I know that on the roof that had all the nailing problems that I posted about a while back, the peel and stick was on top of the felt. That was in Broward.
That is useless and I have seen it as well and I never give it the credit.
I think it may be how they have to do it down here.
Sad but true.
no they do not!
Peel and stick over felt does not quality.
Self adhering polymer modified bitumen roofing underlayment applied directly to the sheathing or foam
adhesive SWR barrier (not foamed on insulation) applied as a secondary means to protect the dwelling
from water intrusion.
Some consider Peel and stick(by itself) under a tile roof as the primary means to protect water intrusion, not the secondary.
See attached…
Two diffent issues, for the 1802 only the discription on the form applies, as we know, the 1802 is not a FBC accurate doc.
For code as per 2007 FBC, Existing Bldgs, Chapter 6 - Alterations - Level 1, Reroofing, 611.7.2 Roof secondary water barrier for site-built single-family residential structures. Alll tile roofs have a secondary water barrier. Even in Mr York’s class, he considers the SWR and secondary water barrier the same thru def.
This 1802 SWR question is a good one for a class action civil …
This 1802 SWR question is a good one for a class action civil …
Against whom is the question?:mrgreen:
If we as home inspectors are filling out the form, which we know is wrong, couldn’t we be added to the suit?
Remember a building department considers 30# felt with a 50% lap as a SWR. Also in South Florida most building departments require felt under the SWR which is not the same as peel and stick applied directly to the deck.
Types of Proof:
- Document from Licensed Roofer Clearly detailing that a peel and stick product was applied directly to the roofing deck.
- Photos showing a peel and stick product for the property inspected being installed directly to the roof deck.
All other proof may be rejected be the carrier.
Was just about to say something similar to this. Agreed.
I agree with 1 and 2 as well.