Late last year I discovered a leak in my ceiling, which I was informed would require significant work, costing more than €3,000. A roofing contractor who was recommended to me appeared to do a great job. However, several months later the leak reappeared in the exact same spot in the ceiling.
When I contacted the contractor again and explained that the leak was back in the same spot, he was extremely defensive about the work he had done. In fairness, he did send his crew back out and they checked over everything and did some more work to try to solve the problem.
However, he said if it recurred it was not his fault but due to poor initial installation work on the roof. Naturally I am concerned that the leak will reappear. I reminded him that I employed him to fix the leak and while I believe the work they did is of a high standard, it did not fix my initial problem.
I am sure this is an issue which arises with tradespeople on a regular basis. What should I do if the leak reappears? Should I have got the contractor to sign something to say they were going to fix the leak for a given price? Is that even possible?
Let’s start with a positive: it appears the roof leak has been solved. You are now concerned that the problem may return.
The issue here is not the quality of the work undertaken. The central issue is the interpretation of what the contractor was engaged to do. You perceived that the contractor had taken full responsibility to trace and repair the source of the leak. Your contractor has clearly identified and repaired the most obvious issue on the roof and priced accordingly. This may not have fully solved the leak. I have seen damp staining on ceilings where the source of the ingress was remote from the affected area. Water can travel along the concealed roof structure until it drips at a low point. In such cases repairs implemented externally directly above the staining will not solve the problem. Your roofer has completed the work as he anticipated and feels it is not his responsibility to return and complete additional work at his own cost. Unless there is a clear specification and schedule of work at the outset, there is room for different interpretations of the scope of work and the potential for a breakdown in the builder-client relationship.
[ Previous Property Clinic columnsOpens in new window ]
You advise that the roofer made an assessment of the problem. The correct diagnosis of building defects followed by the most effective specification and method of repairs is a specialised area. Failure to correctly diagnose an issue at the outset can lead to a waste of time and money completing unnecessary work.
Chartered building surveyors are specifically trained and educated in the principles and processes of construction. Knowledge of building regulations, material life cycles and compatibility coupled with an understanding of detailing means building surveyors are best placed to advise on issues such as this. Advice regarding the anticipated cost of repair also now forms a big part of the work of a building surveyor following due-diligence inspections before purchase.
Should the issue recur, I would advise that you seek the advice of a local building surveyor. They will map the best route forward to fully identify the source of the problem. Based on findings, the correct repair methodology can then be developed and a schedule of work produced. The roofer who completed the works to date can be asked to price the additional works if these are clearly outside the initial scope. This acknowledges that he has so far made his best efforts in attempting to solve the problem for you. The combined effort of client, building surveyor and contractor should result in a satisfactory outcome in your case.
Hopefully the issue has been resolved and you won’t have to revisit it.
Noel Larkin is a chartered building surveyor and a fellow of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland
Do you have a query? Email propertyquestions@irishtimes.com
This column is a readers’ service. The content of the Property Clinic is provided for general information only. It is not intended as advice on which readers should rely. Professional or specialist advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action on the basis of the content. The Irish Times and it contributors will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on any content
