Surveyor missed leaky flat roof

C3PO · 05-06-2019 1:56pm

osarusan wrote: »

A question from an uninformed outsider: when a surveyor does the kind of survey mentioned in the OP, is there an established list of things to be checked, and is there an understanding that the surveyor is under no obligation (or even not allowed to) mention any potential issue beyond that established list?

Yes - there is.
There is a RICS template but even if this is not used there is a sequence of inspection that should be followed.

http://www.deesurveys.com/downloads/RICS_Condition_Report_Sample_report.pdf

Penn · 05-06-2019 2:01pm

osarusan wrote: »

A question from an uninformed outsider: when a surveyor does the kind of survey mentioned in the OP, is there an established list of things to be checked, and is there an understanding that the surveyor is under no obligation (or even not allowed to) mention any potential issue beyond that established list?

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=6&field=file
There are generally three recognised levels/types of house purchase survey
Type One: A general walkthrough to highlight any observable issues, either legal or construction-related
Type Two: A more in-depth walkthrough (but still non-invasive, only of observable/accessible areas without any opening up of the building fabric) generally with an analysis of observed defects and possible remedial measures
Type Three: A detailed visual inspection throughout the property. Non-invasive unless otherwise agreed (though usually the report will recommend further investigation is required) and a thorough detailing of defects/issues and remedial measures or recommendations.

The surveyor will usually provide reasoning for any comments made, as objectively as possible. Ultimately though, the surveyor can only report on what they see. There are signs of defects the surveyor should be able to spot that lay-persons may not, and these should be highlighted even just to indicate there may be an issue, without confirming if there is one (as generally further investigation and opening of the building fabric may be required, which isn't done during a typical visual survey).

I would say that the flat roof itself isn't cause to say in the survey that there may be a leak, even if flat roofs are more susceptible to leaking than pitched roofs. The survey must be as objective as possible, and if no signs of leaking were noted, the surveyor can't note same. However, I would have expected the survey to at least note there was a flat roof even just in the description of the building itself, and from the photos in the OP of the localised repair to the stippled ceiling, I would have thought that should have been noted, even just to say the reason for it is unclear.

katie275 · 05-06-2019 2:18pm

Surveyor comments attached

olestoepoke · 05-06-2019 4:26pm

Penn wrote: »

https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=6&field=file
There are generally three recognised levels/types of house purchase survey
Type One: A general walkthrough to highlight any observable issues, either legal or construction-related
Type Two: A more in-depth walkthrough (but still non-invasive, only of observable/accessible areas without any opening up of the building fabric) generally with an analysis of observed defects and possible remedial measures
Type Three: A detailed visual inspection throughout the property. Non-invasive unless otherwise agreed (though usually the report will recommend further investigation is required) and a thorough detailing of defects/issues and remedial measures or recommendations.

The surveyor will usually provide reasoning for any comments made, as objectively as possible. Ultimately though, the surveyor can only report on what they see. There are signs of defects the surveyor should be able to spot that lay-persons may not, and these should be highlighted even just to indicate there may be an issue, without confirming if there is one (as generally further investigation and opening of the building fabric may be required, which isn't done during a typical visual survey).

I would say that the flat roof itself isn't cause to say in the survey that there may be a leak, even if flat roofs are more susceptible to leaking than pitched roofs. The survey must be as objective as possible, and if no signs of leaking were noted, the surveyor can't note same. However, I would have expected the survey to at least note there was a flat roof even just in the description of the building itself, and from the photos in the OP of the localised repair to the stippled ceiling, I would have thought that should have been noted, even just to say the reason for it is unclear.

The OP mentioned that there is several signs of leaks in the house below the flat roof. A patched area in the kitchen celing and evidence of leaks elsewhere. So why were these not mentioned. If the flat roof takes up approx 60% of the houses roofspace why was it not mentioned. Not a word on it. Yet he mentioned the other pitched roof. If a lady with no construction experience was able to open a window and take a pic of the flat roof why couldnt an experienced engineer who is being paid a hefty sum for less than an hours work open the window and look out. I dont buy it. No one that does this for a living is that stupid.

Ronney · 05-06-2019 4:53pm

Looks like from your photo of the rain yesterday that some repairs have been done to that roof. RHS of photo appears to have a strip of "Roof Repair" or similar. Its a Black Tar like paint on substance

Have a similar roof myself that was leaking recently (20+ years old so as to be expected) but only covers a toilet/Side passage. Leek was round a skylight but an hour of Reef repair and flash band has not a drop coming in yesterday. Just need to reslab the roof inside now

I will be re-roofing it when funds are available

Calahonda52 · 05-06-2019 6:27pm

olestoepoke wrote: »

The OP mentioned that there is several signs of leaks in the house below the flat roof. A patched area in the kitchen celing and evidence of leaks elsewhere. So why were these not mentioned. If the flat roof takes up approx 60% of the houses roofspace why was it not mentioned. Not a word on it. Yet he mentioned the other pitched roof. If a lady with no construction experience was able to open a window and take a pic of the flat roof why couldnt an experienced engineer who is being paid a hefty sum for less than an hours work open the window and look out. I dont buy it. No one that does this for a living is that stupid.

All assumptions, good bad and ugly.
Where does the OP refer to an engineer?

katie275 · 05-06-2019 6:35pm

Calahonda52 wrote: »

All assumptions, good bad and ugly.
Where does the OP refer to an engineer?

Mentioned in post #60

Doop · 06-06-2019 9:27am

olestoepoke wrote: »

The OP mentioned ....If a lady with no construction experience was able to open a window and take a pic of the flat roof why couldnt an experienced engineer who is being paid a hefty sum for less than an hours work open the window and look out. I dont buy it. No one that does this for a living is that stupid.

I agree with what you are saying here but I have to take exception to the bolded part, a residential type 2 survey takes a lot longer than you are giving it credit for... minimum 2 hours on site... travel time to/from... writing report cheeking flood maps...planning docs another 4-6 hrs.

The fees on these surveys are low in comparison to other surveyors work, alot of companies simply wont do residential surveys based on the hassle / low fees involved.

antix80 · 06-06-2019 10:02am

Doop wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying here but I have to take exception to the bolded part, a residential type 2 survey takes a lot longer than you are giving it credit for... minimum 2 hours on site... travel time to/from... writing report cheeking flood maps...planning docs another 4-6 hrs.

It can also become a box ticking exercise, where the surveyor assumes the remit is to enable a borrower to get a loan and misses red flags such as a large flat roof in a bad state of repair with visible signs of damp and poor repair work.

It's interesting you mentioned checking the flood maps. I know someone, and this is maybe 40 years ago, who bought a house that was built where there used to be a small stream. The surveyor didn't identify the risk, house was purchased, remedial work required, and the surveyor said he wasn't responsible as it wasn't part of the survey. It went to court and I'm not sure if it was settled out of court or not, but either way the surveyor ended up paying for the work.

It's one for the op to discuss with their solicitor and see is it worth pursuing.

Penn · 06-06-2019 10:10am

olestoepoke wrote: »

The OP mentioned that there is several signs of leaks in the house below the flat roof. A patched area in the kitchen celing and evidence of leaks elsewhere. So why were these not mentioned. If the flat roof takes up approx 60% of the houses roofspace why was it not mentioned. Not a word on it. Yet he mentioned the other pitched roof. If a lady with no construction experience was able to open a window and take a pic of the flat roof why couldnt an experienced engineer who is being paid a hefty sum for less than an hours work open the window and look out. I dont buy it. No one that does this for a living is that stupid.

Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread and only glanced quickly at the photos. My comments were more to give a general example of surveys as a whole. I agree that any signs of leaks should have been identified and noted, and as a surveyor they should have been able to spot signs of leaks easier than a lay-person would (especially during a survey where they should be looking for such things).

Though "hefty sum" and "less than an hour's work" are quite far off the mark in fairness. Our company rarely does surveys now at all because with the hours involved in travelling, surveying (as Doop points out above, you're talking usually 2 hours depending on the size of the house and property), writing the report (usually 6-10 hours) and time spent back and forth discussing it with clients. The cost is also tied to insurances and overheads. We've found that unless you're doing surveys all the time, they're not worth doing unless there is other work involved (eg. someone wants to buy a house and asks us to carry out a survey but then also wants to engage us for an extension or internal refurbishment etc).

Surveys are not simple, nor are they quick. Ultimately however, they are supposed to be as accurate as possible, and if the surveyor missed obvious signs of a defect, then OP in the first instance needs to go back to them and bring it to their attention. Discuss it with them first, then if needs be, bring a case against them to the SCSI (if they're a surveyor) or Engineers Ireland (if they're an engineer).

olestoepoke · 06-06-2019 3:03pm

Penn wrote: »

Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread and only glanced quickly at the photos. My comments were more to give a general example of surveys as a whole. I agree that any signs of leaks should have been identified and noted, and as a surveyor they should have been able to spot signs of leaks easier than a lay-person would (especially during a survey where they should be looking for such things).

Though "hefty sum" and "less than an hour's work" are quite far off the mark in fairness. Our company rarely does surveys now at all because with the hours involved in travelling, surveying (as Doop points out above, you're talking usually 2 hours depending on the size of the house and property), writing the report (usually 6-10 hours) and time spent back and forth discussing it with clients. The cost is also tied to insurances and overheads. We've found that unless you're doing surveys all the time, they're not worth doing unless there is other work involved (eg. someone wants to buy a house and asks us to carry out a survey but then also wants to engage us for an extension or internal refurbishment etc).

Surveys are not simple, nor are they quick. Ultimately however, they are supposed to be as accurate as possible, and if the surveyor missed obvious signs of a defect, then OP in the first instance needs to go back to them and bring it to their attention. Discuss it with them first, then if needs be, bring a case against them to the SCSI (if they're a surveyor) or Engineers Ireland (if they're an engineer).

Point taken, I apologise and realise that my comments were a little rash. On topic though, if a price is agreed for a particular service, how long it takes is irrelevant and the service should be completed to a minimum standard required by the industry.

katie275 · 12-06-2019 10:40pm

I spoke to a solicitor who advised getting a second surveyor to look at the property to determine if he was negligent or not. Then maybe I have a case. Also emailed the surveyor and asked why he failed to mention the flat roof on his report. He got very defensive...

Gumbo · 12-06-2019 11:05pm

katie275 wrote: »

I spoke to a solicitor who advised getting a second surveyor to look at the property to determine if he was negligent or not. Then maybe I have a case. Also emailed the surveyor and asked why he failed to mention the flat roof on his report. He got very defensive...

Thanks for the update.
Please keep us all informed of progress.

katie275 · 14-06-2019 8:00pm

I sent an email explaining that I was baffled as to why the roof was overlooked given the signs of water damage (dribble marks around door frame, patched up ceilings - these are the pics in my first post) and also the age of the roof.
I’ve attached the response I got...
Seems like some BS to me...surely those puddles in the roof aren’t normal?

olestoepoke · 15-06-2019 4:28pm

katie275 wrote: »

I sent an email explaining that I was baffled as to why the roof was overlooked given the signs of water damage (dribble marks around door frame, patched up ceilings - these are the pics in my first post) and also the age of the roof.
I’ve attached the response I got...
Seems like some BS to me...surely those puddles in the roof aren’t normal?

That guy is talking absolute nonsense. Trying to use jargon to confuse you to make up for his utter incompetence. The puddles and dips in your roof are from the deteriorated plywood and not the overlaps of the felt. You don't need to be a builder or roofer to see that that roof needs to be replaced. He knows he messed up and is trying to cover his tracks. And what the hell does "habitable "rooms mean? Aren't all the rooms in our house supposed to be habitable? If there is any justice in this country that guy should be punished for professional negligence. His response was embarrassing and only makes him look worse.

Gumbo · 15-06-2019 4:52pm

olestoepoke wrote: »

And what the hell does "habitable "rooms mean? Aren't all the rooms in our house supposed to be habitable?

No. Some rooms are classed as habitable and some are not. Habitable rooms have different requirements than non habitable rooms. So there you are.

olestoepoke · 15-06-2019 6:15pm

kceire wrote: »

No. Some rooms are classed as habitable and some are not. Habitable rooms have different requirements than non habitable rooms. So there you are.

Ok, fair enough but aren't all the rooms in a house supposed to have vents to the outside?

Idbatterim · 15-06-2019 6:25pm

does the "flat roof" have a decent pitch for the water to run off OP? obviously the torch on felt has failed in various places over time, but if the pitch is ok, you could just get the TOF replaced? assuming the beams are ok...

the second post I think made a good point, are there currently any leaks that you are aware of?

olestoepoke · 15-06-2019 7:00pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

does the "flat roof" have a decent pitch for the water to run off OP? obviously the torch on felt has failed in various places over time, but if the pitch is ok, you could just get the TOF replaced? assuming the beams are ok...

the second post I think made a good point, are there currently any leaks that you are aware of?

From the various pictures throughout the thread it is clearly obvious that the entire roof needs to be replaced.Look back at the pics of the roof after rain. It doesn't matter what pitch is currently on the roof the plywood between the joists is shot. The roof is full of dips between the joists and when it rains the roof is full of deep puddles. Recovering won't fix that.

my3cents · 15-06-2019 7:42pm

olestoepoke wrote: »

From the various pictures throughout the thread it is clearly obvious that the entire roof needs to be replaced.Look back at the pics of the roof after rain. It doesn't matter what pitch is currently on the roof the plywood between the joists is shot. The roof is full of dips between the joists and when it rains the roof is full of deep puddles. Recovering won't fix that.

I'd hazard a guess that you can replace the word plywood in your post with "chipboard" or particle board, both are fine till they get wet then they sag like that.

Lumen · 15-06-2019 8:06pm

olestoepoke wrote: »

Ok, fair enough but aren't all the rooms in a house supposed to have vents to the outside?

All "rooms" need a means of ventilation although there may be spaces that aren't rooms and ventilation that isn't holes in the wall.

Idbatterim · 15-06-2019 9:00pm

If there is adequate fall and the joists aren’t shot, you can just get wedges cut , screw then into existing beams and put new plywood over it and then torch onfelt it again... I’ve done that on the family home !

I’m not saying it can be done in the op case. But it’s worked for me !

olestoepoke · 15-06-2019 9:17pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

If there is adequate fall and the joists aren’t shot, you can just get wedges cut , screw then into existing beams and put new plywood over it and then torch onfelt it again... I’ve done that on the family home !

I’m not saying it can be done in the op case. But it’s worked for me !

Yes this could be done but is bad job. Why wouldn't you strip it out? Whats the extra cost. You are talking about the redoing the roof over the existing bad roof. This to me is a terrible idea, for a few days labour and a skip strip it all out. You can better assess the joists and fall and then redo the roof. Craziness to leave the old crap there.

Idbatterim · 15-06-2019 9:30pm

olestoepoke wrote: »

Yes this could be done but is bad job. Why wouldn't you strip it out? Whats the extra cost. You are talking about the redoing the roof over the existing bad roof. This to me is a terrible idea, for a few days labour and a skip strip it all out. You can better assess the joists and fall and then redo the roof. Craziness to leave the old crap there.

If it’s not rotten , what does it matter ? We only did it cause there was no fall. I don’t know what the op budget is , the cost of jobs at the moment is insane...

I’m not saying to do it , but we can do the work ourselves. Builders probably wouldn’t propose it , as they think it’s better to start from scratch and with most of them , cause there is more money in it ...

The extra cost there would be the Labour involved in taking old roof off and a skip to get rid of the wood ...

olestoepoke · 15-06-2019 9:41pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

If it’s not rotten , what does it matter ? We only did it cause there was no fall. I don’t know what the op budget is , the cost of jobs at the moment is insane...

I’m not saying to do it , but we can do the work ourselves. Builders probably wouldn’t propose it , as they think it’s better to start from scratch and with most of them , cause there is more money in it ...

I'm a carpenter with almost 30 years experience in construction. In my opinion what you suggested is a terrible idea for a myriad of reasons. You would be crazy to spend money on new materials, plywood, Torch on/Trocol and install it over a roof that is full of puddles and clearly needs to be redone. What about the extra weight? What about the facia/ soffit and gutters? Are you suggesting that the OP take a gamble and assume that the joists are in good shape? As I've said the extra cost is a few days labour and a skip. Would be crazy to risk not stripping it out and redoing it properly for the sake of the extra cost.

my3cents · 15-06-2019 11:24pm

If it was me I'd redo the whole lot as a warm roof with a massive amount of insulation. Its obvious from the way the old roof has sagged that its effectively a cold roof.

katie275 · 17-06-2019 10:19am

The surveyor didn't need to cut holes to see the water marks around the door frame, or the patched up ceiling below a flat roof, so what is his defence there?

lalababa · 17-06-2019 10:57am

Those timbers look ok. Except for the one half drilled out for cables ..ha..ha. Just looking at the pic. of the roof ..... I'd be thinking it needs a refelt. Surveyor should have reported as much. Regards water damage, they don't put holes in cielings and walls unless asked to. How bad are the timbers?

Wildly Boaring · 17-06-2019 11:08am

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'm a carpenter with almost 30 years experience in construction. In my opinion what you suggested is a terrible idea for a myriad of reasons. You would be crazy to spend money on new materials, plywood, Torch on/Trocol and install it over a roof that is full of puddles and clearly needs to be redone. What about the extra weight? What about the facia/ soffit and gutters? Are you suggesting that the OP take a gamble and assume that the joists are in good shape? As I've said the extra cost is a few days labour and a skip. Would be crazy to risk not stripping it out and redoing it properly for the sake of the extra cost.

Fully agree
Half measures on a flat roof can lead to years of messing.

Do it right and do it once.

Leaving the joists in there could very possibly lead to dry rot too. Youd have to be confident before closing up that every bit of timber was dry and rot free

Surveyor missed leaky flat roof

Comments