philo wrote:
On 02/03/2016 08:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Two aspects to that.

1 - Being the roofing pro, he should have told you that he wouldn't
do the job unless it was a tear-off.

2 - IMO, tear-off is well worth the extra cost. The older the house,
the more true that is. With a tear-off you can see any rot, any
bad plywood, etc.

In my neck of the wood, tear off is must. No one dare to pile up shingles
on top of each other. Any roofing job includes tear off. What kind of
people would do roofing without tear off? To save money? Our roof is
metal ceramic coated tiles. Nothing to do with roof in my life time.
Wind proof, fire proof.




Way too late, but he did go up into the attic prior to doing the job and
inform me there was no rot. I had caught the small amount of leakage in
time.

Back then I did not have much money, so even if presented with the
wisdom of a tear-off, probably would still have not gone that route.

When I told him how broke I was he held the bill for six months and
added no interest. I doubt if anything like that would happen today.