We recently had our roof replaced on our 2200 sq. ft. ranch. We got bids
and selected a contractor who had already done some work in our
neighborhood and seemed reputable. Everything went fine with the actual
work. A week or so later, we received the bill, and it was consistent with
the bid. But the next day we received another copy of the bill, but this
time with an added charge of $500 for "preparation of wood structure".

We had no idea what this was about, so we paid the original amount and
enclosed a letter saying that we wouldn't pay the added $500 until we had
an explanation of why it had been added to the bill.

After a few more weeks, we got a call from the contractor asking why we
hadn't paid the $500. We explained that we had sent him a letter
questioning the charge. He claimed that he never saw the letter, even
though the check that accompanied it had been cashed. We explained that we
didn't know why the charge had been assessed and we felt that, as a normal
business practice, we should have been notified in advance if any extra
work was needed requiring additional charges.

We subsequently received a letter in which he correctly pointed out that
the contract didn't require him to notify us of additional work, and that
it stated that any additional work needed would be charged at the rate of
$50 per hour.

But then the letter went on to claim that foreman had noticed during the
work that the sheathing was coming loose. He therefore supposedly renailed
all of the sheathing on the entire roof, taking 10 hours to do so, for an
added charge of $50 x 10 hours.

Here's our problem with that story:

1) The foreman had talked to my wife during the job and said that the
sheathing itself looked to be in good shape and didn't need to be replaced.
She has no recollection of his having mentioned a need to renail it all.

2) Although I didn't continuously monitor the work, I was never conscious
of any activity that looked liked renailing of the sheathing.

3) When I cleaned the gutters, I had to remove fairly large numbers of what
I took to be roofing nails (flat, large heads, relatively short shanks) but
not a single nail of the type I would have expected to be used in renailing
sheathing.

In general, the story strikes us as fishy. Even if the work was in fact
done, we feel that we may not be obligated to pay unless he can DEMONSTRATE
that it actually was done (how, I'm not sure, short of pulling up shingles
and looking for new nails). We feel that even if the contract didn't
require him to do so, the burden is on him to justify any additional work
by (a) explaining what's needed, (b) telling us roughly what it may cost,
(c) showing us evidence that the work was actually done.

It seems way to easy for him to simply claim that this work was done in
order to pad his bill. How can we prove that it wasn't? The fact that the
charge showed up almost as an after-thought, after we had already received
one bill without the added charge, reinforces that perception.

Also, how many man-hours should it actually take to renail the sheathing on
a roof our size? I would think someone would use a nail gun for that kind
of job.


Comments? Advice?

thanks,
Grant

My only comment is that you seemed to have answered your questions yourself
!! It surely sounds to me like the added bill was an afterthought,
especially considering the fact that the foreman on the job commented on the
status of the sheathing, its condition, etc.

Under these circumstances, it would be hard for me to believe that this guy
would take you to small claims court with these facts. But, I would
tell him that is where he needs to go if he wants the additional money !!

--James--

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:10:43 -0500, James Nipper wrote:


My only comment is that you seemed to have answered your questions yourself
!! It surely sounds to me like the added bill was an afterthought,
especially considering the fact that the foreman on the job commented on the
status of the sheathing, its condition, etc.

Under these circumstances, it would be hard for me to believe that this guy
would take you to small claims court with these facts. But, I would
tell him that is where he needs to go if he wants the additional money !!

Small claims court is nothing. The real problem is if he puts
a mechanics lien on the house. When it comes time to sell, you could
have one heck of a time getting that straightened out.

- Rich

Well, if he puts a lien on it, in most states you have two options. First,
you can go to court and challenge the lien (expensive). Secondly, you
can wait the "expiration period" and if no action is taken to foreclose
the lien, it will die of its own. For example, in Florida, a lien
automatically dies after one year.


Good Luck !!

--James--

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:57:50 -0600, someone wrote:

3) When I cleaned the gutters, I had to remove fairly large numbers of what
I took to be roofing nails (flat, large heads, relatively short shanks) but
not a single nail of the type I would have expected to be used in renailing
sheathing.

What kind of nails would you expect? I'd be un-surprised if a roofer
would use roofing nails to re-nail sheathing - typically a galvanized
nail with a large head. How short is short? How thick is your
sheathing?

And the sheathing was NOT replaced. The existing sheathing was
re-used, so there is no inconsistencly (or "lie") with what the
foreman said.

The problem with your approach is that the contract is against you. I
can very readily see why a REPUTABLE & HONEST roofing contractor would
not want to stop work, maybe for several days in which it might rain,
with every problem that they identify, waiting for the homeowner to go
on the internet and see if he will authorize the needed work. OTOH
yes it does give an opening to someone unscrupulous. But you hired
this contractor because you deemed them reputable, and NOW you won't
pay because you think he really "should" have done someting that he is
not REQUIRED to do under the contract....

Unless you can "prove" the work WASN'T done, I am feeling sorry for
the contractor here, did the job right but stiffed by a homeowner,
having to go to court for a measly $500. And BTW, "proof" to the
court can be testimony that is believed by the court, that the work
was done. Can you "prove" it wasn't? What is your basis of
knowledge? Did you see that it wasn't? Just that you "think" they
"should" have told you first isn't proof that they didn't. By the
contract, prior permission was not required, leaving you only to argue
that the extra work wasn't reasonable - and how can you "prove"
that????

The guy fixed you sheathing. Pay them. OR - PUT YER MONEY WHERE YOUR
MOUTH IS - AGREE to pay them hourly EXTRA to come back and tear up a
section of roof and show you. On condition that if it IS neailed, you
pay both the $500 plus the extra - and if its not, then they restore
the hole and don't charge you for either. How's that? Bet you won't
do it - you want $500 off on suspicion only and aren't willing to take
the chance!

-V.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

The guy fixed you sheathing.

Correction: He *says* he did. I have no idea whether he actually did or
not. The other poster in this thread seems to share my suspicion.

Pay them. OR - PUT YER MONEY WHERE YOUR
MOUTH IS - AGREE to pay them hourly EXTRA to come back and tear up a
section of roof and show you. On condition that if it IS neailed, you
pay both the $500 plus the extra - and if its not, then they restore
the hole and don't charge you for either. How's that?

I already had exactly the same idea. Haven't decided yet whether it's
worth it, mainly because I'm not certain how easy it would be to tell
whether the nails are old or new.

Bet you won't
do it - you want $500 off on suspicion only and aren't willing to take
the chance!

You seem to think that the contractor has no obligation whatsoever to
demonstrate that he did what he's asking you to pay for. Even auto
mechanics call before they proceed with a $50 repair that was not
already agreed to. And they give you the old parts as well, precisely
to reduce the likelihood that they could be ripping you off. Not clear
why different rules should apply to roofers.

Any work that took 10 hours to complete should have been noticeable by
yourself during the work. How long did the whole job take? Did you look at
any of the work while it was being done? To tack on an extra $500.00 should
have caused at least a mention during the work.

I always watch anyone working on my house, or at least closely inspect it
when I get home. This has often resulted in reminding the crews about
"forgotten" work or fixing to my satisfaction.

"Grant" wrote in message
...
The guy fixed you sheathing.

Correction: He *says* he did. I have no idea whether he actually did or
not. The other poster in this thread seems to share my suspicion.

Pay them. OR - PUT YER MONEY WHERE YOUR
MOUTH IS - AGREE to pay them hourly EXTRA to come back and tear up a
section of roof and show you. On condition that if it IS neailed, you
pay both the $500 plus the extra - and if its not, then they restore
the hole and don't charge you for either. How's that?

I already had exactly the same idea. Haven't decided yet whether it's
worth it, mainly because I'm not certain how easy it would be to tell
whether the nails are old or new.

Bet you won't
do it - you want $500 off on suspicion only and aren't willing to take
the chance!

You seem to think that the contractor has no obligation whatsoever to
demonstrate that he did what he's asking you to pay for. Even auto
mechanics call before they proceed with a $50 repair that was not
already agreed to. And they give you the old parts as well, precisely
to reduce the likelihood that they could be ripping you off. Not clear
why different rules should apply to roofers.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:04:24 -0500, someone wrote:

I always watch anyone working on my house, or at least closely inspect it
when I get home. This has often resulted in reminding the crews about
"forgotten" work or fixing to my satisfaction.

Great if you have the time to do Alternative I. Unfortunately for
Alternative II, the work might be covered up bu the time you get home.
If there were 4 or 5 men working on the crew, they together *could*
easily do an extra 10 hours of work without it being readily apparent
to someone just checking the job at the end of the day.


Correction: He *says* he did. I have no idea whether he actually did or
not. The other poster in this thread seems to share my suspicion.

And can you "say" he did NOT???? What the other poster thinks is
suspicious does not change the situation. Neither of you has any more
than suspicion. Are you looking for validation or information? I
also don't know if he did or he didn't. But he says he did. Show me
he is wrong. At this point what more can he do but "say"?????


You seem to think that the contractor has no obligation whatsoever to
demonstrate that he did what he's asking you to pay for. Even auto
mechanics call before they proceed with a $50 repair that was not
already agreed to. And they give you the old parts as well, precisely
to reduce the likelihood that they could be ripping you off. Not clear
why different rules should apply to roofers.

It is VERY VERY clear why different rule should apply to THIS roofer.
For starters, from your own post, apparently you signed a contract
that allowed him to do additional work WITHOUT your prior approval.
Therefore you'd need to PROVE to a court that the extra work was
either not performed or not reasonable. And you say "even" auto
mechanics? You have it backwards sir, auto repair is one of the most
closely regulated trades in the USA, what auto shops have to do is an
example of the highest requirements not the lowest. And what old roof
parts do you want the roofer to show you?????

AND - your car is a comparatively small (compared to your roof)
moveable object which is worked on indoors. They can park it and work
on a different car on hand, while they wait for your approval. OTOH
your roof is outside and the crew came to the house and set up there.
Should they leave your roof open and unattended, should they really
stand idle 4 or 5 men, or pack up everything and leave, waiting for
you? If it was a major major thing that changes the scope of the job,
they should indeed do just that. If it a minor minor thing, a hole
found in flashing, $20 to fix, would you really want to stop the job
over this? Your is part way in between. Doesn't sound that major to
me or the roofer but maybe it is to you.

I can see why they set up their contracts that way. It would be up to
you to negotiate different in advance and you didn't. And YES YES YES
it would have been "nice" or "good customer relations" to inform you
earlier or take a picture - BUT apparently you signed a contract that
didn't require them to do this. And now you think you shouldn't have
to pay because, why, you think they "should" have done something that
is not in the contract? This *IS* different "rules" from when you get
your car fixed.

I don't know if they really did it or not either, but if you are
calling them liars be prepared to prove it. You will not get any
validation from me until you do, stiffing them over your "suspicion"
or anyone else's. Pay the bill and you'll know better what to ask for
next time. Or put your money where your mouth is as I suggested
earlier.

-v.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

v wrote:
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:04:24 -0500, someone wrote:

I always watch anyone working on my house, or at least closely
inspect it
when I get home. This has often resulted in reminding the crews
about
"forgotten" work or fixing to my satisfaction.

Great if you have the time to do Alternative I. Unfortunately for
Alternative II, the work might be covered up bu the time you get
home.
If there were 4 or 5 men working on the crew, they together *could*
easily do an extra 10 hours of work without it being readily apparent
to someone just checking the job at the end of the day.


Correction: He *says* he did. I have no idea whether he actually
did or
not. The other poster in this thread seems to share my suspicion.

And can you "say" he did NOT???? What the other poster thinks is
suspicious does not change the situation. Neither of you has any more
than suspicion. Are you looking for validation or information? I
also don't know if he did or he didn't. But he says he did. Show me
he is wrong. At this point what more can he do but "say"?????


You seem to think that the contractor has no obligation whatsoever
to
demonstrate that he did what he's asking you to pay for. Even
auto
mechanics call before they proceed with a $50 repair that was not
already agreed to. And they give you the old parts as well,
precisely
to reduce the likelihood that they could be ripping you off. Not
clear
why different rules should apply to roofers.

It is VERY VERY clear why different rule should apply to THIS roofer.
For starters, from your own post, apparently you signed a contract
that allowed him to do additional work WITHOUT your prior approval.
Therefore you'd need to PROVE to a court that the extra work was
either not performed or not reasonable. And you say "even" auto
mechanics? You have it backwards sir, auto repair is one of the most
closely regulated trades in the USA, what auto shops have to do is an
example of the highest requirements not the lowest. And what old
roof
parts do you want the roofer to show you?????

AND - your car is a comparatively small (compared to your roof)
moveable object which is worked on indoors. They can park it and
work
on a different car on hand, while they wait for your approval. OTOH
your roof is outside and the crew came to the house and set up there.
Should they leave your roof open and unattended, should they really
stand idle 4 or 5 men, or pack up everything and leave, waiting for
you? If it was a major major thing that changes the scope of the
job,
they should indeed do just that. If it a minor minor thing, a hole
found in flashing, $20 to fix, would you really want to stop the job
over this? Your is part way in between. Doesn't sound that major to
me or the roofer but maybe it is to you.

I can see why they set up their contracts that way. It would be up to
you to negotiate different in advance and you didn't. And YES YES YES
it would have been "nice" or "good customer relations" to inform you
earlier or take a picture - BUT apparently you signed a contract that
didn't require them to do this. And now you think you shouldn't have
to pay because, why, you think they "should" have done something that
is not in the contract? This *IS* different "rules" from when you
get
your car fixed.

I don't know if they really did it or not either, but if you are
calling them liars be prepared to prove it. You will not get any
validation from me until you do, stiffing them over your "suspicion"
or anyone else's. Pay the bill and you'll know better what to ask
for
next time. Or put your money where your mouth is as I suggested
earlier.

-v.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.


If I could get up into the attic enough to inspect a large area, I
might be able to confirm the new nailing because there are always some
nails that miss the rafters. If I found this I would feel better about
paying. I admit it's a difficult inspection to make this way. A 20 year
old nail can look new sometimes, but a lot of new nails will appear
brighter in general. Proving that he didn't do it is impossible outside
of removing the shingles or obtaining a confession.

What kind of nails would you expect? I'd be un-surprised if a roofer
would use roofing nails to re-nail sheathing - typically a galvanized
nail with a large head. How short is short?

From memory, I'm thinking maybe 1.5 inches.

How thick is your sheathing?

I'd be surprised if it weren't 5/8" OSB or something similar. Maybe
they use 1/2", I don't know. But given the wind forces acting on a
roof, I'd sure want more than 1 inch of nail holding the sheathing to
the frame.