Problems with roof survey report?

DorsetLad

A few days ago my son had a roofing survey done on a flat that he is hoping to buy (leasehold). It's an upper floor flat in a conversion of a 1920's/1930's house and the leaseholder is responsible for the roof. He had the roof survey done because the lounge has a ceiling that bulges down and another room has evidence of damp (peeling wallpaper). The report, done by an NFRC-registered roofer and costing £250, consists of the following paragraph and a few photos of the loft space and external roof:  
"We arrived at the above property to inspect the roof as there were concerns about the ceilings that were sagging inside. We found that the roof is approximately 120 years old and is the original roof. The roof is covered in small rosemary tiles and is close boarded, with no insulation between the roof rafters. The roof is in good condition for its age and the flashings around the chimneys also appear to be in good condition, along with the guttering. We went into the loft and inspected all the timbers which are also in good condition along with the ceiling joists, so we think the sagging plaster and cracks on the plaster is due to old age and wear and tear. We estimate a new roof will be required in the next 5-10 years".

It doesn't sound too bad, although I've never heard "wear and tear" applied to a ceiling. However, one of the photos he supplied (photo attached) is of the roof above the lounge where the ceiling is sagging. I'm not a roofing expert but to me there seem to be problems:  (1) 2 tiles have come loose (bottom right, might not be visible in the photo). (2) The chimney stack need some repointing, where the wonky aerial is attached; (3) There seems to be some flashing missing at the side of the stack at the bottom (does this matter?). (4) The downpipe from the roof extension of the neighbour's house exits onto the roof above the lounge, rather than onto the roof on their side (is this legal/acceptable?)

I'd appreciate any comments you have as to whether you agree with my (untrained) assessment of the roof in the photo. Also, are we wrong to expect that details such as these should have been given in the report? Our worry is that if these really are faults that the roofer has missed, then can we trust his statement that "all the timbers .... are also in good condition along with the ceiling joists"?

grumbler

"120 years old ... in good condition ... a new roof will be required in the next 5-10 years"

I am no expert, but this sounds odd to me.

I do see the loose tiles, that the expert didn't notice, and that definitely require attention. And I don't like the neighbour's pipe in general and it's direction in particular.

DiddyDavies

grumbler said:

And I don't like the neighbour's pipe in general and it's direction in particular.

I will be the first to admit that I know little about building regulations but I wouldn't have thought it legal to have rainwater run off going directly over the roof of a neighbouring property to reach a gutter.

Homer_home

DiddyDavies said:

grumbler said:

And I don't like the neighbour's pipe in general and it's direction in particular.

I will be the first to admit that I know little about building regulations but I wouldn't have thought it legal to have rainwater run off going directly over the roof of a neighbouring property to reach a gutter.

Why would it not be legal ?

Its a rain pipe from which water runs down the roof into the roof gutter which is exactly what rain does ......

That roof looks in pretty good condition , a little repointing and two loose tiles is hardly an issue for a 120 year old roof

As for sagging timbers , totally normal , you try holding a roof up for 120 years and see if you're still as straight as you were , the day you were installed!

My roof is at least 90 years old and you should see the sag in the ceiling rafters from a very old water tank (now removed) but it's part of the character of the building and I don't intend to change it 

As for peeling wallpaper, doesn't automatically mean you have a leaky roof could be a myriad of reasons why it's peeling 

lesalanos

DorsetLad said:

A few days ago my son had a roofing survey done on a flat that he is hoping to buy (leasehold). It's an upper floor flat in a conversion of a 1920's/1930's house and the leaseholder is responsible for the roof. He had the roof survey done because the lounge has a ceiling that bulges down and another room has evidence of damp (peeling wallpaper). The report, done by an NFRC-registered roofer and costing £250, consists of the following paragraph and a few photos of the loft space and external roof:  
"We arrived at the above property to inspect the roof as there were concerns about the ceilings that were sagging inside. We found that the roof is approximately 120 years old and is the original roof. The roof is covered in small rosemary tiles and is close boarded, with no insulation between the roof rafters. The roof is in good condition for its age and the flashings around the chimneys also appear to be in good condition, along with the guttering. We went into the loft and inspected all the timbers which are also in good condition along with the ceiling joists, so we think the sagging plaster and cracks on the plaster is due to old age and wear and tear. We estimate a new roof will be required in the next 5-10 years".

It doesn't sound too bad, although I've never heard "wear and tear" applied to a ceiling. However, one of the photos he supplied (photo attached) is of the roof above the lounge where the ceiling is sagging. I'm not a roofing expert but to me there seem to be problems:  (1) 2 tiles have come loose (bottom right, might not be visible in the photo). (2) The chimney stack need some repointing, where the wonky aerial is attached; (3) There seems to be some flashing missing at the side of the stack at the bottom (does this matter?). (4) The downpipe from the roof extension of the neighbour's house exits onto the roof above the lounge, rather than onto the roof on their side (is this legal/acceptable?)

I'd appreciate any comments you have as to whether you agree with my (untrained) assessment of the roof in the photo. Also, are we wrong to expect that details such as these should have been given in the report? Our worry is that if these really are faults that the roofer has missed, then can we trust his statement that "all the timbers .... are also in good condition along with the ceiling joists"?

That's £250 wasted then.  He should have just asked you 

DiddyDavies

Homer_home said:

DiddyDavies said:

I will be the first to admit that I know little about building regulations but I wouldn't have thought it legal to have rainwater run off going directly over the roof of a neighbouring property to reach a gutter.

Why would it not be legal ?

Its a rain pipe from which water runs down the roof into the roof gutter which is exactly what rain does ......

Well, if you have a downpipe on your property, I know that the water from that can't be directed onto the surface of a neighbouring property so I don't see why the output from a pipe on the roof would be looked at any differently.
This is the sort of requirement that I was thinking of:
www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/15/drains_and_sewers/2

Additional rainwater pipes can discharge onto the ground, or into new or existing underground pipework. If you decide to allow rainwater pipes to discharge onto the ground, you need to make sure the water will not damage foundations (eg. by encouraging it to spread out over a wide area) or flow onto neighbouring property (eg. by providing a slight lip at the boundary).

DorsetLad

Thanks everyone for your advice

Jeepers_Creepers

In general, I don't see anything to overly worry about.

Yes, it's an old roof, but as said before it's in generally good order and I wouldn't anticipate significant work being required for a good number of years - possibly even decades before it would need actual recovering. Meanwhile you (ie - the LL) just has missing tiles replaced as required, and this cost should be shared between all the flats if not already covered by the maintenance charge. (The LL should really have a roofer/builder they know who'll pop out and stuff tiles back in place for £100 a visit...)

Ditto for the stack and flashing - the cost of sorting this, should it be required, will be shared between the flats; this will not just be your son's responsibility just 'cos he's in the top flat and will get wet first. (Unless it's a very strange lease which does give the top flat sole responsibility...)

Yes, that downpipe is poorly positioned as it points at a low angle across the tiles, so will be sending a sideways gush of water along these tiles making it far more likely that water could be forced under them and through to the roof space. The pipe should be redirected downwards. However, since it's a semi-detached house (?) which already shares continuous guttering (?), there is nothing illegal or against regs in the way it sends the water down to what is still a shared gutter. If that is the only downpipe from that neighbouring extension, I would certainly consider it poor neighbourly practice to expect the neighbouring roof to take all the flow like that. Is there roof space on the other side for this? Again, however, this is not an potential issue for your son alone, but for all the leaseholders. 

grumbler

Jeepers_Creepers said:

However, since it's a semi-detached house (?) which already shares continuous guttering (?), there is nothing illegal or against regs in the way it sends the water down to what is still a shared gutter.

The gutter may well be shared, but the roof isn't. The water can be routed directly to the gutter - that's what pipes exist for.

DorsetLad

 Jeepers_Creepers said:

Ditto for the stack and flashing - the cost of sorting this, should it be required, will be shared between the flats; this will not just be your son's responsibility just 'cos he's in the top flat and will get wet first. (Unless it's a very strange lease which does give the top flat sole responsibility...)

The lease has not yet been looked over by the solicitor, but it does state that the upper floor flat includes "the chimney stacks and roof downwards". We are provisionally taking this to mean that our son will bear most, if not all, of the responsibility for the roof, which is why we are concerned about possible additional costs for roof work if he buys this flat.

Re: pipe routing. The pipe shown is the only downpipe from the extension. That's a good point about the sideways flow of water. There is indeed space to direct a pipe down to the gutter, since the division between the two house is in the middle of the chimney, so a pipe could be run directly down to the gutter from its present position and would remain on the neighbour's side. Following yours and Grumbler's comments/suggestions, we will get some pipework added.