Improper roof repair leaked and led to additional damage. Despite warranty, contractor didn't resolve or compensate for the issue.
Our roof has a low-grade sloped metal roof (Roof A) and a walking surface deck (Roof B). In mid-2013, we observed water intrusion in the house under Roof A and areas directly beneath, including a bedroom and laundry room one floor below and dining room two floors below.
On August 22, 2013, ****** **** of M&C Roofing reviewed the problems and stated the primary problem was an inadequate slope on Roof A. He proposed adding tapered ISO board to increase the slope and installing a waterproof membrane.
He provided a formal estimate of $2,128.21 which we accepted. M&C purportedly performed the work, finishing on September 17, 2013, at which time $2,128.21 was remitted in full.
Concurrently we replaced the windows below Roof A on September 30, 2013 as an additional precaution.
After several heavy rains with no water intrusion, we felt confident that our leak(s) had been properly fixed and began interior repairs at a cost of nearly $30,000. This work began in November 2013. Partway through the project, on January 13, 2014, we had heavy rain and leaking in the same areas as before. Upon inspecting Roof A, we saw water pooling on one corner - the very issue we had paid M&C to correct. We called M&C and Mr. **** promptly came out. He agreed that there was water pooling but said that this wasn't a problem because the membrane and caulk would protect the roof. He performed a water test and said he thought that the leak was on Roof B.
We applied caulk to Roof B as a temporary fix and began collecting bids for a full replacement of Roof B. Meanwhile, we proceeded with the interior repairs, which were completed in February 2014. The replacement of Roof B was completed on July 30, 2014 at a cost of over $30,000.
On August 2, 2014 during a heavy rain, we again had water intrusion in the same areas as before. Now suspecting that the source must be Roof A since Roof B was brand new, we contacted M&C on August 4 and set an appointment for the following day. However, M&C failed to show. Several phone calls followed in which M&C claimed that their software had failed and then claimed that the appointment had never been made.
Having lost confidence in M&C, we retained a Professional Engineer to examine both Roof A and Roof B and all surrounding areas to definitively determine the source of the leak.
On August 22, 2014, ***** ********** **** of ******** ********** performed an inspection and concluded that Roof A was the source of the water intrusion, noting several deficiencies in the work previously performed by M&C. Mr. ********** outlined his findings in a report.
In early September, to prevent additional damage, we placed a tarp over Roof A. For a period of approximately two weeks thereafter, there was no water intrusion despite heavy rains. Then in late September, there was water intrusion. Upon investigation we found the tarp had partially detached; since it was reset, we have had several rains with no water intrusion. This provides conclusive evidence above and beyond the report by the Professional Engineer, that the improperly repaired Roof A is causing the ongoing leaks.
At this point, we must start over to address the problem that we hired M&C to repair in September 2013 and again brought to their attention in January 2014. In the intervening months our home has incurred substantial interior damages.
We respectfully request that M&C remit:
(i) Refund of the $2,128.21 paid on September 17, 2013
(ii) Reimbursement for costs of interior repairs as a direct result of water intrusion after September 17, 2013, including damaged drywall/framing; carpet/flooring; mold remediation and testing; painting. Such costs are TBD.
(iii) Reimbursement of fees billed by ******** ********** of $1,291.94
On October 6 we spoke with ****** **** and he denied that the roof repair leaked and declined to provide any recompense despite the clear evidence provided by the Professional Engineer and the series of events with the tarp.
Refund for failed repairs and compensation for additional repairs necessary as a result of the damage after the first repair failed.
Below is a copy of the certified response that we sent to Mr. & Mrs. ******* in October of 2015 and describes our response to the situation.
This report is to determine the overall condition of the existing roofing, and or installation specifications and whether or
not the roofing system will provide long term protection from the elements in proportion to the expected life or remaining
life left of the roofing system and as well as qualify for the long term product warranty associated with the product
Notes: ****** *** ****
In reference to the report produced by Robinson Associates Consulting Engineers dated September 30, 2014.
That was performed on August 22 and on September 5, 2014!
On Item number one of this report the engineer states that the roof is a 2" per horizontal foot on a narrow fiat section
that is covered with a modified Bitumen
The issue that I here is that the engineer stated that the roof has a standing seam metal roof deck,which it does not
have a standing seam metal roof deck ( A standing seam metal roof deck does not exist) it has a standing seam metal
roofing system applied to a wooden deck and he also states that it has a modified bitumen membrane which it does not
have a modified bitumen membrane it has an EPDM membrane on the lower low slope section which is acceptable
down to quarter inch per foot slope as per Manufacturer specifications and NRCA recommendations,which can be
In photo #3 the roof appears to be wet and (from the photo ) does not have any ponding water which would indicate that
the roof at the membrane has positive drainage.
Photo #4 is shown as being taken on the 22 of the month at 9:09 AM roughly 11 minutes after photo #3 which shows a
partially wet roof just above the window as shown on photo #4 , however the stucco shows a wet spot at the lower left
corner of the window and no signs of water between the wet spot and the roof Because of this Iam confused as to why
the stucco is dry here but wet at the bottom of the window and the roof is still wet, if it is wet enough to come out of the
stucco from the window, visible water should be seen everywhere across the stucco area below the roof however its
The issue that I have with paragraph number two on the report is .again he references the existing membrane as a
modified Bitumen it is an EPDM membrane roofing system installed over a tapered ISO Board Insulation on a 1/4