I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

On Oct 12, 1:26 pm, "Art" wrote:
If the contract says he doens't get paid until it passes inspection he is
screwed. On the other hand, depending on how the contract is written you
may be responsible for the extra cost. Also the engineer may have some
liability. Lawyers are expensive. Sit down with everyone and resolve the
problem.

wrote in message

oups.com...



I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Art I thought it was something like that. If I remember
correctly the contract mentions that he will pull the permit but I
don't think there is anything about inspections. I will have to look
at it again tonight.

I agree, using a lawyer for something like this would be overkill.
I'm just building a case for when I call the contractor back. If he
won't do it I will just hire someone else to do the vents, more money
but less headaches.

Mike

If the contract says he doens't get paid until it passes inspection he is
screwed. On the other hand, depending on how the contract is written you
may be responsible for the extra cost. Also the engineer may have some
liability. Lawyers are expensive. Sit down with everyone and resolve the
problem.


wrote in message
oups.com...
I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

on 10/12/2007 12:41 PM said the following:
I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy



Did the builder leave all the attic rafters and ridge beam in place and
just put up ceiling panels (sheetrock) on the original rafters along
with the LVL beam as a decoration?
I can't see where the ridge vent would now be blocked if he left
everything in place, or he put in insulation without leaving an air path
between the soffit vents and ridge vent. You have soffit vents, right?



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:26 pm, "Art" wrote:

....posting order corrected...

wrote in message

oups.com...
I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.
When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.
My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? ...

If the contract says he doens't get paid until it passes inspection
he is screwed. On the other hand, depending on how the contract is
written you may be responsible for the extra cost. Also the
engineer may have some liability. Lawyers are expensive. Sit down
with everyone and resolve the problem.

Thanks Art I thought it was something like that. If I remember
correctly the contract mentions that he will pull the permit but I
don't think there is anything about inspections. I will have to look
at it again tonight.
....

Sounds like it wasn't addressed in the design that the contractor hired
the engineer to do the structural but probably didn't provide him with
the necessary inputs to know where the venting locations were to design
around existing or account for them for the incorporation of existing
locations.

That it was in a gc's scope to ensure that would also be somewhat
dependent on how contract was done -- were you the gc subletting work or
was the contractor the actual gc? That may have bearing depending on
local rules/law...

The "sit down, work it out" advice is well given, but the details of who
actually had responsibility isn't possible to be determined from
information given here. I venture a guess (but it's purely that) that
you probably had the actual overall responsibility but the contractor
didn't really do all he should have done, either, but if he's a picky
sob may be able to shirk. If you're lucky and have good relationship,
might be able to at least get some shared responsibility. But, as
stated, that's purely a guess on the basis that to get the permit it
used the "homeowner limited project serves as own gc" clause of local
law which took the contractor off the hook as the actual gc...

--

On Oct 12, 2:33 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
wrote

Uh, Mike. Could you please post that ONE more time?

Steve

Just trying to get my point across!

Actually I was having a problem with my browser at the time of the
post..

On Oct 12, 1:33 pm, willshak wrote:
on 10/12/2007 12:41 PM said the following:





I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

Did the builder leave all the attic rafters and ridge beam in place and
just put up ceiling panels (sheetrock) on the original rafters along
with the LVL beam as a decoration?
I can't see where the ridge vent would now be blocked if he left
everything in place, or he put in insulation without leaving an air path
between the soffit vents and ridge vent. You have soffit vents, right?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No this isn't decoration, he cut the roof joists, replaced the old 2x6
ridge beam with a lvl and re-hung the joists on the lvl. The problem
as that the lvl is significantly wider than the old 2x6 so it covers
where the plywood sheating was cut to allow air flow.

And no I don't have soffit vents and these weren't part of the
contract so I'm responsible for them.

on 10/12/2007 2:04 PM said the following:
On Oct 12, 1:33 pm, willshak wrote:

on 10/12/2007 12:41 PM said the following:






I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

Did the builder leave all the attic rafters and ridge beam in place and
just put up ceiling panels (sheetrock) on the original rafters along
with the LVL beam as a decoration?
I can't see where the ridge vent would now be blocked if he left
everything in place, or he put in insulation without leaving an air path
between the soffit vents and ridge vent. You have soffit vents, right?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


No this isn't decoration, he cut the roof joists, replaced the old 2x6
ridge beam with a lvl and re-hung the joists on the lvl. The problem
as that the lvl is significantly wider than the old 2x6 so it covers
where the plywood sheating was cut to allow air flow.

And no I don't have soffit vents and these weren't part of the
contract so I'm responsible for them.



OK. We got problems! You're gonna need to cut a wider ridge vent slot
and a get a wider ridge vent.
They make wide ridge vents, some as wide as 15.5 inches.
See here for an example of various widths available.
http://www.ebuild.com/products/produ...PriceAscMfrAsc
or http://tinyurl.com/ysahdc



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

on 10/12/2007 2:27 PM willshak said the following:
on 10/12/2007 2:04 PM said the following:
On Oct 12, 1:33 pm, willshak wrote:

on 10/12/2007 12:41 PM said the following:






I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.
When I called the contractor he tells me that since my
contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.
My question is since the venting was fine before the
cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.
Thanks in advance for any help
Mike McCarthy

Did the builder leave all the attic rafters and ridge beam in place and
just put up ceiling panels (sheetrock) on the original rafters along
with the LVL beam as a decoration?
I can't see where the ridge vent would now be blocked if he left
everything in place, or he put in insulation without leaving an air
path
between the soffit vents and ridge vent. You have soffit vents, right?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


No this isn't decoration, he cut the roof joists, replaced the old 2x6
ridge beam with a lvl and re-hung the joists on the lvl. The problem
as that the lvl is significantly wider than the old 2x6 so it covers
where the plywood sheating was cut to allow air flow.

And no I don't have soffit vents and these weren't part of the
contract so I'm responsible for them.



OK. We got problems! You're gonna need to cut a wider ridge vent slot
and a get a wider ridge vent. They make wide ridge vents, some as wide
as 15.5 inches.
See here for an example of various widths available.
http://www.ebuild.com/products/produ...PriceAscMfrAsc

or http://tinyurl.com/ysahdc

I forgot to add. Maybe you can call the contractor back and have him do
it. Maybe he'll cut you some slack on the price since he was partly, or
completely, at fault.
Perhaps you can have him do the soffits at the same time. Your house,
your money.
Hope it works out.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote

Uh, Mike. Could you please post that ONE more time?

Steve

On 12 Oct, 14:04, wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:33 pm, willshak wrote:





on 10/12/2007 12:41 PM said the following:

I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

Did the builder leave all the attic rafters and ridge beam in place and
just put up ceiling panels (sheetrock) on the original rafters along
with the LVL beam as a decoration?
I can't see where the ridge vent would now be blocked if he left
everything in place, or he put in insulation without leaving an air path
between the soffit vents and ridge vent. You have soffit vents, right?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No this isn't decoration, he cut the roof joists, replaced the old 2x6
ridge beam with a lvl and re-hung the joists on the lvl. The problem
as that the lvl is significantly wider than the old 2x6 so it covers
where the plywood sheating was cut to allow air flow.

And no I don't have soffit vents and these weren't part of the
contract so I'm responsible for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Totally uneducated opinion he

Before the work was done, the structure was code compliant. An
engineer drew up a set of plans that the contractor followed. I can
see the contractor saying "Hey, I just followed instructions. I don't
know anything about venting codes." In that case, the fault would fall
to the engineer.

What if you had contracted to have door put in a wall that had
electrical wires in it? Would you expect that when the work was
completed the wires would be runnning across the floor? Of course not.
In both cases I would think that the engineer who drew up the plans
would have taken the venting (or wires) into account and included
dealing with the issue in the plans.

OK, now if that's correct, the next thing to look at is this: If the
original plans had dealt with the venting, what would have changed?
Would roof vents simply had been added to the plan or would the
existing vents been worked around in some fashion - and what would
have been the cost differential? If roof vents would have been part of
the original plan, then you would have been responsible for the cost
anyway. If you have someone do them now, you have not been
significantly harmed, so just go do it.

However, if the original vents could have been left as is and a
different type of beam used - at the same cost - then any extra cost
should be the responsibility of whoever caused the structure to be non-
compliant - i.e. the engineer.

Bottom line - if the "fix" will cost you more than an original plan
that dealt with the venting issue in the first, the engineer should
bear that cost.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
....
Bottom line - if the "fix" will cost you more than an original plan
that dealt with the venting issue in the first, the engineer should
bear that cost.

I don't necessarily agree--if the engineer was only contracted to design
the structure and wasn't provided the other information, his
responsibility started and stopped w/ providing adequate construction
details compliant w/ local codes.

He can not be expected to compensate for conditions/constraints unknown
to him owing to that information having not been provided to him or
beyond the scope of his requested effort -- which it sounds like was the
structural design of a beam of sufficient strength and construction
detail for same. It would not be at all unreasonable for him to expect
the HVAC/vent/electrical/etc. was in the purvey of someone else given
his design for the cathedral ceiling structure.

--

dpb wrote:

Sounds like it wasn't addressed in the design that the contractor
hired the engineer to do the structural but probably didn't provide
him with the necessary inputs to know where the venting locations
were to design around existing or account for them for the
incorporation of existing locations.

That it was in a gc's scope to ensure that would also be somewhat
dependent on how contract was done -- were you the gc subletting work
or was the contractor the actual gc? That may have bearing depending
on local rules/law...

I'm wondering if the OP will post a link to the contract so that we can see
what the contract and bid actually stated? Scan them and put it onto
tinypics or some such website. As you stated, it would be nice to see if the
contractor hired was limited, by bid, to a specific scope of work, or if he
had the authority to subcontract with other trades. Did the bid specify just
the structural work with the OP acting as GC? Or was the bid for a GC to
develop the scope of the work needed to be in compliance with all affected
codes?

If I hire someone to re-do my ceiling, and that is all my bid called for,
then the only permit needed would be the specifications for the things
needed to properly support the ceiling. The contractor wouldn't assume
responsibility for oversight of roofing contractors or HVAC specialists.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:
I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

The inspector said that roof venting is needed? They actually have
regulations and standards for that sort of thing where you live?

You also say you have no soffit vents. where's the air that's supposed to
exit these roof vents going to come from?

I'd move to a more regulation-friendly clime.

wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:26 pm, "Art" wrote:
If the contract says he doens't get paid until it passes inspection
he is screwed. On the other hand, depending on how the contract is
written you may be responsible for the extra cost. Also the
engineer may have some liability. Lawyers are expensive. Sit down
with everyone and resolve the problem.

wrote in message

oups.com...



I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof
After it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put
up is blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in
the new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for
fixing the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this
is Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Art I thought it was something like that. If I remember
correctly the contract mentions that he will pull the permit but I
don't think there is anything about inspections. I will have to look
at it again tonight.

I agree, using a lawyer for something like this would be overkill.
I'm just building a case for when I call the contractor back. If he
won't do it I will just hire someone else to do the vents, more money
but less headaches.

Mike

OTOH, small claims courts are cheap, don't require a lawyer, and depend
solely on the preponderance of the evidence. You had no problem, he came,
worked, and left you with a problem he did not alert you to, nor give you a
chance to remedy. I suspect a small claims judge would side with you on
this one.

IMO

Pop`

Even if the contractor was only responsible for the framing, if he
framed it so it can't be ventilated, then he framed it incorrectly and
it should be fixed. Whether the engineer shares any liability is not
clear--did he provide construction drawings, or did he just size the
beam etc?

When I've encountered this situation, I drop the beam by and inch or
so to allow air to pass over it. (that is the points of the rafters
are above the beam). Probably too late for that....

You (or he) might be able to sawzall a bevel on the LVL to allow air
to pass over the beam (talk to the engineer first, though). Either
that or drill some holes through the upper corner of the beam. The
other option is to look into a hot roof. That is going to depend on
your local building department.

Many people, myself included, feel that roof ventilation is not always
needed, IF the vapor barrier is properly installed. Mind you, I'm
talking about a cold climate here. However, if your building
department doesn't agree, it doesn't matter what my opinion.

marson wrote:
Even if the contractor was only responsible for the framing, if he
framed it so it can't be ventilated, then he framed it incorrectly and
it should be fixed. Whether the engineer shares any liability is not
clear--did he provide construction drawings, or did he just size the
beam etc?

To whom and to what message are you replying? You need to include a bit of
said message.

As to contractor liability, it applies only if the contractor were acting as
the general contractor. If the homeowner were acting as such, then it is the
homeowner's responsibility to hire the appropriate trade to assure adequate
ventilation. That is why it is important to see the bid specifications sheet
and contract. I hesitate to take the word of someone when it is easy for
that person, whether purposeful or not, to paint only a partial picture of
the situation.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Oct 13, 12:16 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
marson wrote:
Even if the contractor was only responsible for the framing, if he
framed it so it can't be ventilated, then he framed it incorrectly and
it should be fixed. Whether the engineer shares any liability is not
clear--did he provide construction drawings, or did he just size the
beam etc?

To whom and to what message are you replying? You need to include a bit of
said message.

As to contractor liability, it applies only if the contractor were acting as
the general contractor. If the homeowner were acting as such, then it is the
homeowner's responsibility to hire the appropriate trade to assure adequate
ventilation. That is why it is important to see the bid specifications sheet
and contract. I hesitate to take the word of someone when it is easy for
that person, whether purposeful or not, to paint only a partial picture of
the situation.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

Time and again on this group you see advice about things like "bid
specification sheets" and "contracts". I would bet a bid
specification sheet doesn't exist. Lucky if there was a written
contract. Did a licensed architect draw the plans? Bet not. It
might even be ambiguous who exactly the GC is. This is small time
residential, not big city commercial. I've been a carpenter/
contractor for most of my adult life (I'm pushing 50) and the number
of bid specification sheets I've seen on small remodelling jobs like
the OP is describing is very, very small. Not saying it wouldn't be a
good idea, just saying that it rarely happens. I still say if the
contractor pulled the permit, he should be responsible for framing it
in such a way that the roof will meet code. Maybe that wouldn't stand
up in court, but that's the argument I'd use with the contractor.

marson wrote:

Time and again on this group you see advice about things like "bid
specification sheets" and "contracts". I would bet a bid
specification sheet doesn't exist. Lucky if there was a written
contract. Did a licensed architect draw the plans? Bet not. It
might even be ambiguous who exactly the GC is.

I would tend to agree with those observations.

This is small time
residential, not big city commercial.

You are absolutely correct. Wouldn't you agree, though, that the size of the
job is not really relevant to the point of contract specificity and what the
bid sheet called for? If anything, this small time residential job smacks of
off-the-cuff-planning by the owner, which would leave the owner responsible.

In my mind, the real point is this: who was responsible to hire, fire and
evaluate what trades were needed for the entire job. Who was responsible to
evaluate the roofing system for ventilation, the ceiling for remodeling, and
the oversight for code compliance for the drawings involved? To me it
sounded like the poor schmuck who was hired was hired to do one thing only:
to remodel the ceiling. He wasn't asked to evaluate the roofing or
ventilation or insulation or even the design. It wouldn't be the
contractor's fault that the owner was ignorant of what actually needed to be
done and neglected to hire the proper people. And the bid sheet/contract
would specify if the contractor was responsible, and being paid for, the
overall oversight, evaluation, planning, drawings, etc.

I've been a carpenter/
contractor for most of my adult life (I'm pushing 50) and the number
of bid specification sheets I've seen on small remodelling jobs like
the OP is describing is very, very small. Not saying it wouldn't be a
good idea, just saying that it rarely happens.

I know. And I think you'd agree that because of that, serious
misunderstandings occur. Ignorant owners try to hang the blame on the
contractor when the job is different than what the owner had in his mind
because the contractor isn't a mind reader and ESP is a poor substitute for
written specificaions.

I still say if the
contractor pulled the permit, he should be responsible for framing it
in such a way that the roof will meet code.

But was a permit pulled? Who actually pulled it? And why would the local
planning dept. even issue a permit, when presented with the drawings and
specs they normally require, which would clearly demonstrate a failure of
the framing to meet code for roofing ventilation? To me, this just doesn't
make any sense.

Maybe that wouldn't stand
up in court, but that's the argument I'd use with the contractor.

Let me ask this: what if the contractor was told to conform to a specific
design the OP had in mind? What if the OP told the contractor that that
specific design was already approved and the OP was taking care of the
permit? What do we know of the actual conversations that took place between
the OP and the contractor? The answer is that we don't have a clue, except
for the recollections of the OP. Without a bid sheet and/or contract, it's
the OP's word against the contractor's word.

I still can't get past the fact that a supposed permit was issued even
though the specs and drawings, which must accompany an application for that
type of permit, would have shown a code violation. It just doesn't make
sense.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Oct 13, 1:55 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
marson wrote:
Time and again on this group you see advice about things like "bid
specification sheets" and "contracts". I would bet a bid
specification sheet doesn't exist. Lucky if there was a written
contract. Did a licensed architect draw the plans? Bet not. It
might even be ambiguous who exactly the GC is.

I would tend to agree with those observations.

This is small time
residential, not big city commercial.

You are absolutely correct. Wouldn't you agree, though, that the size of the
job is not really relevant to the point of contract specificity and what the
bid sheet called for? If anything, this small time residential job smacks of
off-the-cuff-planning by the owner, which would leave the owner responsible.

In my mind, the real point is this: who was responsible to hire, fire and
evaluate what trades were needed for the entire job. Who was responsible to
evaluate the roofing system for ventilation, the ceiling for remodeling, and
the oversight for code compliance for the drawings involved? To me it
sounded like the poor schmuck who was hired was hired to do one thing only:
to remodel the ceiling. He wasn't asked to evaluate the roofing or
ventilation or insulation or even the design. It wouldn't be the
contractor's fault that the owner was ignorant of what actually needed to be
done and neglected to hire the proper people. And the bid sheet/contract
would specify if the contractor was responsible, and being paid for, the
overall oversight, evaluation, planning, drawings, etc.

I've been a carpenter/
contractor for most of my adult life (I'm pushing 50) and the number
of bid specification sheets I've seen on small remodelling jobs like
the OP is describing is very, very small. Not saying it wouldn't be a
good idea, just saying that it rarely happens.

I know. And I think you'd agree that because of that, serious
misunderstandings occur. Ignorant owners try to hang the blame on the
contractor when the job is different than what the owner had in his mind
because the contractor isn't a mind reader and ESP is a poor substitute for
written specificaions.

I still say if the
contractor pulled the permit, he should be responsible for framing it
in such a way that the roof will meet code.

But was a permit pulled? Who actually pulled it? And why would the local
planning dept. even issue a permit, when presented with the drawings and
specs they normally require, which would clearly demonstrate a failure of
the framing to meet code for roofing ventilation? To me, this just doesn't
make any sense.

Maybe that wouldn't stand
up in court, but that's the argument I'd use with the contractor.

Let me ask this: what if the contractor was told to conform to a specific
design the OP had in mind? What if the OP told the contractor that that
specific design was already approved and the OP was taking care of the
permit? What do we know of the actual conversations that took place between
the OP and the contractor? The answer is that we don't have a clue, except
for the recollections of the OP. Without a bid sheet and/or contract, it's
the OP's word against the contractor's word.

I still can't get past the fact that a supposed permit was issued even
though the specs and drawings, which must accompany an application for that
type of permit, would have shown a code violation. It just doesn't make
sense.

--
Davewww.davebbq.com

Well Dave, I think if you read the original post, it's pretty clear
that a permit was pulled by the contractor. Building departments
probably vary a lot in the detail they require, but where I live, you
could get this permit with a hand drawn sketch. They might want you
to indicate "vented soffit" and "vented ridge" and the R value of the
insulation you plan to use, but they would never require drawings
detailing how the venting should get past the beam. That is left up
to the contractor. In fact, the other winter I framed two new houses
with cathedral ceilings, and it was pretty much me and the building
inspector figuring out how to ventilate it. I will concede that the
owner could have some culpability. When I hear the words "cathedral
ceiling" my very first thought is how am I going to insulate it to
code and provide ventilation. Someone didn't do that on this one and
that is a screw up. I guess it comes down to who was calling the
shots on this one.

On Oct 12, 12:41 pm, wrote:
I hired a contractor to put in a cathederal ceiling in my house. He
hired a structural engineer, pulled the permit, removed the old
ceiling and put the new cieling up to the ridge line of my roof After
it was done the inspector said that the LVL beam that was put up is
blocking the ridge vent now and roof venting is needed.

When I called the contractor he tells me that since my contract with
him was just for the framing he is not responsible for putting in the
new ventilation.

My question is since the venting was fine before the cathederal was
put in and he pulled the permit shouldn't he be responsible for fixing
the problem identified by the building inspector? btw this is
Massachusetts if it matters.

Thanks in advance for any help

Mike McCarthy

I talked with the Building Inspector and got a better explanation
about what's going on. It appears that when the new roof was put on
about 10 years ago they only cut the plywood on one side of the Ridge
cap. This wasn't an issue because there was an Attic, the air could
flow from one side to the other easily.

Now that the Cathederal is all the way up to the rafters Air can't get
from one side to the other so the side that hasn't been cut needs to
be fixed. The contractor was right that he was not responsible.

Thanks to all for posting.

Mike McCarthy

I'm adding your story to my long list of reasons why I hate cathedral
ceilings.

On Oct 15, 11:36 am, wrote:
I'm adding your story to my long list of reasons why I hate cathedral
ceilings.


Which makes no sense, because you can screw up construction on
anything and it has nothing to do with it being a cathedral ceiling.

Regarding the OP's problem, I agree with those that say there is far
too little info here to know who is at fault. One key is that it
appears the contractor in question was only responsible for framing.
There should have been a drawing done to get the building permit.
Who did this drawing and what did it show? What does the contract
say? I someon else did the drawing and the contractor only framed it
as shown, then I'd say he is not legally responsible. However, an
experienced framer that has been doing this type of work should have
spotted it and said something.

As someone else pointed out, with a cathedral ceiling, ventilation is
one of the things that is always considered upfront. Typically, you
spec baffles to be placed under the sheathing to keep a couple inch
channel free of insulation from soffits to peak. And then,
obviously, you need some means for it to exit there, usually a ridge
vent.

It sounds to me like this whole job may have been poorly defined and
it may be difficult to pin down any one person as responsible.