Survey shows no secondary membrane on roof

Bambino99

Hi I’m in the middle of buying a house and the survey says there is no secondary membrane and I should get a quote for this and consider this in the purchase of the property. I have been advised this could cost £6000 to remove the roof. Is it generally acceptable to ask for this to be considered in the sale of the property ? The property is Victorian and built that way 

user1977

You can consider it as a future improvement if you really want, but obviously nobody before you has thought it necessary. No, it isn’t relevant to the price.

WIAWSNB

If the roof does not leak, then it would be nuts - ie a complete waste of money - to strip the roof and fit a membrane. Bonkers. 

I'd expect the vendor to have similar feelings. 

The roof will most likely need recovering at some point, possibly a decade or two or more down the line, and you should save your money for then.

If the survey actually suggested any other issues with the roof, say nail fatigue, or flaking slate, something that could actually compromise its longevity, then you could try and factor that in to some degree and see if there's a bit of movement on the price. But again, expect the vendor to say, "Yer buying a Vicky property" or, "Already factored into the asking price..."

TheNorthStar

When you say no secondary membrane, are you referring to it being tiled only with no waterproof barrier? That would make me very anxious whether it's leaking currently or not. Not sure why anybody would do that, it would make me wonder if they've cut other corners too.

kinger101

TheNorthStar said:

When you say no secondary membrane, are you referring to it being tiled only with no waterproof barrier? That would make me very anxious whether it's leaking currently or not. Not sure why anybody would do that, it would make me wonder if they've cut other corners too.

At one point, nobody did it.  Might not be today's standard, but there are plenty of old houses with old roofs.

Albermarle

TheNorthStar said:

When you say no secondary membrane, are you referring to it being tiled only with no waterproof barrier? That would make me very anxious whether it's leaking currently or not. Not sure why anybody would do that, it would make me wonder if they've cut other corners too.

Houses over a 100 years old and still with the original roof, will be unlikely to have a secondary membrane, and that is a lot of houses.
The key point is the word 'secondary' . The tiled roof is what should keep the water out, these membranes are only really a backstop.
Until we had our loft converted, all you could see inside the roof was the back of the tiles, and it never leaked at all. 

youth_leader

My 1847 grade II listed slate roof didn't have a membrane.  We had bats roosting and unfortunately it seems the new owner can pay to 'disturb' them whilst having a new roof and membrane installed. 

ian1246

On the flipside, I brought a 3 bed 1970's semi-detached property which had a lower than normal incline with insufficient overlap between the tiles - meaning when wind blew rain got in under the tiles. For 50 years the felt-membrane did its job and kept the water out, but shortly after I moved in I discovered a wonderful wet patch above my ceiling. Off I went into the attic... only to discover water pouring in from various holes where the felt had perished.

The tiles and woodwork itself? Absolutely fine. Ended up getting the roof stripped, new felt installed and tiles placed back on - this time with a much greater overlap (requiring additional tiles). Set me back around £6800.

I bring this up to illustrate that even a relatively "modern" house with a roof which appeared structurally sound can have its issues.... whilst a 100+year old house with no felt (like my parents - they've lived in it for 27years!) can have absolutely zero issues.