Although the form asks for signs of damage or deterioration do you report improper materials as a deficiency? i.e. Shingles applied where the pitch is <2:12.
is that not a deficiency??
Good question. That is getting into the area of not meeting manufacturer’s recommendations. Even though the insurance companies would like to know this, I am not so sure it is required to be disclosed on the form. Did you measure the slope yourself?
No, No need - it was absolutely flat - (secondary roof over pool bath that is not attached to the main structure)
I would expect that to leak like a sieve, and would not give it an estimated life expectancy! When something is wrong, it’s wrong! Ask yourself how would you mark it if you were doing a home inspection? Too much liability to mark it any other way.
Ooops, just re-read your question. I would say that a secondary structure is not part of the roof certification, and not mention it. Sorry.
I would certainly call it out for a home inspection - But Citizen’s asks several direct questions regarding condition - none of which are the appropriateness of the materials used.
Therefore I posed the question to my fellow inspectors - Are we expected to volunteer information not asked, or do we follow the path so heartily advocated in the Wind Mitigation inspection program - Answer the questions asked - no more, no less.
You found shingles on a flat roof??? HaHa.
You may want to find out if the pool bath is covered in the policy, and if it is, call it out on the RCF. If not, then the unattached roof would not be included.
I’m curious, can you post a photo please.
Here it is for the curious souls - Note that the main roof - which clearly has a greater pitch (well not in the photo - but trust me) is a modified bitumen roll roof -
Not the first time I’ve seen this!
Mind if I keep that photo in my “OOPS” file? I wonder if there was a floor drain in that bathroom to catch the roof leaks.
I doubt that structure is insurable. Was it part of the home or just a weekend warrior project.
If you do more or less you are possibly screwing the folks who pay you.
When filling out forms I try to follow the directions to the letter.
It reminds me of a teacher who always stressed reading the directions and the importance of doing so.
That teacher once gave the class a huge pop quiz but the directions stated only to fill out your name and date and then do as you like for the rest of the hour. Most of the class never read the directions and spent the whole hour trying to get the answers to a real tough test.
I fortunately read the directions and got to screw off for the hour. the vast majority failed the test for the simple reason they did not follow the directions.
That was one of the most important lessons I can remember being taught to me from a teacher and to this day I read and follow the directions. Nothing more nothing less.
Lets look at this in the real sense. This is a secondary structure not attached to the house and probably not covered. But lets assume that it is. The roof is not built to the FBC, which is a deficiency in itself. For those of you that are going to say it has 5 years of life left, go ahead and write it up that way. I am not going to certify any roof that is not FBC compliant.
Suppose that roof leaks next year during a storm and there is a claim. You will be getting a fat letter in the mail. You certified it. Now go to court and try to defend yourself. No way in hell will you win. Not only will you stand a chance to loose your licnese, but you will be paying to replace that roof.
Do you honestly think that when you state a life expectancy of a roof you are guaranteeing that the roof will not develop leaks before that time?
estimated at best and in no way a guarantee and I write that on the cover
That wasn’t the point. The point was, that the roof was not code compliant and therefore, a defect. When said defect is the cause of a leak and possible legal action, you lose.
Say you have a roof that has been renailed when it was re-roofed and the installer missed every truss with almost every nail. You mark it is C for roof decking. The roof fails and when the insurance company comes out and sees what is left of the roof and your pictures of the missed nails used on the wind mit form, if it ever were to get to court, someone isn’t going to be happy with the outcome.
Why would you say deck has been re-nailed when clearly it has not(according to you above)?
Secondly, when marking the roof decking section of the 1802 where do you report that it meets FBC? You are only reporting what you found.
Thirdly, where on the CIT RCF does it say that anything meets FBC?
The only place a form mentions it is the 1802 on ROOF COVERING(shingles).
You can always make comments as you see fit. Like, “Shingles are not permitted on low slope/flat roofs. The rear POS section has a flat roof with shingles.” and move on.
The original question was about a roof certification, not the 1802 form. But since yiou brought it up: Secondly, when marking the roof decking section of the 1802 where do you report that it meets FBC? that is on question #2 of the 18/02 form. It asks if the the roof meets the FBC.
On the RCF is does not specifically ask about the FBC, but it does a if the roof is in good condition. With no permit and improper materials, how can you say a roof is in good condition? I know your answer. Just answer the question and let the insruance company decide. And yes, the form specifically only asks for damages or leaks, not defects. So, in theroy, you could argue that improper materials was not none of the questions on the form. A judge might agree with you. But he also might not. I am not willing to be the first to test that theory in court. Remeber, you are licnesed, and you will be held to that license. Good luck in whatever decision you make. I know most of you will continue to write to the exact letter of the form because you depend on insruance inspections for your income. Let us all know how it works out when you fnally get that fat letter in the mail after a storm.
I wouldn’t, but I see it almost every day where someone else does.
And, it isn’t according to me, it isn’t nailed properly according to the APA deck nailing guidelines. We don’t even have to get into any building code.
I think Bill was referring to “The” building code, not the FBC 2001. As in, the installation may not meet the code for when it was constructed.
You can make any comment you like, but if you just fill out the form properly, in most instances, comments won’t be required.
Now, getting back to my scenario in my previous post. That is just one instance. The shingles on the flat roof are another. Here is what I am getting at. When you or I or anyone else was deemed by the State to be qualified to fill out the 1802, via whatever license you want to use for qualification, it was done in a manner that it was assumed that you possessed the proper knowledge to get said license.
That would mean, that you should know if the nails that missed the trusses were in compliance with standard building practices or not. That goes for a flat roof with shingles, and everything else that we find on inspections.
So, if you were to mark selection C for roof deck nailing after viewing all of the missed nails, then you would be one of the following:
- Without knowledge.
- Negligent in marking something that you know is false, which leads to,
- Committing an act of fraud.
None of the above choices are going to help you in a court of law.
From Citizen’s Roof Condition Certification - Page 2 - InterNACHI Inspection Forum http://www.nachi.org/forum/f73/citizens-roof-condition-certification-86067/index2.html#post1105953#ixzz2jaqXLsay