I recently inspected this roof and called out some big issues the first inspector missed. His report had delamination as the descriptor for one picture in the roofing category. The owner of that inspection company is covering his butt by saying I do not know what I am talking about. Here are a couple pictures I took when I inspected.
These pictures highlight the worst issues. I want to verify I am not the only one that sees it this way. My experience is 30 years as a roofer before I became an inspector.
It was supposed to be a closed bleeder weave I assume. The uphill side allows water to get right under the material. Hence, the leak and the reason they called me.
Can you weave a valley with architectural shingles?
When considering how to shingle a valley with architectural shingles, you must take into account their thickness and reduced flexibility . Laminated shingles are more liable to create bumps in woven valleys. Often, they are too thick to be woven at all.
Yes you can. As long as the bottom course goes past the valley a minimum of 6”. I do about 12”. Then use a course running parallel to the valley as a “bleeder” then shingle the adjoining face off of that. The bleeder course seals down nicely to the bottom course. I also use ice and water shield as an underlayment.
How did that company get involved in your inspection? If the other inspector called out problems for further evaluation, then they are covered. I despise pissing matches.
Think about it, I could inspect a house tomorrow and you could find 5 defects I did not report on and vice versa.
Trying to avoid a pissing match for sure. I got involved because the owner knew I have done a lot of roofing. He wanted me to find the leak. When I saw all of the issues i asked to see the inspection report (house was purchased less than 60 days ago) to see what the inspector had noted. His roofing section had one picture and noted “delamination” as the only issue. This is a big miss for that inspector.
There was recommendation that a roofer evaluate the delamination. No mention of incorrect installation, no mention of shingles not fastened correctly, no mention of areas with no shingles at all. So, yes a miss for sure. If we dont have personal integrity and hold ourselves accountable then we are in trouble as a profession.
Okay, just playing devils advocate here. We are generalists and some of us do not have 30 years roofing experience or electrical experience etc.
Keep in mind I have not seen the narrative. But a competent narrative does not have to include every defect, just that one exists and it needs further evaluation.
Example: The electrical panel had multiple deficiencies or safety concerns observed. Recommend further evaluation by a qualified electrical contractor.
Or
The AC was not cooling adequately. Recommend evaluation for service/repairs as needed by a qualified HVAC contractor.
Maybe he missed some leaks…what were his limitations? Did he list those? Were there recent rains? It does little good to throw anyone under the bus. I would have enjoyed this thread had it been informative. Such as noting the defect and the proper installation standard.
Agree but it depends how it’s written (and this is something I POUND, POUND, POUND into my inspector’s head’s daily) is that when you cite a specific problem with a system you are also saying - EVERYTHING else is PERFECT (can you tell this struck a nerve? LOL )
I’m too lazy to comb the whole thread but I believe OP said the callout was specifically just for delamination.
)