I've queried the use of a mixture of reclaimed and new tiles on my extension roof with the builder. Only one side of the roof has been done like this. He says it's normal practice to do this? Is it?
There aren't limited in what they can use, I feel like they've underestimated how many tiles would be needed and have used the small amount of tiles removed from the existing roof to make up the shortfall. The other 90% of the extension roof is new tiles, we'd asked for the specific type of new tile to be used and there has never been a conversation about using reclaimed for part of the roof.
If you asked for new tiles on the extension, then that is what you should have, possibly allowing some older tiles closer to the actual join.
It may not be what you specified but why did you not question it earlier? It will be a horrendous job to take them all off and replace. He has actually done a fairly neat job though ... a nice diagonal line between them. Get some cow manure, mix well with water and cover the new tiles ... they will soon start to look old and weathered. A local hoel was told to do that to blend the new and old tiles.
I had no opportunity to question it, it was done in a single day when I wasn't there, I only noticed it when I nipped on to the scaffold see how things were progressing. It's not visible from ground level at the moment, as the scaffold boards blocks the view, it will be visible when the scaffold is removed though.
Its common practice, when doing an extension where one side of the roof is visible (typically the front) and the other side not (or less so i.e. at the rear) to reuse the tiles taken off the rear and use at the front. That way, the visible part of the extended roof at the front uses tiles that all match. The new roof at the rear uses new tiles which look odd, but you don't really see it. This is what I think this builder is talking about. Is one side of the roof more visible than the other? I think the builders simply used the reclaimed tiles where possible and 'topped up' with new. If you had specified new tiles for the extension and its clear, then he should have used new tiles on both sides up to the gully. Using the reclaimed tiles is saving him money and making your roof look a bit silly.
Dear lawd - why do some tradespeeps effectively deliberately land themselves in what will almost certainly be an awkward situation thought lack of communication...? At the very least the roofer should have talked this through with you. He might have made a good case for you accepting it - tho' unlikely. I mean, for pity's sakes how hard is it to do? "Roof tiles - you'll have some left over from the old extension but they'll look different to the new ones as they are weathered. If you don't mind having them on the back where you'll hardly see them it'll save you £x. But if you want all new, then..." These old tiles won't even go to waste - there are bound to be houses in the area with the same type of tile and a steady demand for replacements that'll blend in with small repairs. Gareth, I don't know where this falls in the technically 'acceptable' takes, but I would say that if this roof is visible from the ground when the scaffolding is removed, you are entitled to refuse it. They then need to either redo it (yes, a lot of work - but that's their fault for not discussing it beforehand) or else knock an acceptable amount off the cost. Or an alternative solution - literally; a cleaner. Or jetwash. Or summat. To at least partially blend them in.
I doubt there is a jetwash powerful enough to blend them together That just looks silly even if they are laid rather good , refuse it for sure...The builder probably wasn't ready to wait days before extra tiles would arrive so he just re-used the old.
Yes, it couldn't be blended in anything like 100%, but a darned good clean would help blend in the shocking contrast. And then they can grow old together...
That being the case, I would not pay them until the roof has been built according to your specification. I would expect the whole of the new roof to be in new tiles - up to the join with the old roof.
Those new tiles look like clay which are quite dear, not sure what the old ones are, could be concrete?
It would be normal practice to use any salvageable tiles from the existing roof, unless you stipulated new.
I take it this is the back of the house. Normal practice is to match the most visible side of a new roof with the existing tiles and then use what is left with new on the back, Is that what has been done ?
and; So lets say it's half a days work then... Would that be a fair estimate? My neighbour has just had a large extension built... roof tiling for front and back pitched roof on side, and large, (9m wide x 4m deep), shallow pitched roof at rear took less than 2 days. So if I'm right, half a day to put this right doesn't seem to onerous on the builder... if he's in the wrong? Regards, Cando
That might be normal practice as far as roofers go, but if they don't communicate that to their customers then I think they are amiss. Negligent, even. Us customers - laypeeps - ask the pros for a job such as 'build an extension...'. I believe there are certain things we should be able to assume as part of the job, and one is that we don't suffer a permanent eye-sore for the sake of a few tiles. There's a house 3 doors down from me which had what I presume was an extension - same shape as the main house - added quite a few years back. The newer tiles look hellish - a completely different shade and stick out like a sore thumb. It makes the house permanently look like one that's had an emergency repair carried out on it.
As sospan and I said, it would be standard in the above example, to take the original tiles off the back of the roof and use them on the front of this extension so that the front all looks the same. Or I think, I'd get the whole roof retiled.
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop