Roof with three layers of shingles - dangerous?
Ben
want to go up to the roof yesterday. It looks like there are three
layers of shingles. I've read that you should never have more than
two layers of shingles because of the weight. How much should I worry
about this?
Thanks for your input,
-Ben
tra...@optonline.net
I'd go check with the local code officials and see what the code
says. In most places you are permitted to have 2 layers, but no
more. Also, in most places you need a building permit to put on new
shingles. Find out if one was taken out. If the answers to both of
those questions are no, then depending on the rest of the facts, like
the age of the roof, I'd seriously consider going after the seller ad
you could have a slam dunk case.
David L. Martel
Shingles have weight. Each layer of shingles puts weight on your roof
structure. This structure must support this weight and the weight of other
things (snow and ice come to mind). 3 layers of shingles may be too much
weight for your roof structure.I 'd be concerned about the roof collapsing.
I'd really worry come Winter.
Dave M.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:a0c3c19d-596e-4a74...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
In addition to what the others have said, I'd pay a visit to whoever did the
home inspection and kick him in the teeth. Then get your money back.
Edwin Pawlowski
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SOM7k.15992$xP2....@fe099.usenetserver.com...
inspection and pronounce it good or bad and if the top layer looks good, he
would not do any in depth inspecting.
As for the number of layers, there are probably tens of thousands of houses
with three layers. There is the potential for problems, but I'd not act too
quickly. If it has been on there for 10 years, I'd do nothing until it was
time to re-roof. Not knowing the construction, none of us can say if there
is serious danger from the weight. Pitch, snow load, type of rafter or
truss, etc. all play a part. Just look at the weight of the older slate
roofs.
dpb
...
> ...Just look at the weight of the older slate roofs.
Slate roofs were certainly not placed on stick-framed houses only sized
for asphalt...that's totally unrelated to the OP's situation.
I agree it's highly unlikely if it's been there any length of time
there's going to be a problem tomorrow.
While weight can be a consdieration, the primary proscription on the
third layer is it tends to shorten life of the new shingles from
additional heat and poor conditions underneath.
--
Tony Sivori
>
> While weight can be a consdieration, the primary proscription on the
> third layer is it tends to shorten life of the new shingles from
> additional heat and poor conditions underneath.
Also, when it it time for a new roof, the roofers will charge a lot more
for the tear off and haul away of a three layer roof.
--
Tony Sivori
Due to spam, I'm now filtering all Google Groups posters.
LJP
If you don't see any evidence of sagging, and the roof seems to be in good shape and is not leaking, you may not need to do anything. If you are getting close to needing a new roof anyway, it would probably make sense to go ahead and get estimates and have it done now before this coming winter.
cshenk
> As others have said, 3 layers is not a good idea and it does not meet most
> local codes.
Keep in mind that he may be south of the snow-line and if so, 3 layers is
allowed. We don't have the snow weight issues.
ythread
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fb501cdf-12f2-48ce...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Why would the seller know anything about roofing?
SteveB
Make sure the spot you checked really _has_ three layers.
Some spots, like edges, have an extra layer of shingles on purpose. You
also have to count carefully to avoid counting overlapping shingles in a
single layer as multiple layers.
--
Steve Bell
New Life Home Improvement
Arlington, TX
HeyBub
>
> I'd go check with the local code officials and see what the code
> says. In most places you are permitted to have 2 layers, but no
> more. Also, in most places you need a building permit to put on new
> shingles. Find out if one was taken out. If the answers to both of
> those questions are no, then depending on the rest of the facts, like
> the age of the roof, I'd seriously consider going after the seller ad
> you could have a slam dunk case.
>
> Why would the seller know anything about roofing?
Unless someone snunk over and re-shingled his house in the dead of night,
the seller knew there were three layers.
Three layers is certainly something noteworthy and maybe illegal.
On the other hand, maybe it's the third layer that's holding the house
together.
ythread
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:8umdnRVmdOUobMLV...@earthlink.com...
for things he knows about. He'd have plausible deniability. If that wasn't
true, almost anybody selling a home would be in serious trouble.
:-) Maybe a real estate lawyer could respond. My real estate agent said
"the less you know the better".
dpb
...
> ... I'd seriously consider going after the seller ad
> you could have a slam dunk case.
For what?
--
Phisherman
can put extra stress on a roof. I've seen some really bad sagging
roofs with 2,3 and 4 layers of shingles on it.
dpb
> Having just one and only one layer is best. ...
Of course it is (and where did I say or even imply it wasn't?) , but the
worst problem is still (generally) the more rapid deterioration of the
shingles themselves as opposed to actual risk of a roof failing. If
that weren't the case, considering the number of roofing jobs done every
year which are second- (or even third-layer), we'd hear of roofs
collapsing every where and we don't...
--
Erma1ina
Before doing anything else, confirm that you DO have three layers of
shingles.
It sounds like you don't have much experience examining roofs (and
there's nothing wrong with that ;) ) so get a roofer or other
knowledgeable pro out to confirm. THEN decide what, if anything, you
should expect from, or need to do to, your roof.
Norminn
I've been scratching my head, wondering how much difference another
layer of shingles would
make. Google knows :o) Found a website that seems to explain it well:
http://www.firesafedwellings.org/roof_info/roof_weight.html
As for making a claim against the previous owner, that seems like it
would be a huge waste
in attorneys fees. Unless the roof caves in. I haven't read a
disclosure in a long time, but
if the previous owner had concealed anything, it seems the new owner
wouldn't yet know about the
layers of roofing. If there are really three layers of shingles, it
probably is far from a hidden
issue. Should be obvious from the street.
ythread
"Norminn" <nor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Q_udne-NnrQZlP3V...@earthlink.com...
The last disclosesures I filled out or read didn't ask anything about
shingle layers. It may have asked about leaking issues. Layers could be
covered in the inspection but I have two layers and there isn't a thing
about that in my last inspection. Plenty of other roofing issues.
Red Green
@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
1) Please don't say you are in ME, NH, VT or Buffalo.
2) Wear a hardhat in the attic.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:Xns9AC6ED273...@216.168.3.70...
Maybe even in the basement. :)
cshenk
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:g3oudg$24l$1...@aioe.org...
Depending on the state laws, it *might* be something he/she could have fixed
but it also would have to be really close to the selling time, not 'years
later'. It would depend on the disclosure laws of the state, and the code
specs for roofs.
I'd say find out first what state the OP is in before worrying about the 3
layers. Most of the USA is not actually in heavy snow-line country <g>.
That seems to be the main area where 3 layers and weight is an issue.
tra...@optonline.net
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Not saying anything about what the seller does or doesn't know about
roofing. Only that if you just bought a house and find out that
1 - The roof was recently re-done with 3 layers of shingles and this
is not allowed by code, which is the case in most places
2 - No building permit, which is typically required was pulled before
the roof was done.
Then you have a good case against the seller. I doubt a seller will
have much luck arguing in court that their ignorance of the legal
requirement of a building permit is an excuse. The seller in turn
could have a case against whoever installed the roof, but it's
possible they even did it themselves.
ypylaw1
it's yours
what you gonna go after the guy for
Don't waste money on attorneys
in addition some state codes will let you put three layers
for example on very steep roofs and so on
And check you roof again about three layers
or get a roofer to look at it
free estimate for re roofing costs you nothing
right?
tra...@optonline.net
For the amount it takes to re-do the roof right and to code.
If you read my post, I said IF:
1 - It was recently re-roofed
2 - Code says 3 layers are not allowed
3 - A building permit was required, but not pulled.
Then you have a good case.
tra...@optonline.net
> Phisherman wrote:
> >Having just one and only one layer is best. Shingles are heavy and
> >can put extra stress on a roof. I've seen some really bad sagging
> >roofs with 2,3 and 4 layers of shingles on it.
>
> I've been scratching my head, wondering how much difference another
> layer of shingles would
> make. Google knows :o) Found a website that seems to explain it well:http://www.firesafedwellings.org/roof_info/roof_weight.html
>
> As for making a claim against the previous owner, that seems like it
> would be a huge waste
> in attorneys fees.
No need for attorney's fees. You can bring this case in small claims
if necessary.
Unless the roof caves in. I haven't read a
> disclosure in a long time, but
> if the previous owner had concealed anything, it seems the new owner
> wouldn't yet know about the
> layers of roofing. If there are really three layers of shingles, it
> probably is far from a hidden
> issue. Should be obvious from the street.
And if code says 3 layers are not allowed? And if code also says a
building permit is required, but one was not pulled? And the roof is
obviously new? The buyer should just roll over and accept that?
HeyBub
>>
>> As for making a claim against the previous owner, that seems like it
>> would be a huge waste
>> in attorneys fees.
>
> No need for attorney's fees. You can bring this case in small claims
> if necessary.
Most jurisdictions have a limit for small claims courts and that limit may
be exceeded here. Sometimes you have to actually be out the money for which
you're suing which means you've got to replace the roof THEN sue to recover.
HeyBub
>
>
> For the amount it takes to re-do the roof right and to code.
>
> If you read my post, I said IF:
>
> 1 - It was recently re-roofed
>
> 2 - Code says 3 layers are not allowed
>
> 3 - A building permit was required, but not pulled.
>
>
> Then you have a good case.
Not only. What if the city discovers an illegal three layers on YOUR house?
Claiming someone else did it won't impress the authorities.
tra...@optonline.net
> trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> >> As for making a claim against the previous owner, that seems like it
> >> would be a huge waste
> >> in attorneys fees.
>
> > No need for attorney's fees. You can bring this case in small claims
> > if necessary.
>
> Most jurisdictions have a limit for small claims courts and that limit may
> be exceeded here.
So, what if the limit is exceeded? It's common for the small claims
limit to be $5,000. Some places it's lower, maybe $3,000 and some
it's as high as $10,000. If it happens to be capped at $3000, that
still goes a long way towards covering the cost and would make it
worth pursuing. Having the limit doesn't mean you can't bring the
case to small claims, it only means any recovery is capped at that
limit.
alta47
the buyer is expected to resolve at or before closing. After the sale is
complete, you don't necessarily get to retroactively address these issues.
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:01780406-f9ea-4971...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Unknown
wrote:
:I moved into my house not too long ago and had the first occasion to
:want to go up to the roof yesterday. It looks like there are three
:layers of shingles. I've read that you should never have more than
:two layers of shingles because of the weight. How much should I worry
:about this?
:
:Thanks for your input,
:-Ben
My understanding is that 3 layers is maximum, i.e. if a roof with 3
layers needs reroofing, a complete tearoff is the first step. This is
what happened when my roof was redone around 3 years ago. Judging from
this thread, many if not most areas now require no more than 2 layers.
As noted, make sure about your assessment of how many layers are on
there.
Dan
Unknown
:Having just one and only one layer is best. Shingles are heavy and
:can put extra stress on a roof. I've seen some really bad sagging
:roofs with 2,3 and 4 layers of shingles on it.
My roof was a sad sagger before the complete tearoff of the 3 layers
that were on there around 3 years ago. It's amazing how nice it looks
now. All that sag is gone.
Dan
uglyhouse101
This should have been caught When you had your home inspection during your Due
Dilligence period. Home Inspectors look critically at roofs for such issues.
I would read through your home inspection report and contact them if you still
have any concerns. They can come out and explain what you are seeing.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/roof-with-three-layers-of-shingles-dangerous-314591-.htm
trader_4
Uncle Monster
> replying to Ben, uglyhouse101 wrote:
> This should have been caught When you had your home inspection during your Due
> Dilligence period. Home Inspectors look critically at roofs for such issues.
> I would read through your home inspection report and contact them if you still
> have any concerns. They can come out and explain what you are seeing.
> --
>
[8~{} Uncle Saddened Monster
micky
you didn't see it before you bought the house, neither did he. Too bad,
so sad.
DerbyDad03
> This should have been caught When you had your home inspection during your Due
> Dilligence period. Home Inspectors look critically at roofs for such issues.
> I would read through your home inspection report and contact them if you still
> have any concerns. They can come out and explain what you are seeing.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if the inspector (and his gerbils) have retired to Florida by now.
BurfordTJustice
Are you a homo??
"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:492fe6cf-15bb-4dec...@googlegroups.com...
(and his gerbils)
E. Norma Snockers
> replying to Ben, uglyhouse101 wrote:
> This should have been caught When you had your home inspection during your Due
> Dilligence period. Home Inspectors look critically at roofs for such issues.
> I would read through your home inspection report and contact them if you still
> have any concerns. They can come out and explain what you are seeing.
If you really want a thorough home inspection, hire a reputable contractor for the foundation/structure, a plumber for the plumbing, an electrician for the electrical, etc.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
wrote:
home inspections are a TOTAL waste of money and time. Better to take a
few of your good buddies along to look at the house _ they are likely
to catch more than the inspectors will, and you'll be buying them a
few beers anyway.
trader_4
home inspection and then some in reductions from the seller.
And it's a lot more likely a seller is going to knock off $1000
for things that an inspector finds than those that a buyer and
his buddies claim need addressing. It's worked for me.
trader_4
after just a few months to explain what you are seeing.
I suppose if you raise a big stink, they might, but they
aren't in the business of hand holding.
Ed Pawlowski
require it too. When I was buying you did your own inspection and
maybe brought along dad or an uncle. Never used one so I don't now the
real value of their work.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
home inspector who missed every serious issue I pointed out, and
caught a few things like cracked switch plates and poorly attached
trim, and a missing crank on a casement window - missing the fact that
the "redone" wiring was a total disaster and the roof, although it
looked good from a distance, was about 5 years past it's "best before
date" with serious issues in the valleys. Not to mention one of the
carport posts was not carrying any weight because it was roted off
under the recent aluminum cladding, and the asphault driveway was
almost the consistency of gravel. ( that's just on the latest one) A
total waste of, IIRC, $450.
There is ONE home inspector in the area I would trust to do an
adequate home inspection - a former building contractor and developer
who's been raising a bit of a "shit storm" in the provincial property
inspection circles for several years. Real estate selling agents are
not happy when he's on the job.
DerbyDad03
reports I have ever seen. Every issue was detailed in text in the synopsis
section, then the text for each issue was repeated next a photo or photos of
the issue with the issue circled in red or yellow depending on the severity.
Here's a couple of examples. 3 images of a single cracked roof tile:
http://i.imgur.com/iRwPLh7.jpg
Items that had no issues, like the laundry equipment, were included also.
http://i.imgur.com/Pg6WHm5.jpg
All for the very reasonable price of $250. The detailed description and
pictures of all the problems with just the pool at one house made the $250
seem like a really great deal. He walked away from that one based solely
on the inspection report.
Ed Pawlowski
> My son had 2 home inspections done in Las Vegas. The most complete inspection
> reports I have ever seen. Every issue was detailed in text in the synopsis
> section, then the text for each issue was repeated next a photo or photos of
> the issue with the issue circled in red or yellow depending on the severity.
>
> Here's a couple of examples. 3 images of a single cracked roof tile:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/iRwPLh7.jpg
>
> Items that had no issues, like the laundry equipment, were included also.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/Pg6WHm5.jpg
>
> All for the very reasonable price of $250. The detailed description and
> pictures of all the problems with just the pool at one house made the $250
> seem like a really great deal. He walked away from that one based solely
> on the inspection report.
>
If the house is a money pit, the inspection is good investment. Few
houses are pefect and a potential buyer can be put off of a reallly good
buy over something simple if they don't understand the report.
DerbyDad03
(and a ton of other pretty major issues) that he walked away from. I agreed
with his choice. He wanted a house that he could spend money upgrading, not
just fixing. He got what he wanted and spent his money on tools (miter saw,
table saw, etc.) and now sends me pictures of the things he's making to make
an already sound house fun to live in. A day-bed for the patio, a dog-crate
end-table, a patio table from an old whisky barrel, etc.
http://i.imgur.com/Xqsaofb.jpg
And of course, he needs time for his boat.
Ed Pawlowski
> a patio table from an old whisky barrel, etc.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/Xqsaofb.jpg
>
> And of course, he needs time for his boat.
>
DerbyDad03
wood on the inside. He likes the look and is trying figure out what
kind of sealer will "clean it up" but leave the look.