Third party inspections

"Lanny" and " Wywoody" I think you are right when it comes to residential, there is less of a chance you are going to have a major lawsuit. Roofings cos. do things a little differently...some by design because that is what works (even though it is not a part of the manf. instructions) or there are no instructions, but it is the best roofing practice. Those are the routes you have to take and a non-roofing inspector is not going to follow. 2nd, and an experienced roofing inspector will try to rip a part a roof because he has some kind of monitary stake in it.

I have seen on commercial work where the GC/engineer won't budge on change and you are forced to do it there way. I was QC on a 21 bldg defect project...roof was only 6 years old, documented the change request in the file then roofed it. It is all you can do and hope if the association decides to suit again that you can get yourself out of it. No difference now days as the roofing co. is out of business.

I recently came upon a website for a tile guy in Lannys' market. It looks like the guy is very accomplished and has impressive credentials. He's a tile instructor for Tile Roof Institute. He is certified by HAAG engineering as an inspector. Yet, on his site he has pictures showing his valley repair process, my most common repair. If what he shows is all he's doing, I find what he does to be unconsionable. He's extending 90% of the labor to do it right, yet ommitting some very crucial details. I know I could convince most potential customers that what I say makes more sense, EXCEPT those people that are easily impressed by titles and degrees. And those are the very people most likely to hire someone as an inspector.

I did have one problem when I was a team leader...lady homeowner was a "retired engineer", got on the roof and started quoting SMACMA....didn't know what the heck she was talking about. I all I knew is that when you install grommit nails, they don't need caulking. She said "ok" and walked back through the window to her house. Came in the next morning, I did not get a new job, had to drive back to Seattle to caulk all the rubberheads...she wasn't going to pay until it was done.

lanny Said: ---Had that happen after I had completed the job (and she had the gall to charge ME for the inspection, $350. The report came back with 18 listed defects in our workmanship. The homeowner hit the roof, pardon the pun. Took 6 months to resolve and it was a major headache. ---I got the material rep to write a report that the installation was to manuf. specs and they would honor their warranty. That didnt help. Got another roofing contractor to do likewise regarding industry standards and that didnt help either. ---I am not afraid to put our workmanship to the test and I welcome a challange. However, there are different ways of doing things and this inspector had his own idea and was inflexible. One example was that on this torchdown roof he insisted on galvanized vents instead of painted. Nobody carries those that I know of. ---I wouldnt do it unless the roof was very basic where problems would be almost impossible. Or I would meet with the inspector before the job to get on the same page. Lanny

In some states, such as Texas; if the contract is written properly, the homeowner will have to pay the final payment if the work is "substantially completed", even if there are 18 listed defects on an independent report. If they don't pay, they would forfeit their right to the warranty and they would have no standing in court. Also, if they don't pay, all the penalty clauses would kick in including full rights of fees associated with collection.

After the homeowner pays in full, they could request in writing some warranty service. If you decide to say no to something such as galvanized vents, they would have to sue you in a court to win those vents.

The point is that the onus will be on the homeowner to prove in a court of law that the vents that you've supplied didn't meet the written contract that you both agreed on. In that case, it probably would be good to have an itemized specification sheet detailing the exact brand, but the judge probably would accept whatever you "normally" install, providing that it is of sufficient quality.

Contractors have to get really aggressive back at ladies like that. Filing the first lawsuit asking for payment and penalties is probably a lot easier than playing defense against idiotic inspection reports.

Dougger222....That is a refreshing story, It would be great to get every homewoner to jump on thier roof and see what they bought for themselves.....but it is not a perfect world.

Robby,

Sorry bout that....I was caught up a bit reading responses.... How would I feel?....I wouldn't much feel good that the customer lacked faith in my ability....I might ask them why they were hiring me.... BTW; There's plenty of outfits/people with 20 yrs "experience" that don't know thier arse from their elbow in this biz.... There would most defininrely need to be a pre-bid meeting with all attending/involved.

Had an issue with a job I did back in 06 on a roof in an indian reservation (richest in the world). The gc hired me for labor only and was given the scope and materials and provided only labor.

The inspections had passed for w/i and the final. Towards the end of the 3/4 million dollar remodel (nothing was built) things went down hill. The home owner hired a lawyer who hired a private inspector who found the 3/12 didn't have enough w/i. I asked the local inspector on another job about it and he said this, "If they ask me to go to court to testify it would have to be ok'd by my supervisor. We as a sovereign nation have the right to decline an interview, deposition, and above all things testify in court".

It seemed odd to go through the motion of having this thing inspected if first he didn't say anything about the pitch and w/i requirement and lastly that his word really meant nothing.

They settled and since my obligation was to provide labor only was left out of it. We didn't have a contract only a number written on a piece of paper which is common with subbing roofs from gc's from my experiance.

Back to the main topic, Had it happen a couple times the home owners decided last minute they needed an inspection before releasing the final payment. Once was for a property owner who wanted the roof inspected by the city before he paid the labor portion, no big deal had to wait two days. The other time was two years ago on a big house on an air park. The home owner was on the roof most of the time or helping us on the ground with clean up. When we finished he said his wife would have to inspect before she paid us. He was a retired engineer (78) and she was a retired doctor (77). She came down the ladder with a big smile and check in her hand! For $15K out of pocket they wanted to make sure they were getting there money worth. Sadly a couple months ago there house is on the market.

JimAKABlue....when you walk away from a store counter with a bag of groceries and you did not pay...you could get arrested. You buy a roof and withhold payment for a couple of days, no one is going to come and arrest you! And a customer can hold payment REALLY for as long as they want until the roofer decides puts things in motion.

This post was NEVER about a customer not paying, but withholding payment until THEY ARE satisfied...wether they hire a consultant or have a relative look at it.

I never did like the idea of the roofer collecting a check just after he put his ladder on the truck.

Tom B....IN the beginning, of my post I stated that......"Because now the homeowner has shared the company name with you and while researching, you find that the company does not do any roofing (no competion) and only operates in an advisory capacity to residential roofing. Has over 20 years in the industry."

my question was...How would you feel? (considering the consultant has 20 years experience in roofing)

You nailed it Vaa....

That's exactly what it's all about....We've working with many, many "consultants", very few we've run across have any substatial roofing knowledge at all....

I just can't get my mind around the idea of hiring someone with little or no knowledge/experience in a particular field to oversee someone with documented experience/track record....It still mystifies me, to this day....And why roofing?....Do they hire Billy the boxboy, from down at the local supermarket as a "plumbing consultant" to oversee thier new water heater installation?....What about when thier car is worked on?....Maybe they should have a auto mechanic consultant observe the oil change to ensure proper type/amount of oil and drain plug was installed properly?

Bizzare!

Robby the Roofer Said: Regardless, the homeowner still has the power to ensure thier satisfaction. You might have to spend energy, time, and money to get yours over a period of time. If the homeowner wants to hold back the check or small sum for a couple of days until everything is done, you are really powerless....short of getting in the homeowners face and abusing them.

The homeowner's ability to withold payment is limited to the terms of the contract. The best course of action is to have the proper wording (substantial completion) and then promptly send, in writing, a demand for payment stating that the work is substantially completed and final payment is due. After some reasonable time period (a few days), the interes ticker will start ticking.

If the contract says "customer satisfaction", you probably would win in court, but the interest wouldn't start ticking until the judge made his decision.

I lifted the verbiage off an AIA contract many year ago.

Those inspectors attitudes are very popular....they do the same thing here. They may inspect one (first time in the city), He will remember your name and give you a pass every other time. NO ONE CAN hold them legally responcible for thier actions, but a consultant you can depending on how far into the project he consults on.

If a "consultant" actualy got a roof it would be a lot more than building inspectors are doing these days. Of course pulling permits in most cities for close to 10 years and never an issue they may just go through the motion. A couple months ago had one who didn't even look up the roof. The home owners garage door was open so he asked if they were home, said ya. He then said we better walk around the house look like we're doing something, final. On the i/w inspection my dad said he went to the back of the house and talked to the home owner about the patio, how nice it looked! The funny thing was this home owner was really nervous as 10 years ago there last roofer didn't pull a permit and quoted 6ft of i/w but only put down 3 and roofed over one spot!

My cousin does some side roof jobs and the home owner pulled the permit and met with the insepector. He walked up the drive and ask who did this? The home owner said it was his in laws. He didn't believe him and commented that it looked like a professional did it. Without getting up on the roof he signed off on it.

Just like insurance adjusters who've looked at thousands of roofs over many decades. Very few know more about installation than a real roofer does.

Regardless, the homeowner still has the power to ensure thier satisfaction. You might have to spend energy, time, and money to get yours over a period of time. If the homeowner wants to hold back the check or small sum for a couple of days until everything is done, you are really powerless....short of getting in the homeowners face and abusing them.

Robby the Roofer Said: Yes it could be used as ploy...and why not....most contracts (or all) say pay once you are satisfied with the work. And the consultant writing up spec could be a good idea

As a general, would not use the words "satisfied with the work". That would open the door for them to legally withold payment on the basis that they are NOT satisfied.

A better term is: "substantial completion." If you research the meaning of this term, you'll find that it means....and I'm paraphrasing "the job is done. There might be some small bits and pieces left on special order. There might be some minor service issues to do. You might have a small punch list...but....the job is essentially complete. You are able to use your building without worry about rain ruining it..and now your final payment is due."

Of course, the ensuing paragraphs of the contract might say....and again, I'm paraphrasing "Pay the money or I get to kick in all the nasty articles and subsections....which basically say "if you don't pay, you will have to give me your house and sign over your first born too!".

So, based on my own research...I use the words "substantial completion". It has a technical meaning and I've never had anyone ask me to elaborate on that.