Wind Mit - truss straps - what is this?

Attached is a pic or two of a double wrap truss strap that has no visible nails.

It wraps over the truss and is attached to the wall on both sides. There are no nails in the truss, and I can’t see how it is attached to the wall. It appears to be trying to be a double wrap, but it isn’t “secured to the top plate with a minimum of three nails on each side”

What should I mark this as? I’m thinking ‘toe nail’ and suggesting to the owner they go back to the roofer who claimed he brought them up to current code (see attached invoice).

Is the distance it is away from the truss a problem - > 1/2in with no blocking? Seems like it was made to be like that.

Thanks! :slight_smile:

It’s called a Sanibel strap…Double Wrap (ii) is the selection on the 1802.

How old is that house? Why did you show the receipt?

Thanks for the quick reply Brad, it solved my problem. Sorry I forgot to reply sooner.

Michael, I put the receipt in because the roofer claimed to have brought the roof up to current code and I was thinking the straps weren’t to code.

So the receipt said he upgraded the roof to wall connections?

Roofers are not licensed to bring the RTW connections up to code.

The receipt just says he nailed off the roof(deck) to meet Fla building code.

Per the roofing contract, roofer re-nailed the deck per the FBC

You guys are right. Just the nailing was supposed to be to code. It was 6" 8d

So where did the sanibel straps come from?
How old is the house?

Roofers should be required to furnish shiner at attic entrance on these types of jobs:mrgreen:

Yes…put the code violation where it is easy to see… :wink:

You can get the nail and strap credits in one picture on this one! :cool:

When I know a roof is being done I actually ask them to do it above the hatch.
It does make life easier. And without a pict NO DISCOUNT.

The requirement should be to put two nails side by side, one shiner, one hit, and the shiner be marked as for wind MIT verification purposes.

Or…we could go by the permit application date and the code requirement at the time. And in this particular case, the deck renailing affidavit should suffice. And then, there would be no need for pictures of the roof deck nailing…which you aren’t supposed to see in the first place.

Odd…the OiR asks for the permit application date, and accepts it as proof for question one…as well as roof installation date…but not roof deck nailing…:roll:

I have one this week(not the first) where the roofer insists that it has been re-nailed but it has not. We are going to take a section off to verify. His affidavit is a lie, he was not on the roof, his crew was and they did not do it.

If inspectors did not verify, then they would almost never re-nail.

I’ve found a few of those “less than honest” affidavits on re-roofs, but never found out what the outcome was. The nail guy would have to be really really good to not miss at least once.

I am assuming you are referring to the “code enforcement” inspectors as home inspectors can’t legally enforce the code, right? :wink:

You and John both missed my point. If the OiR is going to accept documentation for one or two items, why not all?

And Brad, when I did work for a roofer, when I nailed a deck, if I missed, I knew and redid it. It is called pride in ones work…something sorely lacking in todays’ workplace.

Here in St. Petersburg the rules are changing I hear…No longer are affidavit’s required to be submitted to the AHJ for verification but are required to be included in the home owners packet. Can anyone verify this. Thanx Tom


Home inspectors provide a service that helps keep contractors honest. If they knew HIs or Building officials were not checking they would be less likely to “properly re-nail”. Usually it is not the contractor but the hired help.

I agree that the OIR should accept proper permitting as proof but it all should also be verified by an independent person. Hence, the verification form.