Work to a Perlin roof without notifying us

[Andy62]

We had new slate tiles and roof lined but builder has added wood to the perlin roof without telling us. The work was completed 3 years ago and we never use our loft so we have just found out. 

 

Can anyone tell me what is going on in this picture. What is the added wood for? 

[Nickfromwales]

It looks like they’ve fortified the existing timbers, and one looks to have been cut out / short, so was necessary to do a good (robust) job.

 

Odd as it should have been in your quote as it’s a significant amount of work so would have been costed for you to agree to it being done. 
 

Did you read their quote word for word? 

[Andy62]

He quoted for a complete roof tile replacement like for like grey slate, added roof liner which we didn't have before. He said he needed to replace all roof battens due to adding the roof liner. He also had to replace a window lintel. He charged £28,000 but didn't mention adding any new wood to rafters or ridge area which is in the first picture. I will upload a closer image now as its not clear in the picture on here. 

[Redbeard]

Surely, in the end we can see of the 'upward view' it is not fixed to the truss and isn't transferring any load?? Or am I reading it wrongly? How big, out of interest, is the roof (measured on the slopes)?

[Andy62]

This is what's strange I have never seen pieces of wood attached to a truss. It is screwed into the old ridge beam but not attached at the end. The old ridge is underneath it when you look under the new piece of wood. Is this okay?

 

I have no idea so it would be good to understand why he has done this. Is this the truss in this picture? - Yellow arrow. These are all the way along the ridge.

 

An estimate of the length of the roof without slopes is 13 metres. There is a hip at each end. Not sure how long the slope is. 

[Alan Ambrose]

You sound a bit alarmed, but actually it could just be the roofer being a bit professional. It looks like he has determined at some time that the original trusses were not strong enough and beefed them up. Better he did this than not, yes? Was your original roof a bit out of whack? Is the new roof much heavier? How old is the original? Suggest, if in doubt, call in an SE to check. Or ask the roofer, very politely. Some of that roof is 100 years old or older?

[BadgerBodger]

As @Nickfromwales is saying. It looks like they’ve just reinforced the existing structure. 
 

some of this might be been due to a need due to rot, or the builders opinion that what was there was inadequate or even just for ease and safety of battening. 
 

the original rafter spacing appear irregular, you don’t often see them not meeting at the spar ends which would possibly explain the reinforced ridge which he would then probably have nailed into. 
 

then the original rag gets are also not parallel and/or straight. This can present an issue for counter battening (if done) and lathing. it just takes a bit more time really but if the spacing is excessive walking the lathe afterward may in his view have been unsafe (too much deflection. 
 

seeing the type of roof timbers originally used this looks like a really old house? It’s quite typical to see a hodge podge of solutions up there are everyone has their own take. 
 

unless you have a defect now because of it, I likely wouldn’t be worried. 
 

surprising he didn’t mention it though. 
 

[MikeSharp01]

It struck me that it may have been used to try and straighten the ridge - pull everything along a common line or at least pull out the larger bends =- which may only have been a few mm. It is also possible that it was used to keep everything together while the roof was put on, so when the structure was it it's weakest, and the intention was to remove it but never done.

[Redbeard]

13 hours ago, Andy62 said:

Is this the truss in this picture? - Yellow arrow.

 

No, the 'truss' I meant is 2 to the right - the big timbers bolted at the top of the inverted 'V'

[Andy62]

Alan Ambrose my main concern is it might have needed building control sign off and it might hinder a house sale. Its reassuring to hear the work was needed and strengthens the roof that can only be a positive thing. Thank you for commenting.

[Andy62]

Its a 100 year old farmhouse and had a very old roof you are correct. My main concern is the work may have needed building control sign off and we had no option to use this route as he didn't tell us he had done so much work. During any sale thwy might ask for info. Is £28,000 about right for the work done? 

 

We have no invoices for the work it only shows costs for new slate tiles, new felt, wood, screws, replacement for a new lintel that was rotten, lead work for one hip ridge, interlocking dry ridge tiles to the main ridge and other 3 hip ridges. There's no charges for strengthening rafters or ridge internally. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'll add some pictures of the finished roof to add context. 

[Andy62]

[BadgerBodger]

All new slate for that size. I’d say the price was about right if not good values.

 

if you had a full reroof it should have had BR app anyway?  
 

nothing that can’t be resolved with either, retrospective regularisation or an indemnity policy… 

[Roger440]

As Badger says, the work you had done was notifiable under building regs.

 

Im guessing from your concern about the addtions, you didnt involve building control?

 

I cant say id be worried about it though. If you are, you can probably get it done retrospectively.

 

 

[Roundtuit]

Looks like a quality job to me (as an amateur). From your last pics, he may have raised the ridge a little to retain the original building fabric.  Is it listed?

[Andy62]

Thank you for all you comments its put my mind at rest. Our house isn't listed.

 

We did ask if it required Building control approval from the outset and he said no as he was simply replacing tiles like for like and not touching the structure. We were poorly advised at the time it seems. I just hope it can be approved as it would make life easier when we come to sell.

 

Will the roofer get in trouble for this if I try and get retrospective sign off? Fingers crossed I can. 

[MikeGrahamT21]

The onus for any regulations is always on the home owner, though the builder/roofer should have advised really. I wouldn't worry about it, you can try and get a retrospective one, at least everything the BCO will need to see is more or less visible, or as others have said, a simple indemnity insurance policy when/if you sell

[Mr Punter]

The job looks very good.  I can't imagine it being an issue when you sell.  If you did apply for Building Regs you will need to pay a fee and may be obliged to upgrade the thermal insulation plus further fees for a structural engineer.  The insurance indemnity is cheap and satisfies mortgage lenders (although there is probably 0 chance of successfully claiming).

[Roger440]

8 hours ago, MikeGrahamT21 said:

The onus for any regulations is always on the home owner, though the builder/roofer should have advised really. I wouldn't worry about it, you can try and get a retrospective one, at least everything the BCO will need to see is more or less visible, or as others have said, a simple indemnity insurance policy when/if you sell

 

I would urge some caution with retrospective application.

 

Starting to see some nonsense creeping in. There are acouple of people in some groups im in that are being told by BCO to fit insulation to an existing house during roofing to current standards. Whilst we all know that the regs allow for common sense to be applied where current regs cannot be achieved, such as insifficent actual space, thats not stopping some BCO's from insisting on it. One was told to change the roof to comply, as in complete new roof structure!

 

Whilst clearly wrong, you cannot appeal a BCO decision. They are also under pressure to take enforcement action now on stuff they know doesnt comply. Once you engage them, they know about it.

 

Is the above likely, probably not, can it happen, yes.

[Andy62]

I think I will get some legal advice on the matter to confirm my rights and go from there. We did ask the builder from the outset if it required Building Control sign off and he said no. We are only general property owners so relied on our builders knowledge and expertise. He has been in the building trade 40 years. Hopefully we can resolve our concerns as we want to move in the next few years and downsize. Thank for taking the time to comment. 

[Conor]

I wouldn't go speaking anybody about this, because you are then forced to follow a route. Forget you saw it, if it crops up in the future for whatever reason, deal with it then. The work is good, the roof is doing what it needs to do. Persuing it now will cost you time, money, and stress. It'll likely never be noticed by anybody else. If a surveyor picks it up during a house sale, deal with it then.

 

Fyi builders say "building control not needed" all the time, as makes their life much easier. 

[LnP]

I completely re-roofed my last house, all the tiles replaced, and I didn't talk to BC. I just checked the Planning Portal and realise now that I should have. When I sold it, nobody asked. I don't recall it being asked in the seller's questionnaire I had to fill out and it didn't come up in the survey.

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, Conor said:

I wouldn't go speaking anybody about this, because you are then forced to follow a route. Forget you saw it, if it crops up in the future for whatever reason, deal with it then. The work is good, the roof is doing what it needs to do. Persuing it now will cost you time, money, and stress. It'll likely never be noticed by anybody else. If a surveyor picks it up during a house sale, deal with it then.

 

Fyi builders say "building control not needed" all the time, as makes their life much easier. 

 

Agree, that what id do. BC sign off at this stage doesnt actually change anything in practical terms.

 

Yes, no BC equals easier life. Safe in the knowledge, the home owner is responsible if anything should come to pass.

 

[Andy62]

Yes, we were not told about the work the builder just did it. I have double checked his invoices and there is nothing other than wood for new battens, felt, screws, cost of removal of all old tiles and ridge tiles, cost to buy new slate tiles, new ridges tiles. Leading and fitting costs for leadimg for around the chimneys and some windows and new fascia boards and guttering.

 

I cannot see all of the work he did. The photos of the work weren't taken by me they were taken by a friend who stayed at my house whilst the work was being done as we had to go away. it wasn't until I went in the loft and noticed loads of new wood that I did a double take. I can't see how I can be liable for anything  if I didn't even know the work had been done and I have the proof in the invoices.

 

Thanks again for commenting! 

Edited September 23 by Andy62

[Roundtuit]

Sometimes, particularly with old properties, trades build-in a margin to cover the stuff they can't see until they start. Tbh, I'd find it reassuring to see that your roofer has done what he sees necessary to do a proper job, which is what it looks like from the external photos.  As above, I'd say don't worry about it unless someone else does, but is there perhaps a warranty on the roofing job that you can offer up if it's queried?