RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:12 am, John Ross wrote:

I found it interesting reading the posts from people saying "he's a
roofer, not a swamp cooler installer." I think this illustrates the
differences in the way things are done in different parts of the
country. I'll bet those posters live in the east where you have your
heating and cooling in your basement.

I've traveled and worked around the country, and I'm familiar with
swamp coolers and roof mount antennae of various sorts. It's not a
technical question, it's a liability question. Even if the work is
fairly simple, an owner would be shooting themselves in the foot to
have untrained people messing with the equipment. A contractor
receives no benefit, and exposes themselves to substantially increased
liability by touching other systems.

All I can tell you is that in my area (where AC units are generally on
the roof), this is the standard way of doing it. I have never seen it
done as he described.

Out in the west, it is very common (until recently) to have the AC and
heater or swamp cooler on the roof. It is also not only common, but
CODE to have the roofer lift the legs of the units and put the
shingles under them and then put some tar around the legs. This is the
normal and legal practice!

A code violation is not "illegal". It's a code violation. I'm also
passably proficient in the major codes, considering that I work with
them daily, and know of no requirement that specifies in detail how
flashing is to be installed with regards to rooftop structures.
Please cite the code you are referring to.

Again, all I know is from personal experience, I am not a tradesman.
In my city, this is the way it has always been done and it will not
pass inspection if done like what the OP said.

To the OP: Is a 50 percent deposit even legal in your state? Where I
live a contractor can't take more than 10 percent for a deposit. Was
he even a licensed contractor?

Second, did it pass city inspection? He did pull a permit, right?

The majority of the country does not require permits for reroofing
work. The following is fairly typical:

When Do I Need a Building Permit?
Common Procedures that Require a Building Permit:
Above & Below Ground Swimming Pools
Oil & Gas Heating Units and Tanks
Contractor Licensing
Plumbing
Decks & Patios
Public Assembly
Demolition of Structures
Radio & Television Disk Antennas
Fences
Rental Permit
Fireplaces & Chimneys
Retaining Walls
Hot Tubs
Signs
Large Tool Sheds
Temporary Structure
Lawn Sprinkler Systems
Tennis Courts
New Additions & Interior Alterations
Tree Removal
New Homes & Buildings
Use Permit

I don't know the definition of "re-roofing", but that is not the term
he used. He said he had to have the old roofs torn off and a new one
installed. Again, I can just tell you in my location, a permit is
required for that.
Don't pay anything until the inspection and ask the inspector about
the cooler. You definitely got a bad job, it's just a matter of if it
was not done to code and he will have to fix it.

Again, you're assuming a permit and inspections. If the roofer or OP
had pulled a permit, and the work was indeed against the still-to-be-
cited code, then the work would have been flagged, and the OP wouldn't
be writing about the cooler's legs. It's probably safe to assume that
no permit was pulled.

Now you are assuming. We don't know if the work was completed
yesterday and the inspector can't get there until the end of the week.
Whatever happens, given the obvious lack of attention to detail by
this guy, I would get a reputable roofer to come out and do an
inspection to see if he thinks there is anything that is going to
cause big problems. This shouldn't cost more than 100 bucks and is
well worth it after dealing with bozos like you did (I had a similar
situation and had to do the same thing).

What exactly will that accomplish? The only time that an independent
report would be of use is if the OP decided to sue and an
unknowledgeable person, like a judge, needed an expert's report to
hang their hat on. For the amount of money we're talking about, it's
extremely unlikely that a lawsuit will come out of this.

It will accomplish not having a leaky roof! Let met clarify my
original statement,though. I meant AFTER all was said and done with
this current roofer. My point was not about lawsuits, I was just
saying that after this guy finishes, I would have a reputable roofer
look at it to see if there are any problems that should be addressed.
Assuming it is not a huge amount, I would not bother with legal
action. I would just take it as a learning experience and pay a more
skilled roofer to fix it. I did the exact same thing last summer.

--
John