Thread: Roof Re-Inspection

So this is fun, the 90 year old client needs a re-inspection. I did have him require a licensed roof contractor in the grate State of Oregon. Modular with added garage additon. Roof had lots of nail's placed in field of tabs with tar pealing away. joining of garage to modular roof was not woven together but overlaped. Wrote it up to called for a roofer to investigate and repair were needed.
Now ask to re-inspect


My question is if the roofer dos not replace shingles, just tar's?

Also he could say nothing wrong with the overlap, which I feel is shoddy work,there are no stains, or indications of leaks?

Thoughts?

Similar Threads:

• Nodules on rubber roof; rubber roof longevity?
• Bizzarre roof construction found during inspection
• National Roof Certification and Inspection Association - New Sponsor
• roof slope vs roof pitch
• Roof Inspection/Kennewick, WA 99337

Originally Posted by Darryl Piatt

Wrote it up to called for a roofer to investigate and repair were needed.

My question is if the roofer dos not replace shingles, just tar's?

Well ... you *did* write it up for a roofer to investigate and repair as needed, and that is what the roofer felt was needed.

I keep pointing out the drawback of writing it up that way, and here is the perfect example of why not to write it up that way.

Did the roofer do what you said? Yep.

What can you do about it now? Either say the roofer did what you said "roofer to investigate and repair as needed" and then try to wiggle out by saying 'What I meant was ... ' and then next time actually say what you meant, or, say 'What I meant was ... ' and then list the things you meant to write up - which will still likely leave egg on your face.

Sorry, but there really is no "nice" way to say the above.

Also he could say nothing wrong with the overlap, which I feel is shoddy work,there are no stains, or indications of leaks?

You DID leave it up to the roofer ... instead of writing up what you found and saying 'replace this, and this, and this, and this, and ...'

Take the egg, wipe it off your face, make some scrambled eggs, and next time write up what you found and call for repairs/replacement.

At least that way you can go back and say 'Nope, roofer did not do what I wrote up.' and 'Everything still needs to be replaced/repaired just like I said in the original report./

Have not done the re-inspection as of yet. But what you say is valid and to the point. I am new only done 20 paid inspections and being just an general and not a specialist in each field. I know no matter what I do it will come back, that idiot dos not know his knee from his elbow. yada yada. I still can say it was not repaired properly, if I just know what is proper. egg or no egg I will tell the contractor to get a grip, I had the client say that if the repairs are not done properly the seller pays for next inspection. Just wanting to know what is proper.

Daryll,
You have found out that there is a lot more to doing an inspection than seeing something and blowing the answer off to someone else's discretion and experience. I am sure that you were taught in a class that you are a generalist (personal opinion a real cop-out). Glad that you realized that this is a learning experience.

A repair has a lot of varied meanings in the roofing trade. If the roofer went back and dabbed tar on the exposed nail heads a repair was made. Though it is not a permanent repair and one that will have to be repeated over the life of the roof. The method used on meeting the two roofs ( having a hard time seeing the exact meeting lines of shingle) probably not the best but will work. Given that the old shingle would have been damaged if an attempt was mad to weave them. Often it is not about the best method but the practical (cost effective) method.

I would have stated that the shingle with exposed nails need to be replaced and done to manufacture specifications. Short and simple.

Only real place to have an exposed nails is in the last shingle in the ridge cap.

On your re-inspection I would suggest that you find a competent and experienced roofer to accompany you back to the scene of the crime for their opinion with and explanation of what was done. You also would be well advised to have your roofer explain the cost of doing the repair as a life of roof, one time repair. Have him explain the process involved.

Thank you very much for the information.

Originally Posted by Darryl Piatt

Have not done the re-inspection as of yet.

Your putting the cart before the horse, here. If you haven't reinspected it yet, then who knows what you'll find.

Also, explain that you want a copy of the repair receipt, with the contractors information available, for review. Then you can verify what they claim to have completed.

Dom.

You would do well to make a policy of not re-inspecting roof repairs. I learned this the hard way. Just tell them you are not a licensed roofer, cant really determine what they did or didn't do and do not reinspect a licensed roofers work. When the roof leaks, who do you guess they will call? You, or the roofer?

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

You would do well to make a policy of not re-inspecting roof repairs. I learned this the hard way. Just tell them you are not a licensed roofer, cant really determine what they did or didn't do and do not reinspect a licensed roofers work. When the roof leaks, who do you guess they will call? You, or the roofer?

Does a GREEN card work?

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Does a GREEN card work?

Pretty much anything works. I just tell them I won't re-inspect ANY roof repairs.

Sure I understand, why put yourself out for 1/3 or even half the price of a real inspection. I do have a pretty good re-inspection contract (got most of it right here thanks ) but my client is out of state, and 90 years old and where do you draw the line with customer service. I carry E & O which is another subject. But I am genuinely here to help people as well.

But you are right I hate the idea of this re-inspection

I guess I am going to be the dissenting opinion here.

What I see is that you did your job. You are not a roofing contractor, just like you are not an engineer. You found problems with the roof, reported them and made the recommendations that you felt were appropriate. If you found evidence of foundation settling, you would presumably recommend that an engineer design appropriate repairs. Personally, I would not design repairs or tell the engineer (or roofing contractor, or electrical contractor, etc.) which repairs were appropriate.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

I guess I am going to be the dissenting opinion here.

What I see is that you did your job. You are not a roofing contractor, just like you are not an engineer. You found problems with the roof, reported them and made the recommendations that you felt were appropriate. If you found evidence of foundation settling, you would presumably recommend that an engineer design appropriate repairs. Personally, I would not design repairs or tell the engineer (or roofing contractor, or electrical contractor, etc.) which repairs were appropriate.

I agree Gunner, If you take on the role of the expert why call the roofer. If the A/C does not work you call the expert then the ball is in their court. As stated we give a overview of what is inspected. Then turn it over to the licensed tradesman/tradeswoman.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

Just tell them you are not a licensed roofer, cant really determine what they did or didn't do and do not reinspect a licensed roofers work. When the roof leaks, who do you guess they will call? You, or the roofer?

Then how did you inspect it in the first place?

Didn't you initially inspect a licensed roofers work and discover defects during the inspection?

What about a new build, or new construction? The same conundrum applies.

Dom..

I did an inspection the other day that I called out several problems with an electrical panel and "emphatically" recommended it be checked and corrected by a licensed electrical contractor. Although I would love to take a few bucks for a re-inspection, I don't want to be (nore am i qualified) to "Certify" the work of a licensed electrician. Let the Electrician be the final guarantor that the panel is now correct.

If you have ever noticed, City Code Inspectors are not liable (with laws protecting them) when they approve (sign off) anything as being adequate or to code. If there is a house fire due to electrical problems,(code non-compliance) you will not be able to hold the code inspector liable for anything, it will fall on the electrician that was licensed to do the work.

Unlike municipal Code Inspectors...we need to be careful just how far we stick our necks out (in Words). My opinion and policy is that if it is a "fix" by an entity that is required to be licensed: Plumber, Electrician, Engineer, or roofer. I am very careful how i word my statement and lay the responsibility directly back on the person doing the correction. I find these are mainly these re-inspection requests from insurance companies.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Does a GREEN card work?

Funny you say that. The client at a recent pre-drywall inspection said that she had been visiting the work site frequently since she just lives a couple of miles away. The first time she showed up with a full size DSLR camera, the workers on the site went into a semi-panic state. I've always wanted to borrow a big black SUV, wear a dark blue jacket and cap, show up on a construction site, and yell INS, or I guess that's ICE now, just to see how many people took off through the woods.

Originally Posted by Stuart Brooks

Funny you say that. The client at a recent pre-drywall inspection said that she had been visiting the work site frequently since she just lives a couple of miles away. The first time she showed up with a full size DSLR camera, the workers on the site went into a semi-panic state. I've always wanted to borrow a big black SUV, wear a dark blue jacket and cap, show up on a construction site, and yell INS, or I guess that's ICE now, just to see how many people took off through the woods.

I have a US Border Patrol hat that I sometimes put on my dash...it is also useful to clear out the line at a hospital emergency room.

Next time give him a memo:: Your having the roof repaired by a lisensed roofer does not need my approval and I do not need to re-inspect. The roofing contractor should know how to repair or replace as needed.


I would do everything I can not to re-inspect, this will sometimes get you in bigger trouble.

Most times this will get you out of doing re-inspections when nothing else will:

"If you really want me to do a re-inspection, you need to be aware that the ONLY THING I will be able to tell you is either: the roofer may have done SOMETHING on the roof, or the roofer did NOTHING that I can tell."

Then follow that with:

"If I see SOMETHING done on the roof, it may or may not have been done by the roofer, and I will not be able to tell you IF IT WAS DONE CORRECTLY."

Then finish with:

"My re-inspection fee is $150 minimum, plus drive time, I will need the check first, and I will not be able to tell you if anyone did what they were supposed to have done, only that someone did something. If you really want me to do a re-inspection and still not be able to tell you if the work was done properly, by all mean, send the check and I will go out there."

Some HIs, as noted in some posts, above do not grasp the difference between the original inspection looking for evidence of things to report and a re-inspection where you are being asked if the work was done and done properly. To those HIs who do not see this, I ask if you report is certifying that all items not in the repair/replace column are correct, or do you fudge that off to something like 'well, there was no evidence that it was incorrect'? There is a big difference between the two.

There is a big difference between looking for evidence of things to report and of certifying the work was done correctly - some HIs get that and some do not.

There is a perfect example of this on another post regarding no felt: Let's say the HI originally finds an area where the HI determines there is no felt and calls for the roof to be replaced. A roofer comes out and replaces the roof. The HI is now called out to do a re-inspection, and, no matter how hard the HI tries, the HI cannot find a place to check for felt.

Does the HI certify the roof as having been replaced properly? For all the HI knows, no felt was used this time either.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

There is a big difference between looking for evidence of things to report and of certifying the work was done correctly - some HIs get that and some do not.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

The "re-inspection" isn't certifying anything. It's just a process, and you must manage the client' s expectations. Some clients believe HI's will "see through walls" until we explain the inspection process and limitations. Others expect that the house "passed inspection" so it is forever free from defects. Again, we have to explain the process and set the expectation.

The average homeowner has zero knowledge about the house--that's why we've been hired. They don't want to get ripped off by an unskilled contractor; they likely wouldn't know "flashing" from a hole in the ground, and need someone to verify if "XYZ" or "ABC" was completed. Out of town buyers need someone to verify an item, repair, installation, etc.

If an inspector isn't comfortable doing them, then he shouldn't do them. They aren't for everybody, Our industry is full of risk, with lots of liability even if things go smoothly. Don't take on the extra liability if you're not prepared to handle the consequences.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

The "re-inspection" isn't certifying anything.

That is why the client is calling for a re-inspection, to find out: a) was the work even done; b) was the work done correctly (correcting the issue which was written up).

Telling the client that 'Yes, the work was done.' is meaningless for what they want. The client does not care if someone did the work, but all the work was done incorrectly, that is the same as the work not having been done - and sometimes it is worse because the incorrect work now screwed up other things.

Unless you are there to watch the work and see it done, doing a re-inspection simply says one of three things, it does not say the fourth thing (which is what the client wants to know) - a re-inspection can determine: 1) the work was done; 2) the work was not done; 3) the work was done but done incorrectly; the re-inspection cannot determine 4) that the work was done and done correctly ... and 4) is why the client wants the re-inspection.

Jerry,

So if someone hires you to re-inspect an electrically powered water heater in a garage (typical Florida house) that has been replaced, you wouldn't be able to determine if it was installed correctly? Why? It's all right there in plain view.

It would seem that you believe that every item to be re-inspected is concealed or has hidden components. Some are, and some aren't.

The client does not care if someone did the work, but all the work was done incorrectly,

-
I completely disagree. They care very much if the repairs are done incorrectly. They just don't know how to make the determination because they aren't tradespeople. Repair receipts are a great asset, but they aren't foolproof.

the re-inspection cannot determine 4) that the work was done and done correctly ... and 4) is why the client wants the re-inspection.

-

Yeah, and they also want the septic system inspected, so I explain the reasons why we don't/can't inspect those in Florida.

Manage the expectation, and if you don't agree with the "wants or needs" of the client's request, then you turn down the re-inspection.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

So if someone hires you to re-inspect an electrically powered water heater in a garage (typical Florida house) that has been replaced, you wouldn't be able to determine if it was installed correctly? Why? It's all right there in plain view.

We are discussing re-inspecting a roof here, which led to establishing a re-inspection policy, and short of having a long and confusing re-inspection policy of 'I re-inspect this, and this, and this, and this, but I do not re-inspect this, and this, and this, and ...', it is reasonable to presume that one establishes a 'I do re-inspections' or 'I do not do re-inspections'. THAT is where the discussion is at.

It would seem that you believe that every item to be re-inspected is concealed or has hidden components. Some are, and some aren't.

Jerry said (taken out of context): "The client does not care if someone did the work, but all the work was done incorrectly,"

I completely disagree. They care very much if the repairs are done incorrectly.

That is EXACTLY what I was pointing out.

The client does just not care that 'work was done', they care if that 'all that work was done incorrectly', and if you were not there during the work (in this case that would be the roof repair) then you have no idea *how* the work was done, you can only see whether or not the work was done.

They just don't know how to make the determination because they aren't tradespeople. Repair receipts are a great asset, but they aren't foolproof.

And home inspectors, if not present during the work, "just don't know how to make the determination" that the work was done correctly either, unless they were there while the work was done.

Or maybe *you* do know how the roofer did the repair when all you can see is the top of a shingle? X-ray vision maybe?

Actually

You can see just as much as you could the first time around which is quite a bit

It is not a waste of time at all. There is a tremendous amount that you 'can' see when the roofer leaves. Again, as much as you could the first time around.

Can you see all the way to every piece of flashing and felt paper or do you check under every shingle for proper nailing, no. But for the 3rd time, you can see as much as you could the first time. That is how the roof got repaired or replaced the first time around, because of the tremendous amount you can see

Just saying. Do I certify any roof at the original inspection or at the follow up inspection, nope. I do collect an honest dollar for an honest inspection.

Or maybe *you* do know how the roofer did the repair when all you can see is the top of a shingle? X-ray vision maybe?

-

Jerry,

I never even claimed that I would check a re-roof for felt, or use X-ray (or similar) vision, much less take that re-inspection job. And I discussed that X-ray "see-thru-walls" expectation several posts back. Manage your clients expectations, or stay away from this line of work. You, of all people, would agree with that axiom.

I was pointing out the simple fact that we all have options that extend beyond simply saying "No" to every re-inspection. Your mileage may vary.

BTW:
While we started out discussing re-inspecting roofs, as is common here, we expanded to ancillary and related re-inspection topics. But you haven't answered my water heater question, and I know why you won't.

Happy Columbus Day. It looks like another full day of rain.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Manage your clients expectations, or stay away from this line of work. You, of all people, would agree with that axiom.

I do agree with that, and I've been saying that to inspectors for over 20 years.

I was pointing out the simple fact that we all have options that extend beyond simply saying "No" to every re-inspection. Your mileage may vary.

Which is what I said in my post above:
"We are discussing re-inspecting a roof here, which led to establishing a re-inspection policy, and short of having a long and confusing re-inspection policy of 'I re-inspect this, and this, and this, and this, but I do not re-inspect this, and this, and this, and ...', it is reasonable to presume that one establishes a 'I do re-inspections' or 'I do not do re-inspections'."

BTW:
While we started out discussing re-inspecting roofs, as is common here, we expanded to ancillary and related re-inspection topics. But you haven't answered my water heater question, and I know why you won't.

Read my quote above, I did answer your question.

If one wants to set out a list of things they re-inspect and things they do not re-inspect, so be it.

I started off doing re-inspections, then learned enough to understand that there was, for the vast majority of items, enough that I could not see in the corrections and repairs, that the contractors could very easily have done the work completely wrong (or at least almost completely wrong) and just did the visible part correctly, that I stopped doing re-inspections.

There would always be some things which would be easy to see: multiple taps comes to mind as one. But there are also so many things which are based on assumptions of concealed work having been done properly: loose electrical boxes and plumbing piping - how do you know they were corrected *properly*?

Asphalt shingle roof designs are not waterproof they only shed the water. Face nailing the shingle is not a good idea but you typically cannot avoid this practice in the area of the ridgeline with the last few shingle caps. The sealant (if an approved type) used on those nails may have failed due to the UV ray exposure. If a shingle MUST be face nailed it should be sealed and finished with a matching granular roofing stone to protect the sealant. If the asphalt shingles, seen in your photo's did not have this granular coating the shingles would fail in a few years.
“…Mineral granule loss from asphalt roof shingles

The job of these mineral granules which are adhered to the roof shingle surface as part of the shingle manufacturing process, is to protect the shingle from sunlight, from UV light, and from the weather in general.
The selection of roof shingle color is also determined by the choice of its coating of mineral granule; lighter colored shingles may remain a bit cooler and at least in some applications (hot sunny climates) may have a longer life than dark-colored shingles….” (http://inspectapedia.com/roof/ShingleGranules.htm )

“….What are the purposes of granules on an asphalt fiberglass shingle? Granules on a roof have four main purposes. They are the protection of the asphalt coating from UV light, add coloring and beauty, provide fire resistance, and add to the aid in shingle packaging….”
( http://www.aaarooftechnologies.com/home/Education/GranuleLossonAsphaltShingles.aspx )