One of the most common questions home inspectors ask during a home inspection, has to be, "what were they thinking?" Yesterday was no exception. From the roof of my 3 story Townhouse inspection, I could see the roofs of two similar buildings that had some of their shingles blown off in the last big wind storm. The roofs had been repaired----but what I found interesting is the "extent" of the repairs.
The first building (we will call Roof A), as you can see in the picture, had a reasonable amount of repairs to what I would say was a "considerable" amount of damage.
All the white "blotches" are the newer shingles with the darker grey being the original roof. It is tedious work to do this kind of repair. From where I stood it looked like it was pretty well done. But now let's get on to "Roof B."
As you can see in this picture the repairs FAR exceed what was left of the original roof. My question is, "why would they leave so little---and not just replace all of it?" and secondly, "what were they thinking?"
Charles Buell
PS, for those of you that are new to my blog (or for some other "unexplained" reason have never noticed)
all pictures and smiley-face inserts (emoticons) (when I use them) have messages that show up when you point at them with your cursor.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Click on the Rose 
to check out: AHA!---A Forum of Landmark Proportions---your Group
PS, for those of you that are new to my blog (or for some other "unexplained" reason have never noticed)
all pictures and smiley-face inserts (emoticons) (when I use them) have messages that show up when you point at them with your cursor.
My WORDLESS WEDNESDAY pictures and some selected POEMS & STORIES.
I'm sitting here thinking about what that roof looked like with only those few shingles on there. I can't stop laughing when I think about the process that must have occurred to justify not replacing them.
Charles, it appear you know what your talking about. I agree why repair vs replace. Not enough information is here but if this is investment property could (write off) taxes be in the background. A repair can be written off this year as oppose to a replacement is over several years. Just my thought.
Charles~ Sounds like they just took the easy way out... which is why so many businesses don't make it :)
Charles, yes, it looks pretty strange! And it certainly would have made more sense to replace the whole thing! Go figure!
Erik, I am still baffled as well, although Frank may be onto something.
Frank, I hadn't thought of that---could be some of the "thought-process"
Vickie, but that is my point it wasn't "easier." It would have been considerably more difficult to do the repair on roof B:)
Patricia, yup, still scratching my head.
Charles, I see these types of "repairs" often where we live in Florida. And I believe it's an "insurance"' thing. REPAIR vs REPLACEMENT.
We have certainly had OUR share of windstorms this entire week...FAY, FAY, GO AWAY!
Rebecca, I wish some insurance folks could chime in on this. If you look at Roof B, the plane of the roof to the right had only "minimal" repairs necessary. Couldn't you replace the whole of the other plane and had it still be a "repair?"
Hi Charles, I have to agree with Rebecca that's a insurance issue. This is also very common here in El Paso, Texas. I think there is a percentage of damage needs to be present for replacement.~ Newbie Roy
Roy, sure would make for a lot of "ugly" looking roofs:)
Charles, although they are right that it is definitely an insurance issue about what they will pay for and what they won't, still the contractor should have enough sense to figure out that it would take him LESS time and LESS labor, which would far and away offset the cost of the "extra shingles". Not to mention the fact that the whole repair job would look and BE much better.
Indeed... "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
PS: I am pretty sure that most insurance companies will replace an entire side when the damage on that side exceeds 70% of the area.
Roof "B" definitely qualifies!
Kevin (used to work for a fire & water restoration contractor) Corsa
I would like to propose an alternate theory and blog title "Solomon's dilema... to divide and conquer... or get two free when you buy three for the price of five"
Long story short... perhaps the two buildings (owned buy the same company from the looks of the buildings and repair jobs) are a combined total of one roof repair job. Perhaps the insurance was running "a special" deal... you know one roof repair job for every two buildings. Sorta like Solomon suggested dividing that baby between the two mothers.
Or not. It was worth a try.
I agree with Kevin, don't know what he is talking about but he is a favorite in one of my other groups so he must be right! cheryl (just kidding)willis
Charles, are you advertising for Steve now?? Or did he hack into your blog?
Kevin, I don't understand the whole insurance thing. If the whole darn thing blew off, framing and all, wouldn't they pay to repair it? What is the difference if it is a little or a lot----except the "amount" they would be forking over? Also, yes, he hacked in there and I can't get rid of the dang thing now:) (actually we are in such different markets----and what are buds for?)
Klee, I like your thinking here----could be:)
Cheryl, I have no clue either---but as long as he does:) Charlesalsojustkidding Buell
We agree with you Charles it looks aweful. Why not just get the whole thing done? It seems that it would have cost a fortune for the repair job anyway.
Wow, I agree. Why not just replace the whole roof? Stupid stupid stupid
Sean Allen
I'm so glad you have been able to get back to work. We have all been worried about your being stuck to the computer blogging for days on end. Steve's support was invaluable, I'm sure.
It does make you wonder who was trying to save a few pennies, the insurance co or the owner. Bizarre!
Patty and Scott, pretty amazing to me.
Sean, and another "stupid" for good measure
Barbara, Steve's support is always invaluable---kind of like a good athletic supporter:)
Colleen, I wish someone could explain to me how the insurance company saving money would account for a repair that would "necessarily" have cost more than just ripping off the rest of the shingles on Roof B----it is just too weird.
If you really wanted to know I bet they'd tell you... I have more suggestions
A. A cryptic code for communicating with aliens, spys, astronauts or head scratching inspectors.
B. Target practice for the birds flying by (You know if I was a bird...).
C. perhaps the other half of Roof B (the half we cant see in the picture) was completely obliterated and it looks the same as roof A.
D. Job security (for everyone).
E. Are you sure your not "confused and challenged" and wound up taking pictures of the same house at different angles hehehe...
Charles, this one to me seems like a candidate to replace the whole roof.
a few blue tarps would cover up the whole thing... kinda like painting over stains in the ceiling w/out fixing the leak...
just replace the roof seems so much simpler. go figure, huh?
Maybe it was the homeowner that actually did the 'repairs' and since expecting to sell, wanted to cut corners. If so, they didn't think about the 'presentation' of the house and its' impact though!
That is just dumber than dumb and makes no sense. Loved the laugh though.
Bee boy,
You got another feature. Your addiction is making you wise. I always love it when people tell me going in what is wrong with the house....like excessive mold. That sometimes ends up being the big problem and they knew it going in.
Tried to buy a house not too long ago -- at the inspection, the inspector found polybutylene, problems with the electric in two rooms and four fresh kill rodents in the attic!!! My realtor was so desparate for a sale, she said that the above wasn't a problem, and the seller was insulted that I had brought the issues up as repair itmes -- on a house that has been on the market for 400 days. People are dumb-- who would buy a rodent infested house?
Are you sure both roofs weren't replace in their entirety at the same time and the two roofers just got a couple of boxes of shingles mixed up?
(BTW, for the slower people, that was a joke)
The comment above mine is funny -- but actually it might be true -- to weird, whatever the reason.
Wow, this leaves me stumped for words, but then again, I can't even imagine what you were doing...probably standing there speechless shaking your head. Thanks for the pictures!
Charles, Congrats on another star! Go for the gold guy! Yes, it is amazing that they just did not replace the whole section of the roof. Here in this area, the insurance companies make home owners replace the whole roof...
I had a house once that had a TREE impale itself into the house (small ranch) and they chose to patch one side but completely do the other in repairing the roof - Is there any negative just to do one side and not the other - ? Other than aesthetic value - .... If it's a relatively new roof - fixing it as they did in Picture A - does it give any less functionality? Just wondering...
You are right what were they thinking about. It is a shame they saved a few dollars
Rebecca, I can imagine you do!
Klee, I swear they are different buildings----but I cannot deny being "confused & challenged":)
Gary W, I agree
Gary B, I love that blue tarp look
Ronald, the "time" issue is what gets me----it takes so much longer to tie in shingles than it does to just replace them.
Debbie, forget roofs A & B, we will call them Dumb & Dumber:)
Steve, yup
Karen, we see rodent activity in many houses here----people keep buying:)
John, very funny!
Bob & Carolin, note all the "single" tabs? If not repaired roofs the installers would be dumb and dumber than we thought:)
Tiffany, the first thing I thought of when I saw them was, "Now thereis a featured blog!":)
Michael, thanks. Sounds like your insurance companies have the right idea.
Anonymous, there are a lot of variables to your question. Exposure, age of the remaining shingles etc.
Russ, it is not likley that they saved any time:)
Most likely it is as has already been said, a tax thing. You can't write off a whole roof job, but repairs you can. Back in the day when my parents had rentals and we wanted to reside them, we would spread the work out over several years, doing one or two sides at a time.
Either this or they are looking to achieve an 'urban camo' look to blend in and avoid being bombed when the Ruskies invade (ala 1981)
All I can say is above. Beeman strikes again.
Chris, unfortunately I think you have nailed it on the head---especially given that these buildings look like rental properties.
Steve, what the heck is that a picture of? Is this what you mean?
WoW. this is stunning.. I would also ask "What where they thinking" This is silly
I suspect that we might have written a contract offer on the house if it was acceptible with a condition that the seller install a new roof prior to settlement.
I said it before, and I'll say it again (for those of you that missed it the first time)... the only stupid people in this scenario of replacing a tab here and a tab there... are the ROOFING CONTRACTORS!
The insurance company most likely paid BY THE SQUARE FOOT for damages. The roofing contractor being the mathematical genius that he obviously wasn't, was unable to figure out that he would have been further ahead to just tear off the remaining shingles and replace the whole thing, rather than having his roofer spend 10 extra hours patching in all those extra square foot shingles that the insurance company did not pay for. 'nuff said.
Charles,
I think that they have made the roof one of those pictures that if you stare at it long enough it will morph into another picture. I dont know about you but I see a naked lady!
Roland, well certainly not hard enough:)
Lenn, probably a good idea:)
Kevin, gotta agree with you
Kenny, you got better eyes than me:)----can I borrow them?
I wonder how much of the insurance proceeds the owners pocketed at the time?
Jim Gilbert, Heart of Austin Homes
I got hooked on your blogs (need to subscribe- done-) before this one- the insight that you offer is really amazing. Thanks.
Jim, now there is an interesting question:)
Laurie, thanks!
Maybe you could get "P Diddy" to say it's ok. "Diddy says it's ok to patch the roof" :))
Kevin, you gotta believe whatever Puff says:)
We are going through this in Texas now. Earlier this summer we had a huge rain and hail storm and our neighborhoods were targeted by the insurance companies to have the roofs replaced unfortunately many home owners just took smaller cash payout because they decided the roof did not need to be replaced. Later at inspection, the inspectors are saying replace and the adjusters say repair! It can be a headache!
Charles, one of my associates here in Austin told me about this post. Oh, there she is just above my comment. Thank you for a very informative post and I appreciate the input from a different point of view. I am going to copy this for two of my buyers currently dealing with this roof issue!
Michelle,----that sounds like a mess
Russell, not sure we came to any conclusions here----just asking questions:)
Contractors can be plain crazy!!