ᐅ Heavy rainwater entering through the roof eaves – roof renovation needed?

Hello,

I had mentioned this before in another thread regarding price discussions, but now with a video:

Our roof has tiles on a slope of only 8 degrees and no special substructure, which is why it supposedly needs to be replaced before major damage occurs, even though it is only 17 years old (we bought the house a few years ago, so we didn’t cause the issue ourselves). This is what a distant relative who is a professional believes, based on a remote assessment. First, he says a roof of this construction is doomed anyway, and second, rain should never penetrate the roof, as can be seen in the following video we took during heavy rain (apparently links are not allowed here, so this is all you need to add behind YouTube.com...):

YouTube... /shorts/g8-ZLzFxqb4

We have now received a quote of about €47,000 (about $47,000) for a new metal roof with new insulation. The roof area is roughly 11.5 * 6 = 69 square meters (about 743 square feet), it is an independent middle townhouse and relatively straightforward. A subsidy of 15% or 20% (with an energy consultant) is possible (so in effect about €40,000, or about $40,000). This seems like a very large investment considering no real damage has occurred yet and we don’t really understand how severe the problem shown in the video actually is. After all, water only penetrates “under” the eaves; the house itself is still undamaged. The mentioned distant relative, however, believes that over time a larger and ultimately much more expensive damage could develop unnoticed inside the roof. The company that provided the quote also visited in person, but apparently it is either not common practice or simply not possible to inspect the roof first before undertaking a full renovation?

What would you recommend – is the renovation necessary, or would it be enough to wait or perform a smaller intervention?

I suggest considering the possibility that the previous owners were aware of the roof issue but concealed it during the sale.

A building expert could provide clarity on the extent of the necessary repairs, how long the problem has existed, and whether there might be legal claims against the former owners. If the previous owners knew about issues with the roof or its structure and did not disclose them, that would be unacceptable. Completely replacing a roof after less than 20 years is unusual, in my view, and the causes should be investigated, if necessary tracing back to the construction phase. Perhaps the house manufacturer could recall any "technically questionable but still implemented requests from the builder"?

A remote diagnosis is not effective. This situation requires decisive action.

Why is it even draining in such large amounts o.O
Because of the missing roof pitch? I don’t understand.
There is still an underlay membrane on top, over which the water could run off to the edge.
At your place, it drains out over the last 40cm (15.7 inches)? And in larger quantities as well?!

Is it not possible to access the roof? Maybe unscrew a couple of boards from the fascia box?

Allthewayup schrieb:

I would like to suggest the possibility that the previous owners might have been aware of the roof issue but chose not to disclose it during the sale.

An expert could provide clarity on the extent of the necessary repairs, how long the problem has existed, and whether there might be any legal claims against the previous owners. If the previous owners knew about problems with the roof or its structure and remained silent, that is not acceptable. Having to completely replace a roof in less than 20 years would not be considered normal, and the causes should be thoroughly investigated, potentially going back to the construction phase. Perhaps the house manufacturer recalls any "technically questionable but still implemented requests from the builder"?

A remote diagnosis is not helpful here. This must be addressed decisively.

Folks, folks,

the house was purchased several years ago.

If you buy a used car and the brakes wear out after 4 years, do you also sue?

Unbelievable some of these responses.

I believe that if the seller had deliberately concealed something, there might be a legal claim; however, the burden of proof would be on the buyer. And how would one prove to the seller that there was heavy rain, that the damage already existed, and that the seller was aware of it? I think this would be difficult to nearly impossible, especially after 4 years. If the buyer didn’t notice it for 4 years, it’s also plausible that the seller didn’t know for several years.

Otherwise, I don’t have much technical input, but regarding the video, I would question whether it’s certain that the leak is only at that lower spot. If the entire roof is leaking to that extent and moisture is getting into the insulation somewhere higher up, that would be really problematic. I would recommend continuing to look for an expert who can provide you with reliable information. Perhaps you will need to open up one section to take a closer look under the roofing.

HilfeHilfe schrieb:

Guys, guys

The house was bought a few years ago.

If you buy a used car and the brakes wear out after 4 years, do you complain then too??

Unbelievable some of the responses

Such a serious defect in such a relatively young roof is very unusual. Your comparison doesn’t really make sense, but noted. It doesn’t matter when the house was sold; deliberately concealed defects do not expire. What’s truly surprising is how many people still go through life so naively.

Before the house suffers any damage, I would bring in a specialist to take a look. And if this expert also finds that the roof’s construction has defects, but the builder accepted the structure in that condition, the burden of proof could quickly shift. And if that’s not the case, then it was simply bad luck with the roof.