great comments, yours included.

Yes the roof could be salvaged, although it wouldnt last as long as another roof similiar in age. I know this because i have removed a couple of fairly new roofs and re-installed, they are about 30 years old, 20 years on the re-install. It is alot of work, but when i was younger and broker, ive done it. Having said that, I would never even think of doing that for a customer. The only reason I did it was because I saved alot of cash, not time. It worked out for me, but it was also on a barn not a home. But yes It could be salvaged,depending on condition. I re-iterate I would only do it for myself. Anyway I was just answering your question" could it be salvaged" rob

[Jerry Peck]

Yes the roof could be salvaged, although it wouldnt last as long as another roof similiar in age. I know this because i have removed a couple of fairly new roofs and re-installed, they are about 30 years old, 20 years on the re-install. It is alot of work, but when i was younger and broker, ive done it. Having said that, I would never even think of doing that for a customer. The only reason I did it was because I saved alot of cash, not time. It worked out for me, but it was also on a barn not a home. But yes It could be salvaged,depending on condition. I re-iterate I would only do it for myself. Anyway I was just answering your question" could it be salvaged" rob

I'll rephrase the "could it be salvaged" part ("The client was not given any false hopes that the roof could be salvaged.") ... that roof cannot be salvaged such that the shingles are re-installed properly, i.e., it cannot be "properly" salvaged.

I say that knowing that I sometimes tell people that if you are going to do something incorrectly, at least do it correctly incorrectly, not incorrectly incorrectly ... and trying to salvage that roof is doing so incorrectly incorrectly.

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

I'll rephrase the "could it be salvaged" part ("The client was not given any false hopes that the roof could be salvaged.") ... that roof cannot be salvaged such that the shingles are re-installed properly, i.e., it cannot be "properly" salvaged.

I say that knowing that I sometimes tell people that if you are going to do something incorrectly, at least do it correctly incorrectly, not incorrectly incorrectly ... and trying to salvage that roof is doing so incorrectly incorrectly.

agreed i think, WAIT ISNT RECYCLING THE MODERN DAY WORD FOR SALVAGING:confused: :D

[Jerry Peck]

agreed i think, WAIT ISNT RECYCLING THE MODERN DAY WORD FOR SALVAGING:confused: :D

Recycling typically means to either make into something else or to use in some for something other than it originally was used. :p :)

(underlining and bold are mine)
- R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.
- - R104.9.1 Used materials and equipment. Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the building official. ;)

[MARVIN TOWNSEN]

Recycling typically means to either make into something else or to use in some for something other than it originally was used. :p :)

(underlining and bold are mine)
- R104.9 Approved materials and equipment. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.
- - R104.9.1 Used materials and equipment. Used materials, equipment and devices shall not be reused unless approved by the building official. ;)

Agreed, it is no longer used for a house roof, now its used for a barn roof:D p.s. in my county ag buildings dont have to meet code( its bs but its true)

[alex webster]

If someone is to catch this problem early enough where no shingles were damaged, couldn't you just re-nail where you are instructed to and save the roof?

[Garry Sorrells]

If someone is to catch this problem early enough where no shingles were damaged, couldn't you just re-nail where you are instructed to and save the roof?

There is no way that you could say that "no shingles were damaged" as a preface to save the roof. Being nailed once and then to remove the shingle will leave the shingle damaged. Just in the process of the excess handling of the shingle will cause damage to the shingle, though it may not be immediately noticeable, but will show up over time.

The catching of the problem early might allow the first or second course to be re-nailed, though it would probably void any warranty. The fact that the extra nailing might have no long term negative effect, the manufacture will use it as an out to void the warranty. To catch the problem early would just mean that only a few shingles would be trashed and replaced, rather than the entire roof.

[Thomas Baker]

For what it's worth...I worked on a project for a major University where the shingles had all been high nailed. A new roofing contractor was retained to "re-nail" the shingles in the correct manner. This involved carefully lifting the shingles (not an overwhelming task since most of those shingles too were not adhered @ the sealing strip). Any shingles that were damaged were replaced. It does appear that the remediation was successful and no problems have been reported.

[Mark Reinmiller]

Shingles on this house were high nailed, that is, secured well high of the self sealing strip. Looks like the wind has ripped many of the shingles off right through the nail heads. I am thinking complete replacement. Anyway chance this roof covering could be salvaged (resecured)?

If they could not nail the shingles on properly then what able flashing details? Also, If the tabs cannot be lifted easily then the labor to nail them may be too high.

[Mike Senty]

...Anyway chance this roof covering could be salvaged (resecured)?Wearing my contractor hat: No it cannot be salvaged. Here's why: Using GAF Timberline architectural shingle installation specifications, the nails need to be applied "on the white line" which is where the shingles are double thick. This roof has too much shingle exposure. In your picture the nailing line of the shingle is exposed. It is not covered by the lapping shingle above. In order to nail the shingles correctly (salvage it), the nails will be exposed. Choices: Tear off and replace, or if allowed, shingle over existing shingles. Good call that the roof is not serviceable. As installed it will continue to be vulnerable to wind damage. Obviously it was installed by someone who did not read the installation instructions on the shingle bundles.