Concerns over roof structural problems.

AbuBella

https://imgur.com/a/EP662fY

Dear all,

I live on the top floor of a block of 9 flats, and am quite tired of the mismangement and neglect that this building has been subjected to over my 2 years of tenure here. So I have over the last couple of months, managed to rally most of the building's rather inactive and dormant leasholder to acquire the RTM (right to manage) of the building. We are still about ~ 6 months from taking over, the leasholders where rather uninterested at first seem to be getting more involved as time goes on.

Myself and another top floor neighbour have recently had some leaking roof issues coming up during the stormier periods. I have pushed for the maintenance company to instruct an roof report/investigation and that has come up with the link attached.

My understanding is that some trades companies will try to scaremonger you into a high quote, but I am still worried about point 12 where it is mentioned that 'the floor has collapsed', I am awaiting for the first quote and hpoing to see some detailed breakdown.

I should mention that I have zero knowledge on trade practices/roofing matters, and will be relying on a new leasholder that works in that space, I am just looking to see if someone can give me their informed subjective opinion on this report, and urgency/(likely cost) of repairs involved.

N.B.

The building is 20 years old, and am assuming that the same goes for the roof as well, please let me know if there is any other information I can supply.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

eddddy

It sounds like a big job.

In your position, I'd suggest instructing a suitably experienced RICS building surveyor to report on it.

The surveyor should work in your best interests - as opposed to the Construction Company who might be working in their best interests.

The surveyor could provide a description of the work that needs doing, which you can then pass to contractors to get quotes.

(If you want, the surveyor could also check the work as it's progressing, and after it's complete, to make sure it's done properly - but obviously for a fee.)


What is the new leaseholders line of work?

gm0

The issue with floating membrane over unknown, degraded, or missing from initial construction - structure.  Is a real nuisance. As actions for RICS surveyor or others to safely find out what is actually going on is likely to make exterior seal problems worse in the first instance.  (Any temporary repair upon investigation being another "sunk cost" alongside survey to address this).  Or may require invasive opening up (from below) - again it may not be acceptable to leave it open like that until the final project proceeds - months - or years - later.  That lesseee isn't going to be happy with that.

Scaffolding is expensive for any mid-high rise.  With a high fixed cost element per "instance". 
And people don't like it staying up for months and years.  But it will be up a long time if you proceed step by step or need it up front to conclude investigation and the project. And put a legal dispute inbetween investigation and works.  Certainly months.  Possibly years (if legal processes drag).  You can't realistically destroy the subject of a lawsuit before "their" surveyors have had opportunity to inspect - or you potentially undermine your own case.  So this question -  fact find - legal remedy y/n - project to remediate proceeds in series.  So you can't unblock getting weather tight and duration of works and preserve full options on seeking cost remedies other than from leaseholders.

A significant challenge to the politics of this will natuarally be that the cost of this will be substantial.  And in the situation you describe upfront - I would be amazed if you had significant reserves/sinking/contingency funds stashed.

There will need to be a hard conversation about the reality of it - with the independent survey done.  And some blowback to be expected from the 9.  Some may genuinely be in financial difficulty about contributing to it.  Which in turn requires thought to be applied to project financing, use of debt, longer term levies etc.  And what funding mechanism (payment plan) can be used - at extra cost for debt interest - to spread the Section 20 hit out.

If it is well past any warranty periods, and has been touched/repaired before since construction - the options to pursue a long gone developer over the actions of their subbies (if rogue or simply very sloppy) - may be a hard legal road with uncertain results.  Nonetheless the status and duration of original warranties is a fact that needs to be determined with freeholder and original agency - whoever has records - if they do.

Gradual deterioriation exacerbated by lack of maintenance is not an insurable event under buildings insurance. Not an insured event.

Given replacing the roof at EOL would generally fall to the 9 lessess under long leases.  This is obviously very early to be having that conversation.  And yet the bill will be coming - Section 20.

My parents lived in a place where poor roof construction from new caused signficant issues.  And because of insurance backed warranty and early detection - a long running lawsuit between different insurers of two different developers - one failed, the other took over - before a settlement (years later), release of funds and an eventual program of works to replace flat roofs across multiple blocks.  A program which those lessees were fortunate to escape funding directly themselves.  As part of replacement they changed the roof system and did not replace exactly like for like - which introduced other issues (less serious) around noise, water containment in high winds etc.  I mention this to highlight that the mix of skills you need (around survey, proposed remedy, architecture/building engineering, standards - to pick a good path and yet avoid unintended consequences should not be underestimated).

As to the politics of the 9 - If people believe there is a possible path to not paying for it and are not significantly affected right now - they often vote to spend 20k on lawyers.  Rather than 200k on a roof. 

And so will want to investigate that path if there is no certainty it is blocked off. But of course legal costs can spiral and the result may not be achieved, or collectable.   And 20k to avoid 200k becomes 250k (costs regularly inflate with delay).  T

This is a horrible thing to have to deal with as a director of RTM or SoF. 

Absent personal background in "the trade" - acting professionally by hiring the required help independent of installer/supplier - will add cost - which won't seem to advance the project much.  And be unpopular.  And yet so is dropping >200k and getting it bodged.  And needing to do it again.

I hesitate to mention it given the extant degree of difficulty - but in context of major roof structure works - if you have full structural roof problems to resolve.  Then the related subjects of both solar panels and insulation standards naturally comes up.  If the thing is being opened up.

What I describe here is "the long way around".  The short path - often encountered in the wild is to address current issues with a minimal bodge.  Shred and discard or discredit the alarmist installer quote.  And sell up. 
Let some other mug deal with it in 5-10 years.  Once you formalise the process and start documented discussions with other lessees - going the long way round gets locked in. It becomes a known and disclosable fact set which will make lease assignment (selling flats) very difficult until properly resolved.  But at least that provides an incentive to collaborate with a process to resolve it.

AbuBella

eddddy said:

It sounds like a big job.

In your position, I'd suggest instructing a suitably experienced RICS building surveyor to report on it.

The surveyor should work in your best interests - as opposed to the Construction Company who might be working in their best interests.

The surveyor could provide a description of the work that needs doing, which you can then pass to contractors to get quotes.

(If you want, the surveyor could also check the work as it's progressing, and after it's complete, to make sure it's done properly - but obviously for a fee.)


What is the new leaseholders line of work?

Hi Edddy, the new leaseholder deals in boiler and central heating systems in general, but he mentions that he knows some roofing contractors that could give us a favourable quote (will have to look into it).

I agree with you that it would be for the best for RICS independent surveyor to report on it, I'm assuming that they would charge in the region of £500 for a detailed breakdown report, but will have to look into it.

AbuBella

gm0 said:

The issue with floating membrane over unknown, degraded, or missing from initial construction - structure.  Is a real nuisance. As actions for RICS surveyor or others to safely find out what is actually going on is likely to make exterior seal problems worse in the first instance.  (Any temporary repair upon investigation being another "sunk cost" alongside survey to address this).  Or may require invasive opening up (from below) - again it may not be acceptable to leave it open like that until the final project proceeds - months - or years - later.  That lesseee isn't going to be happy with that.

Scaffolding is expensive for any mid-high rise.  With a high fixed cost element per "instance". 
And people don't like it staying up for months and years.  But it will be up a long time if you proceed step by step or need it up front to conclude investigation and the project. And put a legal dispute inbetween investigation and works.  Certainly months.  Possibly years (if legal processes drag).  You can't realistically destroy the subject of a lawsuit before "their" surveyors have had opportunity to inspect - or you potentially undermine your own case.  So this question -  fact find - legal remedy y/n - project to remediate proceeds in series.  So you can't unblock getting weather tight and duration of works and preserve full options on seeking cost remedies other than from leaseholders.

A significant challenge to the politics of this will natuarally be that the cost of this will be substantial.  And in the situation you describe upfront - I would be amazed if you had significant reserves/sinking/contingency funds stashed.

There will need to be a hard conversation about the reality of it - with the independent survey done.  And some blowback to be expected from the 9.  Some may genuinely be in financial difficulty about contributing to it.  Which in turn requires thought to be applied to project financing, use of debt, longer term levies etc.  And what funding mechanism (payment plan) can be used - at extra cost for debt interest - to spread the Section 20 hit out.

If it is well past any warranty periods, and has been touched/repaired before since construction - the options to pursue a long gone developer over the actions of their subbies (if rogue or simply very sloppy) - may be a hard legal road with uncertain results.  Nonetheless the status and duration of original warranties is a fact that needs to be determined with freeholder and original agency - whoever has records - if they do.

Gradual deterioriation exacerbated by lack of maintenance is not an insurable event under buildings insurance. Not an insured event.

Given replacing the roof at EOL would generally fall to the 9 lessess under long leases.  This is obviously very early to be having that conversation.  And yet the bill will be coming - Section 20.

My parents lived in a place where poor roof construction from new caused signficant issues.  And because of insurance backed warranty and early detection - a long running lawsuit between different insurers of two different developers - one failed, the other took over - before a settlement (years later), release of funds and an eventual program of works to replace flat roofs across multiple blocks.  A program which those lessees were fortunate to escape funding directly themselves.  As part of replacement they changed the roof system and did not replace exactly like for like - which introduced other issues (less serious) around noise, water containment in high winds etc.  I mention this to highlight that the mix of skills you need (around survey, proposed remedy, architecture/building engineering, standards - to pick a good path and yet avoid unintended consequences should not be underestimated).

As to the politics of the 9 - If people believe there is a possible path to not paying for it and are not significantly affected right now - they often vote to spend 20k on lawyers.  Rather than 200k on a roof. 

And so will want to investigate that path if there is no certainty it is blocked off. But of course legal costs can spiral and the result may not be achieved, or collectable.   And 20k to avoid 200k becomes 250k (costs regularly inflate with delay).  T

This is a horrible thing to have to deal with as a director of RTM or SoF. 

Absent personal background in "the trade" - acting professionally by hiring the required help independent of installer/supplier - will add cost - which won't seem to advance the project much.  And be unpopular.  And yet so is dropping >200k and getting it bodged.  And needing to do it again.

I hesitate to mention it given the extant degree of difficulty - but in context of major roof structure works - if you have full structural roof problems to resolve.  Then the related subjects of both solar panels and insulation standards naturally comes up.  If the thing is being opened up.

What I describe here is "the long way around".  The short path - often encountered in the wild is to address current issues with a minimal bodge.  Shred and discard or discredit the alarmist installer quote.  And sell up. 
Let some other mug deal with it in 5-10 years.  Once you formalise the process and start documented discussions with other lessees - going the long way round gets locked in. It becomes a known and disclosable fact set which will make lease assignment (selling flats) very difficult until properly resolved.  But at least that provides an incentive to collaborate with a process to resolve it.

Hi gm, and thank you for an excellent write-up. I am looking at living here for at least 2 more years, and personally am a bit overwhelmed by all of this, but am not looking to pass down this issue to another poor soul. I dread to think that it might come to cost £200k to fix this roof as that would legitemately bankrupt me, but will have to see if I can get an informal opinion of a trusted roofer on this, and look for affordable short-term fixes until we can find come up with a long-term plan for things.

You win some in life and you lose some, thank you for your two cents.