Thread: Composition shingle over wood shakes

Hi Folks! New to the Inspection News. You have a lot of great articles, members are really knowledgable.
I recently did an inspection. Noted in the Roof section of the report that "roof is reaching the end of its useful life and suggest that a licensed roof contractor evaluate further. (loss of granules, firberglass threads showing, etc). What I didn't notice ( I believe I did, but this old brain just did not register it ) that there was wood shakes under the shingles. The client is now flipping the house, buyer & inspector said it's a fire hazard and needs to be replaced. My client is coming back and saying 'what are you going to do about it'. I'm thinking that I could go back to her and say that I did mention in my report about a further evaluation and 'if you had done so, it would have been mentioned a that time'. And I'm not carring E&O, yet. What's my avenues??

Similar Threads:

• Fuzzy wood under front porch
• Wood Structural Panel Sheathing or Siding Used to Resist Combined Shear & Uplift
• End Shingle Cut
• Exposed wood joist in return air
• Wood Burning Fireplace

Hi Dave and Welcome to the Board!
Here in the Philadelphia area it's very common to find composite shingles over wood shingles and it's generally considered acceptable to use the wood shingles as decking. I've never heard that it's a fire hazard. Why would it be more of a fire hazard than plywood or OSB? Maybe the local fire marshal needs to be asked about this. Your recommendation for further evaluation (the "e" word is dirty, according to some on this board) would seem to get you partly off the hook, anyway. What I would have told the client, since the composite shingles were on their way out, is that when they are replaced the entire roof will have to be re-decked since saving the wood shingles is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Dave Boratyn

I recently did an inspection. Noted in the Roof section of the report that "roof is reaching the end of its useful life

that there was wood shakes under the shingles.

The client is now flipping the house, buyer & inspector said it's a fire hazard and needs to be replaced.

Dave,

FIRE HAZARD??? How would composite shingles over wood shakes be more of a fire hazard than wooden shakes alone? The fire rating of composite shingles are much better than wood.

End of life means needs replace.

Instead of evaluate PLEASE USE repair or replace.

Side Note How can anyone asphalt shingles over shakes??
I'm getting sea sick at mental picture.

The fire hazard with shingles is that when there are three or more layers the firemen cannot vent the roof fast enough by creating holes in it. If there are only two layers then they are remodeling and just want you to buy them a roof as they cannot add a third layer. Did you note MULITIPLE LAYERs?

Originally Posted by wayne soper

The fire hazard with shingles is that when there are three or more layers the firemen cannot vent the roof fast enough by creating holes in it.

Wayne,

In our area you may have Three Layers.

Hey fellows, Thanks for the info. & pieces of education. I think I will call the fire marshall and see what they say.

Billy, thats interesting. You think thats because barbeque is better in tn. HAHA Call your local fire marshall and see what he thinks about it. What is allowed and what is safe are sometimes different. Wayne

Originally Posted by Dave Boratyn

Hi Folks! New to the Inspection News. You have a lot of great articles, members are really knowledgable.
I recently did an inspection. Noted in the Roof section of the report that "roof is reaching the end of its useful life and suggest that a licensed roof contractor evaluate further. (loss of granules, firberglass threads showing, etc). What I didn't notice ( I believe I did, but this old brain just did not register it ) that there was wood shakes under the shingles. The client is now flipping the house, buyer & inspector said it's a fire hazard and needs to be replaced. My client is coming back and saying 'what are you going to do about it'. I'm thinking that I could go back to her and say that I did mention in my report about a further evaluation and 'if you had done so, it would have been mentioned a that time'. And I'm not carring E&O, yet. What's my avenues??

Hello Dave,

Roofing over wood shingles is common. Roofing over wood shakes is not. Are you sure these are wood shakes and not wood shingles?

Is there more to this story than the complaint of being a fire hazard? It is harder to vent a roof with multiple layers but that doesn't make it a fire hazard. Not withstanding a local restriction, the good folks who make roofing shingles allow fiberglass shingles over wood shingles and it is an accepted roofing practice.

Although I'm not a fan of your report wording, the end result is the client should have known (through your report) that the roof was done. The purpose of lawsuits and financial recovery is to make someone whole. How was your client damaged? You told him end of useful life / bring out a roofer (even if that roof was to "evaluate" for purpose of providing an estimate for a new roof). I just don't see how your client is harmed by your report. Based on your information, I don't see an E or O.


Sincerely,

Corey Friedman

Well boys and girls.... here is the deal.

IRC R907.3 Recovering versus replacement.
New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur:

1. Existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing.
2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay or asbestos-cement tile.
3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering.

Exceptions:

1. Complete and separate roofing systems, such as standing-seam metal roof systems, that are designed to transmit the roof loads directly to the building's structural system and that do not rely on existing roofs and roof coverings for support shall not require the removal of existing roof coverings.
2. Metal panel, metal shingle, and concrete and clay tile roof coverings shall be permitted to be installed over existing wood shake roofs when applied in accordance with Section R907.4.

Per today's requirements, this would not be allowed. You may be getting into a deal where this was allowed by the local jurisdiction because it was not required at the time of installation. It also depends on what version of the IRC your AHJ goes by.

Hell, we are still with the 2000 IRC in alot of the jurisdictions around here.

rr

Originally Posted by wayne soper

Billy, thats interesting. You think thats because barbeque is better in tn. HAHA Call your local fire marshall and see what he thinks about it. What is allowed and what is safe are sometimes different. Wayne

Wayne,

B-Q is Excellent Known World Wide. Who ever comes to town always tries the Ribs

Rolling Stones to President of Japan.

Locale Fire Department rated among the best in the Nation.
Maybe Yankee Firemen needs B-Q or sharper Axe.

If it's 3 layers or under no can write.

Originally Posted by John Arnold

Your recommendation for further evaluation (the "e" word is dirty, according to some on this board) would seem to get you partly off the hook, anyway.

To the contrary when mentioned as posted.

Originally Posted by Dave Boratyn

Noted in the Roof section of the report that "roof is reaching the end of its useful life

When stating that the roof is reaching/at/near 'end of useful life', then 'deferring' to a roofer can be seen as simply trying to buy ones way out of saying that the roof needs to be replaced.

If the roofer does not call for it to be replaced, and the HI did not call for it to be replaced, then both are (could be) on the hook for it.

The HI should say it like they see it, and belly up to the bar and say 'replace the roof, on the rocks, please'. If the HI gets a little mamby-pamby about it and says to the effect that 'well, it's kinda, sorta, maybe, could stand to be replaced, but, you know, a roofer might save my butt and call it for replacement and I don't need to' - that come back to bite so often - we just had another 'recommend further evaluation' which came back to bite that HI too.

I'm not saying that Dave was *intentionally* trying to avoid saying 'replace the roof', but it sure can be interpreted that way, and I think that investor/flipper is going that direction.

What the investor 'not have bought it' if they knew it needed a new roof? Probably would not have phased them as they would have thought 'I can squeak this buy a buyer', but then got caught. If that had been the case, the fault would be his (the investor's) own. The HI would not be a party to it.

I keep saying 'Tell it like it is, it will not come back to you if you do that.' And, if it does come back to you, you can pull out your report which says, plainly and simply "Replace the friggin' roof." Problem solved.

Dave Wrote: "roof is reaching the end of its useful life and suggest that a licensed roof contractor evaluate further."

In my opinion, you need to get rid of the evalute further-- you were paid to tell them what was wrong (to evalute it).

Now, with that said, I can and would take what you stated, "is reaching" as getting "close" to the end of it's life expectancy. I would recommend that you state that it *IS* at it's end of life and to replace it, as needed. If it needs replacing say so. If repairs are all needed-- state which ones and where.

rr

Hey Billy, Yeah did some CT ribs tonight. They were good! I like the wood shake code from Richard that one I didn't know. Thanks Rich, and bottom line is no shingle manufacturer will warrant a shingle set on top of another anyway. I was researching the fire hazard I explained as described to me by a local roofer in my area and couldn't find Anything. I will make some calls manana and see what I can find.