Defective Shingles?

[Ben H]

The house was 11 months old. I can only image the roof a tad bit older. There were a few sections, not the whole roof that had pretty bad granular loss. At least I would consider it bad for being basically a new roof.

I'm looking for some good wording for the report.

Download Attachment: DSCN4859.jpg

1832.2 KB

Download Attachment: DSCN4860.jpg

1695.32 KB

Download Attachment: DSCN4863.jpg

1780.98 KB

[John Kogel]

I can't say for sure, but I've seen similar damage caused by foot traffic. Hot day, guys scrambling to get the siding up.

If that's the case, the damage pattern will follow the obvious path from the ladder, and go below and around the sides of the dormers.

I would then just report it as damage from foot traffic.

[Ben H]

I was thinking possible foot traffic, but most foot damage I've seen has a "smeared" look to the spot. It was near a valley, which would make sense when walking up a semi-steep pitch.

[caryseidner]

Looks like foot traffic to me.

[hausdok]

They were sliding the heavy bundles over the surface as they went up.

OT - OF!!!

Mike

[mgbinspect]

I see that a fair amount on front porch roofs here, which tend to be very poorly ventilated, which accelerates aggregate loss. We see our share of 100 degree days here. I suppose a valley made from the junction of an architectural front facade gable that isn't open to the main attic could cause the very same overheating.

I'm not saying that's the culprit, but that is certainly the number one cause of aggregate loss around here - other than foot traffic. And, as has already been brought up, foot traffic is usually pretty obvious.

So, if it's on the sunniest slope in a ventilation challenged section of the attic, that would be my bet.

[ericwlewis]

I'd tend to agree with the sliding bundles. That will do a lot of damage.

[Rocon]

The first two photos show light to moderate de-granulation. When you see that look at the gutters and if you see a lot of granules in the gutter you will know. The skrim is just visible at the bottom edges but not bad, and I don’t see any delamination.

The third photo shows what happens when a shingle is bent/folded. The shingle above it also looks like it has been folded but the lines are offset by an inch or so. If I was going to guess it looks like some shingles have been removed and reset. If not it is just a fold.

Overall the roof probably has 8-10 years of service life left.

[kurt]

Every roof I've ever been on has spots with that amount of granule loss, including my own.

Do folks think it's really that bad?

[Tim Maxwell]

I don't think it's that bad. And from these pictures I doubt that I would give it a mention in the report. I might feel differently if I were standing on the roof looking at it though.

I do see the gouged up/scuffed up front porch roof often that I do mention in the report.

We all, or should, have our little trigger points for reporting this kind of stuff. I still use the ole "inspect it like you're inspecting it for your mother" attitude. And to me that means you want to protect her, but not worry her unnecessarily.

[mgbinspect]

I have always rated shingle aggregate loss in my materials description section as: "Considerable, see further notes below"; "Typical for age" or "None, appears relatively new". I do it just to remove any doubt in a buyer's mind that I looked.

Yesterday I elected to return to a property to satisfy a guy that I looked for a buried oil tank. I told him that I'm ALWAYS sub-consciously looking for one, on a house with any age on it, but since I didn't state that I looked and didn't see any visible or apparent signs, it was obvious that he couldn't rest at ease. Fun...

[kurt]

That's the problem with reporting software programs.

Information gets tagged into all sorts of little categories that most folks don't see or read in the first place, and don't understand in the second place even if they read it.

Why bother? To avoid the hypothetical, and highly theoretical lawsuit and witness stand embarrassment that never happens?

It's the argument for getting on a roof and actually checking it's condition. If you know the condition, you can describe it in few well chosen words. If you don't know the condition, you "cover your ass" with all sorts of disconnected material description factoids.

I'm curious.....

How does one know a roof has 8-10 years left on it's service life from looking at a couple pics of shingle scuffs?

[mgbinspect]

Agreed. Getting sued has really NEVER been my concern. It's never happened. But I HATE clients calling to ask questions that I could have easily given them no reason to ask, through thorough reporting. I can't stand doubt in a client's mind. It bugs me almost as much as it bugs them.

[Greg Booth]

I'm pretty sure this is the definitive reason behind roof-scuffs[]

Click to Enlarge

65.51 KB

Click to Enlarge

58.32 KB