Leaking chimney, but where is the water getting in? (see pics)
Calum
I've just had a loft conversion completed on a victorian semi. The
rear of the house is one large dormer with a (nearly) flat roof, and
we've left the chimney stack in place as we might use the dining room
fireplace one day.
The problem we have is that rain is getting in somewhere and coming
through the chimney breast plasterin the new loft room, but the roofer
can't work out where this is coming from.
Here is a picture of the plaster with a roll of masking tape for
scale. There are pencil lines around the damp circles as I was
measuring to see if they got bigger.
http://yfrog.com/7bixtj
Here are pictures from the outside:
http://yfrog.com/4vso3j
http://yfrog.com/6ds5mj
The roofer has re-pointed and patched up the mortar slope to the (very
old and unused) central heating cowel. The cowel was covered in a
plastic bag, but that made no difference.
If it rains moderately for an hour, the patches appear/get worse and
then take a week or two to dry out. To me that looks like the water
is being funnelled down quite effectively.
Could it really be soaking in from the brick? What else could it be?
Thanks for your thoughts
Calum
stuart noble
> The roofer has re-pointed and patched up the mortar slope to the (very
> old and unused) central heating cowel. The cowel was covered in a
> plastic bag, but that made no difference.
>
coming straight through it, or there are hairline cracks at the edges.
Either way, it's no big deal to replace it
Jim K
me too defo. do the other pot as well - if neighbours spose you should
ask first....
Jim K
Nitro®
"Jim K" <jk98...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:020ef1be-8381-45f4...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I personally don't like the look of the lead flashing, might be
worth checking for water pooling in that area.
I built a shed once, it fell down.
--
The man who smiles when things go wrong has
thought of someone to blame it on.
The Natural Philosopher
Bloody obvious.
You have a flat roof and fuck all flashing on the stack.,
Go up and prise up the lead. Bet you its all wet underneath.
You need to take roofing felt an carry it up the sides of the stack, to
where the flashing starts, and probably mastic it in, then put in new
flashing and dress it several inches out along and over the roofing
felt. So that driving rain under the flashing has to go a long way and
then UP to the flashing top, before it meets the brick.
Yu might also, as others have suggested, at the same time repoint the
stack and remortar the cowl top.
Personally I would scaffold up, or whatever, and demolish the stack top,
and start again and build a new top, done properly.
I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
badly done.
It should be redone in conjunction with the chimney.
Jim K
wrote:
care to expand - for the benefit of the OP?
Jim K
tony sayer
>
>You have a flat roof and fuck all flashing on the stack.,
>
>
>Go up and prise up the lead. Bet you its all wet underneath.
>
>
>You need to take roofing felt an carry it up the sides of the stack, to
>where the flashing starts, and probably mastic it in, then put in new
>flashing and dress it several inches out along and over the roofing
>felt. So that driving rain under the flashing has to go a long way and
>then UP to the flashing top, before it meets the brick.
>
>Yu might also, as others have suggested, at the same time repoint the
>stack and remortar the cowl top.
>
>
>Personally I would scaffold up, or whatever, and demolish the stack top,
>and start again and build a new top, done properly.
>
>I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
>badly done.
>
>It should be redone in conjunction with the chimney.
>
>
>
I'd go along with most of that, tho If it were me and it seems that the
water doesn't take that long to appear, I'd prolly chop a bit out of the
wall where damp and then try a hose at the bottom sides of the chimney
and see if thats where its at and if not the top, might just might show
up where its leaking...
But as its just been done why isn't the builder sorting this out?..
--
Tony Sayer
Andrew Gabriel
Difficult to tell.
I bought a couple of those elephant's foot cowls like the one you
have, decided they wouldn't reduce the amount of rainfall going
down the chimney, and took them back. Actually, they may make it
worse by capturing water from a larger area than the original pot
opening, and making it run down the inside of the pot - there's
nothing to make the water running down the outside of the pot
(unless you siliconed it on).
You could repeat the plastic bag test on this flue (but you can't
block the airflow permanently like this).
I then went a bought a couple of these instead:
http://www.brewercowls.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=8%3Acappers&id=14%3Astrap-and-hook-chimney-cappers&option=com_content&Itemid=18
although I fixed them in a different way so the strap isn't visible
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=813157&l=0814418aa8&id=1619546457
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=813158&l=46e9b39859&id=1619546457
In theory, rain water going in the pot shouldn't cause any problems.
In practice it might because the internal pointing has been washed
away over the years of rain exposure without any heating to dry it.
Also, if the flue isn't ventilated at bottom _and_ top, it will fill
up with condensation, which will soak through the brickwork in time.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
The Natural Philosopher
I thought I had..
I don't like the way the flat roof has been sealed to the chimney. It
looks inadequate.
Water can run down the sides inside, and appear ..well wherever there is
a route. Probably through porous mortar.
> Jim K
Jim K
wrote:
> >> I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
> >> badly done.
>
> > care to expand - for the benefit of the OP?
>
> I thought I had..
>
> I don't like the way the flat roof has been sealed to the chimney. It
> looks inadequate.
>
> Water can run down the sides inside, and appear ..well wherever there is
> a route. Probably through porous mortar.
your last critique appeared to me to be a general "crap flat roof"
broadside so was hoping you could enlighten the OP with specifics taht
he could use to bolster his possible arguments with the professhunals
who did it - seems all you are picking at is the height of the stack
flashing and what may or may not be underneath it...
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
Well all flat roofs are carp, because simple overlapping of waterproof
elements will not in general be enough, as water can and does work its
way between the layers in any sort of wind.
The whole point of a roof slope is to make gravity work for you against
wind pressure.
Typically what you might do for a stack is to create a flashing,
soldered together that extends a LONG way from the chimney base
And run the felt up inside it..but then the corners are vulnerable as well.
So you probably end up with some sort of 'soaker' system. a lead layer
under the felt, the felt and a lead layer over it, and all raised up at
the stack, so that water has to run up the felt under the top lead, then
down the lower lead and a long long way before it ends up dripping off
the edge of the soaker through the ceiling..so put another layer of felt
under hat as well that goes all the way to the flat roof edge etc. And
seal it all with flexible mastic and pray.
It's a series of defenses in the end, all compromised by the fact that
gravity on a flat roof is just as likely to make water move towards the
places you don't want it, as the places you do.
> Jim K
Nitro®
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:huift3$s78$1...@news.albasani.net...
There appears to be very little if any overlap.
> I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
> badly done.
Looks very patchy to me, in the larger picture it
shows up even more just how naff it looks, especially
the area around the stack.
robgraham
> Hello all
>
> I've just had a loft conversion completed on a victorian semi. The
> rear of the house is one large dormer with a (nearly) flat roof, and
> we've left the chimney stack in place as we might use the dining room
> fireplace one day.
>
> The problem we have is that rain is getting in somewhere and coming
> through the chimney breast plasterin the new loft room, but the roofer
> can't work out where this is coming from.
>
> Here is a picture of the plaster with a roll of masking tape for
> scale. There are pencil lines around the damp circles as I was
>
> Here are pictures from the outside:http://yfrog.com/4vso3jhttp://yfrog.com/6ds5mj
>
> The roofer has re-pointed and patched up the mortar slope to the (very
> old and unused) central heating cowel. The cowel was covered in a
> plastic bag, but that made no difference.
>
> If it rains moderately for an hour, the patches appear/get worse and
> then take a week or two to dry out. To me that looks like the water
> is being funnelled down quite effectively.
>
> Could it really be soaking in from the brick? What else could it be?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
> Calum
In line with the others I can't see quite how the flashing round the
stack is working.
On the basis that the CH flue isn't used and your 'one day' could well
be a long way away, I would take down the whole stack and seal the
roof properly I'd leave a ventilator out of the flue to allow air
flow and mark where it is. If 'one day' does arrive some time then
put in a stainless steel liner and flue outlet, again properly sealed
in.
Rob
Jim K
zooming in on the pics it seems someone has "pointed" the stack and
flaunching around pots with silicone?....
Was that done after the problem 1st manifested or is that a previous
bodge?
Jim K
Adam Aglionby
>
> I've just had a loft conversion completed on a victorian semi. The
> rear of the house is one large dormer with a (nearly) flat roof, and
> we've left the chimney stack in place as we might use the dining room
> fireplace one day.
>
> The problem we have is that rain is getting in somewhere and coming
> through the chimney breast plasterin the new loft room, but the roofer
> can't work out where this is coming from.
>
> Here is a picture of the plaster with a roll of masking tape for
> scale. There are pencil lines around the damp circles as I was
>
> Here are pictures from the outside:http://yfrog.com/4vso3jhttp://yfrog.com/6ds5mj
>
> The roofer has re-pointed and patched up the mortar slope to the (very
> old and unused) central heating cowel. The cowel was covered in a
> plastic bag, but that made no difference.
>
> If it rains moderately for an hour, the patches appear/get worse and
> then take a week or two to dry out. To me that looks like the water
> is being funnelled down quite effectively.
>
> Could it really be soaking in from the brick? What else could it be?
TBH flashing looks pretty normal, read lead/zinc for copper here
http://www.copper.org/applications/architecture/arch_dhb/flashings_copings/chimney.html
Would normally think flashing failure giving damp signs higher up wall
or on ceiling as water runs down outside of stalk internally.
Brick has lready suffered water damage, the damaged faces look as if
damp has penetrated behind then frozen and blown the faces off.
Stack looks like its beginning to split as well, silicone sealant is
great but structurally gluing split chimney stack back together from
outside is probably pushing it.
Demolish and make good seems best option if don`t need vents and can
get [planners to agree, take down and put back together again
properely if they don`t.
Looks a bit far gone for this sort of treatment to work, water
proofness on lot of bricks has gone.
http://www.rkiroof.com/id74.html
I ferking hate roofs, its all down to opinion and any of them, in any
combination could be right.
Cheers
Adam
The Natural Philosopher
NOT if iuts been RENDERED internally. It will then migrate behind the
almost waterproof rendering via the mortar - particularly lime or weak
mortar - till the rendering stops. Then the plaster will suck like crazy.
> Brick has lready suffered water damage, the damaged faces look as if
> damp has penetrated behind then frozen and blown the faces off.
>
> Stack looks like its beginning to split as well, silicone sealant is
> great but structurally gluing split chimney stack back together from
> outside is probably pushing it.
>
Indeed.
> Demolish and make good seems best option if don`t need vents and can
> get [planners to agree, take down and put back together again
> properely if they don`t.
>
Well we agree on the ideal solutions, anyway.
> Looks a bit far gone for this sort of treatment to work, water
> proofness on lot of bricks has gone.
>
> http://www.rkiroof.com/id74.html
>
> I ferking hate roofs, its all down to opinion and any of them, in any
> combination could be right.
>
nah. Rooves is great until people wot don't unnerstand em start fuckin
wiv em.
I had a leak..on the new tiles..builders looked, and said 'bastard Dave
didn't do soakers' and he was right., a little slip of lead=no more leaks.
There are right ways, and ways that simpoly dont work.
It needs taking to bits and doing right.
Calum
> I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
> badly done.
Yes, it's part of the conversion. They've been back once already to
look at it. They'll be back again soon...
Calum
They are coming back. At one point they were talking about dry-lining
inside - definitely not doing that. They appear to have come to the
end of their ideas tho, which is why I thought I'd post and see if
anyone had any thoughts - which they do! All interesting comments...
Calum
> zooming in on the pics it seems someone has "pointed" the stack and
> flaunching around pots with silicone?....
>
> Was that done after the problem 1st manifested or is that a previous
> bodge?
I see what you're saying. They have been back once to try and
resolve, but I'm not sure exactly what they did. I think I need to
get up there and take a look myself as camera pics (camera stuck to
broom handle poked out of windows!) aren't ideal.
The Natural Philosopher
If the roofing felt is carried up a bit that's a help, and there ought
to be gobs of tar or mastic there as well. Nit bloody silicone either.
If the roofing felt finishes at the chimney, as does that crap excuse
for flashing, its a total disaster. They MUST overlap.
Phil L
>
> Bloody obvious.
>
> You have a flat roof and fuck all flashing on the stack.,
>
>
> Go up and prise up the lead. Bet you its all wet underneath.
>
>
> You need to take roofing felt an carry it up the sides of the stack,
> to where the flashing starts, and probably mastic it in, then put in
> new flashing and dress it several inches out along and over the
> roofing felt. So that driving rain under the flashing has to go a
> long way and then UP to the flashing top, before it meets the brick.
Who's to say the felt doesn't already go up behind the lead? - my bet is
that it does, but this isn't the problem.
>
> Yu might also, as others have suggested, at the same time repoint the
> stack and remortar the cowl top.
>
>
> Personally I would scaffold up, or whatever, and demolish the stack
> top, and start again and build a new top, done properly.
>
> I take it the flat roof is part of the new conversion? If so its been
> badly done.
>
> It should be redone in conjunction with the chimney.
IME you can't seal a chimney with lead on a flat roof - where they've took
the felt up the chimney sides and then flashed over it, they can't seal the
corners and this is where it's getting in, that is to say, the felt is split
at each corner and doesn't go 'around' the corner in one piece, and as you
say, the lead is just covering brickwork at this point.
I wouldn't flash a chimney like this with lead onto a flat roof - it needs
something completely different, torch-on would probably be best but not very
permanent
--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008
js.b1
posted I believe you may have a problem there.
#2 Repoint the chimney, SBR in the mortar where necessary.
Absolutely do not dry-line or the moisture behind will produce a
string of problems with floorboards, joists, track through any party
wall nearby - trying to hide the problem is a recipe for a total
disaster that should be obvious and worries me that they should
suggest it. Makes me want to examine that roof more closely.
BTW, you can get wireless and wired cameras quite cheaply - it could
be useful to stick one in an appropriate position. From the suggest of
*wet plaster* in moderate rain I really do wonder about that flat roof
re funneling water.
![george [dicegeorge]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVy3egmWxdo6kgdNwXDn-6EE54MDMuR9kO5wF-DhVhewlzxjNY=s40-c)
george [dicegeorge]
are there still puddles?
Better tie a ladder up there
and go up in various weathers,
pour buckets of water on it etc.
Maybe squeeze some thickish plastic under the flat roof
around the chimney
so that water flows away from the chimney.
[g]
Tim Watts
> Better tie a ladder up there
> and go up in various weathers,
> pour buckets of water on it etc.
>
I was about to suggest something similar: wait for a dry day and take a
hose up there. Working from the least likely to the most likely culprit
areas, pour loads of water from an un-nozzeled hose with an observer
inside to look for any evidence.
If that doesn't yield anything (it might not) - OP could be looking at a
combination of wind and rain blowing the water back under something, in
which case repeat the excercise with a spray gun on the hose.
--
Tim Watts
Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.
Phil L
upon closer inspection of your pictures, iut seems to me that the water
isn't coming down the inside of the chimney but down the outside.
Am I correct in assuming the walls have been dot&dabbed? - these wet patches
look like DL adhesive to me, and if they are, then the water is coming down
the face of the brickwork that they are stuck to (which it must have been
doing BEFORE it was covered up! *) and the water is going through the
adhesive and into the plasterboard.
*Which begs the question, why did anyone cover up an obviously wet wall?
The Natural Philosopher
And coming down the outside is exactly what the balance of us here
reckon: The flashing is crap.
But I don't reckon given the dry spring, the wall would have been wet.
Not till the latest downpours.
Phil L
>>
> AHA! that explains the round patches. They are the dabs!
>
> And coming down the outside is exactly what the balance of us here
> reckon: The flashing is crap.
>
> But I don't reckon given the dry spring, the wall would have been wet.
> Not till the latest downpours.
Yep, without doubt the flashing's are shite - on one side it doesn't even
reach the roof - it stops about an inch short
Jim K
mmm if there's so much water coming down the outer surface of the
chimney breast to soak thru pb dabs placed here and there - shurely
there'd be some other evidence of *lots* of water getting in - in the
room below the loft conversion perchance?
OP - can you orientate us and tell us (somehow) where the c breast is
relative to the stack in the pics? i.e. specifically what part of the
chimney stack is directly above the damp area? are the damp spots in
pic all there are in loft? or are there more? any signs in lower rooms
(yet)??
Jim K
Calum
> isn't coming down the inside of the chimney but down the outside.
> Am I correct in assuming the walls have been dot&dabbed? - these wet patches
> look like DL adhesive to me, and if they are, then the water is coming down
> the face of the brickwork that they are stuck to (which it must have been
> doing BEFORE it was covered up! *) and the water is going through the
> adhesive and into the plasterboard.
>
> *Which begs the question, why did anyone cover up an obviously wet wall?
Yes, the walls have been dot & dabbed. The wall may not have looked
wet before. Work began in the winter when we had lots of snow, and
ice and things were actually quite dry.
Phil L
> Yes, the walls have been dot & dabbed. The wall may not have looked
> wet before. Work began in the winter when we had lots of snow, and
> ice and things were actually quite dry.
The flashing's failed, it needs replacing and *not* patching up.
Personally, if it were mine, I would want something other than lead as I
don't think it's suitable in this application.
The Natural Philosopher
> Calum wrote:
>
>> Yes, the walls have been dot & dabbed. The wall may not have looked
>> wet before. Work began in the winter when we had lots of snow, and
>> ice and things were actually quite dry.
>
> The flashing's failed, it needs replacing and *not* patching up.
>
> Personally, if it were mine, I would want something other than lead as I
> don't think it's suitable in this application.
>
Calum
where the problem lies scientifically i.e. with a hose and a lot of
time. I need to let it dry out again first...
I'll report back my findings!
Calum
Jim K
dehumidifier will dry it quickest...
BTW did you see my post in this thread "8th June 15:25"?
Cheers
Jim K
Weatherlawyer
You are an idiot.
There is nothing going down the chimney from above the lead.
Look under the lead. It isn't doing anything. Get a picture of the
roof when it is raining. It will be a puddle deeper than the bottom of
the lead. So what he has there is a big shallow pool draining into the
fireplace.
Jim K
and just how the F do you know that then einstein?
which picture shows what's under the lead?
I think you're the presumptive idiot here.....
Jim K
Weatherlawyer
Presumptive? No. Aggressive yes and an idiot at times.
When he posts the pool picture you will see the bloody obvious, though
how you missed the bloody obvious about the chimney not leaking above
the lead I can not hope to guess.
Jim K
you mean we have to wait and see if your presumptions are correct?
Stiill at least you accept there's no evidence yet of what you think
is wrong, that's a step forward, but still a long way to go tho ;>)
Cheers
Jim K
The Natural Philosopher
Flashing is done the way its done because that way works.
It hasn't been done that way, ergo it probably wont work.
It doesn't take much brain to look at a car with square wheels and say
'that wont drive very well'
But I expect you would want scientific tests to back that up, as well.
stuart noble
What's strange in all this is that the original roofer apparently can't
figure it out.
The Natural Philosopher
that's probably because he isn't. A roofer.
Hes a purveyor of loft conversions.
Jim K
wrote:
<sigh>
from the evidence provided (to all) the flashing is at least 2 brick
courses high - say minumum 4inch?
How should the flashing appear in the photographs to be "correct" in
your humble opinion?
FACT we don't know what's under the flashing. Until it's inspected by
someone we never will - simple irrefutable fact no?
The usual "doom & gloom", "pull it down", "start again", "you've been
ripped off" theories are being vigorously promoted (by the usual
suspects) solely on the basis of their imaginations and alleged
expertise yet they *do not know* what is actually going on becasue
*they have not seen*.
All you are doing is betting.
Cheers
Jim K
Adam Aglionby
The flashing on a closer look , dosen`t look that clever, the open
corners aint going to help.
The silicone sealant on the chimney is simply wrong, combined with at
least 3 separate obvious goes at pointing repairs, different colours
of mortar, looks like pointing has given previous people,greivous
repair despair.
Damp ingress can go from being a minor inconvenience to a major repair
scarily quickly, had a 200quid blocked gutter turn into 12grand major
roof repair beacuse of wet rot, only took 2 years of everyone thinking
somone else was getting it fixed.
If you want a betting game , try damp in ground floor, is it rising
damp, interior condensation, water run off from local park, broken
Scottish Water supply pipe or alien ectoplasm, alien ectoplasm would
be Scottish Water`s preferred explanantion, throw a double six for the
correct answer, including if your a surveyor....
Cheers
Adam
The Natural Philosopher
so fucking what?
Its not how HIGH it is, its where it finishes.
It doesn't meet the flat roof at all!
It looks like flashing that has been partially removed from the old
stack when the roof was flattened.
>
> How should the flashing appear in the photographs to be "correct" in
> your humble opinion?
It should spread out to cover the flat roof, not be gobbed with silicone
or whatever.
>
> FACT we don't know what's under the flashing. Until it's inspected by
> someone we never will - simple irrefutable fact no?
>
The point is, there is no flashing.
That does anything.
> The usual "doom & gloom", "pull it down", "start again", "you've been
> ripped off" theories are being vigorously promoted (by the usual
> suspects) solely on the basis of their imaginations and alleged
> expertise yet they *do not know* what is actually going on becasue
> *they have not seen*.
>
I dont need to see what amounts to band of lead round a stack base
poking through a flat roof to know that isn't flashing. It might have
been once., but it aint now.
> All you are doing is betting.
No, that's your game. I've dealt with plenty of leaks, and I know how
the game works.
>
> Cheers
> Jim K
>
Jim K
wrote:
> It should spread out to cover the flat roof, not be gobbed with silicone
> or whatever.
what purpose would having lead flattened out ontop of the felt round
the stack add?
> > FACT we don't know what's under the flashing. Until it's inspected by
> > someone we never will - simple irrefutable fact no?
>
> The point is, there is no flashing.
>
> That does anything.
>
> > The usual "doom & gloom", "pull it down", "start again", "you've been
> > ripped off" theories are being vigorously promoted (by the usual
> > suspects) solely on the basis of their imaginations and alleged
> > expertise yet they *do not know* what is actually going on becasue
> > *they have not seen*.
>
> I dont need to see what amounts to band of lead round a stack base
> poking through a flat roof to know that isn't flashing. It might have
> been once., but it aint now.
so all that's wrong you reckon is the lead needs to be wider and lap
onto the felt and not gobbed up with silicone anywhere??!!
> > All you are doing is betting.
>
> No, that's your game. I've dealt with plenty of leaks, and I know how
> the game works.
we'll see (I hope :>))
do you do clairvoyance parties too?
Cheers
Jim K
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
>
> The whole point of a roof slope is to make gravity work for you against
> wind pressure.
I must congratulate you for your patience in dealing with such an
utter idiot. And take any kudos back from you for not having realised
it was a lost cause.
He will never grasp that when you have an obstacle like a chimney you
have to set the shed to ground the water around the outside.
All he can see is a Band Aid of lead. He will never be able to grasp
more than that.
Calum
definitely lots of silicone in the gaps. I assume the silicone
sealant is specified for external use. Does it have a long life?
The most interesting pic is http://yfrog.com/j3sybj which shows a hole
with a *bit* of silicon in it.
http://yfrog.com/afn6fj
http://yfrog.com/16fj2j
http://yfrog.com/9fn4gj
http://yfrog.com/msqhqj
http://yfrog.com/9hsi7j
http://yfrog.com/507oyj
http://yfrog.com/jkj7pj
http://yfrog.com/6ra1uj
http://yfrog.com/bfjojj
http://yfrog.com/hq1xhj
I've started running water on bits of the roof/chimney to find out
what is leaking, working my way up from the bottom. Nothing has come
through yet, but I do see another problem - see this video...
I'm going to give the company a ring tomorrow and give them a piece of
my mind.
Calum
Jim K
> I've taken a bunch more pictures, and can now see that there is
> definitely lots of silicone in the gaps. I assume the silicone
> sealant is specified for external use. Does it have a long life?
>
seriously silicone in that appication is a bodge, maybe they were
"testing a theory" but silicone is *not* the longterm answer to that
stack's issues...
> I'm going to give the company a ring tomorrow and give them a piece of
> my mind.
keep it cool and logical, common sensical, decide what you want them
to do before you ring them, that may well be "just come and look and
discuss how you are going to put it right"
was repairing the flaky stack in the spec/quote for the job? if not
then ideally they should have told you how sh1t it was and asked you
what you wanted doing whilst they are up there, but they could try and
argue it wasn't part of of the job quoted and charge you extra to fix.
have you fully paid yet? just puts you in astronger position to get
satisfaction before they poss. contemplate "doing one" and leaving you
with the problem - and seeing if you can be arsed to chase them for
redress....
keep us posted
Cheers
Jim K
tony sayer
s.com>, Calum <trus...@calum.com> scribeth thus
>I've taken a bunch more pictures, and can now see that there is
>definitely lots of silicone in the gaps. I assume the silicone
>sealant is specified for external use. Does it have a long life?
Well I can't say I've ever seen silicone sealant as good as what it can
be to point bricks up;!..
>
>The most interesting pic is http://yfrog.com/j3sybj which shows a hole
>with a *bit* of silicon in it.
>
>http://yfrog.com/afn6fj
>http://yfrog.com/16fj2j
>http://yfrog.com/9fn4gj
>http://yfrog.com/msqhqj
>http://yfrog.com/9hsi7j
>http://yfrog.com/507oyj
>http://yfrog.com/jkj7pj
>http://yfrog.com/6ra1uj
>http://yfrog.com/bfjojj
>http://yfrog.com/hq1xhj
>
>I've started running water on bits of the roof/chimney to find out
>what is leaking, working my way up from the bottom. Nothing has come
>through yet, but I do see another problem - see this video...
>
>http://yfrog.com/modscn3310z
>
>I'm going to give the company a ring tomorrow and give them a piece of
>my mind.
>
>Calum
>
What a bodge job this looks. I'd be inclined to put a complaint in
writing and recorded delivery and get an independent inspection.
Do you really want this lot back again?..
--
Tony Sayer
Calum
Thanks Jim. Luckily I'm not too hot headed. But I will convey my
annoyance that the company's site manager said he inspected himself,
and he could see nowhere that the water might get in. He just didn't
look around the other side. So far I've got on with the company very
well, but they are now trying my patience.
The quote was for providing the loft conversion at fixed price i.e.
they explicitly took the risk of unforseen circumstances like
additional structural work etc. Luckily we haven't paid fully yet.
Dave Starling
> What a bodge job this looks. I'd be inclined to put a complaint in
> writing and recorded delivery and get an independent inspection.
>
> Do you really want this lot back again?..
independent surveyor to list all the defects and the remedial work/
cost.
What is going on with those ridge tiles at the edge of the flat roof?
I've never seen anything like that before. From your pictures I can't
quite work out where the chimney is in relation to that sloping
section that leaks under the soffit. If you can do without the chimney
it might be worth removing it below tiles and tiling over that
section. It would be another area to eliminate leaks. To be honest if
it were my roof I'd want the whole lot stripping off and redoing
properly -otherwise it will always be leaking somewhere due to the
numerous bodges.
Dave.
Jim K
> On Jun 13, 9:52 pm, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:> What a bodge job this looks. I'd be inclined to put a complaint in
> > writing and recorded delivery and get an independent inspection.
>
> > Do you really want this lot back again?..
>
> I strongly agree. I would tell them to hold whilst you get an
> independent surveyor to list all the defects and the remedial work/
> cost.
>
despite my usual distrust of profeshunals (esp surveyors) I think
dave's surveyor suggestion could be well "on the money" on this one -
too many things going on up there for comfort...
Cheers
Jim K
Weatherlawyer
Why don't we all send two halfpennies in and pay for
> Jim K
to turn up and see what everyone else can see, then report back?
I'd love to get him on a roof.
But not for long.
Jim K
you forgot your pills again?
Adam Aglionby
> On 13 June, 20:55, Jim K <jk989...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:34 pm, Calum <trust...@calum.com> wrote:
> > > I'm going to give the company a ring tomorrow and give them a piece of
> > > my mind.
>
> > keep it cool and logical, common sensical, decide what you want them
> > to do before you ring them, that may well be "just come and look and
> > discuss how you are going to put it right"
>
> > was repairing the flaky stack in the spec/quote for the job? if not
> > then ideally they should have told you how sh1t it was and asked you
> > what you wanted doing whilst they are up there, but they could try and
> > argue it wasn't part of of the job quoted and charge you extra to fix.
>
> > have you fully paid yet? just puts you in astronger position to get
> > satisfaction before they poss. contemplate "doing one" and leaving you
> > with the problem - and seeing if you can be arsed to chase them for
> > redress....
>
> Thanks Jim. Luckily I'm not too hot headed. But I will convey my
> annoyance that the company's site manager said he inspected himself,
> and he could see nowhere that the water might get in. He just didn't
> look around the other side.
Perhaps email him a link to your video :-0
> So far I've got on with the company very
> well, but they are now trying my patience.
Suggestion of tanking a loft room was a bit of an alarm bell to be
sure to be sure...
>
> The quote was for providing the loft conversion at fixed price i.e.
> they explicitly took the risk of unforseen circumstances like
> additional structural work etc. Luckily we haven't paid fully yet.
Beware of getting into argument about state of chimney, which may be
contributory but reasonably not part of contract, not reasonable to
start pratting about with silicone on pointing though, makes it harder
to do propery after.
Lead work from any angle is clearly indequate, site manager didn`t
need to look closely, was it him who suggested the tanking?
Cheers
Adam