www.structuralsurvey.co.uk 

01332 314039

steve@buildingsurvey.co.uk

8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday

Home

Part 35 CPR Expert Reports For Court

Experience

Contact

Dear M F

25 Derby, DE21

Instruction

To prepare an expert report in accordance with Part 35 of the Civil Procedure rules for use in Court proceedings in connection with a contract for the recovering of a  roof.

Qualifications

I am Steven John Macgregor Butler, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyor trading as a sole practitioner. I qualified in 1992 and have in excess of twenty years’ experience of surveying residential properties and preparing reports on defective workmanship.

Background

The dispute relates to a contract to recover the roof at the above property as a result of a leak following which it still leaks and there is other evidence of defective workmanship.

The property is a semi-detached house constructed about 1985. It has cavity brick faced walls and a pitched concrete tile roof. The roof has a small decorative gable projection over the small front bedroom window.

Mr F claims:

that he first approached the defendant because the small bedroom ceiling was leaking below the decorative gable.

that following a failure of a repair by the defendant the defendant was approached again and this time advised that the whole of the roof required recovering including replacing the battens that the tiles hang on and the under sheet. The removed tiles were to be re-used.

Analysis:

• It is most likely that the leak occurred because of a defect at the juncture of the gable and main roof either due to a fractured tile  and or the a gap at the juncture of the metal valleys that run either side of the gable. The cost of a repair should have been a few hundred pounds.
• It is most unlikely that any other part of the roof required attention.I find it inconceivable that the whole of the roof required recovering. Concrete tiles are very durable. I cannot recall a case of having seen an existing concrete tile roof being replaced. There is no evidence that other roofs on the same road have been replaced or even that single tiles have been replaced. The roofs appear to be in very good condition.
• I also find it inconceivable that the battens that support the roof required complete replacement. It is possible that they might have decayed at the roof edges and in the two valleys either side of the gable as there are areas that are vulnerable to water penetration. Replacement of the battens in these areas does not require complete replacement of all the battens. I regularly see roofs that are one hundred years old and have nominal decay of the battens.
• The original under sheet remains and appears to have been well installed. It is in good condition. There are a number of small holes about the 100mm square that are of no concern. It is likely that small areas of the under sheet would have decayed at the foot of the roof, the edge and a either side of the valleys. Such decay is likely to be of little significance. Replacement of the felt in these areas does not require complete replacement of all the felt.
• I am unable to find any evidence that the under sheet on the rear elevation has been replaced. The new sheet was not visible at the gutter or between the laps of the original under sheet.
• Given the lack of disturbance to the tiles on the rear elevation of the roof compared to the front elevation I am of the opinion that they have not been replaced.
• The tiles on the front elevation of the roof have clearly been disturbed. Four are broken. The damage to the tiles is significant and not consistent with the fractures that sometimes develop because the tile had a hair line fracture when installed due to mishandling. There are numerous tiles that do not abut each other correctly leaving gaps that will be vulnerable to water penetration. A number of the tiles are chipped due to mishandling. It is not possible to determine at what time this occurred although there was no evidence of a significant problem on nearby roofs.
• It is suspected that the tiles abutting the valley gutters have not been replaced. Original cement between the tiles and metalwork remains. This would be most unlikely to be salvable if a tile was removed. I would also expect a recovering of the roof to include the replacement of the mortar as a matter of course as it is a vulnerable part of the roof.
• It is unlikely that the apex of the gable has been replaced as the cement pointing is mismatched.
• Pointing of the ridge tiles is poor and has already broken out. I doubt that the tiles have been properly secured.
• A roofer appointed by Mr F to inspected the roof comments that the battens have been sawn off immediately beyond the party wall leaving their ends unsupported in the attached property. Whilst I was unable to see this for myself I am not surprised by this comment as I have seen it before on other cases of poor roof repairs. It is much easier to saw the battens at this point than above the actual party wall.
• The existing tiles have been pressure washed. There is no harm in this and it would have helped remove any moss that might be developing. Moss impedes water run off and clogs gutters. 

Remedial Works

The ridge tiles will require removing and re-bedding on replacement

The tiles on the front elevation and gable will require removing, damaged ones say ten percent to be set aside, and correctly replacing. The replacement tiles will not match due to weathering etc and may look unsightly. Additionally the type of tile which is believed to be a Redland Stonewold is no longer made. Obtaining tiles may thus be difficult. It may be necessary to replace all the tiles on the front elevation and inert a divider where they meet the attached property above the party wall.

The edges of the valleys will require repointing.

Costs

It is considered that the original problem of the leak of the gable could have been repaired at a cost of in the region of £500.00

It is considered that the roof could have been pressure washed including scaffold for £500.00 or £250.00 if done using the same access equipment as for the gable repair.

I have not estimated to cost or removing the tiles and recovering the roof as it was completely unnecessary.

It is considered that the existing that the front elevation of the roof and gable can be recovered allowing for about ten percent of the tiles having to be renewed at a cost of circa £2000.00  If is it necessary to purchase a set of tiles for the whole of the front roof then these might cost in the region of  £300.00.

Conclusions:

The origin leak required only a localised repair with minimum disturbance of the roof.

Complete recovering of the roof and completely replacing the felt and battens was not necessary.

The defendant did not recover the rear elevation of the roof, replace the felt or battens. About £2000.00 of work in the contract was not done.

It will be necessary to strip the roof make good the battens and lining and then recover with tiles of the correct specification.

Repairs including cleaning the roof could have been affected for about £750.00.

Replacing one face of the roof due to the previous poor recovering will be about £2000.00 if the tiles can be recovered or £2400.00 if new tiles are required.

Statement of Truth

This report is prepared in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Expert Witness Practice Statement.

I, Steven John MacGregor Butler, declare that:

i.          I understand that my duty in providing written reports and giving evidence is to help the Court, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party who has engaged me, or the party who has paid or is liable to pay me. I confirm that I have complied with this duty and will continue to comply with this duty.

ii.         I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not.  Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true.  The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

iii.        I have endeavoured to include in my report those matters which I have knowledge of or which I have been made aware that might adversely affect the validity of my opinion. I have clearly stated any qualifications to my opinion.

iv.        I confirm that I am aware of the requirements of Civil Procedures Rule 35, Practice Direction 35, of the Civil Justice Protocol for the Instruction of Expert to Give Evidence in Civil Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

v.         This report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Practice for Experts.

vi.        I have indicated the sources of all information I have used.

vii.       I have not, without forming an independent view, included or excluded anything which has been suggested to me by others (in particular my instructing lawyers).

viii.      I will notify those instructing me immediately and confirm in writing if for any reason my existing report requires any correction of qualification.

ix.        I understand that:

a.         my report, subject to any corrections before swearing as to its correctness, will form the evidence be given under oath or affirmation 

b.         I may be cross-examined on my report by a cross-examiner assisted by an expert. 

c.         I am likely to be the subject of public adverse criticism by the Judge if the Judge concludes that I have not taken reasonable care in trying to meet the standards set out above.

x.         I confirm that I have not entered into any arrangements where the amount or payment of my fees is in any way dependent upon the outcome of the case.                            

Signed                                                                         Dated

SJM Butler                                                              7^th August 2017

Photographs

Broken Tiles

Poor overlap

The cement at the side of the valley is old suggesting that the tiles have not been removed

Minor damage to the under felt

Mismatched pointing.

Poor spacing and pointing of the ridge tiles. Some pointing has already come away

Poor overlaps and chips.