Roof valley material not matching architects spec ?

davisi33 · 30 September 2016 at 3:29PM

After some guidance please from a roofer / builder or someone with some legal experience.

On our recent extension the roof valley that has been created has been finished in felt. This is despite the architects spec reading as below.

"LEAD VALLEY BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW PITCHED ROOFS(or alternative pre-formed glass fibre or similar)
Lead-lined valleys to be formed using Code 5 lead sheet. Valley lead and two tiling fillets to be supported on min 19mm thick and 225mm wide marine ply valley boards on either side of the rafters. Lead to be laid in lengths not exceeding 1.5m with min 150mm lap joints and be dressed 200mm under the tiles.
Roofing tiles to be bedded in mortar placed on a tile slip to prevent direct contact. All work to be in accordance with the roof cladding manufacturers and the Lead Development Association recommendations."

I have tried to argue with the builder that felt can not be considered "similar" as it is an inferior product compared to lead or fibre glass especially when considering its lifespan and cost.

However the builder has argued that he priced the job on felt and it meets the architects specification above.

Would welcome any informed opinions please ? Do you feel I would have any legal recourse ?

As an aside we also have a leak in the roof somewhere which is manifesting itself as wet patches on the room walls below the new valley.

Doozergirl · 30 September 2016 at 3:44PM

Your architect has left that wide open for interpretation. You could argue for using bubble gum if it met building regs.

I recognise the phrasing of the specification. Is there just some handbook that architects just pull specs from?

The stuff in brackets is your architect's own wording. It's really sloppy.

southcoastrgi · 30 September 2016 at 4:15PM

On this occasion I disagree with DG, any good builder or roofer wouldn't dream of using felt for the valley so for him to say that's what he priced for is BS, he has either forgotten to price it at all or the roof has been cut with no thought to the lead valley or it's been forgotten totally until it was tiled & now the builder doesn't want to pay the roofer to remove the tiles to install the lead (which is what I would hazard a guess at), I would argue with anyone that lead or fibreglass is in anyway similar to felt,

Have you given him the final payment yet ? Cause I wouldn't be paying it until the valley was done properly

leveller2911 · 30 September 2016 at 4:31PM

Agree with Southcoast................. The Architects spec even goes into such deatils as code 5 lead, bays no longer than 1.5m,150 minimum lap etc etc.. The builder is trying to pull a fast one because he c0cked up.

Furts · 30 September 2016 at 5:26PM

No competent builder installs felt for a valley. This is so fundamental it is equivalent to trying to build brickwork by bedding bricks on clay slurry. Everybody knows mortar should be used.

Think it through...a valley is taking a stream of rainwater before it enters your gutter. If your builder genuinely believes felt is an adequate material ask them why they did not also form your guttering out of felt.

Of greater concern when considering the builders judgement and competence is what else has the builder done wrong?

Furts · 1 October 2016 at 7:03AM

Back to OP to progress matters. You now have a consensus of 3 for your case and nobody ruling in full favour of the builder.

Did you have a Buildings Regulations Completion Certificate issued for the extension? If not, then why not - is there still a Final inspection to be done? If you did then notify the Inspectors of the problem. They will be in deep dooh dooh over this - it is a serious over sight.

Ultimately the responsibility rests with the builder but you need to know who your allies are. Hence my question on Buildings Regulations. Come back to the forum on this because my questions are a next stage before thinking of any litigation.

Ruski · 1 October 2016 at 7:51AM

+1 = 4

Ridiculous standard of build: So sorry for the OP.

Russ

davisi33 · 1 October 2016 at 8:38AM

Thank you for all your reply's , I will find out if the Buildings Regs completion certificate has been issued and raise the issue with the building inspector.
I did wonder whether the width of the valley dictated that lead was not suitable(its ended up around 18 inches rather than a very "thin" valley that was shown on the original plans).

leveller2911 · 1 October 2016 at 9:44AM

davisi33 wrote: »

Thank you for all your reply's , I will find out if the Buildings Regs completion certificate has been issued and raise the issue with the building inspector.
I did wonder whether the width of the valley dictated that lead was not suitable(its ended up around 18 inches rather than a very "thin" valley that was shown on the original plans).

I'm fairly sure there is a maximum width but it would be quite a bit more than 18". When I use to replace all the timberwork on church valleys we use to use cast lead as opposed to milled/rolled lead and Church roof valley bays can be over 40" wide . I would have thought 18" wide valleys on domestic properties were pretty standard and don't forget you have a new extension so the new valley should have been created to allow for the correct lead bay widths and lengths in the first place..

The builder is pulling a fast one...........

System · 1 October 2016 at 12:16PM

Felt on no way matches that specification!
And felt isn't suitable for valley gutters - no matter how it has been priced by the builder.
There are single ply membrane systems that have membrane bonded to aluminium for forming flashings but I've never seen felt.
Get the architect to confirm that felt is not in accordance with the requirements and it the builder disputes it, ask them for the BBA certificate of the material used

davisi33 · 15 October 2016 at 3:18PM

Its taken a while to get answers from the relevant parties but I am back and would appreciate any more constructive input please ?

The final buildings certificate has not yet been issued as the build is still live and the final inspection not completed.

I contacted buildings control about the felt used and was advised that the
"torch on three-layer high performance felt product used on the flat roof and valley area is suitable and appropriate for this type of application."

So it appears that the material meets the requirements of Building control. I am still waiting for the Building Inspector to get back to me with details of the BBA Certificate and the actual name of the material used however.

When I contacted the architect we used , who recommended the builder, he (not surprisingly) said that in his opinion the "high performance felt" did meet the specification that he had written.

So it looks like I am on my own, The builder is adamant that the felt is a suitable equivalent but I am not happy with a material being used which is only guaranteed for 15 years.

Not sure what my next move should be ?

Roof valley material not matching architects spec ?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free