Felt flat roof replaced with EPDM - big ponding
Comments
-
The whole job looks like a dog's dinner, but OP has asked for firring timbers - not for new rafters and a proper roof. Clearly there is a problem with the rafters so it is back to OP. But it appears from the photo that the roof needs removing and all work being done again, but this time properly.
I am wondering if the brief was to tart up the roof on the cheap, the lowest quote was sought, and this is the result. If so the contractor is at fault, to an extent, but so is the client for issuing a flawed brief.0 -
Seems pretty straightforward. You *specifically* asked for something to be fixed, you instructed a professional who is competent in his field to complete the job, they confirmed they would ......... and they haven't.
If you had gone to them and told them you want a new roof with x, y and z to be done, they may have an argument to justify not fixing the problem - but even then, being a competent person, they should advise you otherwise. Your case is clear cut because you asked for something to be fixed and it hasn't.
I agree, as a customer I just asked for the pitch to be corrected, they then told me they'd use firrings etc to correct it, I'll proceed with their offer of putting in a new timber and see if that helps, not sure it will but if it does minimize the ponding i'll be happy with that.
The workmanship of the roof itself (as a layperson) seems fine and I do have a 10 year insurance backed guarentee too.
Furts I did not specifically ask for firring timbers, I asked for the pitch to be corrected and their explanation of how they will achieve this sounded fine to me at the time, as a customer I would now know to that level of detail hence me hiring a expert, I know now more because of all the issues, the quote I went for was not the cheapest as I looked at qualifications and ensured they provided a insurance backed guarentee, not sure I agree that it looks like a dogs dinner either.0 -
You have a new pitched roof. Any roof should be designed - it is a fundamental. OK if just a garden shed that can be based on past experience or judgement.You have a very large shed which looks remarkably like habitable accomodation. Basic principles here are the Buildings Regulations are applicable. This does mean design and competence. You have engaged a roofer and allowed anything to be pitched - no questions asked. This roof has sagged and there is ponding. A suggested solution is to Acrow the roof to a new line, which you say you are happy with. To justify your stance you say there is a ten year guarantee,
The reality is the roof should be replaced, and if in say five years time you made a claim on the guarantee and were honest, your claim would most likely be rejected. You would have to admit the roof was badly built, it was then bodged with an Acrow prop, and you then paid illustrating that you were a satisfied customer.
I have referred to the situation as being a dog's dinner. You view matters differently. I stand by my judgement - we will agree to disagree on this one.0 -
Got to agree with Furts on this one, looks like a shed badly converted to habitable space. The roof timbers were probably not designed to take the weight of plasterboard and roof covering hence the sagging. The whole roof needs replacing with deeper timber. Im surprised the council allowed a shed that large in a garden that small, but it looks like the neighbours all have sheds similar size.0
-
Got to agree with Furts on this one, looks like a shed badly converted to habitable space. The roof timbers were probably not designed to take the weight of plasterboard and roof covering hence the sagging. The whole roof needs replacing with deeper timber. Im surprised the council allowed a shed that large in a garden that small, but it looks like the neighbours all have sheds similar size.
OP is not posting about the shed being allowed by the council, just about the roof. This is sagging up both sides and an Acrow in the middle will be pointless here because that cannot alter the sides.
Coincidentally OP is posting about a colleague who has a 35 metre square shed in their back garden and wondering about the legality of the height at 2.8 metres.0 -
I think your misunderstanding, a new beam is going to be installed after its going to be acrowed up, I need to give them opportunity for them to fix the issue, if it doesn't I can take it further at that stage. Personally I agree with you not sure if it will help but I'm in a difficult position, I need to give them the opportunity to resolve before I can take further action as you can appreciate.
I've zoomed in on my building so maybe it looks bigger then it is, correct most of the neighbors have one a similar size or bigger.
The colleague issue is different and brought about because we were talking about my current issues with roof, if I had that issue too would have combined it into this post.
Anyway I'll update once I know more, thanks again for the all the replies and info
0 -
I would put a couple of extra 'beams' across the width of the roof while its supported. Problem is that your going to end up with wrinkled EPDM when you get rid of the dip.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards