What would you say, if anything? 10 year old home.
The manufacturers warning comes to mind
Considering where you live, and how the insulation was applied (they are trying to stop joist thermal bridging), I would not not make issue of it.
Vapor barrier should face the moisture “source”, which is the heated side in the general application. But in your area, summer air has more water vapor in the outdoor air than you have on the interior in winter. The A/C will condense this water vapor just like the cold outdoor air in winter.
Gaps between the batts prevent a total seal anyway.
If you can not associate a problem with this issue, and it has been around for a while, I would not concern myself with it.
When doing this it’s better to use unfaced (paperless) insulation, no vapor barrier at all.
May I use the image Troy? Here’s what I said in the report:
“In the attic, fiberglass batt insulation was installed on top of existing insulation with the vapor barrier up. This is contrary to the manufacturers’ installation instructions. The paper vapor barrier is combustible and should not be used in exposed applications. Additionally, the vapor barrier should be toward the heated side of the home. Batt insulation may be used on top of existing insulation but should be the un-faced type (no vapor barrier). We recommend service by a licensed and competent contractor or insulation specialist.”
Is that foil?
But there is batting missing. The R value is not consistent in the attic.
great comment, Joe. Mine is shorter, but I like yours better.
I have commented to clients, but not in a written report, “it is better to have no vapor barrier than to have the vapor barrier facing the wrong side of the moisture”. I have even suggested simply slitting the paper with a razor knife, but that wouldn’t reduce the fire risk.
With installations like Joe’s photo it’s best to have No vapor barrier, period, where additional batt insulation has been laid over loose fill insulation. To avoid trapping moister.
Problem Joe (and others)…
Put the vapor barrier down and it is on top of the insulation below!?
SO, are we going to tear all this out and do what would be “better” or look and see if it is in fact a problem before we make a big deal over nothing?
I have to agree with you David.
No matter which way it is laid it would be incorrect. In saying that the gaps between the batts would not make it vapour proof so I see no real issue here.
I told them to contact an insulation specialist, who may very well them then “don’t worry about it”. But I feel like I did my job in bringing it to their attention.
Very professional as always.
The problem is when they go to sell and another guys back and say’s it is wrong and points to label . then you be the arse that didn’t inform them 
I was talking about repair and/or replacement, not Inform.
I always “Inform” on anything out of the ordinary (which is most of the damn house in many cases! 
).
And like the pellet stove in the other thread, it may be ok by install directions but it’s still wrong.
I take pic’s of all kinds of labels and put them in the report.
“You were told”.
Is this paper on the insulation any more suseptable to fire issues up in the attic either up or down? I think it was intended as a warning in other high risk areas, don’t you?
I hear you, I was not calling you a name i mean all of us if didn’t mention it .lol We have a guy running around hear saying things are not up today’s code and your inspector should have found it
Don’t take me so serious!
(must be a Canadian thing!)
I agree, we have a guy calling “the sky is falling”…
On that point I disagree with you. Model codes specify a maximum flame spread index for insulation for a reason. Paper up is definitely more susceptible to the spread of fire in an attic. Where a spark from a rodent chewed wire, for example, may not ignite in some situations, the same wire in contact with paper is much more dangerous due to the abundance of air and fuel.
When installed per Manufactures Instructions, the what if’s seem to go away. 
We are finite thinkers! It’s normal for Canada’ to go the extra mile:-)
It is probably miscommunications David.
Nothing more. Everyone here knows you are a very solid source.
Regards.