I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

Overall I'm happy with the quality of workmanship but the roofer who
surveyed my house prior to doing the job failed to pass the message
onto his team that an extra 2inches of fall was needed.

I'm now at the stage where I need to pay for the roof, but I'm not sure
whether the work that's been done would be considered up to scratch.

Should I go to the expense of getting a surveyor to give his/her
professional opinion?

Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

Any thoughts very much appreciated.

3.4MB Quicktime movie of what I'm talking about he
http://www.studuo.com/public/wet-roof.mov

On 7 Apr 2006 03:21:57 -0700, oddjobboy wrote:

I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

A flat roof doesn't drain.

--
Nigel M

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 03:21:57 -0700, oddjobboy wrote:

I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

A flat roof doesn't drain.

--
Nigel M

Huh ?
I would never have a flat roof that was actually flat. I remember a
grand designs, where they fitted this fancy german standing-water type
of roof. And guess what - it leaked.
I "flat" roof should always have enough fall for it to drain.
Your surveyor / workers messed up.
Are they the same company ?
I would not accept the work.
Simon.

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 03:21:57 -0700, oddjobboy wrote:

I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

A flat roof doesn't drain.

Of course it does because it's not flat, it's supposed to be sloped,
although this one isn't.
Also he's done it all in green mineral felt which is bad.
It's supposed to be smooth and have a couple of coats of reflective
(aluminium) paint - once the sun gets on that it will be a mass of bubbles,
which will then burst and he'll have to start all over again.

My advice is not to pay for it, tell the roofer it needs doing properly,
with another 2-3 inches of fall and finished with a reflective finish.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:

A flat roof doesn't drain.
Of course it does because it's not flat

There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

--
Nigel M

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:

A flat roof doesn't drain.
Of course it does because it's not flat

There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

There are 'reducers', long lengths of timber which go from 3 inch (or
whatever) to zero over their length, these are fixed to the top of the
joists prior to boarding, this is what gives you the pitch, albeit a small
one, about 1 in 30 in most cases, while the underside of the joists remain
level for affixing the ceiling to.
Whether it is a requirement or not is immaterial, the OP requested it and
moreover any roofer worth his salt would have made sure there was adequate
fall, especially with a roof like this, which according to the video,
appears to be taking most of the main house roof water too.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:56:46 GMT Phil L wrote :
Whether it is a requirement or not is immaterial, the OP requested
it and moreover any roofer worth his salt would have made sure
there was adequate fall, especially with a roof like this, which
according to the video, appears to be taking most of the main
house roof water too.

I wasn't clear from the OP as to exactly what the firm was
contracted to do. IME (limited) the T&C for firms who just lay felt
or asphalt say something to the effect that they take the falls as
they find them.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:07:59 +0100, Nigel Molesworth
wrote:

|On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:
|
| A flat roof doesn't drain.
|Of course it does because it's not flat
|
|There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

There was when I did mine 1:50 slope.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

That's a new one on me. I've never even heard of a flat roof without a
pitch. How would it be expected to drain?

Christian.

Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:

A flat roof doesn't drain.
Of course it does because it's not flat

There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

--
Nigel M

Oh yes there is Nigel - otherwise you will get standing water and
leaks. Unless the roof is designed to take standing water which is
unlikely, and would be very expensive to do properly.
The op is going to have a lot of trouble with this roof and shouldn't
pay the builder until it is put right i.e. with a fall of about 1 in 40
or more. Fall of less than this may become inneffective due to
settlement etc.

cheers

Jacob

wrote:
Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:

A flat roof doesn't drain.
Of course it does because it's not flat
There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

--
Nigel M

Oh yes there is Nigel - otherwise you will get standing water and
leaks. Unless the roof is designed to take standing water which is
unlikely, and would be very expensive to do properly.
The op is going to have a lot of trouble with this roof and shouldn't
pay the builder until it is put right i.e. with a fall of about 1 in 40
or more. Fall of less than this may become inneffective due to
settlement etc.

Umm well I've seen wet roof construction used in many places and they
definitely are designed not to drain. The roof of Leicester University
library for example. There is also flat roof construction using butyl
rubber sheet as an impervious membrane which means the roof can be made
without a pitch.

A felted roof needs a pitch.

owdman wrote:
Nigel Molesworth wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:49:19 GMT, Phil L wrote:
A flat roof doesn't drain.

Of course it does because it's not flat

There is no requirement to put a pitch on a flat roof.

Oh yes there is Nigel - otherwise you will get standing water and
leaks. Unless the roof is designed to take standing water which is
unlikely, and would be very expensive to do properly.

The hydraulic effect of rain landing on the roof is more likely
to give rise to a leak than 1/2" of head. The roof is either
waterproof, or it isn't.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:40:48 +0100 someone who may be Nigel
Molesworth wrote this:-

A flat roof doesn't drain.

A "flat roof" should have a gentle fall to a drain, which can
sometimes be identified by a gap in the upstand that forms the edge
of the roof. Without that fall and drain, water would pour over the
edge all the way round and seep into the walls. Some ponding is not
a great problem, providing wind and sun will soon remove it.

Standing water, heated by the sun, is an ideal breeding ground for
Legionella bacteria. These bacteria are present in the rain, though
not in a high quantity. Heating them on a roof provides ideal
conditions for the little devils to multiply rapidly and become a
health problem.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article . com,
oddjobboy writes
I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

Overall I'm happy with the quality of workmanship but the roofer who
surveyed my house prior to doing the job failed to pass the message
onto his team that an extra 2inches of fall was needed.

Thats his fault then, and they should rectify that at their expense.
From the vid looks like the edges could be raised a bit too, so the
water doesn't go over the edge during downpours IMHO.....


I'm now at the stage where I need to pay for the roof, but I'm not sure
whether the work that's been done would be considered up to scratch.


I don' think it is not with puddles like that all due to insufficient
fall..

Should I go to the expense of getting a surveyor to give his/her
professional opinion?

I'd point it out to them all in writing of course, and threaten that you
are going to take pro advice..

Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

No..

Any thoughts very much appreciated.

3.4MB Quicktime movie of what I'm talking about he
http://www.studuo.com/public/wet-roof.mov


--
Tony Sayer

"oddjobboy" wrote

I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.


Couldn't open the video!

Last year we had a flat roof removed and replaced with tiled pitched
version, but:

The flat roof that was removed included tapered pieces of wood to create a
"fall" (I think these are called firrings - sp?)
The high side and end of the roof also had a ridge close to the edge so that
water would - in theory - drain off the roof along one side only.
Hence guttering fitted along low side only.

So....flat - yes ...........level - no.

Phil

oddjobboy wrote:
I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

Overall I'm happy with the quality of workmanship but the roofer who
surveyed my house prior to doing the job failed to pass the message
onto his team that an extra 2inches of fall was needed.

Perhaps that would have made the job too expensive. What
were the specifications? It should have three layers. Was
the deck replaced?


I'm now at the stage where I need to pay for the roof, but I'm not sure
whether the work that's been done would be considered up to scratch.

It looks OK, a little clumsy in the detail, but OK...


Should I go to the expense of getting a surveyor to give his/her
professional opinion?

Up to you. Have you a guarantee? Is it worth anything in
terms of you being able to claim against the roofers in
a few years?


Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

That's not a problem at all. What *is* a problem is if
some putz puts 2" of "chippings" up there.


Any thoughts very much appreciated.

3.4MB Quicktime movie of what I'm talking about he
http://www.studuo.com/public/wet-roof.mov

When you are walking on the roof, which you should *not*
do unless it's vital, either don't wear shoes, or wear
very soft-soled ones such as plimsoles.

On 7 Apr 2006 03:21:57 -0700, "oddjobboy" wrote:

I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
it's still not draining properly.

Overall I'm happy with the quality of workmanship but the roofer who
surveyed my house prior to doing the job failed to pass the message
onto his team that an extra 2inches of fall was needed.

I'm now at the stage where I need to pay for the roof, but I'm not sure
whether the work that's been done would be considered up to scratch.

Should I go to the expense of getting a surveyor to give his/her
professional opinion?

Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

Any thoughts very much appreciated.

3.4MB Quicktime movie of what I'm talking about he
http://www.studuo.com/public/wet-roof.mov

What did you contract of works say ?

You did get a written statement as to what would be done ?


Rick

On 7 Apr 2006 03:21:57 -0700, "oddjobboy" wrote:

|I've just had my flat roof replaced with traditional tar/felt and yet
|it's still not draining properly.
|
|Overall I'm happy with the quality of workmanship but the roofer who
|surveyed my house prior to doing the job failed to pass the message
|onto his team that an extra 2inches of fall was needed.
|
|I'm now at the stage where I need to pay for the roof, but I'm not sure
|whether the work that's been done would be considered up to scratch.
|
|Should I go to the expense of getting a surveyor to give his/her
|professional opinion?

Flat roofs are never flat, they should have a slope of,IIRC from doing
mine, 1:50

|Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

No

|Any thoughts very much appreciated.

Get the job re done. Call in Building Control, they will play hell.


--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
"oddjobboy" wrote:
|Or is a half inch of standing water considered acceptable?

No

It's fine. Why would it not be fine?

I've seen a flat-roofed extension, about 10,000 by 5,000 (!)
that lasted over 30 years. It had a large pool in the middle,
AFAIR up to 25 deep.